1601. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147005 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Frankus

I am not suggesting that "gay genes" cannot be passed on. I am wondering why they are there.

How do you know they are there?

If there are genes that express themselves only in that they cause the organism to be homosexual then I cannot see how they would be passed on. (I realize gay people can reproduce; they normally do not).

That is a big "if" and "normally" only in our culture.

1602. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147002 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:39 pm

There is no such thing as "homosexual sex", whatever gays and Lesbians can do in bed heteros can and do do too and they don't produce any children even when practiced by heterosexuals.

The most profound question of the day

Should I say "don't produce any children" or "don't produce any child"? "Don't produce any child" seems grammatically more correct but doesn't sound right. :-)

1603. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146989 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Frankus,

There is no indication that children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals themselves,--yes, many homosexuals do have children. Until there is any concrete evidence that it does pass on, there is no ground to compare it with hereditary traits such as sickle cell, let alone to find it adaptive advantage.

1604. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146978 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Steve,

Absolutely. All the great ape species show homosexual behaviour. It probably has something to do with support from non-reproducing uncles and aunts for child-rearing couples, and also social cohesion. Well, someone has to write the musicals and design the clothes!

Actually, why must a trait have any adaptive advantage? This seems to be a fallacy of the strong adaptationists. I find "explanations" such as gays are good as uncles sound completely made up and are not supported by any independent evidence.

There has to be, otherwise it would not be there.

I am not an extreme adaptationist (every aspect of an organism has to be selected for), but if we are going to give up on the idea that evolution is going to select for reproductive behaviour, we might just as well give up on evolution altogether.

Homosexuality is not "selected ", it is not even a hereditary trait like baldness,--what is the adaptive advantage of being bald btw?.

Being gay is not the same as being sterile.In many instances they do have children and their children don't turn out to be gay.--there is no evidence that they do. You may say the "gay gene" is recessive, but until there is evidence for that it is just speculation.

While homosexuals prefer having sex with same sex partners, it is not that they are physically incapable of having sex with members of the opposite sex or that they abhor the idea of having children,--some do,just like some heterosexuals too. Historically, in many cultures procreation and sexual preferences are two separate issues. Being homosexual is no big deal if you fulfill your obligation to have kids.

I think we are carrying too many culturally specific assumptions into this kind of discussions,

Edit If we accept the strong adaptionists' premise we can pose the question differently, why are there heterosexuals who want to have sex but don't want children? What is the genetic basis for an absence of the paternal or maternal instinct?

1605. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146779 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:58 am

Did anyone check out the South Park episode where Butters was send to a Bible Camp that "cures" homosexuals for being "bi-curious"? It is very funny.

1606. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146769 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:40 am

I am not trying to say homosexuality is either normal or abnormal. I am just curious about definitions that are qualitative, such as "normal" and how dependent it is on this paradox of the heap.

Normalcy is a purely statistical notion which in itself doesn't have any connotation of good or bad. I suppose Mozart and Einstein were very abnormal, but I suspect most people wouldn't hold that against them.

Being normal can be just an euphemism for wallowing in mediocrity. So I don't really care for being normal.

1607. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146374 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 am

dlitt,

Might not be healthy but it sure makes you feel good. There are lots of things that could make you happy, but they might have a negative side effect.

Well that would depends on what you actually do.

You can't say because someone gets really screwed for doing coke therefore pot is just as bad, For the same reason I would think the "side effects" of religion depends on factors such as the intensity of belief and the actual contents of the belief.

1608. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146364 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 2:10 am

Steve,

I don't disagree with your point about the rapture cults and the evangelical movement in general.

But this is quite apart from whether they believe in is real, This is the kind of fantasies that are actually harmful. I am also not sure whether is fair to say that people who believe in an afterlife automatically give up on this one or wish it to come to an end asap. That is not the impression I get from any of my religious friends.

There is always a gulf between what the dogmas say people should believe and what they actually believe. Since we are talking about people rather than religious texts, we must keep in mind that the human condition is always a lot more ambiguous than logic or religious texts. Human beings are neither rational nor consistently irrational.

I said in the beginning of my post that the claim that religion is good for health may be true or false, my point was simply that it is a question separate from whether religion beliefs are true and should be evaluated based on evidence, not the philosophical commitment to atheism. I think that would depend on the actual contents of what one believes, not just that he or she believes in some God. You probably get a nervous break down, instead of any health benefit from believing the slave driver, control freak of a God of the OT. But it would be a mistake to think that all Christians believe in such a God, being a Christian doesn't compel one to be a fundamentalist.

