Comments by Donald

151. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55757 by Donald on July 12, 2007 at 7:00 am

Douglas Wilson was scattering so many targets that I guess Hitchens couldn't go for them all.

Wilson began with an unprovoked insult to atheists, comparing their minds to foul soup. Nice start.

Then he goes on:

Your first point was that the Christian faith cannot credit itself for all that "Love your neighbor" stuff, not to mention the Golden Rule, and the reason for this is that such moral precepts have been self-evident to everybody throughout history who wanted to have a stable society. You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are "incredibly immoral." In your book, you make the same point about other religions.

Fine so far.

Apparently, basic morality is not all that self-evident.

Wham. A deception. (I notice religious apologists use deception far more than atheists....)

The immoral teachings from the bible do not imply the people of that time did not understand basic morality.

The problem is that religious teachings claim to put god above all human affairs, including natural morality.

God has to be obeyed, above all else. He will reward you if you do, even if immoral things are done to obey him. And god has to be feared - he will punish you with eternal pain in hell if you disobey.

So, in the atheist view, basic morality has always been self-evident. However, there have been times when it was overwhelmed by enticement from religious false promises of reward, and fear from religious stories of god's terrible vengeance.

Wilson implies a contradiction in Hitchens view. There is no contradiction.


I didn't read on. I have already learnt enough about Douglas Wilson.

I don't know how the musketeers keep their patience when debating intellectual dishonesty.

152. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55727 by Donald on July 12, 2007 at 5:03 am

Goldy wrote: "Biz, is this your biology professor? http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos31dewitt.html"

No, this is Biz's prof: https://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=37

BTW, Biz is Ryan Tomlinson, a biology student at Liberty University. He prefers to post under the pseudonym "Bizarro Dawkins". I have no objection to the first part of his pseudonym, but the second part is misleading, because it might lead visitors to this site to think his surname really is Dawkins, which could lead to occasional confusion on this site.


Paul wrote: "I tend to find that the atheists give up when confronted by clear thinking (I've been contributing to a few threads and the come-backs just stop):"

Just for the record, let me say how I see the reasons for my drawdown of discussion (not just with you but with others I engaged briefly).

I stop when I detect that either the discussion is going in a circle, or is producing too many red herrings and moving goalposts, or if the other party is so deeply committed to an emotionally supported core belief that the debate has no hope of shifting it.

Clear thinking I welcome, rather than run away from.

I can't speak for others who post here, but I suspect many will have similar views.

I would just say, though, that I recognise the soundbites "root of all evil" and "religion poisons everything" are clearly overstatements. There are millions of people who have taken the good bits of religion and live better lives because of it. For example, it seems to me that your personal use of religion is fine Paul.

Nevertheless, while billions of people remain god-believers rather than humanists, they remain vulnerable to charismatic and oppressive leaders who claim to know "what god wants", and can be persuaded into damaging, violent, even suicidal, opinions and actions more easily than humanists can. Discarding belief in god will not get rid of evil, manipulative, power-hungry people, but it can remove one of the easiest ways for them to manipulate people. It's just one step of many that humanity needs to take to improve its future.

Anyway, best wishes on a personal level. (I hope you might visit http://www.dorsethumanists.co.uk if you don't already know of them.)

153. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55137 by Donald on July 10, 2007 at 5:04 am

Paul:The thing is, Donald, that no amount of explaining what does happen in human society, however subtle or intelligent, can amount to the same thing as what SHOULD happen. SHOULD isn't a word you can get at by merely describing what IS. You cannot move from is to ought, it's the naturalistic fallacy.
I understand the "naturalistic fallacy". I wasn't making it.

Biz:I believe that the gist of what Paul is arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) is simply that although the atheist may be able to produce an arbitrary set of rules or even a pseudo-objective moral code, there would still be no logical foundation for either. In other words, certain chemicals may cause a majority of people to look contemptibly on the act of murder, but there is no transcendent or objective standard by which to judge one set of chemicals as acting morally wrong.
Paul/Biz:we agree

I beg your pardon - did you say "arbitrary" (set of rules)?
(tries to do an impression of Dawkins interviewing Haggard in root of all evil)
Biz: yeah
What do you mean by "arbitrary"?
Biz: that people can just make up any rules and "moral" code if there is no god.
Who says moral codes without god are arbitrary?
Biz: atheist philosophy does
... Arbitrary? ARBITRARY?
Not a single atheist philosopher that I know says that.
(end of sketch)

I don't have RD's patience (and I'm not paid to teach public understanding). To reprise an earlier post:
Moral codes (in the sense of advice and instructions for people to lead their lives) have evolved within human culture in parallel with language. They have been shaped by the joint needs of communities and individuals. Intelligent analysis of popular moral codes reveals that they are in the self-interest of both communities and individuals. They are imperfect and incomplete, but are adequate for their survival, and the survival of their carriers. Just as one would expect from evolution.

Moral codes are no more arbitrary than eyes and ears are arbitrary assemblies of chemicals. Moral codes are no more arbitrary than DNA sequences are arbitrary strings of nucleotides.

And talking of "set of chemicals" in Biz's quote above. I wonder how much understanding of emergent properties you two really have. So I offer a few words on that:

The properties of protons, neutrons and electrons, are very different from the properties of atoms. Atoms have emergent properties. They stick to other atoms, they emit and absorb visible light, etc. Protons, neutrons and electrons do not have these properties. Knowing the properties of protons, neutrons and electrons would not help you know the properties of atoms. (Although if you throw in a very precise understanding of quantum mechanics, and a colossal amount of computation, you could work it out.) So, atoms are very different from any of their constituent particles, and we learn the properties of atoms separately from subatomic particles. So it is with molecules. They have emergent properties which make them different from atoms. Water absorbs microwave radiation, which the constituent atoms do not do. Water self-assembles into liquid at room temperature, which the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen do not do. Water is a solvent for things that liquid H and O do not dissolve. Water is very different from the atoms that are its constituents. Polymer molecules are very different from simpler molecules. Proteins are very different from lipids. Some proteins catalyse chemical reactions that are not catalysed any simpler molecules. Very important one that. Living cells are multiple, entwined, auto-catalytic assemblies of molecules. Living cells have the property of self-reproduction that simpler assemblies of molecules do not have. So it is all the way up to people.

As the assemblies become larger, at various points along the way, new properties emerge, and intuitions derived only from the smaller units are inadequate to predict the emergent properties of the larger units. By the time one reaches the level of people, the emergent properties include instincts, thoughts, consciousness, memes, love and other emotions, to name but some.

Now I need something simpler to do. Perhaps I'll try teaching a dog to open its own tins of food. At least the motivation is there.

154. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54930 by Donald on July 9, 2007 at 10:54 am

Paul: "Would you agree that XX, having successfully actually killed anyone who disagrees with the morality of what he has done, would then be acting morally?"

Do you really expect me to answer that?

Paul: "For you, he stops being wrong in any sense when the last dissenter is killed."

Stunningly wrong. And you accuse me of "misunderstanding"?

You obviously did not understand my posts. Morality is a complex subject and I clearly did not anticipate all the ways in which my posts could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which is my fault.

I can only hope you find something useful in other posts here.


PS Corylus: thank you for your kind remark. It's good to know I had one reader. I think you have made excellent posts and it's especially good that these threads are not male-only.

155. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54692 by Donald on July 8, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I don't think your explanation of morality is sufficient. It isn't morality, and it doesn't provide us with a 'should'.

You clearly did not take in my point about the word "morality" (and many other words) meaning different things to different people. I made an attempt to identify the difference in meaning, and seek out what might be common ground and what might remain.

You don't seem to acknowledge that each human independently, within his/her own brain, has built his/her own understanding of what each word in our shared language means. Additionally, most words sit within a fuzzy cloud of associated and related meanings. For most words, we will have built such similar clouds in our brains that when you hear me utter them, any differences are insignificant, and we "understand each other". For example, I doubt you and I have any significant difference of understanding about what is meant by a "chair".
In contrast, some words conspicuously mean different things to different people. "god" is an obvious example here. Everyone builds their own understanding, and differences abound. "love", "honour", "well-off", "liberty", "socialist" are other words with important differences of interpretation.


You seem to believe that there is one and only one RIGHT meaning for "morality", that YOU have the RIGHT definition of "morality", and merely assert that I am wrong.


And as for asserting "your [donald's] version of morality cann't condemn Hitler" ... Ridiculous, as well as wrong.

Your response is, to put it politely, simplistic.

156. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54673 by Donald on July 8, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Hello again Paul,
You clearly put a lot of work into your comment #54526 !
I'll try to respond to some points, since you seem to me to be a rational and thoughtful person, and I appreciate calm and perceptive discussion.

