201. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70040 by alovrin on September 13, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Well goodness me I never

Thinking about reality is a philosophical endeavor of first order of personal importance.

Yes thinking, have brain must think. Whatever importance this reality thinking occupies in ones life, not all such cogitation is of equal or informative value to everyone uniformly. And some think sometimes a person best keep such ruminations to oneself, lest they be too dense or obscure for ready consumption, or the basis for the thoughts be faulty. But then.... who's to say...

202. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69792 by alovrin on September 12, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Oh dear Fleabie

I don't know. I remember something Jesus said about casting your pearls before swine...If you really want to know what I believe - get the book.

Sorry not putting any money your way.
And while we (humans, including you DR) may be a few chromosomes away from swine. Your words are light years away from being literary pearls. And aligning yourself with an apparently fictious hebrew character of some 2000 year vintage does nothing to improve their reading. IMESHO.

203. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69773 by alovrin on September 12, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Goldy DG and any one else,,,,
This from Colin McGinn.. another way of regarding brains
McGinn quotes from scifi writer Terry Bisson..
The whole article is here
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mcginn-flame.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?" ...
"There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals
don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat."
"Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their lifespans, which didn't take too long. Do you have any idea of the life span of meat?"
"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
"Nope, we thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."
"No brain?"
"Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!"
"So.... what does the thinking?"
"You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat."
"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?"

204. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69367 by alovrin on September 11, 2007 at 2:23 am

Sounds wild, but, as we have been discussing there are now very good reasons to believe that a photon's dynamic properties do not in fact objectively exist, so whatever it is that we are objectively measuring it's not the photon's dynamic properties but something else.

DG yells again Helloooooo... echo hellloooooo
Hang on a minute... did I stick my head up my own arse...
or someone else's.
Whats that rumbling noise?..... OH Sh******t

205. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68602 by alovrin on September 7, 2007 at 7:47 pm

I am joking of course – and I really wonder sometimes how many (or how few) readers I am still boring with my tome-length posts. And I really don't think I will be able to keep up this level of participation here. But I find it remarkable how I keep learning.

Helloooo............ echo Heeelloooooo. There must be somebody here I can hear another voice.
Says Dianelos his head stuck firmly up his arse again.
Wow it really quite interesting up here kinda dark but look at those dangly bits over there I wonder what they are., pollops,, perhaps.
Now where was I.... Oh yes convincing myself Im right. There must be a god because no one has yet proven there isnt, especially that Richard Dawkins, and well whats the point if there isnt one.
And that whole jesus forgiveness thingy is just sooo cool because only a really idealistically minded god would have a son but not tell him till it was too late and he was hanging from a cross.
Which is what one would expect of a god who only seems to live in the incredibly small other dimensions, that we cant even see, except with incredibly expensive equipment and not even then. Otherwise known as quantsomething or other.
I am so right dont you think ???? Hmmm
Heeellloooo .....echo heeelllooo Is that all you have to say. I have just proven you exist god and all you can say it heeellloooo....echo heeelllloooo.
Aw shut up..... echo Aw shuuutt uuppp.
No you shut up.....noo you etc etc.

206. 'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' Released on DVD

Comment #68338 by alovrin on September 6, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I cant remember if Philosopher Colin McGinn was interviewed by RD in Root of all Evil?
He was in Jonathan Millar's programme on Atheism.
Anyway he has a blog its interesting reading.
http://www.colinmcginnblog.com/index.php

207. The Atheist

Comment #68053 by alovrin on September 5, 2007 at 9:59 pm

I missed seeing this article, but I didnt join till 2006 thanks for bringing it back V.
Like you I am leaving I wont be missed as much as you. The next few years are going to be busy for me. Work family and securing my financial situation, thats a biggie.
Its been interesting, but I am pessimistic about a change in the Zeitgiest any time soon, despite what RD CH et al say, these things just dont go away on command. And mostly such topics as ones beliefs just dont come up for discussion in the course of everyday activity.
So my atheist activity will be limited to silently closing the door on JW door knockers as they start their speil. And binning the YOUR GOING TO HELL pamphlets that always seem to mysteriously turn up in the letter box a few days later.
Ciao

208. In God we doubt

Comment #67801 by alovrin on September 4, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Northern Bright

It comes down to basic sales skills, really - "people buy from people they like".

When it comes to beliefs this is an oversimplification. Have a listen to Carol Tavris on cognitive dissonance. Changing ones beliefs is often a painful and long process, and thats just one individual. En masse this makes for many years, probably centuries. And given the various levels of superstition around the world probably a few millenia before humanity as a whole might be able to exist without a belief that some form of supernatural agency is concerned with human development, our individual frailties and failings.
Do we have that sort of time frame? is an extinction event more likely? I dont know. So I'm with RB sort of, maybe its time to play a little rough and rude(in the nice sense of the word).
And any atheist hanky panky will get played out and reshaped at websites like this first.
But atheism cant be in the business of conversion...agreeing to disagree is always a good place to start.
my 2c's worth

209. In God we doubt

Comment #67758 by alovrin on September 4, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Steve99

The existence of God is a scientific question. The majority of people aren't scientists. I don't think debate will win the argument; I think religion will diminish with improved education, including a better understanding of science.

Hear Hear

Dr Benway

People can tolerate a LOT of cognitive dissonance. How do they do it?

For a really informative interview with Carol Tavris on cognitive dissonance ....
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=121

Also there is an interesting IV with Dr Francis Collins (Just look in the archive section). Interesting in that his naivete about such things as dissonance and mental states is on display. Which for me anyway shed light on why he become a Xtian.

210. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67215 by alovrin on September 2, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Only once we agree that reality is theistic does it make any sense to discuss whether Jesus of Nazareth was a human like any other or else enjoyed some special status.