1609. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146348 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 1:38 am

dlitt,

As far as I am aware no study ever claims cocaine is good for your health, I think either you are missing the point or I am missing yours.

Koreman,

I don't know if people derive any benefit from a hell and brimstone kind of God, I think it is a favourite atheist strawman, People who derive comfort from belief usually see their God as a source of redemption and forgiveness rather than a cosmic Stalin as described in a literal reading of the Bible. If you want to criticize beliefs, at least make an attempt to understand where believers are coming from instead of always trying to stereotype them with crude caricatures, Dostoevsky wrote some of the most powerful books with religious themes, his was not the God of the American evangelicals.

1610. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146319 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 12:03 am

Brain English

Is this one of those articles that suggests that because a belief in something appears to be healthful. That something then is real?

The answers can be yes and no. Yes, it may be healthful and no, it is not real. There is no suggestion that yes to the first question implies yes to the second. The second question has nothing to do with the point being made,--which may be true or false.

I am not sure why there is always this knee jerk reaction from some atheists of the Dawkins school,--though probably not Dawkins himself. Whenever someone suggests that religion may have some useful functions to some people the immediate reaction is the rhetorical question "Is it real?" Why is whether something is real so bloody important? We don't really know what is real in some absolute sense if you think about it, We have heuristics and some working assumptions that seem to work well in our limited range of existence and that's all. We may only be God's hallucinations in his acid trip, we will all go "poof" and disappear when he snaps out of it,-- but to believe in that requires a leap of faith that I can't do as I have no faith in anything,

Religious apologists often quote Shakespeare,"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", I happen to agree, though to me it works against committing to anything on faith,

Socrates is my hero, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure.(Though I dislike professional philosophers and their pretentious babbles, Socrates was before philosophy became decadent, even though according to Nietzsche he was the source of that decadence by murdering Dyonesis, oh, well..)

We have a lot of little make beliefs in helping us cope, say unrealistic assessments of self or others. I can see many people thinking that happiness is more important than being right. As long as you are not high on fantasies all the time to the extent that they impair your judgments or trying to force your beliefs on others, a little white lie to yourself is fine by me if that makes you feel better,

In some way life is a make belief, we all pretend to be the persons we want to be.

As long as people are reasonable most of the time I have no problem in whatever fantasies they believe in their private world, and it would be rude to do otherwise,

Life is fleeting, it is just a transient dance of energy and waves, there is no need to always take ourselves so bloody seriously.

Nietzsche said it best, we have art so that we don't die of the truth.

I am not trying to rip on you. It is 3am and I just feel like ranting and with a name like English I think you may understand, :-)

1611. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145527 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Is Pathfinder yet another wooter creation? It gives a new meaning to creationist.

1612. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145525 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:11 pm

They should teach ID and creationism as case studies in general courses such as "science and pseudoscience" or "intellectual self defense" which aim at a larger audience than biology majors. I think it is am important part of a general education. Students should be exposed to them and be intellectuallly equipped to dissect their fraudulent claims.

1613. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144956 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 5:08 am

There is a genetic factor just as there may be a genetic component to the kind of food we like. But sexuality is not genetically determined, it has a bearing but I don't believe that there is a one to one mapping. Other factors are involved. Were the ancient Greeks and many pre Christian pagans genetically different from us? I doubt it.

1614. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144951 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:50 am

Why to they put the back-page button next to the back-space button?! just lost another post.

Oh never mind, I thought you are talking about something else. ;) I feel naturally high if I don't sleep.

1615. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144948 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:46 am

Sorry, just corrected some grammar and spelling. I got carried away when I rant and rave.

1616. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144943 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:39 am

If it isn't the issue then what is the explanation for the Churches stance? If we are not likely to chance then I fail to see how homosexuality could ever be an "attack" on the family

I meant to say it shouldn't be an issue. Family is breaking up because straight couples are divorcing or having affairs with other straight people. I certainly don't think allowing gay marriage would erode it further even in the hypothetical that it opens up more options.

Whilst there are those who might be unsure, or might like either sex equally, I think most people pretty much know where they stand. There is no need to experiment when the difference in reaction between meeting a male and a female is so stark.

Oh, I disagree. Some people may think they are straight because there is such a big pressure to conform. On the other hand there are deviants such as yours truely who may think that they are gay because they like to be different. While I like man I cannot say I am completely uninterested in women. Sexuality is more fluid than the modern puritans would want us to believe. As Julia Caesar said, " I am a husband to every woman and a wife to every man!" Bravo.