"We don't have direct experience of God. Then again, we don't have direct experience of the physical world. We interpret our experiences to form a pretty good set of descriptions of the physical world that allows us to make predictions, form theories etc. Why can't we interpret our experiences (for example, of making decisions) to theorise that we have free will? Why can't we interpret a very common experience, that one thing is wrong and another right (and that the right thing often falls contrary to our own or even others' best interests), to theorise that there is morality?"
I agree. No reason why not. Most people do interpret their experiences (and of course experiences include what other people have told them) exactly as you describe. However, that's not what you meant.
You really meant "why isn't it the right interpretation, given that most people come to that conclusion.
My answer, of course, is that most people are not well informed about some of the crucial, relevant information available to humans today, but not available centuries ago.
You also seem to insist that morality has to be absolute and that my version of morality is flawed - I'll come back to that.

"Dr Dawkins seems to treat Deists as though they are atheists in TGD. He at least does not try to show in any way that Deists are 'deluded'. I don't understand why."
Again, I'll offer my thoughts in lieu of RD. Deism is a speculation about the origin of the universe. Provided it goes no further, it is not a delusion, merely a possible statement/story about how there is something instead of nothing. Even if it goes further and speculates that a Diest's god might desire the evolution of humans and their presence, it is still not a delusion, merely a speculative story.

It would become a delusion though, if the Deist story were extended into belief that "god" desires particular directions for the evolution of humans, or particular outcomes within the universe and his intervention to achieve them causes things to happen (which wouldn't happen simply due to the laws of nature science has discovered). Or if the story were extended to believe that "god" scoops up humans after death, and places them into heaven or hell according to their behaviour during life. But these extensions are precisely those that distinguish the claims of Theists from Deists.

"I also think we don't understand consciousness in scientific terms yet. It would therefore be no surprise to me if our consciousness tapped into something non-physical when we concern ourselves with moral issues."
That's ok. We can agree to disagree for now. But be prepared to review the evidence in a few years. The study of consciousness is proceeding fast, and getting faster. The new knowledge takes the form of explaining things in terms of physical, and measurable, effects of neurons in the brain. There is still a gap into which a supernatural element could be inserted, but, as with the "vital force" of a century or two ago that people then, thought was necessary to explain the difference between living matter, and non-living, the supernatural explanation looks unnecessary.

"If morality deals with what you should or should not do, that sort of objective morality is incompatible with an atheistic viewpoint" ... "Morality is the wrong term to use if you don't believe there's a 'should' involved."
Crunch. We definitely disagree here. My previous comment about "enlightened self-interest" was unfortunately far too brief to effectively convey my perception of sophisticated self-interest. This comment will also be too short. But I'll offer some amplification.

"Morality" is an example of a word with different meanings for different people. People use this word in different ways. and have different clouds of associations around it. So I will try to guess what is the same about our use of the word, and perhaps what is different, as well as say where I think morality comes from.

The same?: I suspect we both regard "morality" is being about things that are good for people OR human society OR their environment. We both regard "morality" as being about things that people sometimes want to do, or find natural for them to do, but which are prohibited by society as being "immoral" and that people ought not to do.
Different?: I suspect you think "morality" is absolute, and that it is possible to label actions as "immoral" by looking at the action itself. Whereas, I think "morality" is a fluid concept, that in some cases may require extensive examination of very indirect consequences to determine it, although most cases can be assessed simply. Also that there has evolved, along with human language, a bunch of culturally-transmitted rules that tell us, or assist us to judge, what actions are moral and immoral.

With that in mind, let me reply to some of your comments:
"It is possible that rape could lead to survival of genes. if a society was found where rape was acceptable or even encouraged, this would not make rape morally right."
I agree.
Donald then went on to explain (in 35.) how evolution can produce animals or people who 'behave morally'.
Yes.
"This view of morality in descriptive terms is misleading."
I guess I wasn't clear. I was describing a part of the phenomenon of morality. I was explaining that evolution has produced people (and other animals) who have emotional reactions that suffice to explain some kinds of moral action. What I perhaps did not emphasise enough is that culturally transmitted moral codes extend the range of actions that are seen as moral or immoral, by using human thoughts as intermediaries to connect to those innate emotional responses, or by connecting to bad outcomes that the person can foresee.
"Morality is the wrong term to use if you don't believe there's a 'should' involved."
Ok, this is where the culturally-transmitted part comes in. Culturally-transmitted moral codes work with the language of 'should' and 'ought'. A culturally-transmitted rule takes of the form of "you should do..." or "you should not do..." or "you ought to..." etc. This is the standard form of culturally-transmitted moral rules. 'Should' and 'ought' are the language of advice or instruction. There is no link to supernatural absolutes required.

Now, why does an atheist pay any attention to these rules, you may ask. Such rules are often propagated along with religious belief. Why doesn't an atheists simply ignore "morals" when it suits him/her, seeing as he/she is so bold as to reject the belief in god, you may ask?

The answer is that most of the moral rules are also in the self-interest of the individual, despite what may seem to be loss of opportunistic benefit to the individual on some occasions in order to obey the rule. It just requires a deeper understanding of self-interest, rather than a too-simple, or too short-sighted one. Traditional moral rules are effectively good advice for you about how to live in society. Some rules produce self-interest directly. For example, "do unto others as you would be done by..". This means others like you and do good things for you in turn. You will also feel good about helping others. People feel empathy for others. Similarly, "be honest". Lies are tempting, but you are likely to feel bad inside, and will have the difficult task of remembering two versions of "reality" instead of one, for each lie you tell, if you are not to be easily detected.

Some moral rules are supported indirectly rather than directly. For example, "do not commit adultery..". It hurts people and often turns out badly for you in the end - try to avoid it! Perhaps someone feels so confident that adultery or lies will not be detected that they go ahead. But a wise person knows that in this world, we can never be sure what might come to light. Surprises and unexpected coincidences are too common. So moral rules are also enforced (in people wise enough) by the possibility of delayed consequences. And even if the consequence is long delayed, or never occurs, there is usually fear of the possible consequence, and the fear has direct bad effects that are worth avoiding.

I follow standard moral rules closely. I find it easier to live that way. But I regard my choice as being because I am sufficiently wise, not because I secretly or instinctively believe in anything supernatural.

I think the claim that morality is inferior if you do it for practical reasons is merely a manipulative claim that tries to bolster religious belief by asserting that religious morality is superior.


This post addresses only a few points in some very complex issues. but it is already far too long, is taking me too long to write, and has, I suspect, rather few readers, so I'll stop here.

Paul, if you read this far, can I suggest you read the book "Breaking the Spell" by Dan Dennett:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0141017775/ref=sr_1_1/203-6107495-2903104?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183917221&sr=1-1?
I think he is one of the world's greatest living philosophers and he has been compared to Bertrand Russell. Some of the book may wander from your direct interests, but it is very readable, and I am sure you will find a lot in it to interest you.


P.S. Regarding the notorious examples of eugenics, nazis, etc, I think that simplistic reasoning can seem to justify the behaviour, but more sophisticated reasoning will show indirect effects rebounding on the perpetrators. Even if you think that killing/enslaving/whatever is ok because you are not a victim, a fully analysis of the social effects will reveal that you might have some characteristic that could make you a target in a future wave of prejudice, or that the behaviour might attract the attention of other groups within humanity who will seek to fight and eliminate your community. Horrors perpetrated in the past were more localised and less likely to be examined by other groups and communities. As civilisation becomes ever more globalised, the indirect effects become ever more significant. This does not mean that immoral acts in the past were moral because the perpetrators could get away with them. It means that their immorality did not come to light, and the perpetrators had less fear of retribution - a different thing.

157. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53868 by Donald on July 3, 2007 at 5:51 pm

PaulEmecz: "Why must the creator, if there is one, be omniscient?"

Easy one, so I'll answer:

No reason. It is possible that a creator exists, and that the creator is not omniscient.
It is also possible for a creator to exist and not be omnipotent.
I'm not sure which you really had in mind, but the same answer does for both.

However, the main issue that faces us today is: "does the god of the bible/koran exists, or were those ancient scriptures created by superstitious or manipulative humans without the aid of a god?"

I've made my decision (over a long period of time) on the basis of reading the bible and koran, reading religious apologetics, and hadiths, etc, reading about dozens of other gods and religions in various parts of the world, reading a lot of modern science, and trying to understand, as best I can, the world about me, particularly the people in it (including myself), how they behave and what they think.

My conclusion is that the gods of the bible and koran do not exist. The god of the bible was invented and elaborated over centuries by a succession of rulers who wanted power and control, and found that claiming to have a privileged hotline to "god" was a good way to obtain control and obedience from the people. They were aided and abetted by a number of "prophets" who found that they could get fame and attention (if not power) from claims to have heard directly from "god". The god of the koran is only slightly different in that it was created by a single, (historically well-established as real) warlord, who likewise claimed to have a privileged hotline to god. (Some people have suggested his sessions on the hotline were actually epileptic fits.)

