Comments by Steve Zara

1651. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216456 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #216452 by epeeist

I have been a member of that club since I was about 5.

1652. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216454 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #216442 by hungarianelephant

I seem to remember that MPhil knows quite a lot about Q.

Do you mean...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)
Because that would easily explain all those miracles...

1653. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216451 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 8:00 am

Comment #216439 by irate_atheist

Excellent. It does show our ages though that you suggest it and I recognise it!

1654. The Flea Delusion

Comment #216413 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 6:41 am

sophisticated arguments for the existence of God

There really aren't any. In the end it all comes down to "I can't believe all this happened by itself", combined with a somewhat solipsistic view that the universe is all for me. It's nothing more than incredulity combined with a desire to be the centre of attention.

There are many clever attempts to try to excuse a believe in God, but none for God's actual existence.

1655. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216401 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 6:20 am

However, it does not have that sound biting quality of RDs.

That is part of Richard's genius, and that of other great scientific minds like Carl Sagan and Steven Weinberg. They give us ideas that are instantly memorable and encourage further thought...

"The Selfish Gene"
"Mount Improbable"
"Pale Blue Dot"
"First Three Minutes"
...

1656. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #216381 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #216377 by Ygern

This sounds very David Robertson-ish. Probably the cave salamanders have gone backwards because they are tarnished versions of the perfect originals, due to the sin of mankind entering the world and messing things up.

If you combine the supposed perfection of creation along with the supposed harm and damage that has occurred since "the fall", you end up with an "explanation" that be twisted to fit just about anything.

1657. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216379 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #216374 by j.mills

"Improbable" as used in this context is the likelihood of a complex structure arising from pure randomness. But there are forces and factors of the universe that can drive the formation of complex structure, such as gravity and thermodynamics, so complexity may be both probable and common. Evolution could perhaps be considered to be such a force.

1658. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216370 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 4:02 am

However, I don't see the problem of the "Mount Improbable" as a metahpor to explain how great evolutionay change can occur over time.

If it turns out that life is very common, and certain complex features are pretty much universal, or at least very common (such as wings, eyes, legs), then the idea of there being an aspect of realy (as against apparent) improbability may be misleading. Also, it may give slightly the wrong impression to suggest there is any real barrier to complex life (as suggested by the idea of a "climb"). It may be that life is as inevitable in the universe as planets and stars, and what Richard is dealing with with the metaphor is our feelings of what we thought the situation was regarding complexity, rather than what it actually is. This may be even more the case if the ideas of the biologist Stuart Kauffman are correct, and there are some general high-level rules about evolution and how it proceeds, and what paths it takes.

To give an analogy, it used to be thought that planetary systems were rare, and there was some explanatory gap - some barrier of improbability that had to be overcome to get something like our solar system. Now we know they are not only common, but probably the normal state for stars. There is no longer any "mount improbable" for solar systems.

1659. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216342 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #216325 by epeeist

Is there a similar mechanism in evolution? The first steps being difficult but as time goes on the simple structures being used to bootstrap more complex structures and allowing evolution to proceed at a faster rated?

I do wonder how difficult the first steps may have actually been. From what I have seen on recent research into RNA formation and catalysis, I am not sure the origin of life was that hard at all. Also, perhaps we tend to look at rate of evolution from our macroscopic perspective, when virtually all the complexity of living things is within the cells. So, from one point of view, all that has happened in the last billion years or so is mostly just shifting cells around (yes, it is really quite a bit more than that, but I am trying to make a point)

1660. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216336 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 1:47 am

omment #216327 by Dr Doctor

Yes, if it was a criticism, it was meant in the gentlest way possible, and in a way, it is quite the opposite really, as it shows how much Richard inspires people to think.

I think Dawkins explained this metaphor pretty well. But if it makes you feel uneasy to talk in those terms, why not use your own metaphor?

Because it can be fun, and illustrative, to take an existing idea and turn it around to see what it looks like, just as Richard did with the "747 in a junkyard" metaphor. This can challenge pre-conceived ideas.

I do know what Richard is getting at, because we associate "complex" with "improbable" generally, so it seems like a mountain of complexity has to be climbed.

However, I think it can help to talk of evolution and natural selection as a blind force of Nature, to contrast with the idea of design, I sometimes write that it is as blind (and lacking in ethical implications) as gravity. That is what gave me the idea of drifting downwards, with an inevitable production of some form of complexity. The width of the base of the mountain shows that where you end up in terms of actual creatures and morphology is very variable, although there are some valleys which drive you in certain directions (eyes, wings etc).