I am an unapologetic homosexual. I hate it when people try to blame it on the genes. It is pathetic IMO. If I like bananas more than oranges do I have to excuse myself to say that I was born that way?

1617. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144936 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 4:25 am

Well, I think this assumes that sexuality is changeable.

I think that is not even the issue. So what if it is changeable? It doesn't follow that anyone should change. Again I think this presumes a moral judgment. We don't ask whether baldness is changeable or not, or whether people desire to change. So why is it even an issue whether gay is the result of nature or nurture?

Why don't they blame straight people having affairs for ruining families?

I wish more straight people would "experiment", we believe in science don't we?

1618. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #144883 by Bonzai on March 17, 2008 at 12:46 am

MAXD

OH this might offend someone, or this might scare person x, or on and on and on. I think it is high time we stopped trying to shut people up because we are...offended, or hurt or frightened by what they say. Instead our first response ought to be fighting back with better ideas.

I think the law is pretty clear about offensive and hurtful speech and threatening speech. If someone calls you an asshole you may be offended or hurt but it is not against the law. The police will not take action against the offender. However if someone tells you he is going to beat you up or kill you, then it is a criminal offence. Making threats doesn't go under free speech.

I don't see why that distinction cannot be applied in the present situation. I think your objections are just red herrings. I never said broadly hurtful and offensive speech should be outlawed and in fact I explicitly said they shouldn't be. I was specific about threats and persecutions,with the caveat that the details would have to be worked out by lawyers.

EDIT: It is easy to say that it should be up to Joe citizen to debate the bigots when Joe citizen is not targeted. To you hate speech that incites violence against gays is probably just an abstract idea open for debate. For those who may be on the receiving end it is not abstract at all. There is nothing debatable about my worthiness as a human being.

1619. The atheist delusion

Comment #144870 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Anthropological and historical data certainly would give you some insights about human nature. For example if someone argues that patriarchy, or private property or whatever is human nature you may be able to find societies organized along different principles so demonstrating that these features are not inante.

Economics text books postulate a certain human nature, namely the rational profit maximizer aka greedy bastard. Since they make the bold assertion I think they should be expected to produce some evidence.

There are situations where you may not have a clue about what the right answer may be , but even limited data would allow you to rule out a lot of wrong ones.

1620. The atheist delusion

Comment #144867 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:44 pm

TCT

I think the scientific method should be applied as long as it is feasible. Even when it is not formally, a rational discourse that insists on corroborative evidence, to the extent that it is possible, is still desirable provided we don't put more faith into what is warranted by the data and our tools; it is not all or nothing.

My view is that our methods become more limited as complexity grows and as the questions we ask become more detail. But in a limited way Dr.Benway's principle still applies, provided we know not to ask questions beyond what our tools can yield meaningful answers; or if we have to, take the answers with a big grain of salt.

I think I am somewhere between you two.

1621. The atheist delusion

Comment #144860 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:48 pm

There's still careful observation and description, and corroboration. That's what Darwin did. That's science

Actually Darwin's analysis of evidence may not have passed mustard by today standard. To get an idea linear regression was developed by Francis Galton, Darwin's contemporary as a rather cutting edge technique. You can imagine how primitive Darwin's statistical tool box would have been and I am not sure if he actually tested hypotheses in the formal way biological scientists today do.

Also, an old earth was in direct conflict with the best of 19th century physics. Darwin conceded that Kelvin had dealt evolution a fatal blow with his calculation of the earth's temperature. Even then Darwin stuck to his gun because of well, his gut feeling which he developed through his field work.

As it happened Kelvin was wrong, but his error,--indeed the error of 19th century science,--was revealed only in the 20th century with the discovery of nuclear reactions. I wrote a brief reveiw here
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2360,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Alan-Colmes-Show,Fox-Radio-Richard-Dawkins-Alan-Colmes,page3#144833

So I am not sure if Darwin was the idealized scientist in the sense you understand the scientific method.

EDIT The world of animals, plants and dead bones is still simple comparing to the complexity of modern societies. Animals don't have opinions for one thing, or if they do Darwin wouldn't have known.

1622. The atheist delusion

Comment #144856 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Whether this is reality or not is not a question we can answer.

No, not in an absolute sense of course. But if your models allow you to make correct predictions and fit nicely with each other and corroborating data then I would say they capture some intrinsic aspects of reality. There is no a priori reason why these models have to be consistent.

I think a more relevant point is that in practice Dr. Benway's idealized scientific method may be quited limited in applicability.