Well if this is your basis for discussion you have just wasted all of our time. And you could have said so earlier, because in light of this all your wordage is just proselytising and nothing more - such agreement just isnt going to happen.

So any way DG last time I looked you didnt like my title suggestion for your book " too boring" I think you said and completely missed the point - hardly surprising - of my post.
You didnt even see the subtitle about finding god amongst the godless - and FU and your capitals.
Any book you get out of this will be entirely the result of the extremely high class of critic you have encountered on this website, who have countered your every idiotic assertion with considered criticism. (Not me, I just think your full of shit). You make put menial fingers to keyboard and tap out the crap ( it doesnt seem to hard for you - you must be able to do at least 140 wpm maybe 160 - 170 wpm when gods on your shoulder).
But others have done your thinking for you.
Best tell your publisher to cross the likes of me off your book buying demograph.

SOOOOO, Remember the guy who is interviewed at the head of this thread Alastair someoneorother, he's another windbag who only feels safe when his mouth is doing the talking. And has the ability quite unique amongst goddies to never, or only when it is convenient to his argument to actually listen to what the other person has said. You are the same.

God and Religion is a business and that is the end of it.

Why cant you deal with your own fear of death? Cause jebus aint gunna make it NOT happen. WOo crazy writngs there... chicka boom.
And all your mental gyrations is time down the dunny of life. And your book will be as dry and boring as your posts here.
Cause the one fact I know for sure is that laughter and relaxation, walks in the woods disappears in a world with too many gods and godyness imaginary, human or otherwise.

While I'm about it 4 weeks holiday a year is not enough. It needs to be at least 3 months.
And where have all those old nuns been hiding in the - just recently released from communism - Eastern European countries?

211. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61068 by alovrin on August 3, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Dianelos

Have you seen the Harris - Hedges debate?

Yes and I gained a completely different impression(first person data) of that question that you. Who's right me or you? Hm

Atheism is becoming tribal.

You and other theist wish!
As for Hitler, why do you go to such lengths to say he wasnt religious? The evidence is there you draw your conclusion, I'll draw mine.
You are starting to sound very arrogant.

212. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60427 by alovrin on August 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm

It's not true that all good flows from God. All good flows from good persons, even though of course, as God is such a good and powerful person, a lot of good flows from Him/Her. On the other hand what you write above kind of sounds like a different argument, which goes like this: Goodness is defined by how God is; therefore anything else that is good is good because it's similar to how God is. Which I think is a correct argument. Look around you: Everything you experience that's beautiful or true or loving is such to the degree that it reflects or approaches God's beauty or truth or love

There ya go again tacking your god onto everything (Well the good bits cause god dont do bad) Soooo unnecessary.
I just know you are wanting to put all this in a book...well your bits.. Easy way to write a book and find the flaws in your argument. Also to find ways around any objection, no matter now reasonable. Go to a website where the people arent dummies yet opposed to your basic propostion and get them to pose the problems that need to be, oh so elegantly skirted or ignored, hey presto instant book.
I even know the title you will use.

Idealistic Theism (True Christianity Resurrected)
or subtitle: How I found God at Richarddawkins.net

Im outta here...

213. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60088 by alovrin on August 1, 2007 at 1:02 am

Down under, although I cant say it with any authority, life outside of living things is a phantom.
Anyway I was rattling on about a spark that could escalate into a global conflagration. It looks like some politicians, with our best interests at heart, or is that their heads up their own self-interest might be in the process of building a luverly little fire.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/31/drumming-up-a-new-cold-war/#more-1075

214. The Out Campaign

Comment #60084 by alovrin on July 31, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Flea had a holiday dropped by to say some silly and boring things and is now jetting to Bulgaria, to pollute the minds of people who just want to get into the ECC, anywhere... anywhere... anyhow, to make some bucks. If only they knew about Flea they'll turn up in, wherever it is he lurks, and will be bitterly disappointed.
So Flea heres something for you, alas I didnt write it Robert Heinlein did, I saw it on a very good website called onegoodmove.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful. —Robert A. Heinlein

215. The Out Campaign

Comment #59858 by alovrin on July 30, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Religious people are scary no doubt, all the best to those looking for a way to declare what they think, unafraid.
I always liked the idea of using the words Heretic or Blasphemer
as a big Fuck U somehow, but thats just me.
And also in memory of those killed. I know some heretics were just followers of another god sect. But maybe if they had been allowed to live, the world would have been a different place, this recurring monomania more dilute. Probably a vain hope tho'

216. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59634 by alovrin on July 30, 2007 at 2:38 am

"The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself.

It may not be Dianelos idealistic theism but he sounds like a theist to me. And he too tailored things to meet his worldview Hmmm.

217. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59584 by alovrin on July 29, 2007 at 8:09 pm

What I am saying is that the idea of religion that Dawkins, Harris, and fundamentalists all share is grossly wrong. ......................but that all anyone of us may say or write about God may be wrong.

It may be wrong but there are an awful lot of people who believe it.
And I guess you must have to include yourself in the wrong category, Hmmm.

If Hitchens is beyond seriousness, you sirrah are laughable.

218. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59342 by alovrin on July 28, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Well, Dawkins and Harris approve such a policy, don't they?

Its so fucking annoying when you are talking about your favourite subject, your philosophy, you go to absurd lengths to painstakingly define each and every word and put it in its context and if anyone misunderstands slightly you go off again reredefining.
Yet take about your least favourite topic someone else and you get incredibly lazy use any old word that vaguely fits so you can race back to your favourite subject. There is no atheist "policy" its the wrong word. If you even bothered to look at any other thread on just this site you will find a chorus of different voices, opinions, at variance with each other. Shit we're even fighting over a fucking T-shirt. But anyway WTF. You need to read C Hitchens on Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And Hitler was NOT an atheist.