More, my conclusion is that all the other gods (Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) are not real either, and that bizarre religions since (mormons, scientologists, etc, etc) are equally unreal.

None of this will surprise you Paul. You were pretty sure that was my opinion, I feel sure.

So, returning to the question.

Is there a creator, even a somewhat sad one, neither omnipotent, nor omniscient?

Could be. I don't know. But is there any evidence for a creator? No.
Are there any mysteries about the universe that can be explained better by a creator than by "naturalistic" explanations? Some say yes. I say no.
Have we shifted from discussing whether the Christian god exists, to inventing a new god to our own requirements? Yes.

Lastly, a word about science versus religions. Sometimes people say that science and religions provide alternative explanations for things. This is not the important point. Explanations are easy and usually worthless. Science is about providing predictions. Given what we observe, what will happen next?. Scientific theories are judged against their ability to predict, not explain. On that basis religions fall down - heavily - the only testable claim they make (intercessory prayer) is easily proved false.

None of the above should be taken as a discussion of morality. That is a large, separate, subject.

Best wishes.

158. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53479 by Donald on July 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I sometimes wonder if the genes that give the ability to read, write and talk are separate from those that give the ability for thinking as opposed to parroting.

If only 4% separate us from chimpanzees, it would only take a few allele differences to make substantial differences in brain function. Perhaps religion and some kinds of stupidity are not only about memes.

Yes, that would be bad news.
We'll probably know in a couple of decades.

159. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53370 by Donald on July 1, 2007 at 4:55 am

Paul,
Thank you for the kind words.
I think you have an excellent attitude - you are willing to listen to other points of view and investigate and learn about new things.
You may wish to reconsider your belief in god at some point.
I hope you aren't blocked from that by emotional influences (remember that love for people can be just the same whether one believes in god or not).
As I remarked in the other thread, humanism is an alternative to religion.
Best,
Donald.

160. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53303 by Donald on June 30, 2007 at 4:49 pm

PaulEmecz: I wish he [RD] could write so clearly about some of the other areas that he seems to tackle so frequently. I would still like to hear him say, honestly and openly, "If morality means 'You should do one thing and you should not do another' then there is no such thing as morality". [...]
Dr Dawkins, you are an intelligent man who can reason very clearly. Please answer the morality question once and for all, and explain to me why it's so wrong (or not!) to be a Deist.

In case you do not get a reply from RD, let me offer a few thoughts.

First, some of morality can be explained as a result of genetic evolution. Other animals have been shown to care for others in altruistic ways, behave cooperatively until cheated and then retaliate, share food, etc, etc. So it is clear that some of our morality is based on genes for behaviour. In particular, we feel good when we help others, and feel bad if we lie or cheat.

Second, moral codes in the sense of culturally transmitted rules (Dawkins would call them memes) are part of human culture, and deal with detail that is beyond the capability of genes to specify. But, as RD points out, moral codes change over time, and clearly are not primarily derived from the bible. They evolve along with language as a form of cultural evolution. So they can also be described as human invention.

Human invention does not mean that they are arbitrary, any more than the shape of a wheel is an arbitrary shape. Moral codes have evolved within human culture to jointly serve the self-interest of individuals and the communities in they live.

I think it troubles some people that without "god" morality is not absolute. Some people assume that if morality is not absolute, then people can do anything they like and everything is equal. This is nonsense, but it seems to be quite common. Morality without god is related to humanity as a whole. To get a well-informed judgement of self-interest for the individual requires some attention to the interests of the community in which that individual is embedded. To get a well-informed judgement of the self-interest of a community requires some attention to the relationship of that community to other communities, and the relationship of human communities to the environment, including other animals. In short, really high quality, enlightened, self-interest results in many of the same rules as the best that religion preach, but is not tied to ancient manuscripts, and is free to develop in parallel with increasing human and scientific knowledge.

Lastly, I think Dawkins does not suggest it is wrong to be a Deist. What he is trying to dispel are beliefs that have bad consequences for society. Beliefs in the god of the bible can be bad if the bible is taken literally as the word of that god. Beliefs that misinform children and block their learning about what science has established beyond reasonable doubt are particularly terrible, and are his main concern. People who believe that they know what "god" wants people to do, and everyone else has it wrong are always dangerous.
Deism of the create-and-run-away kind is more-or-less harmless.

You seem like a good person. If you ever come to the point where you have so much doubt about the reality of "god" that you are looking at what could possibly be an alternative, there is one. Similar approaches to those that religion offers can also be found in the humanist movement. It is possible to be moral, advocate morality, live a satisfying life, and help others, without believing in "god". That is what humanists do.

161. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53287 by Donald on June 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Isn't 'randomness' as much of a cop-out as 'God' in explanatory terms?

I don't think it is. The reason is that "god" would have to have such tremendous insights and powers that it would be, as Dawkins says, a very complex entity, even if we postulate "god" might lie outside our universe.

Whereas randomness is simple to create. It can be created by very simple rules. Take a look at http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html for some nice illustrations of how exceedingly simple rules, replicated across enough even-simpler entities, can produce amazingly complex patterns that are essentially random. The patterns are not forseeable by anything of comparable complexity to the rules (because the rules are uterly trivial). Another curious property of some wolfram-type rules is that although a lot of the patterns are effectively random, some higher-level relationships between patterns can emerge which are not random, although they have no simple relationship to the trivial rules in the underlying machine.

Why don't scientists just admit it and say 'We don't know' rather than saying it was chance?

Scientists do say "we don't know" where that the initial randomness came from. They also say we don't know where the randomness in quantum mechanics comes from.

But your question contains a subtle implication. It suggests that "chance" and "we don't know" are somehow opposites, or at least multually exclusive. In fact, they are perfectly compatible. We don't know, and it seems to be random, which is perhaps what you mean by "chance".

It might be helpful to understand how scientists and mathematicians define random. A good working definition is that random events are choices unrelated to the phenomenon being considered. That is why it is fair to say that wolfram-type simple rules can produce random effects in the patterns.

162. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53257 by Donald on June 30, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Great article. RD is indefatigable in putting the message out.

I have no respect for BeeHee, and RD is quite right when he says BeeHee is retreating in desperation. The wolf example is good for discussing BeeHee's latest claims.

However, there is one point that RD understandably didn't make, and which BeeHee may well have. That is that evolution by random changes to genes in not, in itself, sufficient (in that time frame) to construct new genes to explain the varieties of dogs. The capabilities to build bodies of varying size, legs of varying size, hair of varying length, different shapes of head, ears, etc, etc, were essentially all present in the wolf when man started the evolution of domestication. The genomes of mammals contain a toolkit of genes for building a variety of bodies. That variety carries the imprint of successive evolutionary environments over hundreds of millions of years that, over time, selected for different characteristics. With characteristic economy, evolution found ways to choose gene sets that could be tweaked via control genes and minor mutations, rather than create radically different gene sets for each environment. So today, selective breeding is more about tweaks and turning on and off genes, or adjusting expression rates, than about waiting for new genes to be created (although new genes do still get created, that's a much slower process than "twiddling the knobs" within a multi-purpose gene set).

This does not invalidate anything in RD's article, but anyone who wants to follow discussions about mutation rates and gene construction may want to bear this in mind.

Of course, if I'm wrong about this, RD or others here will no doubt correct me. I'm not an evolutionary biologist.

163. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53213 by Donald on June 30, 2007 at 6:13 am

Billy ..sex...
Thanks, Billy. Yes, sex is great. By which I mean, of course, that sex is a great way to try out rearrangements of DNA fragments. Most importantly, as you point out, it is not just rearrangements of the DNA within a single individual, but rearrangements of fragments from anywhere in the whole population, given enough generations. It means the entire population is an entity evolving, not just individuals. This greatly increases the rate of evolution as measured by tracking individuals, as you say. Also, biologists have discovered that DNA is transferred by plasmids and viruses throughout the biosphere. So it is actually the whole of earth's living biomass that is evolving, not just each species separately.

PaulEmecz: I really do think that evolution is not just the result of random mutations.

I agree. So does Dawkins, and every other evolutionary biologist.

Evolution is the result of "natural selection". Let me amplify the meaning of natural selection.

Natural selection means that there is a competitive situation. It means that there are fewer places for something than there are things.