First of all, we can never examine all evidence that is theoretically possible because it is infeasible to collect all the data. Data are very expensive and hard to come by. So even collecting "sufficient" data is a severe problem for many important, real life problems.

Secondly, in most real world problems it is impossible to run controlled experiments. If you have good enough data you can to some degree "control" for the factors using statistical methods, but there is a limit to what they can do. In reality usually quite poor. Statistical tests are like microscopes, without controlled experiments these tests tend to have very low resolutions.

Even though in principle we should apply the scientific method in the manner Dr. Benway described, in reality there are severe limitations because in many real world problems we have insufficient information as well as poor instrument to decipher the information.This is what sets the "soft sciences" from the hard sciences. No BS here. Just a fact.

Finally, only relatively simple statements concerning human affairs can be casted in scientifically testable hypotheses. We have to be dealing with things that in some sense can be neatly isolated conceptually so that they don't get entangled with too many things not accounted for in any humanly tractable model. If you look at journals in the social sciences you would notice quantitative research are usually conceptually unsophisticated,--and sometimes methodologically dubious,-- because statistical methods cannot handle very complex problems in human affairs.

EDIT: I have rewritten the whole post to streamline my points.

1623. The atheist delusion

Comment #144830 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm

SPS

There are promising alternatives to capitalism in ParEcon and ParPolity.

Sorry, ParEcon is bullshit. It is not the place to go into a thorough review of Michael Albert. It suffices to say that you can't get anything off the ground in that kind of a society because the entire world will grind to a halt as people are too busy having meetings. Anyone who thinks that you can have a planned economy that delivers while at the same time with no centralized planning is a little bit off.

Even if feasible,--which I don't think for a moment it is except for some self selected, small communes of the willing,-- parecon would be the worst totalitarian nighmare ever dreamt up by well meaning demagogues, worse than the Soviet Union ever was.

One thing is that Michael Albert doesn't seem to have any idea of private v.s public. Your life would be an open book for everyone to read.. Oh.. Bonzai, please fill up a form in the begining of the year to tell the neighbourhood committee how many rolls of toilet paper and condoms you want to consume this year..Hey, why are you ordering a new dildo again, did the old one break? What did you do with it? We got to improve the workmanship in the future..

On Michael Albert's site people were actually debating whether parecon would create hiearchy by leading to the dictatorship of the "sociable",--busy bodies who like endless meetings,--and whether sex work should be considered community service,--there will be no cash so presumably no prostitution. I kid you not.

The kind of "participation" that Albert dreams up is the worst arrangement ever. Everyone has a little bit of input in some huge, monstrous project. A lot of hassels but in the end the outcome will resemble no one's vision because so much bargaining and compromise involving so many parties have gone into it, all individual inprints will be lost in the end. Individuals will be even more powerless in this system and certainly a lot more frustrated.

1624. The atheist delusion

Comment #144818 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 8:09 pm

MaxD

One can have a suspicion of what the best course for some thing is and then say we are moving in the right direction without believing in some Marxian vision of history.

Actually Marx got that from Hegel. Hegel thought that a global, true, perfect Christian theocracy would be the destiny of history. Marx turned it around, while still accepting the Hegelian doctrine that history was moving in a difinite direction, only it was heading for a secular utopia instead.

1625. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144772 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I think an important part of education is to have your preconcieved ideas challenged. It would be a sad day for education if teachers are afraid to teach the scientific truth of evolution because they have to "respect the religious sensitivity" of the pupils. In other words to hell with evidence and facts if they sit uncomfortable with the Bronze age myth that the pupils happen to subscribe to lest their feelings get hurt.

What the hell has happened to intellectual integrity? Cultural relativism has certainly gone too far.

1626. Two More Fleas

Comment #144686 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Hello,

There is a nice picture in your link which shows a bunch of grown men wearing funny caps, down on their knees and giving heaven the arse as a gesture of piety (mooning God?). The heading of the article is "the atheist delusion". There is something disconnected between the title and the picture. I wonder who is deluded.

1627. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144678 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I am surprised that anyone would take the scientologists seriously. I am going to start a religion of computer worshiping saying that we are all simulations in master X-B170 so that I too can get tax write offs.

1628. The atheist delusion

Comment #144676 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Scull in a washing machine,

Zara,

Don't defy me. I beat you before, I'll beat you again.

What the hell is this? The gladiator?

1629. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144662 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Sanderson said the British government is taking over funding of about 100 Islamic schools even though they teach the Koranic version of creationism. He said the government fears imposing evolution theory on the curriculum lest it be branded as anti-Islamic.

