151. No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future

Comment #15975 by k1mgy on January 4, 2007 at 3:55 am

>>The spread of information through the internet and mobile phones will "gently, irresistibly, undermine the mindsets requisite for religious fanaticism and intolerance".<<

Since we're into predictions now (Pat "chuckles" Robertson is off his meds) I see in the near future the Haggardists coming down hard against the use of mobile phones and computers.

A new day dawns for the Abacus and word of mouth.

152. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14734 by k1mgy on December 24, 2006 at 8:03 pm

The Haggardists keep hammering on Dawkin's door: "Let's argue about the Bible". It's a trap. The God Delusion was certainly not written as a scholarly critique of the Bible or any other religious text. Why? Because from the start the validity of these texts are dubious at best. Besides, Dawkins shreds the existence of any God, and without resorting all that much to any Bible, other than using passages as laugh-track.


Orr writes, "But since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data? Second, the fact that we as scientists find a hypothesis question-begging--as when Dawkins asks "who designed the designer?"-- cannot, in itself, settle its truth value. It could, after all, be a brute fact of the universe that it derives from some transcendent mind, however question-begging this may seem. What explanations we find satisfying might say more about us than about the explanations. Why, for example, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given? Why isn't that question-begging?"

We have what information we have, and the vast majority of it points to an evolutionary past, not a creationist one.

The trap is to enter the argument on the Haggardist's terms. This is to be avoided. They have no cards to play, so it's smart to avoid the game entirely and "call a spade a spade".

153. The Only One in Step

Comment #14550 by k1mgy on December 23, 2006 at 5:43 am

Perhaps Richard Dawkins is Science's answer to the Jehova's, or better put perhaps, their worst nightmare.

Having read "The Only One in Step", I now understand why RD seems to go tilt when Moron McIntosh and his band of biblical brothers carry forth their trade.

I should think occasions like this deserve a re-thinking of tenure at great institutions like Leeds. There's a good basis for the protection of academic freedom and I believe we'd all support this as we in 'Murca still (I hope) cherish our Freedom of Expression. But as here, when someone falsely cries "FIRE!" in a theatre, the expression finds itself severely regulated.

McIntosh needs, along with therapy and medication, a very strong regulation indeed!

154. Security tight as Mozart production resumes

Comment #13703 by k1mgy on December 19, 2006 at 6:24 am

Years ago I worked in radio broadcasting and, more than once, took a complaint from a listener. My standard retort, away from the ears of management, was "the radio has a dial. Please use it."

My brother, a restaurant manager, was summoned to a table. A gentleman had a complaint. "There's too much ice in my drink".

"Wait a while and it will go away", was his swift reply.

I once attended an exhibition at Boston's Institute of Contemporary Art featuring Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs which were shocking and generated much protest. Frankly, I didn't like his work, but went out of my way to attend as my way of protesting the protest and supporting cherished rights of public free expression.

It seems an irony that individuals will rail against one expression yet expect that their own should remain unassailable. The listener who complained had an option. The restaurant customer had one, too. And no one forced people to visit the ICA and view a bucket of urine. We have free will, as the Haggardists like to say. So I say "use it".

I should think it would be interesting to see how long a picket or protest might last in front of, or for that matter, inside of a church.

Here in the US, about 5 minutes.

155. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13451 by k1mgy on December 17, 2006 at 7:38 pm

It was as if RD was being gentle with an old friend. Yes, it must have been frustrating, being cut-off and all, but so polite to allow Benn to blather on with irrelevances like "I don't want to go out with a diagnosis". Plus, it permitted him to jab a few in the direction of Bushland, which is a great use of the airwaves any day.

Despite the inherent handicaps in the setup and the lack of debate from the other corner, RD managed to get his point across rather well.

Only problem: his hair. That clump in the front that hung down as if ready to prod poor Richard in the eyeball. Distracting as hell and gave one the impression that Dawkins had just jumped off a motorbike, plunked down his sweaty helmet, and swaggered onto the set.

156. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13285 by k1mgy on December 16, 2006 at 7:31 pm

Swinburne: "Here the fault is mine - I should have given a reference to some place where I point out the advantages of having to rely on a balance of probability, and not total certainty, with respect to the existence of God."

Pardon my yawn.

Explain, please, how it is advantageous to "rely on a balance of probability, and not total certainty, with respect to the existence of" your god? Parsing words here - are you saying that it's actually preferable to *not* have total certainty? How baffling! Did the word processor get the best of you?

Perhaps this statement of yours sheds some light on why science and your religious apologetic are so at odds. Perhaps it may be too discomforting to accept the science, which will clearly tell you that the "balance of probability" is nil. Embracing reality and putting away the fantasy might be too much to take.