As for your woman friend and her beautiful cancer experience, so was it a miraculous cure or did, ya know, modern medicine have something to do with it. Or is how she was cured not really important? Just her overcoming her fear of death? and surrendering....Honestly I felt like puking with disgust.

As as for global conflict, well of course Saudi Arabia or Pakistan wont attack the US. Their targets are a lot closer to their borders. THINK ABOUT IT. And such local squabbles will total up to a global conflict. The treaty obligations and religious divides, which will guarantee an escalation should the right spark come along, are already in place. I just hope that spark never appears.

219. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59165 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 6:17 pm

. I think it's pretty clear that, say, President Truman's decision to drop the nuclear bomb on two Japanese cities was not caused to any significant degree by his particular religious beliefs. I am not sure that the same applies in the case of Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's crimes because communism is not only expressively atheist but aggressively anti-theist. Marx famously called religion the opium of the people, so successive communist regimes had the official policy to uproot religion, a policy that Dawkins and Harris approve of as far as I understand

Wow, do you realise you actually wrote that and posted it where people (intelligent and learned people at that) can, like, see it!

220. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #59160 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 5:03 pm

In this regard, it's disconcerting to see the two institutions that ought to have the greatest stake in ascertaining the truth -- academia and government -- often blinkered by morally tinged ideologies. One ideology is that humans are blank slates and that social problems can be handled only through government programs that especially redress the perfidy of European males. Its opposite number is that morality inheres in patriotism and Christian faith and that social problems may be handled only by government policies that punish the sins of individual evildoers. New ideas, nuanced ideas, hybrid ideas -- and sometimes dangerous ideas -- often have trouble getting a hearing against these group-bonding convictions.

I agree with this, all to often in recent times Govt policy and laws owe more to a kneejerk reaction than any discernable depth of research and collation of thoughts and ways of dealing with a problem. eg More crime=more police. Govts will put on a show of investigation( form a subcommittee) Expect people to turn up, but not bother to seek out advice or any research. Then just do what they were going to do anyway.

221. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59157 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm

OK pewkatchoo I wont prosecute you for persecuting me. Umm.
SHUGGY I thought Richard Morgan was having a go at humour, rather badly. But is he serious? He's joking right? He cant be serious.

222. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59024 by alovrin on July 27, 2007 at 2:26 am

Sorree pewkatshoe
from persecuted to prosecutor..

223. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58999 by alovrin on July 26, 2007 at 10:49 pm

This guy has set himself up as such an easy target. He is obviously barely literate and doesnt have a clue how to construct a decent argument. The only basis he has is some kind of dim perception of a imagined threat to something he believes as if his life depends on it. Yet I dont know how to feel towards him.
He really is a perfect example of the credulous who are exploited by the religious charlatans. Yet he is a danger to himself and others. He, and others like him, could go from feeling persecuted to a persecutor in a wink of an eye. And I blame religion again, but where will this lead?

224. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58740 by alovrin on July 26, 2007 at 2:56 am

I hope Barbara feels better after having got that diatribe out of her system.
She stuck an email address at the end, but I cant see any point in trying to engage her. Anyone else can if they want,BMG.

bkay@videotron.ca

225. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58713 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 11:50 pm

Incidentally all weapons of mass destruction have been developed by scientists who were not motivated by religious beliefs. The decision by the US to drop atomic bombs on two civilian population centers in Japan was not in any way motivated by religious beliefs either. Nor was the decision by Britain and the US to systematically firebomb German and Japanese cities motivated by religious beliefs. Nor was the decision of Germany to mass slaughter Jews in the Holocaust motivated by religious beliefs. Nor was the arms race towards the acquisition of nuclear arsenals of truly obscene destructive power motivated by religious belief. (How destructive? Both the US and Russia have weapons that in 7 millionths of a second can unleash over one point of the Earth more destructive power than all the bombs and ammunition – including the two atom bombs over Japan – used during the entire Second World War over three continents.) The world came close to nuclear annihilation at least once with the Cuban missile crisis, which again had absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs. So, religious beliefs are nowhere to be seen in all that madness, are they? Rather, to put it simply, religion has of late become the bugaboo that demagogues use to scare people into intolerance. Which is a time-tested method to switch off peoples' capacity for critical thinking; as when Bush's then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice argued before the invasion of Iraq that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Nothing more effective than a bugaboo with nuclear weapons I suppose.

And Einstein refused to take part in the development of the nuclear bomb. Shit, Dianelos you paint in such broad strokes you render everything meaningless except the narrow mealy mouthed point you wish to make.
Swathes of people back then went to church every sunday, but I suppose they cant be considered religious. JFK was a devout catholic with a weakness for tail, so I suppose he cant be considered religious. People involved in the arms race also went religiously to church but I guess they arent religious.
Condi goes to church But I suppose she aint religious either.
What are you smoking?
And if there is another global conflict it will involve nuclear weapons on a very large scale. And the first spark will be utterly pathetic like a small dirty bomb. What started WWI? The assassination of an Archduke of a crumbling empire by a Balkan nationalist. Then the train timetables took over and there was no stopping it. And a bugaboo to you. Dont you have work to do.

226. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58700 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Consider that most of our current economic system is dedicated to the increase of happiness. In praxis this often works in detriment of the happiness of the majority or of the people in one's society or of other countries, but that's inconsequential: Imagine a just and universal society that seeks to maximize the happiness of all people alive: the same frivolous consumerism and implicit neglect of the future generations we now observe would be the norm. The generalized and idolized culture of greed that characterizes modern economies both East and West is an unstable and self-defeating state of affairs which, considering the intrinsic limits or our physical environment, cannot go on for ever but must end with some major catastrophe. It's also spiritually stultifying and ultimately dehumanizing state of affairs, not to mention is the most common reason for violent conflict on all levels (that's the root reason of violent conflict Mr Dawkins and Mr Harris – not religion). It seems to me that the only long-term solution of this problem is a cultural change away from greed and towards poverty and simplicity, something that all major religions teach is a major and fundamental virtue. And I believe only religion can help society achieve this crucial transformation, for I really don't see naturalistic ethics having the sufficient conceptual and experiential force for achieving that. So, far from being religion the major danger for the survival of humanity and civilization, I think religion is absolutely indispensable for their survival. Our task then is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but to throw out the bathwater and keep the baby.

This has to be the biggest and worst load of crap I've read in a very long time.

227. Face to faith

Comment #58642 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Harris's assertions about the de facto motivations of suicide bombers is one area that comes under particular criticism by Atran for lacking empirical evidence.

I think it was Harris who pointed out that such empirical data is somewhat had to come by, for the obvious reason.

nevertheless it does seem to have become something of a focal point for this 'new atheist movement' and this all-too-easy dismissal of dissenting voices strikes me as something of an oversight.

Its a focal point because it is a good website, well designed, loads of stuff etc. If Harris's website was half as good it might have more traffic.
And dissenting voices are always heard, yes maybe some are dismissed in a cavalier fashion by some but not by all. This is a clear distinction from theist groups who will often to a man or by decree dismiss dissent. Have and still do persecute dissenting voices, although they dont burn them at the stake. I think there are theists who would still like this option.

228. Face to faith

Comment #58499 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 3:51 am

Harris's bold claims.

Which claims do you refer to?

But you are right this Atran/Harris debate is not addressed on this website. Well it isnt Sam Harris' website so I wouldnt expect it to be. You could visit SH's site it might be addressed there. But Sam's site is something of a trial to navigate, not as good as this site. I may look into it further myself, by the by.

229. Face to faith

Comment #58467 by alovrin on July 25, 2007 at 1:39 am

a more nuanced approach to religion on this forum

There is a large amount of stuff on this website, and there is plenty of nuance to be found. So please look around Im sure you will find what you are looking for. This article is lightweight stuff, and so was Scott Atrans critique of Sam Harris and deserves a certain amount of derision. Maybe they(writers) will go away and come back with a better argument dripping with nuance.

230. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58187 by alovrin on July 24, 2007 at 12:25 am

I love this..
"I can think of no one in the scientific world working on conciousness who would think of submitting a paper that said.
Well I introspected under the following circumstances and these are the things I found."
And...
"We have had so many cases where people are just WRONG about the results of their own introspection. Its been a hugely misleading beacon over the centuries. People cannot prevent themselves from theorising when they think they are observing and their autopsychology theories are just BAD.

231. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58181 by alovrin on July 23, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I get his point about not being afraid to ask difficult questions.
But about 60% of these questions are just plain silly, and often badly worded.
My blood pressure doesnt go up, but my eyes roll in a derisive manner.

232. PZ Myers on Blogging Heads

Comment #57943 by alovrin on July 22, 2007 at 2:27 pm

It is always surprising to see people, who are very clear and incisive in print, such as RD,DD,SH and PZ, they are such softies. It's neat.
The I/Ver tends to the verbose, maybe he should have prepared his questions beforehand. But well done for getting this together.

233. Face to faith

Comment #57867 by alovrin on July 21, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Might I refer Bonzai and dvespertilio to the William Lobdell article. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1442,Religion-beat-became-a-test-of-faith,William-Lobdell-LA-Times

234. Face to faith

Comment #57735 by alovrin on July 20, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Christ's what's he whining about, I spent 20 yrs and $327.71 getting a degree in Fairyology. Then that bloody Richard Dawkins comes along and lumps fairies in with that meglomaniac bastard god, and my career is kaput.
Luckily I found this online degree in free energy technology and they are offering a discount, so Im going to be a scientist. Wo hey.

235. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57723 by alovrin on July 20, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Apologies to Douglas Adams and fans in advance for this story.

Once upon a time a little boy called Dianelos woke up with an interesting theory in his head and the name fell instantly to his lips.
"I will call it Idealistic Theism" he bravely announced to no one in particular, and I will go out into the world to test it.
'This is an interesting theory I find myself in Dianelos mused as he roved looking for somewhere to test his theory - an interesting theory indeed -it fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
This is such a powerful idea it held Dianelos in its sway completely enthralled, beguiled, hypnotised etc etc...

By and by he came across Richarddawkins.netland where one of his heroes was being torn to shreds in a small corner of Richarddawkins.netland by the motley crew assembled there.

Dianelos strode into the fracas, but his motley adversaries were more than a match for him and as the dialogue progressed he lost many metaphorical limbs. In fact more limbs than he actually possessed, as his arguments were countered time and time and time again. He ducked and dodged, weaved and pirouetted, the air became heated and gradually, the idealistic theism that so suited him grew smaller and smaller.
He still frantically hung on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this idealistic theism was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he is disembodied catches him rather by surprise.
And still he struggles on.
"Come back you cowards, I've still got my lips and a keyboard just like Steven Hawking. I can still be incredible verbose, I mean articulate, my idealistic theism is a fine theory, prove it isnt!"
What is left of the crowd tiredly says "They have already" and wanders off.
The End.

236. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57578 by alovrin on July 20, 2007 at 1:33 am

Because we are built in the image of God, and God is what's objectively good in reality.

!sigh!

237. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57346 by alovrin on July 19, 2007 at 2:01 am

Indeed I am a great believer in the power of the example.