Excuse me?! This is the most stupid thing I have read.

1630. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144641 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Other than saying evolution is wrong what is the central "theory" of creationism? What are its positive contents?

Let's say by some disaster the creationists are allowed equal time in the biology class room what are they going to say? I mean, it would only take a few second to finish their syllabus because it is just one sentence "God did it."


Looking at the bright side like the Monty Python advised, at least you can save some money on text books if these clowns get their way and exams are going to be really easy.

1631. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144625 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Its not a coincidence that people lose their religion when they learn properly about evolution, learn properly about the history of their church and the History of human societies and culture. When they learn about the brain.

Well education attainment in general (probably except theology) does correlate negatively with religiosity. It doesn't have to be a science education.

Now I don't think it is just learning facts such as evolution doing the trick,--though it is certainly important,-- education level in general also positively correlates with other factors that would undermine religiosity such as being urban middle class and a higher likihood of working in socially more liberal environment and so on.

Though I am not aware of any study, but I suspect that a highschool drop out in a major city is less likely to be religious than a highschool drop out in the rural area. "Aculturation" seems to be an important factor. "childhood indoctrination" is a part of acculturation but it is far from being all of it.

Across the globe societies that have more accessible education also tend to have better social safety nets, thus eliminating the role of churches as providers of services.

Education can be a proxy for a lot of things. That's why in social reseach sophisticated statistical techniques have to be used to untangle these relationships.

On the other hand, many creationists apparently are engineers.

1632. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144618 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Goeff,

I think where we disagree is the proportion of those who are "born again" or whatever, as against those who are brought up with it.

Yes, I think you underestimate the proportion because the U.S. is primarily an exporter of make in the U.S.A born again Christianity so conversion from it within teh U.S. itself is probably less appreciable.

But if you look outside the head quarter of evangilism inc. a quite different pattern emerges.

Within one generation South Korea changed from a Buddhist country into a major centre of evangelicalism in Asia.

Another example is the massive conversion of Catholics to evanglical Christian sects in Latin America. These are not just minor changes with a few people converting here and there, they are big. Some Priests are saying that the Catholic Church is facing a crisis there. Since these are traditonally very strong Catholic countries the childhood indoctrination model certainly breaks down completely. Mind you for the outsider they may all be "Christians" but there are a lot of major doctrinal disagreements between the RC Church and the evangelicals.

Of course, it's difficult to quantify "how religious" someone is, but, to use a more global example, lifelong Muslims seem no less intense than recent converts, to me.

Well even within the same country, say Pakistan, the degree of religiosity differs drastically across regions and socio economical classes. I certainly think there is a big difference between Bhutto and the guys demonstrating for Mohammad cartoons. Muslims are not monolithic.

Also, even for the "life long believers", the intensity of religiosity may rise and fall, sometimes rather drastically depending on life's circumstances.

A model for religion is not very good if it doesn't take into account of degree of religiosity, for then "being religious" wouldn't be a particularly informative label.Though I am not a social scientist, but I do know that it is common sense in the social sciences not to attribute single cause to complex phenomena such as religion. That's why, to the extent that it is feasible, techniques such as multiple regression and path analysis are used to discovered the relative strength of various factors and how these factors may influence each other in some kind of complex loops. To attribute religion entirely to childhood upbringing (or any single cause for that matter) is a complete non starter.

1633. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144568 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:51 am

JanChan,

I think they do worth debating at least in the school setting as the students in the audience might mistaken a refusal to answer as inability to answer.

1634. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144561 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:37 am

Geoff

Take the recent PEW survey, for example; conversions & immigration don't materially affect the fact that non-christian religions are statistically negligible in the US.

But that was not my point regarding immigrants. Overall the (first generation)immigrant population is small so even if there is a 100% conversion it probably won't show up on the national wide survey for a large country like the U.S.

The point I made was that many people seek religion when they undergo big changes in their lives, go through times of uncertainty or find themselves in vulnerable situations where they need emotional supports, social network, friendship and reassurance. Immigration is a scenario where all these happen.

What actual data show, at least for my own community,--Chinese in Toronto,--is that this community is a lot more religious than the general Canadian population and the population from which they come,--primarily Hong Kong or mainland China. The data also show that many were non religious before they arrived, they were converted to Christianity afterwards. "Childhood indoctrination" is almost a non existent factor in these cases.

I think that answers the question why some people become religious much better than a national survey that gives you just a numerical break down of nominal beliefs.