It is not exclusively biological. For example:
The earth has heavy stuff (mainly iron) at the centre and light stuff (water and air) as the outer layers. This is the result of natural selection. Gravity drew tiny grains of dust together. There are fewer places at the centre of a ball than there are places in the whole ball. The heavy particles won the natural selection competition, which involved much violent jostling and collisions between particles to convert the initial random, approximately uniform distribution, into the result we see. There was no need for a celestial entity to carefully sort the particles to achieve this extremely improbable distribution (of nearly all the heavy stuff at the centre).

Obvious, you say. Yes, and so is biological natural selection, once you understand it.

The relevant competitive situations have changed over the eons of evolution. One reasonable speculation is that the earliest competitive situations were competitions for binding sites on mineral surfaces, with simple molecules being the competitors and (at the earth surface in particular) a proportion of them being "killed" (I.e. dislodged from their binding site) twice a day due to tides.

Later, the competitive situation would be location near to an energy source. There are fewer places near to sunlight, and near to hot springs, than there are places throughout the whole oceans. Natural selection would favour molecules that first survived the energy flows, and later exploited the energy flow to maintain position near the energy flow.

Then there is a big gap in our knowledge. There is not yet good understanding of how molecular groupings might arrange themselves into a primitive cell, nor how DNA might have come about. [This gap is the easiest into which to insert a belief in "god". But, be warned, this gap is shrinking fast.]

It is still true today that there is insufficient energy source (food) for all the molecular whirlpools (cells) that exist at any one time. Cells die, and only some survive.

In the last few hundred million years, the competition has between different colonies of cells, rather than individual cells. Each colony (read creature) effectively creates a new competitive situation for the other creatures. Each creature is in competition against other creatures for the food. This creates selection pressure, and the more successful creatures survive and the others die.

The ever-changing arenas of competition have led to a ratchet effect in complexity. To be successful, creatures must be as capable as their competitors, and then have an extra advantage. This increases the complexity of the environment (= competitive situation) for others. The result has been ever increasing complexity.

164. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53132 by Donald on June 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm

A reasonable post from Bizarro.
So here is a reasonable response.

I am surprised that the wildlife on the Galapagos (the finches in particular) is still so revered by evolutionists as evidence for common descent.

I don't think it is revered as strong evidence. It is celebrated because it was a memorable tipping point that triggered a revolution in human scientific thought.

I really have a hard time understanding how such demonstrably limited adaptation can be extrapolated to imply large scale evolutionary development.

Yes, one needs a great deal more evidence to confirm Darwin's speculation. Darwin had more than finches to go on, of course, but he was still going out on a limb. Since Darwin, though, his speculation has been overwhelmingly confirmed by ever-increasing evidence on many fronts, e.g. fossils (some very recent, e.g. tiktaalik - have you read http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php?), by ever-increasing DNA analysis, by evolution of disease microbes and drug resistance, and by better understanding of genetic and molecular processes from computer simulation.

any intellectually honest and scientifically inclined individual understands that the "evolutionary" processes we observe today and what scientists extraneously fabricate from those observations are two very different animals.

True, in the sense that placing a moving a brick onto a garden wall is very different from building a city. Not true, in respect of the principles involved.

We can also bring time into it; massive amounts of time, millions and billions of years. I still don't see how this can solve the problem.

It's only one contribution to solving the problem. Note however, that time alone changes things dramatically. Could you walk 10 miles in a day? I think you could. So you could walk the distance from the west coast to the east coast in a year. You could walk the distance to the sun and back 20 times in a million years. And a billion years is a thousand times longer. Yes, time is definitely part of the solution.

Another part of the solution is that evolution is not linear in time. Complexity grows exponentially, not linearly. Have you seen Kurzweil's talk - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/38? He is talking about how technology has grown over human history. It takes a mental readjustment to really understand the consequences of exponential growth if one has previously been thinking mainly linearly. Another talk about the human genome project - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/80 - makes the same point about the effects of exponential growth on accumulation of knowledge about DNA sequences.

Now, Kurzweil and Enriquez were talking about human acquisition of knowledge. However evolutionary biologists understand that the same character of exponential growth applies to biological evolution too. At all stages of DNA evolution, the process includes copying chunks of DNA by accidental duplication and modification. In the beginning the chunks were tiny, and modification could only operate on small pieces or individual bases. Later, the chunks were large, and modification could be about rearranging DNA fragments, rather than about changing bases, one by one. For much of the evolution of living things, it would be more appropriate to think of in terms of a "doubling time" for complexity, rather than a time for "adding each gene".

This switch from linear estimating to exponential estimating makes even MORE difference than the expansion of time scale from thousands to millions to billions.

We don't observe evolutionary processes adding novel genetic code to species populations.

I'll let BillySands deal with that one. But I'll throw in my twopennyworth. First, time. Don't expect too much from observations from one decade compared to millions of years. Second, there is another aspect of DNA evolution to mention. It follows on from my comments about exponential growth rather than linear growth. Most of the evolution today operates on the higher level of rearranging existing chunks rather than painstakingly constructing new genes. Mutations are still occurring, and new genes can still gradually get constructed, but the reason for the spectacular explosion in the Post-Cambrian (Phanerazoic) era is that evolution has been operating on rearranging and adjusting the genes for basic body parts evolved earlier, rather than constructing genes and gene sequences one by one. (In this vein, don't forget that you (and me) get 70% of our genes from plants!!)

There is little if any evidence to imply that it has ever occurred, save for a handful of disputed fossils that most evolutionary paleontologists are constantly arguing over.

Erm... Could I politely suggest that you should rephrase that to "I [bizarro] am not yet aware of the evidence scientists have discovered..."

It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence.

Agreed. But you are grossly underestimating the scale and weight of the evidence that scientists have accumulated for the evolution of modern life from simple prokaryotes. It enables today's well-informed scientists indeed to "clearly infer evolution from the evidence".

165. God Hates the World

Comment #52954 by Donald on June 28, 2007 at 5:32 pm

More errors, non-sequitors, straw men, misrepresention, digressions and speculations etc.

Flea wrote:

Comment #52668 by Donald
Why do you find it so easy to accept what Phelps says as the truth? Because you want it to be.

The mere fact of using bible quotes means nothing. It is the context in which they are used and the reason they are used that should be thought about. But you won't do that. Why? Because you want to be able to blame the Phelps on religion.

Anyone who cares to look back at comment #52668
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1326,God-Hates-the-World,Westboro-Baptist-Church,page4#52668
will see that David avoids answering the central issue of that comment, just as he avoided answering the previous comments in that sequence.

Instead, David has offered more straw men, and digressions.
David: "Why do you find it so easy to accept what Phelps says as the truth?"

This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question. I don't easily accept what Phelps says. I checked his claims of what is written in the bible (by looking in the bible), and found those claims to be true.

David goes on to imply he can read my mind: "Because you want it to be."

Not so. You are not a very good mind reader. When I checked Phelps claims about what was written in the bible, I had no interest either way. I simply wanted to know whether the claims were true or not. I found those claims were true.

David goes on to say: "The mere fact of using bible quotes means nothing."

Perhaps it suits you at this point to say that. I think it means that someone has read the bible carefully enough to quote it correctly.

David goes on: "It is the context in which they are used and the reason they are used that should be thought about."

It is true that context is important, but this an attempt to switch the discussion from whether Phelps gets his message from the bible to why Phelps is doing it. Does Phelps get his message from the bible? You have tried to evade that question.

David:: "But you won't do that."

Not so. I already did.

David:: "Why? Because you want to be able to blame the Phelps on religion."

More inaccurate mind reading. I don't want to blame Phelps on religion. I want to observe and draw any conclusions that seem to be justified by facts. Fact - Phelps quotes the bible. Fact - Phelps is quoting the bible accurately. Fact - Phelps claims to be speaking for god. Fact - there seems to be a link with religion here.

Since you base some of what you say on speculation about what is in my mind, let me help here:
I am not specially interested in the gays versus homophobics issue. I prefer to discuss belief in god. I am deeply interested in the question of what beliefs people have about "god" and why they have them. The bible seems to be an important source of beliefs about "god", especially about what "god" wants people to do. That was the reason I made a comment about Phelps.

As I see it, you have avoided responding to my point directly, instead you have scattered chaff from several posts, despite my attempt to focus in one point at a time.

Since you have treated several other people here in the same manner, you find yourself dealing with a flurry of antagonistic posts. How does this help you? Is it what you wanted?

166. Giuliani To Regent University: 'The Amount Of Influence You Have Is Really, Really Terrific'

Comment #52844 by Donald on June 28, 2007 at 7:38 am

Yes, he may have deliberately chosen the word "terrific" because of its double meaning.

If he is a closet atheist, or merely anti-Robertson, that would be a way for him to preserve a vestige of self-respect while pandering to his audience.