Well whatever you might call it, the probability of your god, when correctly viewed through a logical and scientific lens, is extremely low. If the probability were higher, say 51%, you'd need fewer words to prop up your argument. Instead of spinning around the maypole you could simply offer *evidence* and rest easily right there.

In place of evidence, as you have none, instead you offer a lot of high sounding words.

How sad.

157. Intelligent Design packets

Comment #13197 by k1mgy on December 16, 2006 at 5:11 am

>>I personally have no problem with anyone
>>expressing their point of view and showing this
>>DVD in schools as long as it's presented
>>alongside evolution in a non-biased way

I personally do. My children will not be the subjects of a national experiment in religious indoctrination through the front door, back door, or by slipping packets under the door.

If you wish to have yours so exposed, do it in the privacy of your own home. You can be the "teacher", or if you like the "preacher".

There we are. Our education system will be transformed from teaching to preaching, thanks to the devolution of science teaching brought about by the vacuous theory of "intelligent" design.

--

BBC paired up a couple of light weights in their short, on-air row. It was very instructive as to the probable level of debate in the field and raises the point that, although Graham Wright spoke well, he could have easily eviscerated the "intelligent" designer with a more formidable argument. Even the presenter was more forceful straight on.

Perhaps RDF may find a "mission" (sorry for the term) in providing copies of The God Delusion or other instruction to the warriors who must take up the battle against Intelligent Stupidity in classrooms, on media, and in the courts.

158. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12979 by k1mgy on December 14, 2006 at 7:33 pm

I am very impressed with these comments.

I had once proposed, informally, that the CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) include in their "10 Commandments of Computer Ethics" (http://www.cpsr.org/issues/ethics/cei) a statement that would commit technicians, scientists and engineering professionals to avoid projects that are used for destructive, illegal, malevolent ends, such as military and government activities. I had not carried the idea forward to CPSR's board of directors. I hesitated due to lack of time and the consideration that this would open a big can of worms. Imagine the signatories being called "traitors" and "un-American" (for the Americans among us) when we refuse to help the current mal-administration?

If an oath were to be drafted, I think it might well include a statement that codified intolerance for irrationality, both as to how one conducts their profession, and what their work product supports.

In my ideal world, scientists and technologists would shun any work or even portions of work that enabled a government such as the one currently operating in the US, or such as IRAN, from building weapons, spying on its citizens, building a theocracy, and carrying forth with other illegal and immoral operations. We simply would refuse to give them the means to do stupid, awful things. Let them go elsewhere, or do it with those already glazed over.

Example: the current US mal-administration relies on armies of software engineers, many recruited from knowledge-tanks like MIT, to staff its spying projects. What if these scientists and engineers, en-mass, just said "No"? I am nagged by the question: "what does it mean currently when they say yes"?

What if license agreements in software restricted their use to peaceful purposes (and, dare I lump "general business" here)? What if these agreements included provisions that disallowed its use in military and government operations?

I am working on solar energy technology. Our license agreement will be including a statement as to end use and I intend to not sell to the current US government. I am committed to not having my work product in any way be used to enable the current US mal-administration. I've had opportunities to work for "defense" contractors and shunned every one of them.

Of course, even simple paper clips may end up being instruments of war simply because they enable the background administrivia of the war-making apparatus, and so the argument may be extended into a ridiculous black hole.

Still, a statement of principles or an oath is important. I would be early in line to take one if it is ever fashioned.

159. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12166 by k1mgy on December 11, 2006 at 3:51 am

From here in the US, the show looked similar to a classed-up Jerry Springer broadcast, and a good exercise of experience that Richard Dawkins may wish to avoid in future. The basis of his argument is sound; the force of his argument needs no invective, but in such an audience the rules of debate and discussion change. This forum clearly lives for controversial zingers.

He attempted survival in the circus, and despite not being cut out for it (which is surely to the Professor's credit) should receive a passing grade and from us a "survivor" award.

As for that other fellow, the wiry-looking character whose relaxed posture caused me to refer to him as "Mr. Leanback", he pulls one Rabbit out of the hat in the end, attempting to bring down the entire book with its tiny built-in anomaly. Richard Dawkins never says that aliens exist, making the point that any with technology enough to visit us would surely be viewed as "god-like". Instead, he acknowledges the possibility, one in my mind far greater than any god hypothesis itself might rate.

Unfortunately even Dawkins was not prepared to retort this one - but he will be next time. The best way to hold your audience - particularly a bizarre and partisan one as was gathered - is to appear to agree with them. All Dawkins has to say is, "As I say in the book, I cannot state with 100% surety that a supernatural god exists, but I can say there's a higher probability of them than any god"

This would have put the argument of Aliens (and the subliminal association, "UFO", and "nutcase") on its ass.

There are some environments Richard Dawkins thrives in; others where he is challenged as a debater. I salute him for injecting himself into one that surely challenges, and thereby hones, his reasoned argument.