While surveys in particular demographics rarely generalize in all their details, but I think the findings of my local Chinese community do provide some broad insights into why people embrace religion,

1635. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144536 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 10:08 am

TCT,

Thanks for the link.

1636. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144531 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:55 am

You downplay "looking at the numbers", but surely that's the most important fact? Take the recent PEW survey, for example; conversions & immigration don't materially affect the fact that non-christian religions are statistically negligible in the US.

You didn't address my point. Read the first paragraph. Childhood upbringing explains nominal religious affiliations,--which is all that the numbers show,-- but they don't explain the intensity of belief, which I think is not that strong if you simply go to Church on Sunday or do Friday prayers. The numbers don't explain why some people become very religious while others don't in spite of the same general cultural background and upbringing,

I said it is not germane to just look at numbers, not that it is not germane to look at numbers at all.Numbers have to be interpreted.

EDIT Christianity,--especially evangelism,-- is spreaded primarily by adult conversions in Asia and Africa where it is growing most rapidly, So I think you are very wrong in saying that this is only a small factor. I am talking about globally, not just the U.S,

1637. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144525 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

We should grant the public at least a common sense grasp of methodological naturalism.

Apparently some U.S judge ruled that Bayesian arguments are not acceptable in court, I will try to find the reference.

1638. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144518 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:20 am

Spinoza,

If we had been born in Constantinople, the most of us would have said: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana."

If you grow up as a Muslim, you can probably identify with other Muslims who share your upbringing and language and probably know you since childhood more than say, a Zoroastrian. So if you need religion because of those human factors I described in my previous post you naturally would go for some version of Islam rather than, say Zoroastrianism.

I don't think it is very germane to just look at the numbers, As you told others on other threads many times, correlation is not the same as causation. Upbringing certain explains a lot (not completely, see below) about the particular religion one subscribes to, but it doesn't explain why he is religious in the first place. I will grant that it is a factor, obviously, but I have problem with saying that it is a main factor or the only factor. The "cultural" believers usually are pretty relax and are just nominal believers, not the seriously religious type. So are they really "indoctrinated" if they don't even particularly care what they were taught?

There are a lot of adult conversions because of the activities of missionaries for example. Why does the sales pitch of the preacher work? You can't explain that based on childhood indoctrinations.

I also wrote in another thread, many immigrants became religious after they emigrate. Again childhood indoctrinations fail to explain that.

1639. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144508 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

T.H. Huxley wrote a really nice article called 'We are All Scientists' drawing out the routine use we all make every day of the same ways of thinking which characterise science. I would say that getting people to feel ownership of the scientific method, and to recognise the power that it has in their own lives, would be a positive step.

I don't know about that. Most people know the wonder of technology and many creationists are engineers,

I think it is a common mistake to think that science is just about gadgets (see point 1 above) but religion is about answering "big questions". It is not a bad thing to alert people to everyday science, it is worthy goal in itself, but I am not sure how that will persuade people to give up religion. The priest has no problem to go to a doctor or a computer service person who uses "naturalistic" means to fix his problems.

1640. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144494 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 8:23 am

In Canada the public doesn't have the same hostility towards science that some posters describe in the Southern U.S., but their understanding is still quite distorted based on what I see in the media,--with the caveat the media image may be distorted. There are several things I notice in particular.

1.Very often science is confused with technology.
So there is this idea that science = gadgets.

2.science is "sold" primarily as a ticket to economical prosperity. The news tell us we need X number of graduates in science for a knowledge based economy, never mind the fact that the fastest growing sector is the low waged, low skill service sector.

This is a horribe idea. As they say you learn to hate what you have to do solely to get your pay cheque.

Children are sent the message at a very young age that science is just a good meal ticket with some bonus of playing with cool machines. If I were told that everyday I would be turned off from science too,

3. Science is often presented as some kind of gala tricks on a par with magic show, That kind of presentation doesn't necessarily enhance one's scientific understanding in a meaningful way.

4. Science is cold and boring. It is all about mechanically applying formulae and following procedures, it is only for a kind of particularly austere individuals,--nerds or geeks,-- who have neither imagination nor social skills. Many intelligent and educated people in the humanities have that impression.These intelligent people in the humanities who hate science may end up working for the media and influence public opinions with their negative stereotypes about science and scientists.I think the way science is taught in high schools probably contributes a lot to that impression.

A local newspaper once came up with a list of questions to test the readers' scientific literacy. Half of the questions were about who discovered what. They were not even science questions! The people who came up with the test themselves didn't know what science is.

