201. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69133 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 6:54 pm

82,

If you honestly believe I'm a religious lurker you really must be a fool. A lot of so-called atheists accuse me of this because they think what I say is too radical to be from a 'standard' atheist.

A 'standard' atheist still has the ingrained 2000 years of Christianity in his perspective. Of course it is hard to wipe 2000 years of brainwashing from the collective consciousness of the west. Thus your absurdly Christian post.


I am actively engaged in the secularisation of Europe.

My thoughts are as objective as is possible. I will change them if I am persuaded they are mistaken.

202. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69127 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Oxytocin,

You're not holding the debate very well...

Your answer to (1.) is stupid. Do you honestly think that mathematical certainties come from empirical counting? That means that one can never be 100% certain that a triangle's inner angles add up to 180 degrees as we can't count every single triangle in the universe. As if this fact were simply a probability!

You need to read up on the difference between a priori and a posteriori propositions before I can continue this conversation.

Your second response is empty. As I predicted, you cannot tell me why murder is wrong. You can't because 'wrong' is a delusion. Your research nonsense is irrelevant to the argument.

"Why" means 'the reason that' (as a relative pronoun). You don't believe in why questions? So you don't believe in giving reasons...

Is the question, "Why are leaves green?" inherently meaningless, as you write?

203. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69121 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 6:32 pm

"?",

(Get a proper name please!)

Now you're valuing happiness as the highest ideal. One could argue that pain & suffering increased strength and thus the survival of a species.

Definitions of 'superior' are relative. Some are more dependent on civilisation (e.g. great writers), others are not (e.g. great warriors).

Values are in flux.

204. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69116 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 6:24 pm

BAEOZ,

Protagoras is the most famous sophist ("man is the measure of all things...").

Plato was re-interpreted by Plotinus and the neo-Platonists, ultimately being the main inspiration for St Augustine's theology: a major Christian thinker and inspiration (heard of 'original sin' and theodicy?).

So it's good to know Plato so as to be able to say that the actual basis for a lot of Christian thought is actually bullshit right from the very beginning.

205. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69112 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 6:07 pm

BAEOZ,

It's necessary to read Plato to understand Christianity (Nietzsche called him 'the first Christian' before Christ).

However, he's rubbish, I believe, compared to his student Aristotle. Plato's idea of the 'Forms' and soul were absolutely ridiculous, and his method of argument by analogy is logically weak.

Read the 'Sophists' before Plato – they were far wiser Greeks.

206. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69110 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 6:01 pm

"?",

But now you're valuing 'general welfare' and 'civilisation' without question. One could counter that general welfare was, say, bad for the environment, or bad for superior humans.

The second point you make is some sandal-wearing female hippy one that belongs in the 60s. I can appreciate art without compassion; indeed I do all the time.

207. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69106 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Oxytocin,

I take that as an admission of defeat as you didn't respond to my point – thank you.

It seems I always have to repeat myself with you. I wrote that knowledge comes in two forms; I didn't deny the empirical form as you suggest.

Please tell me two things:
1. please show me the empirical data that would back up the fact that 5+7=12. (would it be questionable without empirical data?)
2. Tell me why murder is 'immoral'.

I guarantee that you cannot provide responses for these.

208. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69093 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 5:34 pm

"?",

Why is compassion an 'accomplishment', as you write? Someone could say it was a vice, that it hindered evolution by caring for the weak who should die off and not spread their weak genes.

This reveals your Christian mindset as well.


BAEOZ,
hello again. N is one of many thinkers who made an impression. I'm now reading Zizek's 'The Universal Exception' – I recommend it to slam PC promoters.

209. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69086 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Yorker,

Interesting what you said about rape. Today it is considered 'evil'. But three thousand years ago the Greek word for rape was synonymous with 'seduction'.

Thus we have the old myth of 'The Rape/Seduction of Europa'.

As you write, it goes to show that no values are universal or eternal. That would be a religious view.

210. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69083 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Oxytocin,

Believe me, I am striving for pure reason here; I am not seeking an emotional reaction so please calm down.

You write:
"My contention ... is simply this: without having a serious set of instinctual drives that we are born with ... we would never come to do much of anything but act in chaos."

Again, I never argued that we didn't have innate drives. Indeed I'm all for that position as opposed to a more social role. Please reread what I actually wrote.

My point is simply this: we are born with innate drives to be altruistic, compassionate, aggressive, selfish, etc. To value the former comes from the teachings of the church and the priestly elite. To value the latter comes from Imperialists, warrior-classes, etc.