I am reminded of a hostage crisis some years ago, when the captives issued a statement under command of their captors. They referred to wishing to "paean" their captors. Thery were betting that the captors would have to look up the dictionary definition, and would not pay attention to the spoken ambiguity. It worked. They effectively spoke past the hostage-takers, and the western media did the necessary translation and explanation for their audience.

So, is Giuliani god-appeasing, or expert in double speak? Not a great choice.

167. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52799 by Donald on June 28, 2007 at 5:29 am

Excellent article by Penn Jillette.
It is worth keeping for reference. It is rare to see positive aspects of atheism presented so well. (I think Penn Jillette took religious pious propaganda as a template, and carefully replaced reliance on god with benefits from tackling the real world directly. The result is brilliant.)

[ Josh - I think think this deserves to be a "featured article", not merely in the "news list". ]

I too particularly liked the thought singled out by BT Murtagh:

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Incidentally, it would be a perfect item for BBC's "thought for the day" if only they would give up their insistence that only religious believers are permitted in that slot.

168. Giuliani To Regent University: 'The Amount Of Influence You Have Is Really, Really Terrific'

Comment #52673 by Donald on June 27, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I hope this is just a misprint. Surely he said ".. really, really terrifying". Didn't he? Oh.
Disgusting.

169. God Hates the World

Comment #52668 by Donald on June 27, 2007 at 5:07 pm

I think it is unhelpful to be insulting to David Robertson. I think there are only two good options - ignore him, or reply patiently, stating what we see as errors, non-sequitors or misrepresentations.

With that in mind, I give below a couple of comments on the following sequence of extracts:

Donald: this video points to an underlying problem with people who believe the bible relays messages from "god".

DAR: Donald is yet another one who thinks that Phelps gets his message from the Bible. Yet Phelp's message is directly contrary to the Bible. But does that stop Donald and others lumping them altogether. And you encourage this kind of ignorance?

scottishgeologist, Donald et al post the exact biblical quotes Phelps uses, which show Phelps is quoting the bible, which has very clear homophobic statements.

Donald: David, you accuse me and others of ignorance. Are you sure it is me that is ignorant about where Phelps gets his message? You say "Phelps message is directly contrary to the bible". Yet Phelps quotes the bible as the source of his message.

DAR ignores Donald, and replies to scottishgeologist: What I find extraordinary here is your simplistic naivete. Do you really think that just because people quote the Bible that that somehow makes them a Christian?

Ok, lets look at some aspects of this.

(1) David seeks to avoid answering the original issue about people believing what is written in the bible. He avoided it by simply saying, without justification, that Donald and others are IGNORANT.
(2) When SG, Donald et al, produce evidence that Phelps is really using bible quotes (and accurately too), David does not attempt to provide alternative explanations. He rounds on scottishgeologist and claims he is SIMPLISTIC AND NAIVE.
(3) He also tries to switch the argument from whether Phelps gets his views from the bible, to whether Phelps is a Christian. We weren't talking about whether Phelps is Christian. That is a separate question.

One might wonder why David doesn't offer some reason interpreting the Phelps quotes as meaning something else, and doesn't suggest that these particular bible quotes are out of date or inappropriate today.

I think the answers are: (a) Those particular quotes are perfectly clear, so they don't mean anything else. (b) David is in a dead end, logically speaking. He has previously said the bible is inerrant. So he can't really be credible if he now says those quotes are inapplicable.

So, poor chap, boxed in and nowhere to go, he says YOU'RE IGNORANT, SIMPLISTIC AND NAIVE. I think he is capable of better.

It's a pity. If only David could do a Jonathan Edwards.

170. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52304 by Donald on June 26, 2007 at 5:02 pm

I thought this item was great.

For several seconds it showed nothing but a picture of the God Delusion book (long enough for fox news viewers to read the title).

Then "Father Jonathan" says people like him buy the book.

Then he goes on to make controversial statements while fox news shows a video of muslims praying alongside.

Random House couldn't do better if they were paying for it.

171. Journey Into Islam

Comment #52298 by Donald on June 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Clear support for what Sam Harris has been saying.

How can we get western politicans to read some of this stuff? Perhaps it would have been slightly better to send "End of Faith" to the UK MPs rather than TGD.

I'd love to think that western leaders privately understand this, and prefer not to say it out loud. But everything we know about our politicians suggests they are really are blind to the reality of Islam.

172. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #52291 by Donald on June 26, 2007 at 4:20 pm

I didn't know that. Most religions, or some? Sincerely, if you revisit this thread can you please list a few so I can check that out?

The big example is the jewish religion, as described in the OT(aka torah). It is all about things that happen in life, and how god wants humans to behave. There is no mention of afterlife, at least not until the Pharisees started a belief in resurrection, a little ahead of Xianity starting. In turn, this suggests that the numerous cultures and tribes that came and went in Mespotamia for a couple of thousand years prior to Xianity, probably did not have religions that were based on an afterlife.

The (contemporary) Egyptian culture did have a belief in afterlife, but, successful though it was, it was only one of many cultures of the time.

Europe had numerous Celtic religions during that time. There seem to be no written records of the beliefs, but according to myths and folklore, they believed in spirits, and a spirit world, but one of fairies, gods and other supernatural beings, not dead humans. (To be fair, one historian does include a version of the greek hades, but he was a greek, writing about celts 500 years after Xianity, according to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_World)

Perhaps I should have said, I was thinking of an afterlife belief where human consciousness continues, and thus the dead human in hell/heaven is aware of his fate and what caused it. I was not thinking of reincarnation beliefs where a spirit continues, but with a fresh start.

So I would class Buddhists, and most Hindus, as not having a belief in an afterlife (at least not in the sense of Xianity/Islam).
http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/afterlife.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu

Also, it seems to me that most of the gods in most religions are primarily about influencing things in the here and now, such as gods of rain, sunshine, crops, fertility, travel, etc, etc. http://pantheon.org provides one online index.

YMMV of course. I don't claim any special expertise in ancient religions.


Despite what it says on the wikipedia page you quoted, I do not see religions as primarily driven by fear of death.
(1) For most of human evolution, life has been about getting enough food and avoiding disasters. Religion had first to support that. Life after death would be secondary. Rituals to charm the gods would be primary.
(2) Children do not have a well-developed sense of death. Children are instinctively concerned about being provided with food, care and avoiding punishment. A concept of death can be taught, but I disagree that it is primal.
(3) Yes, it is possible to introduce fear of death into children, although it has to be done by describing it as eternal punishment, rather than merely a statement that they will not exist for ever. The big religions have evolved to use this trick widely, I agree.
(4) It is well known that young people (say, people in the first half of their lives) mostly live their lives "as if they were going to live for ever". To me this means "without thinking about death because it's a distant prospect, irrelevant for now", not "with a belief in an afterlife".
(5) Religion is entwined with getting people to obey the dictates of a religious ruler. Punishment in the here and now, via peer pressure, cruelty by example, and rewards for submitting, expulsion for resisting, etc, are more effective than threats/promises about what happens after death.

The afterlife beliefs seem to me to have been a useful add-on, not primary. The add-on has gradually become more influential as life has become more secure, and people were able to spend less of their time on basic survival and more on socialising. Afterlife beliefs would appear disproportionately large in pre-history because tombs, etc have left physical traces, whereas rituals, oral traditions, and other religious practices, etc have not. However, this is all IMO. Again YMMV.

173. God Hates the World

Comment #52051 by Donald on June 26, 2007 at 3:33 am

Flea wrote:

55. Donald is yet another one who thinks that Phelps gets his message from the Bible. Yet Phelp's message is directly contrary to the Bible. But does that stop Donald and others lumping them altogether. And you encourage this kind of ignorance?

Here are extracts from Phelps message, copied, unedited, from his website:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight, thou hatest all workers of iniquity." Psalm 5:5.

In summary, sodomites are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13), are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32).....

David, you accuse me and others of ignorance. Are you sure it is me that is ignorant about where Phelps gets his message?
You say "Phelps message is directly contrary to the bible".
Yet Phelps quotes the bible as the source of his message.

Does your copy of the bible not have those quotes?

174. God Hates the World

Comment #51944 by Donald on June 25, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Flea wrote:

I am really angry and disgusted with you for doing this. It is the worst thing you have done on this website yet and deserves an immediate apology and retraction.
David Robertson

scottishgeologist wrote (good post):

Phelps knows his bible well and that is exactly where the problem lies. Every one of his hateful assertions is backed up from "scripture" Check out his home page where he gives proof after proof for his anti gay ideas.
"Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" is absolutely chock full of Phelps-isms - and all quoted from Scripture!
The problem isnt Phelps - its the disgusting holy book of hate that he reads and quotes from. He is actually being quite honest. The hypocrites are those conservative Christians who conveniently ignore the "difficult" bits and try to present a lovey-dovey God.
Hate is actually a biblical value. Try Romans 9:13 - "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" Those who are "saved" are loved, the rest, ie most of mankind, well, hated.
Prof Dawkins is right in his statement about "God" : 'the most unpleasant character in all fiction ... a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'

David - are you embarrassed by some of your fellow bible readers? Not surprising in this extreme case. But geologist is right - this video points to an underlying problem with people who believe the bible relays messages from "god".