I don't have a specific answer to what should be done to communicate science more effectively, but I think it would be misguided to present science as simply a collection of fun facts and neat tricks..It is a systematic world view. It is a set of methodology to understand the world. A guy who can rant off a long list of scientific facts in trivia pursuits does not necessarily have a very good knowledge of science. Facts are useless if you don't know what to make of them.

1641. Fleabytes

Comment #144473 by Bonzai on March 16, 2008 at 6:59 am

For atheist songs you should check out a punk band called "bad religion". The lead singer Greg Graffin
is actually an evolutionary biologist who teaches at UCLA. The music is so so IMO but the lyrics are nice, the acoustic version of some of the songs are good too..

Here is their theme song:

See my body, it's nothing to get hung about.
I'm nobody except genetic runaround.
Spiritual era's gone, it ain't comin' back.
Bad Religion, a copout, that is all that's left
Hey Mr. Mime, stop wasting my time,
With your factory precision.
Factory precision is your
Bad Religion, regurgitate
Indecision, it's not too late.
Bad Religion, Bad Religion.
Ay!
Don't you know the place you live's a piece of shit?
Don't you know blind faith through lies won't conquer it
Don't you know responsibility is ours?
I don't care a think about eternal fires.
Listen this time, it's more than a rhyme,
It's your indecision.
Your indecision is your
Bad Religion, regurgitate
Indecision, it's not too late.
Bad Religion, regurgitate
Indecision, it's not too late.
Bad Religion, Bad Religion,
Bad Religion.

1642. The business of natural selection

Comment #144389 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 10:54 pm

I don't know how effective this algorithm is but it seems reasonable that if given enough information about a macroscopic system and it's environment the future could be predicted with some measure of accuracy

Then how come we can't even make long term weather forecasts? Weather is quite simple comparing to the market.

Nonlinearity and chaos prevent any accurate prediction for individual trajectories,--say the fate of your company,--for a complex dynamical system.

1643. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144384 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Spinoza

Again, RD did reasonably well confronting our mortality, which of course makeS the faith-based sqirm

I am not so sure. I think he came across as a bit elitist and out of touch. How many of us will write books and music for posterity? What about people who don't have a wonderful, healthy and fulfilling life to celebrate? It is often, though not always, people who feel insecure, unloved, unfulfilled and inadequate that swell the rank and file of church goers. In religion they find comfort, support and reassurance,

Richard said as a teenager he gave up religion after he found Darwin. All I can say is that this young man was destined to become a professor. Not too many people become religious because they need a scientific hypothesis! It follows that not too many people will give up religion simply because they find better answers for abstract questions in science..

If atheists want to persuade people to leave religion,--assuming this is a valid goal,-- they need to understand the psychology of the believers and offer alternatives for what they find in religion. It is simplistic,--and even in a sense patronizing,-- to attribute religion simply to childhood indoctrinations.Many believers do get something out of believing, for them religiosity is actually quite "rational" according to the economist's definition of rationality.

My impression of RD is that he is a brilliant man who knows a lot about grand ideas, but probably not enough about people, and he is also a very privileged man.

1644. Fleabytes

Comment #144315 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 3:30 pm

It could be two people using the same account, I know a husband and wife couple who used to do that on another forum. When people expressed surprise at the fact that this person was posting self contradicting messages he explained that it was his wife. Now maybe he was imagining that he had a wife.. who knows.

It is just the internet, I don't think anyone would go through great length to pretend to be an atheist only to say bravo David. I think even David is not that deranged.

Got to go out before the sun sets, it is warm today. Screw work.

EDIT: OK. Almost forgot wooter, There are really some compulsive obsessive deranged characters on the net. Really have to catch some sun when it is still there or I will become weird too..if I am not already..

1645. Fleabytes

Comment #144307 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I am sorry to say that, but Paula you may want to stay away from the computer for a while, Go watch some TV, play with the dog or the neighbour's dog if you don't have one. I know, I know I am still here, but it is only because I need to get some work done on my computer and I am procrastinating. :)

1646. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144301 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Dr. Benway,

My earliest memory of doubt: wondering why the Bible stories were filled with miracles but nothing miraculous seemed to be going on in my small corner of the world. Miracles seemed really cool and they would make the claims about heaven and hell more convincing. I wished I could witness at least a couple of miracles. Maybe a burning bush in the backyard with a glowing white beautiful angel materializing beside, saying "Fear not!"

I used to live in this house where there was a lovely six year old little girl. It was her birthday and her mother asked her to make a wish before she blew off the little candles on the cake. The little girl said "na, wishes don't come true, last time I wished for candies but I didn't get any.."