Which prompts the query What example do you consider you are setting? Obviously you see your example as exemplary in some way. Is that where it stops?
What if someone else considers you as a setting a bad example?
Is the first person data(you) given more credence than the second or even third, fourth, of fifth party as to the value of your example?
You have concocted this idealistic theism and attempt to live by it, so it helps you, but this philosophy will most likely die with you. So it will have no lasting effect unless you bottle it (in a manner of speaking and sell it). It seems a lot of trouble to go to when the rewards are dubious at best, and probably non existent except to you in your afterlife. And, well from my point of view, so what!
I need a beer.

238. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57337 by alovrin on July 19, 2007 at 1:14 am

Poor Tyrone just cant shut up. Next it will be the anti anti evangelising.
Me, Im glad to see spokepeople for unbelief in the public forum who dont need to fear being burned at the stake for expressing their opinion.
I wonder if this was a page filler for some mag or website. But its just another poorly considered opinion piece.
Maybe Tyrone will get over himself eventually

239. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56945 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Which reminds me of the tale of the tailless fox who wished all foxes were tailless

Which reminds me of the tale of the six blind men each touching a different part of an elephant, thinking they had a grasp of the whole thing. Funny tho' the sex of the elephant is never mentioned, or if one of the blind men was grasping its unsheathed member.
I feel a bevvie coming on.

240. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56932 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 9:55 pm

I like that she says, criticism of policy influenced by religious belief, (in reference to Islam) is fair.
And it shows just how happy she is to be living in the US.

241. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56901 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Yes, well done the good beverage loving Doctor.
A contribution to the ongoing reading/listening list perhaps?
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=115

242. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56746 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 5:13 am

Dianelos

On the other hand to inflate the problem of terrorism way beyond any reasonable proportion and then try to sell religion as the root evil that causes terrorism is certifiably stupid.

You can really get the wrong end of the stick sometimes cock.
In Root of all Evil? all religious interviewee's cooked their own goose so to speak IMO. RD had to do very little except watch as they self destructed.
Anyway as for inflating the problem of terrorism, maybe you should be looking at Bush & Co, media organisations, and many other people and organisations with their own agendas. Use your imagination, if you believe in god you must have one.
But this inflation of the terrorism problem is fucking up society, and we may never recover from this police state hell we seem to be descending into.
And I dont recall when RD said that religion is the root cause of terrorism. But islam certainly is a violent belief system as practised by some people.

As they say you become like those you hate.

Seems unnecessarily vitriolic, I cant see RD or anyone here for that matter, strapping a bomb to their good selves any time soon. Take some of your own advice dude, and relax.

it only shows how many paths towards Him/Her God opens for us, how really open God's arms are for us all.

So with a stroke of the pen or flourish of the keystrokes you brush aside 2000yrs of dogma that declares the ONLY way to the father(GOD) is thru the SON (your buddy JC)
Gee thanks, go tell the other 1 billion or so fellow xtians.
Why has no one thought of this before(he says tongue in cheek)

243. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56712 by alovrin on July 17, 2007 at 2:38 am

Reading this makes me realise why religious organisations are charging into Africa. Fresh meat as the saying goes.

244. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56280 by alovrin on July 14, 2007 at 6:10 pm

HERE'S Richard Dawkins, sword flailing, mowing down his foes — all of them, Christian, Muslim, Jew, male or female, old or young. He cannot sheath his sword until the world is cleansed of religion

Distortion No.1

and Melbourne philosopher of psychology Tamas Pataki

WHO? I think this is where it gets personal for Barney.

One might easily picture Dawkins as a puritanical preacher, prowling and peering into living rooms to make sure no one is up to sin, such as teaching religious faith to their children

Distortion No.2

militant fundamentalist atheists

Distortion No.3
Yes, this article is filled with distortions to make a point Barney is of course a Religion editor so he odds are he's probably a believer as well.
And then theres this

Tamaki writes as a scholar, with careful and qualified argumen

I think he means his buddy Tamas Patak.i Maybe they are doing some kind of deal, it all rather strange tho.

245. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55918 by alovrin on July 12, 2007 at 9:40 pm

AH YES IT IS FINALLY OVER, WHEN DIANELOS CAME IN TO OUR LIFES WITH THIS NIFTY LITTLE POST.

89. Comment #47030 by Dianelos Georgoudis on June 2, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Miri (68):

You write: "the evidence that atheism (or naturalism) has in its favor is religion's failure to prove the supernatural realm."

First of all "prove" is a loaded word, because strictly speaking proofs in the sense of demonstrations that offer complete certainty do not exist. In that absolute sense, for example, we don't have any "proof" that Abraham Lincoln has existed, or that electrons exist, or that the Pythagoras theorem is correct. So what religion should produce is not so much such a "proof" but rather a sufficiently good reason for somebody to believe in the existence of the supernatural realm.

And here is an indisputable fact: Contrary to what popular atheism dogmatically believes there are several good arguments for the existence of God, and knowledgeable atheist philosophers have to struggle long and hard to try to counter them. Examples of such arguments are the argument from morality and the argument from consciousness. Even the traditional argument from design (or teleological argument) that appeared to have been buried by Darwinism has found new life recently in the form of the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. But there are also good arguments that justify the atheist worldview including the argument from evil and the argument from non-belief. So the question of how reasonable it is to believe either in the existence or the non-existence of God is far from settled. There is a good book I can recommend you read in this context: "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

Having said that the fact remains that most theists do not justify their belief in the existence of God based on such intellectual arguments but on what is commonly called "faith". Now "faith" is a difficult word because it is used with many different meanings. In fact the original meaning of that word as used in the gospels is "trust in God". When atheists speak of "faith" they often mean "irrational belief". I think that when theists use "faith" as their justification of their belief in God they normally mean one of three things:

1) Their trust in revelation, in which supposedly God directly reveals spiritual truth to some chosen few, and they in turn teach or write it down to inform the rest of us. I personally find it very dubious that God would work in such roundabout ways and tend to agree with atheists that much of scripture is primitive and plagued by inconsistencies, superstition, mythology, and even plain evil. On the other hand it is a fact that the written word (or in general other peoples' testimonies) can be a very powerful motivator and can change peoples' lives. And I also find that that some religious texts display sublime beauty, in fact unrivaled beauty.