David - didn't you post that the bible is inerrant? More than once?

We can all agree that Phelps is an unpleasant fringe character.

Who just happens to believe what he reads in the bible.

175. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51835 by Donald on June 25, 2007 at 8:33 am

Donald wrote:

I'm not convinced that awareness of death has a large part to play either. Most people live most of their lives without thinking about their death. It may be handy to provide religions with a few death-bed conversions, and it may provide opportunities for religions to indoctrinate while the bereaved are sad and vulnerable, but it's only one element in a complex phenomenon.

Thor wrote:

"Most people live most of their lives without thinking about their death"
But I think religion plays a huge part in enabling some people to do this! I dont think living past death is at the forefront of every religious person's mind every day. However, i do think that the belief in an afterlife allows some people to not worry about the issue again. Once they buy in to religion then their fear of death disappears and they try not to let it come back.

Well, religions before Xianity and Islam, mostly did not have any notion of afterlife. People assumed that when you died you returned to the state you were in before being born, i.e. not existing. That is my belief today. I don't find the thought of being dead at all worrying or frightening. (I dislike the process of ageing, and dislike the prospect of being crippled, in pain, or helpless just prior to death, but that's a somewhat different matter.) Afterlife has not been essential as an element of successful religions.

However, I agree that it has become an important element of the main religions today. I was a bit careless in expressing doubt that awareness of death "has a large part to play". I should perhaps have said it wasn't an essential part, being a relatively recent invention at the time of creating the Jesus myths, and not part of the OT.

I also differ slightly from your perspective above. You wrote that the belief in an afterlife allows (some) people not to worry about the issue again. Ok, but this rather implies that the natural state of people is to worry about death. I don't think that. I think the fear of death is deliberately implanted into people by Xianity and Islam, reinforced by terrible threats of hell and eternal hateful damnation by god, so that they can dangle the carrot of eternal bliss in heaven as an alternative, if only people obey the dictates of that particular brand of Xianity/Islam.

176. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51821 by Donald on June 25, 2007 at 6:17 am

Baddiel wrote, and attracted comments from Benway & Charlou:

The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose)

Well, if we view religion according to a theory of memes, religion has to increase "fitness". Usually "fitness" is equated with survival, because harsh environments are the norm. However, in benign environments, so benign that population explosions occur, "fitness" can mean reproductive success, rather than fitness to survive against the vicissitudes of the environment.

The most "successful" of the major religions (Roman Catholics and Islam) contain doctrines designed to maximise the production of indoctrinated offspring.

As regards the other reasons for the "reproductive success" of religions, it helps humans self-assemble into communities which have sufficient central control propagated downwards via a hierarchy of obedience to act coherently as a single "organism". This coherence improves the community's survival against harsh environments and competing communities. Religion is not the only possible meme-package that can achieve communal coherence and obedience, but it is the most successful in the evolutionary sense of the most widespread.

I think the Dawkins "by-product" argument is only scratching the surface of the phenomenon of religions as a meme package. Religions are not about to fade away because a tiny minority of intelligent people point out that "god" is a human invention and does not actually exist (at least not in the form of conventional religion). There have been people pointing that out for thousands of years, long before Darwin, Telescopes and DNA sequencing strengthened the argument.

I'm not convinced that awareness of death has a large part to play either. Most people live most of their lives without thinking about their death. It may be handy to provide religions with a few death-bed conversions, and it may provide opportunities for religions to indoctrinate while the bereaved are sad and vulnerable, but it's only one element in a complex phenomenon.

177. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51724 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 10:51 am

Thanks for your calm and polite reply, Frank.

You write:

"For the most part atheists do not seek to impose their beliefs on others."- Donald.

That is very untrue. Communism/Marxism is inherently atheistic, and one of their main goals is to quash religion and spirituality by imposing their ideology on others, using unethical methods. Did you know that Communism is seen by their followers as a political science? Where do you think political correctness derives from? It is Marxist propaganda designed to distort truths by deconstructing historical texts, and inserting their own meaning. I do not wish to drag you into a political debate, so I will briefly mention that our state elite (that are majority secular and atheist) are extremely hostile to the principles and practices of Christianity. They are introducing legislation that prevents Christians the freedom to practice their beliefs. How is that not imposing upon religion?

I agree that a few ruthless and despotic regimes have imposed atheism and tried to prevent theism by force. But I don't see this as typical of atheists. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill, are usually paraded at this point. But throughout history there have been even more ruthless dictators and despotic regimes who imposed belief in god and ruled in the name of god, Popes from the inappropriately-named Innocent III onwards, Kings e.g. Henry XIII, Emperor Hirohito of WWII, etc, etc, and I haven't even mentioned the current middle east! I think ruthless and despotic dictators will use whatever belief systems are around at the time for their own ends, although I suspect it helps them if they can become personally deluded that god is on their side!

I don't regard the current crop of atheists as trying to impose beliefs. I regard it as a verbal battle for the best possible concepts (memes Dawkins might call them) that make sense of our world and guide humanity towards a better future.

Rather, the boot is on the other foot. For centuries, it has been religions that have had the upper hand, and imposed beliefs via blasphemy laws, death or excommunication for speaking out against religion, etc, etc. Now that atheists are speaking out against the theists instead of being silent, it feels to religious believers that the atheists are imposing, simply because the past imposition of religious beliefs has held sway for so long.

That said, beliefs and rights do conflict of course. If one group believe they have the right to go everywhere banging a large drum, and the rest believe they have a right to peace and quiet, then there will be a quarrel which will not end until one side wins.

So, if the "principles and practices of Christianity" you referred to, are impinging on others (e.g. preventing medical research, preventing medical treatment, removing civil rights from minorities, seeking privilege, seeking disproportionate representation in government, etc, etc) then you can expect a quarrel.

You say "They [atheists] are introducing legislation that prevents Christians the freedom to practice their beliefs." What specific legislation did you have in mind?

178. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51694 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 6:14 am

Frank Hodson wrote

Prayers are not meant to perform miracles.

Excuse me? Is this a new strand in religious thinking? The traditional reason for prayer is to ask "god" to intervene and cause something in the world to be different from what it otherwise would be. Given what we now know about physics and the rest of our scientific understanding of the universe, that means that every traditional prayer is asking for a miracle, be it big or small.

However, I do not see the harm in prayer,

Agreed, if it is personal prayer and does not displace practical, real-world, actions that might help to bring about the desired result.

In fact there is one kind of prayer that we might agree is beneficial. That is prayer to "god" to help the praying person overcome unwanted feelings. This might be prayer to get through difficult times, prayer to overcome feelings of hate that are damaging the person praying, prayer to become a better person within, or prayer to help the person praying to reach out to other people in love, friendship and mutual support.

That kind of prayer works whether or not the praying person believes in god or not, or which version of god is believed. It is akin to meditation, mantras and self-hypnosis into desirable behaviour patterns. It is perfectly possible to interpret that kind of prayer without belief in a supernatural creator, invisible sky father, or what-have-you. That kind of prayer can be highly beneficial and not harmful at all.

But it is dangerously close to apparently similar prayer that affirms that the praying person is superior to other people, because the praying person believes in the "true god" and others don't, and apparently similar prayers that assert the right of the praying person to oppose the interests of others because the praying person has access to "what god wants people to do" and the others don't.

As long as religion stays personal, no big problem. Unfortunately most religions come entwined with power hierarchies that seek to impose their beliefs and way of life on others. That leads to conflict and possibly to disaster for human civilisation.

For the most part atheists do not seek to impose their beliefs on others. They try to educate people about what science has really discovered (which is far more than most people actually understand), and try to point out the contradictions and absurdities in the ancient myths handed down from a time when most people did not know that the earth was round, that the earth went round the sun, before people understood that diseases were caused by viruses and bacteria instead of evil spirits, and before people understood the real causes of thunderstorms, earthquakes, floods, etc, instead of believing that they were caused by evil spirits or a wrathful "god".

The need has become urgent due to an appalling resurgence of the use of religious belief by western politicians and the even more appalling and deeply rooted religious domination of political power in Islamic countries.

179. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Comment #51684 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 5:01 am

Donald wrote:

do you have any well-thought-out suggestion for a simulation scenario that is:
(a) simple enough for a present-day desktop PC to run
(b) does not require external selection towards a predetermined goal
(c) has scope for ever increasing complexity
(d) will develop some complex function that humans will recognise as analogous to something in real evolution.