She was a smart little cookie.

1647. The atheist delusion

Comment #144221 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 12:03 pm

You are mixing hard science and soft science, and idealising the results of using the scientific method on the kind of questions that I am implicitly talking about: Race, Gender, Sexuality, Social Structures, Law etc

But you have left out pseudoscience. Just because someone wears a lab coat and makes his point with jargons and numbers doesn't make it science, hard or soft. It could be just a PR ploy.

1648. The atheist delusion

Comment #144220 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 11:57 am

Steve,

Dennett makes an interesting point regarding selection of religion.

If he meant it as a loose metaphor than it is a truism,next to being meaningless.

My understanding is that he is more literal than that, he was talking about religion as a "meme" which propagates for its own sake like genes.

I agree with Atran that this is nonsense with no empirical evidence whatsoever to back up. As a social entity religion doesn't have the cohesion and structural integrity to be a unit for "selection" liken genes. Genes themselves don't adapt, they either got passed on or not, they may mutate, but they don't adapt. Religion does and it doesn't exist just to propagate, it serves purposes that may change depending on the context,

1649. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144208 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 10:30 am

Vaal,

I have just revised and edited my post tremendously.

1650. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144197 by Bonzai on March 15, 2008 at 9:59 am

Vaal

Are you not surprised that it took to the 19th Century for somebody to come up with evolution. It seems fairly obvious, although with the benefit of hindsight.

Hmm.. actually it is not fairly obvious even with hindsight. At least to me anyway, maybe I am just dense. :)

It is one thing to make a wild guess that animals transform into each other, which is a common theme in many mythologies, it is quite another to actually find a detailed way to show that this actually happened and to explain how it happened convincingly.

In fact at Darwin's time evolution was not without problems. Besides not having a mechanism to explain how inheritance was transmitted,--genes,--evolutionary theory was in irreconcilable conflict with contemporary physics,--a much more sophisticated and well established scientific discipline than 19th century biology. Kelvin showed that the earth could not have been old enough for evolution to have taken place in the way Darwin described. According to his calculation, the earth would have been much cooler if it had been around for such a long time.

Kelvin's calculation was completely sound and consistent with the best theories of 19th century physics. Darwin himself conceded that, all the objections of the scientifically uninformed religious people not withstanding, Kelvin had struck a fatal blow to evolution.

It wasn't until the early 20th century that we found out what's wrong with Kelvin's calculation. The temperature of the earth is sustained by nuclear reactions in the core,--a fact that they didn't know at Darwin's and Kelvin's time.

Despite his acknowledgment that Kelvin had "blown me out of the water", Darwin stuck to his gun. He had no argument other than that he knew it in his guts that organisms did evolve. He based his convictions on his field work through which he came to know nature intimately, in a first person sort of way , Evidence from direct observations of bones and fossils was messy and open to different interpretations at a time when they didn't have very sophisticated dating techniques and forensic technology,

So evolution was in clear conflict with physics at the time and evidence for it was circumstantial and messy. Yet Darwin was unrepentant (no pun intended) I think many hard nose "rationalists" here would have easily dismissed Darwin as an irrational crackpot if they don't have the hindsights.

(Aside: A moral one can get from this story is that science is not a simply a process where scientists collect evidence and test theories in a straight forward, objective and rational manner.There could be a lot of twists and turns. The verdict may not be in for quite some times before a theory is declared dead or vindicated. In Darwins' case the verdict was in but the ruling was overturned a few decades later when new, completely unexpected evidence came to light from an apparently completely unrelated discipline,--this incidentally showed the beautiful internal consistency of science.)

Even with all the evidence, I have to say that evolution is still very counter intuitive . Those who learn it in biology classes may think it is obvious probably because they have not let the message sink in, I find that it is a common problem with learning anything from school. You listen to the teacher passively, read text books where everything is laid out and do a bunch of exercises and write exams. You don't really reflect on what is being taught until much later. Otherwise they are just facts and "information".. It is not unusual to hear physics undergraduates saying that they understand quantum mechanics, by that they mean they know how to do text book problems and get good marks in exams.

I believe many people have a problem accepting evolution exactly because it is counter-intuitive,even as it is logically and scientifically compelling, especially when we contemplate ourselves in that context, It is one of those things that you know in your head but may not in your guts.

Dawkins did a terrific job in simultaneously conveying the inevitability of evolution yet at the same time how utterly unexpected it is. He captures that sense of improbability and awe which remains even when all the logic and inner workings are laid bare. I think his books on evolution are real gems in the genre