2) The direct experience of God. It is a fact that many people have such religious experiences so the remaining question is what one can reasonably deduce from such experiences. Atheists of course argue that such experiences are produced by some accident in our evolutionary history which causes our brain to create them (see for example "The God gene: How faith is hardwired into our genes" by Dean Hamer, or "Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon" by Daniel Dennett). But another obvious way to interpret such experiences is that the experience of God evidences the existence of God, and if our brains are hardwired for such experiences the more the better as God is the creator of the physical world and has hardwired our brains for us to experience Him/Her.

3) That without the existence of God their own condition as human beings (i.e. how it is to be a human being) makes no sense, and that the absence of objective evidence for the existence of God changes nothing in that fact. In this sense of "faith" all normal people (theist and atheist alike – the only possible exception would be solipsists) believe many things on "faith". For example we all believe on faith in the existence of other minds even though there is no objective evidence for that. Similarly we all believe on faith that the physical universe did not come into existence 10 minutes ago, and so on.

Finally I would like to turn the table on you, and argue thus: The evidence that theism has in its favor is that atheism (or naturalism) is unable to deal in a satisfactory manner with fundamental questions such as the existence of consciousness or ethical truth. It even fails to account for such basic concepts as "meaning" or "value". It even fails to offer any objective means to decide how physical reality actually is (is there one universe or a huge number of them, is the universe deterministic or not, etc). Naturalism is much shaker than naively believed by many. Alvin Plantinga (one of the most important philosophers of religion alive today) has even written a paper that shows that naturalism is incompatible with Darwinism. This is a highly technical not to mention highly contested paper, but you can get an inkling of the idea in Plantinga's review of Dawkins's "The God delusion" here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

Part of the confusion about the strength or weakness of naturalism stems I think from the fact that "naturalism" can be understood as a methodology but also as an ontology. Methodological naturalism is the basic assumption of science, namely that all physical phenomena can be fully explained by natural causes, and indeed history has shown that methodological naturalism is extraordinarily successful. Ontological naturalism on the other hand is a claim about how reality actually is, and here naturalism fails very badly.

HIS WORDS REACHED A CRESCENDO HERE

333. Comment #48459 by Dianelos Georgoudis on June 8, 2007 at 3:02 am
My theistic worldview.

Several posters here have asked me to present and justify my own theistic worldview. I think that's entirely fair. Of course to present my worldview in detail would result in a book-length post, so in what follows I try to present it a way that is as short as possible but sufficiently detailed to present its overall structure and to allow people to evaluate and criticize it. Of course I will be glad to elaborate on any part the reader wishes. This is not going to be easy so bear with me.

Before starting I would like to say that one's worldview is basically how one makes sense of one's overall experience. Even pre-linguistic children device a worldview and make sense of their (at first confusing) perceptual environment by interpreting it as the presence of a stable three-dimensional world in which they can (up to a point) freely move around and manipulate using their bodies. So, for example, even very small children quickly learn that walls are hard and that it doesn't pay to try to walk through them.

Here I will argue that a theistic worldview is better than a non-theistic one. This immediately brings up the question of how worldviews are to be compared. I would say that a worldview is better if it gives one more intellectual satisfaction by being more coherent, elegant, economical, free of problems, and so on. But of course the most important criterion is how useful in a practical or empirical sense a worldview turns out to be. For example one who ignores that walls are hard is apt to have many painful experiences of bumping into them. Now virtually everybody believes that walls are hard, but consider another belief that is extremely popular even though it's false: astrology. Having this false belief in one's worldview is apt to negatively influence one's quality of life because one will act on false information. Indeed what worldview one chooses is a fairly important matter not only for one's personal well-being, but also for society's. So this is clearly an important issue, and I would agree in principle with Dawkins that to help others choose a better worldview is a commendable enterprise (within ethical limits – see Ibsen's play "The wild duck").

Now there are as many worldviews as there are people, but we can classify them into groups of similar kind. Even so we are left with a confusing number of kinds of worldviews (just consider how many Christian denominations there are, or how many interpretations of quantum mechanics). Still one can divide all possible worldviews into two major groups: the materialistic/naturalistic worldviews, and the religious/spiritual/supernatural worldviews (which in what follows I will call for short "naturalistic" and "religious" respectively). The difference between the two is clear: A basic issue is what the fundamental constituent (aka substance) of reality is, which explains everything else. According to the naturalistic worldviews what fundamentally exists is a complex configuration of matter following specific natural laws, in short what we call the physical world. According to the religious worldviews what fundamentally exists is a spiritual/supernatural world having its own structure and following its own kind of laws; the physical world forms only a part of reality, indeed a part that is contingent and caused by the larger spiritual/supernatural reality. (In turn religious worldviews can be divided in polytheistic, monotheistic, and atheistic groups).

Now when comparing these two basic types of worldviews I find that the naturalistic worldviews entail three fundamental types of problems which decrease its reasonableness:

1. I judge that naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with consciousness (including the related issue of free will), in other words that naturalistic worldviews cannot explain the existence of consciousness. I am not prepared to entertain the possibility that consciousness does not exist (actually I couldn't believe that it doesn't exist if I tried; consciousness is the one thing whose reality is beyond question). Some naturalistic thinkers believe that in the future this problem will somehow be solved, but I judge that this is a fundamentally impossible problem for naturalism. (Incidentally consciousness is not just some "gap", but represents the single most important fact there is. Indeed, strictly speaking, we live in an environment of conscious experience and not in a physical environment; the existence of the physical world is something we deduce from our experiential environment.) So, here I have one reason that speaks against the entire class of naturalistic worldviews.