Steve quickly suggested:

Evolution lab: http://biologyinmotion.com/evol/
Evolution Simulator: http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml

I have looked at both. I don't think either meet my criterion (c) above. Evolution lab also fails the "complex function" of my criterion (d). The swimming motions of Evolution Simulator qualify on (d), but I don't see scope for ever-increasing complexity.

[ Incidentally, Evolution Lab also fails badly on user interface. The control functions are harder to learn and understand than the very simple educational point it is trying to make! ]

Also, they lack qualities that will draw people to them (I thought the watchmaker video was more engaging).

Worthy, but no cigar. Good scenario still sought.

180. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Comment #51675 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 3:44 am

Steve99 wrote: "I don't think a video like this is going to change any minds unless it presents a far more realistic simulation, where functionality just appears by itself, with selection coming from within the model, and not from the programmer/user."

It might be possible to find a better simulation demonstration. But someone has to come up with a better scenario.

Steve, do you have any well-thought-out suggestion for a simulation scenario that is:
(a) simple enough for a present-day desktop PC to run
(b) does not require external selection towards a predetermined goal
(c) has scope for ever increasing complexity
(d) will develop some complex function that humans will recognise as analogous to something in real evolution.

It might be possible. Can you find such a scenario?

181. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Comment #51667 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 3:12 am

I like the evolving-clock video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0. It only addresses one part of the evolution versus god argument, but one can only do so much in a short video. I wonder if someone could make that program into an entertaining downloadable program that kids could run on their PC and see visual representations of representative clocks during the evolution in some visual way?



Also, I notice that the watchmaker video http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html shows considerable progress compared with a century ago.

It describes living cells as complex machines. Great. No vital force. No continual intervention by a spirit.

The watchmaker video is much closer to Deism than Theism. (Of course, the creators of of that video don't see it that way. They see it as the best defensive position they can hold to claim the existence of their version of "God". But I see it as an intermediate form between Theism and Deism. And Deism is a major major improvement over the Abrahamic nonsense.)

So, scientific knowledge is gradually winning the battle over ancient myths.

But the progress does not look fast enough to avert global disasters for human civilisation. I see the problem as not so much the billions of people who believe nonsense. Most of them would change their "beliefs" if fed the right information diet. The problem is that religions are not merely personal belief systems. They are all, to some degree, political systems. By that I mean that they provide a hierarchy of power and control for the individuals who climb within, and aspire to control as large a slice of humanity as possible. I am appalled at the extent religions have gained control of western politicians, and particularly appalled at the depths of religious domination in the Islamic world. (Islam is an overtly political system, and the main forms explicitly desire world domination.)

I hope every clear-thinking reader, especially those recovered from delusional propaganda, can find some way, whether small or large, to spread enlightenment and counter religious propaganda.

182. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51081 by Donald on June 21, 2007 at 11:40 am

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (aka Preston Manning): "Unfortunately, in pursuing this course of action, my colleagues and I made a grievous mistake - a mistake that, in the end, seriously discredited ourselves, our conception of reality and the organizations through which we advanced and defended it."

Yep, and you are still doing it.

"I am writing this letter in the sincere hope of dissuading you, the author of The God Delusion, and your colleagues - scientists and atheists, as I believe you describe yourselves - from repeating our mistake.."

Don't worry, old chap, we haven't and we won't. But thanks for acknowledging that RD isn't making your mistake.


And since you are a politician, perhaps this would be a good moment to point out that our dispute with religions and the religious is not only about beliefs. Anyone can believe about in fairies, spirits of rocks and trees, or whatever, if they must. It's about power and who has the right to dictate what is taught to children. You want to implant into children a belief that there is a god, plus a belief that you know what "god" wants us to do, which in turn, gives you and your ilk a power base from which to control and dictate important social and political decisions.

You misunderstand science profoundly if you think that is another belief system on a par with religion. Science is based on enquiry, continually accumulating evidence, and is a living, growing, body of knowledge in a way that "god did it" can never be.

We want to implant into young children a fair-minded summary of what science has established beyond reasonable doubt (earth goes round sun, evolution, etc) and as they get older, encourage a spirit of enquiry that will enable them to adapt to the discoveries and circumstance of the future, instead of shackling them to beliefs and dogma that belong in the graveyard.

183. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50677 by Donald on June 19, 2007 at 11:51 am

Following on from 50653, I took another small dose of Hedges. The next sentence from Hedges opening speech was:
"...This individualism is the central doctrine and most important contribution of monotheism - we are enjoined after all to love our neighbour, not our tribe."

The manoeuvre becomes clear. He is attempting to blame the hostility between social groups on "tribalism" , and thus free religions from blame. He intends to completely the ignore the enormous contribution religion makes to define people into separate groups in the first place, and then ignore the doctrines in religions that create hostility between religious groups.

Some of those doctrines are:
Sect A says sect B has got the story wrong, and therefore do not believe in the real god.
Only believers in the real god go to heaven, all others go to hell. (belief throughout xianity and islam)
Allah hates unbelievers. (repeated many time in Koran)
Unbelievers will go to hell, whereas believers will go to heaven. (sentiment repeated many times in Koran)
Allah says "don't take unbelievers as friends". (explicit in the Koran, e.g. 60:13)
If you take unbelievers as friends allah will punish you. (explicit in Koran, e.g. 58:14-15)
Allah wants the whole world to submit to Islam.
And the worst of all: in the Koran, careful reading, in context, shows that all the injunctions to be kind and help neighbours, to not kill etc, are intended as rules for muslims to follow in regard to fellow muslims. Non-muslims (i.e. unbelievers) are hated by god, are not to be taken as friends, and are to be fought (and killed) if they oppose Islam. That's what it says.

Now, if you believe there is a supreme being rewards you for following him, and sends you to hell if you don't, and you also believe that the supreme being hates the "others" enough to send them to everlasting hell, then doesn't that create a divide deeper and more destructive than tribal rivalry? The evidence from history is that religious divisions are indeed worse than tribal rivalry.

And this guy spent many years in the middle east? He didn't read the Koran to see what it actually says???

Hedges goes on:
"This empowerment of individual consciousness is the starting point of the great ethical systems of our civilisation. The prophets ... helped institutionalise dissent and criticism."

That's enough for me. I can't bear to listen to Hedges in more than very very small doses (about 60 seconds at a time). Judging from the other comments here, I think I would do serious damage to my blood pressure if I listened to all of Hedges nonsense.

My admiration for Sam's ability to remain patient and produce calm responses is enormous.

[edit: correction to length of time Hedges spent in middle east]

184. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50653 by Donald on June 19, 2007 at 8:20 am

Sam is very impressive as usual. Great opening speech.

I found Hedges hard to listen to. Hedges started with:
"...[Sam] fails to grasp the supreme importance of the monothestic traditions in creating the concept of the individual. This individualism, the belief that we can exist as distinct beings from the tribe or the crowd, and that we are called on as individuals to make moral decisions that at times defy the clamour of the tribe or the nation, is a gift of the Abrahamic faiths."

My jaw dropped. So individuals before Abraham did not think they were distinct beings? They did not make moral decisions? All moral decisions were collective decisions of the tribe or nation? The claims of the religites seem to grow ever stronger and more bizarre.

I have never heard this claim before, and it is out of line with what I believed about Greek civilisation, Roman civilisation, the early history of religions, and human nature.

However, in case Hedges is quoting a mainstream view that I had not heard before, where should I look for the historical or philosophical underpinnings for this opinion from Hedges? Or is Hedges talking nonsense that he made up himself?

185. In the know

Comment #50252 by Donald on June 16, 2007 at 3:39 am

Vernon's profile in the Guardian says he left the Church of England after becoming an atheist. Probably he figured out that religions peddle a load of fictions, claiming they are truth. Good.

Now Vernon says he is an agnostic, which makes him sound a bit wimpish.

In fact the evidence that the god of the bible is a human invention and does not exist is overwhelming - about as strong as the evidence that the earth orbits the sun.

I think he should stop wallowing in uncertainty and keep it simple. The earth orbits the sun. God is a human invention and does not exist.

[It is fine to keep the uncertainty about how the universe came to exist - no one knows - but a personal god that cares about us, answers prayers, and scoops us up into an afterlife can be placed alongside a flat earth, astrology and alchemy.]

This is not militant, not undue certainty, just an honest assessment of the evidence. Once evidence becomes overwhelming, it is inappropriate to use the language of uncertainty.

186. We of little faith

Comment #48881 by Donald on June 9, 2007 at 10:21 am

Blair: "religious faith is not inconsistent with reason, or progress, or the celebration of diversity."

Blackmore: "But religious faith is inconsistent with reason (and much more that we value as well)."