EDIT: I admit the problem may be in the feeling that the "Mount Improbable" metaphor gives me, but I see no harm in throwing out some ideas and see what happens to them. If I am wrong, that isn't a problem.

1661. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216330 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 1:37 am

Comment #216317 by Richard Morgan

quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

....

Sadly, when "un-herdable" atheists get together, we don't see very much of all that, do we?

Yes, we do. I have seen great warmth, wit and friendship on this site, and have made good friends from contacts here.

You are being silly. You are extrapolating from a few people here who post in ways you don't like to everyone here, and then, effectively to all atheists. That is wrong, and sounds to me very defensive.

If you want to see real vicious hatred, look at the death threats PZ Myers is getting from Christians. That is on a vastly different scale from calling someone a "fucktard", yet it is wrong to say "Christians are evil" because of this.

I feel sorry for you. You have retreated into what seems to me a defensive position and now you are trying to justify it with senseless generalisations about "fruits of atheism".

1662. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216318 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #216313 by Chris Davis

I actually agree with you, sort of. If eyes aren't hard to evolve, it does not feel that right to me to talk about climbing up a mountain of improbability. It's more like a mountain of apparent improbability, because it seems at first sight that complexity should be unlikely.

1663. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216307 by Steve Zara on July 23, 2008 at 12:53 am

Comment #216055 by 82abhilash

Also the 'Descending mount probable' gives the idea that complexity is an inevitable outcome of evolution.

The problem I have with "mount improbable" is that it suggests to me that certain aspects of life are intrinsically unlikely, and that some sort of extra energy must be put in to "get up the mountain". It turns out that certain supposedly "hard-to-evolve" features like eyes and wings turn up often - they may even be universal features of complex life. Also, life may be an inevitable result of the nature of our universe - it is not something that has to be "worked at" like climbing a mountain.

I realise my feelings about the metaphor of mount improbable aren't to do with what Richard intended, but they were still what came to mind.

By turning the thing upside down I wanted to explore the idea that complexity arises spontaneously, and often.

I think this actually illustrates Richard's gift as a writer - he makes one think and want to explore ideas, and gets you to look at things in different ways.

Also, it was fun to write!

1664. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216116 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Comment #216113 by Goldy

Agreed. A crashing bore, nothing but a quote miner with limited knowledge. Seems to have no clue about the problems of supernaturalism. However, at least he hasn't mentioned Lane Craig again, so perhaps he is able to learn a little.

1665. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216104 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Comment #216098 by Robert O'Brien

Naughty man. You have to say why a claim is erroneous, not just declare it so.

Also, I see no progress yet on the matter of supernaturalism. Tiresome, but no more than I expected.

1666. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216099 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Comment #216086 by Teratornis

I consider myself reasonably good at detecting rational thought. I see in your posts not rational arguments, but a substantial disconnect from the reality that I recognise, with sweeping statements suggesting wildly impractical ideas which just don't seem to have been thought through, such as "store everything on Wikis" and "remove all privacy". What was another statement from a day or so ago? Something about not being able to think of a single pleasant thing that did not cause some harm to others?

To be honest, I really can't tell if you are serious.

1667. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216079 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Comment #216075 by Teratornis

Although if the sex robot is well-designed, using one certainly won't feel like "abstinence."

We have better technology than that today, but the principle is the same.

As Al-rawandi wisely says, some statements don't need to be refuted, simply underlined.

1668. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216054 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Comment #216048 by Brian English

As Robert clearly isn't going to directly answer anything, I'll join in the "postulating properties" game.

I think that having a tub of Ben and Jerry's Fossil Fuel ice cream is a positive property. Therefore, this "God" being must be in a reality consisting entirely of ice cream (anything less would not be maximal)

1669. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216041 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Comment #216038 by Robert O'Brien

Still nothing regarding the supernatural?

Just because Goedel's proof gets you to Santa Claus, you still have to actually demonstrate his existence. You can't do that until you show the flying sleigh is really magic.

1670. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216020 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Comment #216017 by Robert O'Brien

Which phenomena?

Any. How do you demonstrate that something you experience, be it in the external physical world, or in your mind, is beyond any known or unknown law of nature?

1671. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216015 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Comment #216012 by Robert O'Brien

Any progress on the matter of demonstrating the supernatural nature of phenomena yet?

1672. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216013 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #216009 by Teratornis

Of course. I've also heard of abstinence.

You are seriously putting use of condoms and abstinence in the same category?

Tell you what, why don't we give people with AIDS a little bell they can ring. so that they can wander the streets shouting "unclean" like lepers?