2. Similarly I judge that naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with the existence of at least some objectively true ethical precepts (there is ongoing discussion about this matter in this thread). In other words I am not prepared to entertain the idea that ethical precepts, such as "you should not torture a child", are true only because of personal opinion or convention. So, here I have a second reason that speaks against the entire class of naturalistic worldviews.

3. The third problem is extrinsic and refers to my study of the actual materialistic/naturalistic worldviews. If this class of worldviews were the one closest to reality one would expect to find general agreement or at least some general tendency towards agreement about how reality actually is. What I on the contrary observe is that, compared to the disagreements that also exist between religious worldviews, the disagreements on the naturalistic side are a) deeper, b) tend to grow both in number and in kind, and c) tend to produce increasingly fantastic (credulity straining) descriptions of reality.

In comparison I do not detect similar problems with the religious kind of worldviews. The reason is that religious worldviews assert that fundamental reality is spiritual so do not have to explain the reality of consciousness, in the same way that the naturalistic worldviews that assert that fundamental reality is material do not have to explain the reality of matter. (Theistic worldviews are especially elegant in this respect, see bellow). Also spiritual reality is hypothesized as being objectively good thus accounting for the existence of objectively true ethical precepts (they are objectively true because they reflect that objective goodness of reality). Finally, even though many naturalists rightly find problematic the differences and disagreements that exist between religious worldviews, I judge that the differences and disagreements in their camp are much worse.

The case of science. Many naturalists point out the overwhelming success of science as evidence for the superiority of their worldview. But apart from the most primitive religious worldviews (read: the cases of fundamentalism or "literal scripturism" if you like), all other religious worldviews seamlessly and naturally absorb scientific knowledge by hypothesizing that the physical world that science studies is caused and sustained by the larger spiritual reality. This incidentally makes it impossible for any piece of scientific knowledge to contradict or be used as evidence against any of the non-fundamentalist religious worldviews. So a person who adopts any of the non-fundamentalist religious worldview loses nothing of the usefulness and relevance of the scientific and technological project.

Another common argument that naturalists use is that they don't see any reason to assume a religious worldview in the first place. But I see such a reason, namely that in comparison the alternative materialistic worldviews are problematic in the three senses described above and therefore inferior.

So in conclusion, as I find that all the naturalistic worldviews entail serious problems and all (except the most naive) religious worldviews don't, I judge that by default the former worldviews work better than the latter.

The second stand I would like to make refers to my choice of monotheism over all the other religious worldviews. One basic reason is this: As I noted above I judge that all naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with consciousness because they cannot explain how matter brings forth consciousness. Well, similarly, one could ask how spirit brings forth matter, and claim that the religious worldviews suffer from a similar problem. The answer is straightforward: The religious worldviews need not account for matter itself but only for our conscious experience of physical phenomena, so there it is not an issue of spirit causing something of an entirely different kind (namely matter), but of spirit causing consciousness which is not problematic. But observe that the above solution works best if we identify the fundamental constituent (or substance) of reality with consciousness, i.e. equate the concept of spirit with the concept of consciousness (indeed observe that these two concepts can be used interchangeably in virtually all contexts). Conversely if we don't identify the fundamental constituent (or substance) of reality with consciousness, religious worldviews suffer at least to some degree from the equivalent #1 problem of the naturalist worldviews. So, to resume, the supernatural (beyond the natural world) part of reality must a) have consciousness as its fundamental constituent, b) be objectively good, and c) must contain structure and order, because after all it causes our experience of the very intricately structured and ordered physical phenomena we observe. Economy (or Occam's razor) requires that I make the simplest hypothesis in order to account for all three properties, and the simplest hypothesis I can find is the presence of one single and objectively good, intelligent, and powerful conscious being: a divine person on whom all bucks stop, a person whom, in order to be consistent with the three great monotheistic religions, I call "God". In short, the best hypothesis I can device for avoiding the problems that plague the naturalistic worldviews in a clean and economical manner is to hypothesize that there exists a supernatural realm which consists of a personal being of objective goodness, and great intelligence and power - sufficient to cause and sustain our experience of life.

Now up to here I have argued in favor of monotheistic worldviews in a negative manner, i.e. by excluding alternative worldviews I judge inferior. But it turns out that by adopting a monotheistic worldview I have experienced in my own life several concrete gains that represent additional and positive reasons that justify it: First, I experienced the whole of my experiential environment as increasingly more beautiful, a state of affairs which I consider extremely valuable. Second, and this too is a very precious thing, I experienced that the monotheistic worldview is morally empowering and thus helps me live closer to how I aspire to live, namely as a good person. Thirdly, and this will come as a surprise, that worldview helps me understand the presence of evil and pain in my experiential environment – evidence that is traditionally used against theism. Here is how:

As we saw my worldview is based in the reality of God, a person who instantiates all that is objectively good as well as all the structure (or intelligence if you will) of the supernatural reality that causes and sustains our experiential environment. Our current experiential environment though clearly includes many evil things. How can that be? Well what helps answer this question is that we, the same as God, are persons, i.e. conscious beings. So we are able in some fundamental (albeit limited) sense to put ourselves in God's shoes as it were, and to ponder the question "What would I do if I were God?" If the answer to that question would ultimately lead to the creation of people experiencing the kind of imperfect and partially evil environment we do – then the God hypothesis would indeed explain why our environment is imperfect. So what would I do if I were God? Well I would create other persons to share in the objective goodness that I instantiate. And here is a key point (a point I see clearly myself but have had trouble explaining in the past): The personal goodness (in short "virtue") that God instantiates is not something that can be given directly to others. Why not? Because personal goodness is valuable in that it reflects personal merit. Thus value resides primarily in the way a person attains a particular state and not only in that state. For example we all agree that somebody who climbs to the summit of Everest has more personal merit and increased personal value than somebody who is flown to the same summit by helicopter. So the greatest good that God could give to other sentient beings is to create for them the most efficient experiential environment possible in which they can attain virtue on personal merit. And the experiential environment I live in (the physical world I experience but also the qualitative/internal/subjective parts of my experience, e.g. how it is to love, how it is to fail, how it is to fear, how it is to hurt, how it is to trust, how it is to perceive beauty, how it is to understand, how it is to self-transcend, and so on – in short how it is to be a human being), the whole of it appears to me to be perfectly proportioned for attaining virtue. Or at least I see nothing in my experience of life as a human being that would make me suspect that it is not perfectly proportioned for attaining virtue. In short, the God hypothesis explains to my satisfaction the whole of my conscious experience, including the nasty bits.

Now I am not just a theist but a Christian, and this would correspond to my third stand. But this is a stand I don't wish to make here, for various reasons: First it is irrelevant in the context of the atheist/theist debate and the justification of my belief in God. Second I don't consider Christianity to be objectively superior to other religious worldviews, just to be superior for me for various reasons and especially because of my upbringing. Third my understanding of Christianity differs from traditional dogma in several points, including the dogma of humankind's fall, the dogma of divine judgment and hell, the dogma of salvation by faith alone, and the dogma of God's immutability; so obviously I can only meaningfully discuss my Christian worldview with other Christians versed in these obscure concepts ;-)

AND THE DEBATE RAGED ON FOR ANOTHER 1000 ODD POSTS.
DIANELOS FELT HIS FAITH STRENGTHENED BY OUR EFFORTS OR WAS HE JUST SAYING THAT. TIME WILL TELL.
Me, I could have thrown metaphorical rocks at metaphorical windows all day, long because no one really gets metaphorically hurt.

But I think Dianelos should best be remembered for this:

""THE CASE OF JESUS' RESURRECTION IS A SPECIAL CASE: MY GUESS IS THAT GOD WAS SO MOVED BY THE DISCIPLES' GRIEF THAT HE CAUSED THEM TO EXPERIENCE THE BODILY PRESENCE OF JESUS FOR A FEW DAYS AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION. YOU SEE GOD INCARNATED IN JESUS HAD HAD THE KIND OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DISCIPLES THAT WE HUMANS HAVE WITH EACH OTHER, SO THAT WAS REALLY A SPECIAL CASE"

Yes, a special case readers, lets leave it at that shall we.

246. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55673 by alovrin on July 12, 2007 at 12:43 am

Another DT doozie, apropo of nothing

I am pretty confident of my objective result that idealistic theism is much less complex than even the simplest naturalistic worldview.

Well of course it is dear boy, anything with god in it is always going to APPEAR simpler. Until of course one asks GOD WHO?

247. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55565 by alovrin on July 11, 2007 at 2:33 pm

USA Limey
Dont be sillwah dear follower of the Lime. Of course I dont believe.
But if I ever come across one of the little buggers, I may have to resort to the Dianelos method and talk the pesky fuckers into submitting to my will.
MWAHAHAHAHA
As an aside Heres a Dianelos doozey

they will leave naturalism in droves

Funny that its been working the other way round for centuries.

248. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55387 by alovrin on July 11, 2007 at 12:35 am

Holy crap go fairy hunting for a couple of days and look what happens.

The criticism is not that naturalists do not work, the criticism is that naturalism does not work.

A couple of hundred more entries and DG is still making unsupported subjective claims. (Which, of course, he considers objective)
Damn and I almost had one of the little buggers, I swear I'll catch one soon.

249. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55096 by alovrin on July 10, 2007 at 2:30 am

can you describe how those who don't believe in God rationally explain how our brain produces consciousness? Because if they can't explain this greatest fact of all – if they don't have the very slightest inkling of an idea of how to explain it - then by your own measure they are like believing in an invisible process that somehow makes consciousness magically spring out of our brain.

And of course your explanation that god doles out this precious commodity from behind a curtain is so much rational and satisfying as an explanation.
Than, not sure yet and may not be for a while, tho' there are promising avenues of investigation worth pursuing, lets see where they may lead...
You really outdo yourself sometimes
Oww look a fairy...I must get my fairy net.

250. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54828 by alovrin on July 9, 2007 at 4:10 am

I would have so-called "creation science" taught in school along with the fact that according to virtually the entire scientific community it lacks any scientific grounds and along the fact that is has been pushed on the political arena as a means to further religious fundamentalism (one page of a textbook and one hour of a teacher's time would be quite sufficient for all that). Much more importantly, I would like children to learn about both religious and political ideas (including political nationalism), how these have been used for doing good and for doing evil, how these explain much of history and much of today's society and today's conflicts. I would like children to learn about ethics, and indeed about the ethics of science. I would like children to be exposed to different ontological worldviews about reality, including naturalism and theism, to be given the oportunity to study the best arguments for or against them, and to actually think about these issues for themselves. I'd rather have those dogmatic people who judge those who disagree with them as irrational or of being the root of all evil or of being deceived by the devil

la la lalala Seen the Daily Show? Humor and ridicule are invaluable weapons when dealing with falsehoods. And maybe some adults need edumacating as well, in not taking themselves to seriously. And you forgot the question mark. Root of all evil?