This is a good article from Sue Blackmore. But I would have liked to see it longer, and tackle the other two of Blair's three assertions:

Blair: "religious faith is consistent with progress"

Not if it's based on ancient scripts that are claimed to be the unchallengeable, unchanging, right for all time, word of god, it isn't. Especially Islam.

Blair: "religious faith is consistent with the celebration of diversity"

Not if divides humans into two camps: believers who will go to heaven, and unbelievers whom god hates and will go to hell, it isn't. Especially Islam.

Blair entered politics as a naive orator who found a neat way to advance the labour party. He leaves it as a deeply deluded and corrupted politician.

187. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48783 by Donald on June 9, 2007 at 3:37 am

Remarkably good article for a top religious leader.

And I liked Sacks' remarks about the cohesion within and divisions between that religion excels in creating.

However, I don't agree that cohesion is always at the expense of creating divisions. They are actually independent. Religions go to great trouble to explicitly create the divisiveness. (Nonbelievers are more sinful, Allah hates unbelievers so don't take them as friends, etc, etc.)

Science is an example of a group movement that produces cohesion, but does not promote hatred of the outgroup. (Yes, I know scientists argue, but the common cause of science is a cohesive movement. And it is basically neutral towards non-scientists.)

Religion is primarily about creating social cohesion via a dominance hierarchy. It is easily corrupted because it encourages obedience to individuals above you, with the pope/other-top-leader professing to obey the top leader of all - god, and the individuals get to accumulate wealth and power along the way. It uses fear of an outgroup to help keep people obedient.

Western-style democracies are better because they have limited the time an individual can spend in power (during their time in power they almost always become corrupted), and western-style democracies limit the power given to individuals. Being ruled by inefficient, but elected, committees is better in the long run than being ruled by "efficient" dictators. History proves this.

So, the key struggle is about who controls us, not as Sacks implies, about whether we can join hands for peace.

If a burglar breaks into your home, you will be hostile to him, and try to eject him, violently if necessary.

The religious are trying to break into our jointly owned house of secular democracy which generations of ancestors have laboured and sacrificed to build. That is what why we must fight religion. It is not about peace or war. It is about defending our house from attack.

Go, Musketeers!

188. What use is Religion? Part 2

Comment #48391 by Donald on June 7, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Your theory attempts to explain the advantages of religion from a sociological and perhaps economical point of view.

No, it is focused on survival. Early farmers would be much more subject to the vagaries of climate and crop failures than today. Some groups would starve, some would survive, some would thrive and increase their population. Evolution by selective survival would be in action.

189. What use is Religion? Part 2

Comment #48385 by Donald on June 7, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Actually some kind of nascent religion existed much earlier. We know that by looking at cave painting and burial rites of early humans. Religion defintely predated agriculture.

It all gets very fuzzy that far back. I'm not sure cave paintings and burial habits can be equated with religion as we understand it today.

190. What use is Religion? Part 2

Comment #48383 by Donald on June 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Oh, an article posted a year ago, and only now, someone comments, and I notice it!!

Nice article, though, so I'll post a comment as well.

Yes, propagation of religious beliefs as parasites on useful advice seems more than likely.

However, I think there is a bit more to it than that. Here is some speculation.

In the early days of humanity, when human societies were hunter-gatherers, human tribes were in natural competition for most of the time. The supply of food was fixed, and the tribe which could get a larger share would prosper at the expense of other tribes. Small groups, prepared to fight each other whenever food was in dispute, would be the norm.

The situation changed gradually but fundamentally, as humans became farmers. Now human groups that could cooperate would have the advantage. And the larger the group the better. I suspect religions had their origins during that transitional era. Religious tribes would benefit from the additional force a belief in gods could bring to social cohesion. Believing that one had to obey the elder, because the elder could receive omens, or even instructions, from the gods of plant growth, or the sun, or the rain, would help in ensuring that the tribe planted the seeds even if they didn't feel like it at the time, didn't eat or steal the seeds during the year, and were available when required for chores that might not show their benefit for a whole year.

The transition from completely hunter-gatherers to completely farmers probably took many tens of thousands of years - perhaps long enough for evolution to select for certain types of brain. Obedience, longer lasting and more rigid than required for hunting/gathering, would be an advantage. Amalgamating with adjacent groups by one group converting to the ways of the other would be an advantage. Trying new things might lead to starvation.

Over the past few millennia, human society has changed again, most dramatically in last 500 years. This time too fast for significant evolution by selective survival. Brains vary, perhaps more than attributes such as height and athletic ability. But brains will still have the atributes selected by the most recent burst of selection-by-survival. Belief in, and obedience to, the tribal authority may be tendencies built into current brains, and may partly account for the success of present-day religions.

There is even a prediction of sorts that would result from my speculation. It would predict that there should be at least a few cases of people who were not brought up religious, but became religious later in life, and, more commonly people who, even if convinced their original childhood indoctrination was wrong, merely switch their version of god, instead of abandoning god altogether.

This speculation is a little different from the pure parasitic theory, although they share the suggestion that most religious beliefs would be propagated in childhood. And it does offer an answer to the question "what use is religion?".

On the other hand I recognise that occam's razor ir hovering nearby. Is the pure parasitic theory enough?

191. Wanted: Moral Education for Secular Children

Comment #48355 by Donald on June 7, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Excellent article!

192. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48347 by Donald on June 7, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Comment #48323 by darwin2

Thank you for giving clear answers to the questions I posed. I appreciate the fact that you are trying to be consistent and logical.

Your answers exclude the god of the bible and koran, since to believe those versions of god, it is necessary to believe that those holy books are the word of god, and that the holy books contain the instructions for us. You obviously don't want to go back to gods as far past their use-by date as Thor and Wotan.

So that puts you amongst people who think that none of the current religions contain an accurate description of god, but that nevertheless there is a god.

I don't suppose you would like this description, but isn't it the case that you are inventing your own version of god? You aren't parotting any of the standard religions, so where does your version of god come from?

Oh, wait a minute. Oh dear. I do recognise a "religion" disturbingly similar to your description that was invented (yes invented) by a certain notorious science fiction writer. I hardly dare ask, but could I ask your opinion of the material on the website: http://www.xenu.net ?

193. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48202 by Donald on June 7, 2007 at 3:20 am

Comment #48113 by Bizarro Dawkins
C'mon, without me this would be the most boring forum on the internet. At least I'm not a jerk, right (well, most of the time)?

When I was an undergraduate, the students union invited a "UFO believer" to give a talk. He presented crudely drawn crayon sketches of alien spaceships, talked about abductions, explained that the spaceships used "anti-gravity" drive, and demonstrated an antigravity device in front of our eyes. It was a magnet. He said magnetic force could counteract gravity. True, his magnet lifted a piece of metal against the best efforts of the entire earth to pull it down.

After the talk, when people were laughing at him, he puffed himself up and told us that he had been invited to numerous universities to talk about UFOs (implying that he was being taken seriously). It was true. He had been invited to numerous universities - word had got around.
I felt sorry for him at that point, and no longer felt comfortable laughing.

(1) That talk was the best attended, and least boring, that year.
(2) I learned something about human psychology.

194. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48194 by Donald on June 7, 2007 at 2:33 am

Comment #48087 by darwin2
However I believe Hitchens is totally wrong about the existence of God and I think his obsession with the brutal evils of organized religions has crippled his mind into denying the possible and highly probable existence of God.

OK. I'll ask. Would you tell us which god you think (probably) exists?

Thor, Zeus, Apollo?
The god of the OT?
Jesus?
The holy spirit?
ALLAH?
Wotan?

Or, another version you think is the real one, that the writers of the above religions didn't manage to describe accurately? If the latter, please tell us for your god:

Did he create the earth, or did it coalesce from star debris?
Did he create humans, or did they evolve from simpler life forms?
Does he have any instructions for us, and what are they?
Does he intervene in the world? If so, does intercessary prayer work?
Has he created an afterlife for us?

If you find those questions difficult to answer, I invite you to consider the possibility that "god" might simply be a human invention.

195. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48061 by Donald on June 6, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Islam planned to take over the world. But there was a Hitch....

196. Pell plans fidelity oath for principals

Comment #47818 by Donald on June 5, 2007 at 3:33 pm

THE Catholic archdiocese of Sydney wants its 167 school principals, its deputy principals and religious education co-ordinators to publically commit to ... an oath that demands "religious submission of intellect and will" on questions of faith and morals...

Yep, he understands the most effective way to propagate the faith, which so many "moderate" religious leaders have wandered away from.

Scary.

The pope will be pleased though. Perhaps Cardinal Pell might even fancy his chances to be the next pope?

197. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47813 by Donald on June 5, 2007 at 3:17