1673. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216006 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Comment #216005 by mordacious1

I am not saying Dawkins is wrong - that would be silly. I just thought it would be fun to turn the metaphor upside down, and see where it led.

1674. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216004 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Comment #216002 by Teratornis

Privacy is a form of artificially manufactured ignorance.

Privacy is absolutely vital for the functioning of modern societies. Financial systems would collapse, there would be no investment (as why invest in one company when all its ideas can be instantly copied?) Scientific research would come to an end (how does one perform double blind tests without the blindness?) There could be no investigation of crime (as all actions of the police would be known)

1675. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #215999 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Comment #215990 by mordacious1

I have never really liked the "mount improbable" metaphor. I have tried to re-cast the idea in a different way:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/124211.html

"Descending mount probable"

1676. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215995 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Comment #215989 by Brian English

Irate has been giving Oystein Elgaroy lessons in foul language. There has been something going on about crackers. But otherwise peaceful.

1677. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215992 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Comment #215988 by Teratornis

We know for a fact that medical privacy is killing people right now. Thousands of people, maybe millions.

Have you heard of condoms?

How many of your friends and family would you be willing to sacrifice?

I think about one and a half.

But I am not worried. If AIDS doesn't get them, peak oil will.

Perhaps we should start saving oil and storing it on a wiki?

1678. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215986 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Comment #215984 by Robert O'Brien

The context of the question is that I am asking it and I am addressing it to you.

1679. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215979 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Comment #215974 by Robert O'Brien

Please explain how you show that a phenomenon is not a result of a natural law.

1680. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #215967 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Comment #215950 by khanzee

I have just a basic question...why do you ask for proof of God?

For one thing, because so many people say that they are in contact with a God, and that this God tells them that they are right about so much, like having a dislike of evolution, or thinking that women are inferior. If people just believed in a God and left it at that, things would be a lot better. The problem is that so often, people say things like "God tells me to say you are wicked" or "God tells me that stem cell research is wrong".

When people make up friends and use them to help make a case on forums this is called "sock puppetry" and considered bad form. However, when people bring in a super-powerful friend called God to help them make a case, this is called "religion" and has been considered virtuous.

That has to stop, because it gives people too much authority over others. So, if someone is going to mention God, we have to start asking them to give good evidence for this powerful friend.

1681. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215884 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #215879 by Teratornis

Can you prove that the net cost of eliminating all medical privacy would be greater than the net benefits?

If ever there was proof of a multiverse, this is it, because you sure don't live in my world!

1682. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215864 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #215858 by Teratornis

Shouldn't it make someone who claims to be rational just a bit uncomfortable (OK, discomfort is an emotion) to see a man like Richard Dawkins - who spent his whole life trying to get people to stand up on their hind legs and think - inspiring the very sort of hero worship which often leads to the type of mindless devotion he's trying to eradicate?

Why do you assume it's mindless?

1683. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215683 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 8:52 am

I really must complain about this attitude to Ikea. One of the few pleasant things about going to Church was the pretty bits and stained glass. I now get my fix of such things from the local Ikea (I am trying to think of a place to install their colour-changing LED lights)

1684. The Return of Religion

Comment #215646 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 8:25 am

Comment #215616 by Richard Morgan

Why does it matter whether or not atheism is unsatisfying? What on Earth has that got to do with the existence or otherwise of God?

1685. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215609 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 7:37 am

The "rules" of mathematics?

1st rule: You do not talk about mathematics

1686. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215495 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #215493 by Vaal

Based on our experience on this site and elsewhere we may be able to produce an equally valuable set of books:

The complete scientists' guide to idiots...

1687. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215485 by Steve Zara on July 22, 2008 at 2:16 am

Comment #215484 by Oystein Elgaroy

Go for it! Perhaps in lectures you could include phrases like "the Steady State Theory is total bullshit".

Science with attitude...

1688. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215206 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Now enough of this!

I am NOT collecting kittens to make hats. This is NOT part of a plan to breed felines to avoid peak oil!

1689. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215191 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 1:19 pm

That was you, asshole? That gave me extreme displeasure. Do it again an I am flying over there and we are going to have words!

Providing it is only "words" over a cup of tea, I feel safe.

1690. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215175 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #215162 by Teratornis

Do I write like a person not under the influence of psychoactive drugs

No. You write like someone definitely under the influence of psychoactive drugs.

You have posted some of the weirdest stuff I have ever seen on a supposedly rational site. That all data storage, no matter or what kind, should be stored on something like wikipedia. That is clearly nuts.

You recently posted:

"It's somewhat difficult to think of things that give pleasure without causing anyone pain."

And I thought.. when I woke up this morning, I scratched my back. That gave me pleasure, but I don't recall anyone suffering because of it.

I just don't bother to read your posts anymore, because I don't assume they connect with my reality.

1691. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215111 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #215107 by bugaboo

Yes. I cloned it for him.

1692. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #215026 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 7:51 am

theIdiot-

As Spinoza ended up rejecting dualism, and as his whole philosophy was centred around God being identical to Nature, perhaps you can explain how "supernatural" can be applied to what Spinoza says?

1693. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #215022 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 7:47 am

Donald-

I'm not sure crosswords will solve the problem.

I wasn't being flippant mentioning crosswords. Such activities are, as I understand it, an important part of keeping the brain active.

Also, although a significant number of people over 80 have Alzheimers, it can be quite mild for some time.

1694. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214995 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 7:02 am

Comment #214981 by Nephite

Whatever gets people through the night is alright with me.

I am going to repeat something I posted on another thread:

The monotheistic religions in particular have a fundamental problem that means they have to be questioned in all aspects, in my view. That problem is they encourage a sense of superiority and difference. The foundation of the monotheisms (at least those I know of) are that the universe was created for us, and that the creator knows of us and cares about us and talks to us. The problem is the meaning of "us". I think it is silly enough to limit it to humans, but some groups limit it to their race, or their church. They are "chosen" and everyone else is in eternal peril. The big problem with the idea that the creator talks to us it that it allows people to claim the ultimate authority for their views... for example, they don't just personally dislike homosexuality, it is fundamentally wrong because the creator says so (they interpret their feelings as messages from the creator).

I don't think this is acceptable in a fair and democratic society. Whenever certain groups have felt themselves privileged in such ways, there have been problems, whether it is to do with race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and so on.

I have recently been debating with an apparently educated theologian who considers himself superior not just to non-believers, but to all scientists and intellectuals who don't accept that truth is found in scripture. I find that deeply worrying.

I think we should work to remove this belief that humanity, and groups within it, are special in this way, and have a direct line to universal truths.

1695. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #214974 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 6:04 am

txpiper wrote-

No, that is not what you find in the fossil record at all. This claim flies in the face of acknowledgements, often coming from devoted evolutionists, that the fossil record shows unprecedented appearances, stability of form, moderate adaptations and extinction. The divergence that you speak of, exists on paper and in the minds of evolutionary theorists, but it is not in the fossil record. That is the reality.

This is really beginning to hurt my brain. I can't deal with the paradox of a Young Earth Creationist talking about the "reality" of the fossil record.

It's as if a UFO believer said that he knew Venus was uninhabited, because he had been there and the Venusians told him so.

1696. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214971 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 5:59 am

Comment #214969 by Bonzai

You still have a chance to preserve your faculties - I have also read that Sudoku is equally effective.

It's all about breaking from routine, and getting the brain to have to work things out.

1697. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214966 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 5:52 am

Comment #214963 by irate_atheist

I have read that crosswords are a particularly good form of brain exercise, no matter how badly you do.

1698. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214951 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 5:32 am

Comment #214933 by irate_atheist

What I fear most about old age is the - almost inevitable - expected decline in my mental faculties (such as they are).

Things change as one gets older, but my understanding (while I still have it!) is that there need not be any inevitable decline into senility. The brain is somewhat like a muscle - keep it exercised and it will usually continue to work for you reasonably well, even if it may creak a bit with age.

1699. The brain in love

Comment #214947 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 5:26 am

Comment #214937 by irate_atheist

Where the relationship(s) are exclusively homosexual, and given that homosexuality is - at least primarily - genetically determined, surely exclusive homosexuality cannot be selected for? I may be wrong - I probably am - but you seem to be suggesting a kind of group selection

Gosh no. I would never do that!

Here is a suggested selfish gene mechanism. It's probably completely wrong, but illustrates that such a mechanism is possible.

There could be some genes in the mother that, given certain environmental conditions (such as having many children, or being at a certain population density), changes the hormonal environment in the womb during pregnancy to produce an increased tendency for homosexuality. These children would not reproduce, but assist with the raising of previous children, or the mother's current or future grandchildren. These children would also assist with mixing of genes by encouraging links with other families through same-sex relationships.

Such genes would be entirely "selfish". They would assist their own reproduction by the production of "helper" offspring who would help increase the frequency of these genes.

1700. The brain in love

Comment #214924 by Steve Zara on July 21, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #214919 by bucketchemist

It may be because I am gay, but I can't see that behaviour which turns out to be very widespread through the animal kingdom, and in some species clearly has an important social role, can be usefully considered a "misfiring".