The drives are natural; the values are social.
Do you not understand this simple point?
Even Marx & Engels wrote about this ('false consciousness').

All this irrelevant research does not change the logic. Remember there are two forms of knowledge: rational and empirical. Research is empirical, but it is subsumed under the rational (empirical research has no bearing on whether 2+2=4).

Oxytocin,
You have a Christian mindset without realising it. You seem to value Christian values like compassion, altruism, etc.

This is what makes you fail true atheism. True atheism is pure objectivity, without the illusion of morality (a method of controlling the population).

211. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69019 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Further:

You must make a careful distinction between descriptive and prescriptive morality.

Descriptive morality simply describes the different morals in different cultures. That is simply a type of sociology, or even evolutionary psychology. Fine.

Prescriptive morality prescribes morals that one 'ought to' obey (e.g. the golden rule, 10 commandments, murder, etc.). These morals are, behind the veil, power commands: they tell people what to do, how to behave.

As is commonly known, you cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'. Illogical.
Research can never tell people how to behave.

212. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69017 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Oxytoxin,

With respect, I think you're missing my point. I have written twice now that there are universal, hard-wired behaviourisms. I do not deny that or the research into it.

You say certain behaviour can be 'described' as morality. Yes, it can be. It can also be described as weakness, sentimentalism. The question is, as is my point, what is it that labels certain behaviour 'good' or 'evil': 'moral'.

In other words, biological traits are valued/disvalued according to sociological preferences. In the west, Christianity has put compassionate traits as the ideal.

The vikings, spartans, Imperial Romans, even Plato considered compassion, say, a vice. Their society had less need for such traits. Their morals were thus different.

In other words, objective morality is a delusion, behaviour is not.

The problem with these 'new atheists', therefore, is that they lack a historic sense: they think that the current morals are universal ones.

I recommend you study Nietzsche, Ayer, Foucault. Nietzsche argued that Christian sentimentalist morality even hindered the evolution of mankind as it makes us weaker (sympathy for the weak).

213. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68992 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 12:24 pm

HAVNB,

I would recommend Nietzsche's 'On the Genealogy of Morality' and 'Beyond Good & Evil'; and A.J. Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic'.

Oxytocin,

I wrote 'behaviour'. Behaviour may be hardwired; the behaviour we value in the west is predominantly decided by religion (subconsciously). Some cultures, for example, considered compassion a weakness of character. Do not conflate behaviour and morality.

Btw, I read Pinker's book. It falls into the same trap: some behaviour is – without question – valued. He doesn't question the main point.

Morality is faith as well. It is a delusion.

214. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68973 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 11:03 am

Franicis Collins' view that morality must come from our religion holds true.

This is where Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. stumble. They deny god but affirm morality.

The truth is: morality is also a delusion. There is no morality, only behaviour. This is the real atheist conclusion. One shouldn't take the existence of good and evil (e.g. that altruism is 'good', aggression is 'evil') for granted; this is the monotheistic mindset.

This is exactly what Nietzsche argued. There is no 'good' and 'evil', only power structures. Morality is a power structure (an elite telling one what to do).

So Collins is still wrong: without religion there can be no morality – but there is no morality anyway, thus no god!

215. Bible Belter

Comment #68765 by Henri Bergson on September 8, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Hardline takeover of British Mosques:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece

216. 'Incredibly lucky' find yields important fish fossil

Comment #68762 by Henri Bergson on September 8, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Laid not by Jesus, but by His Dark Majesty, Satan.

That's obvious, otherwise the bible wouldn't be true.

217. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68570 by Henri Bergson on September 7, 2007 at 4:06 pm

We need a more intelligent religion debate ... he grandly pronounces that there are: "... four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man (sic) and the cosmos, that because..."

218. Bible Belter

Comment #68470 by Henri Bergson on September 7, 2007 at 8:21 am

Morgan,

I disagree. If one wants to dispel delusions, one should be careful not to proliferate other ones in the process.

I'm waiting for the book, 'The Morality Delusion' (although I guess 'Beyond Good & Evil' has already been written, as well as Marx & Engels' texts on 'false consciousness' and ideologies...).

219. Bible Belter

Comment #68412 by Henri Bergson on September 7, 2007 at 5:21 am

'The God Delusion' and 'god is not Great' are two excellent books. However, they both carry the same fundamental error, as I see it.

They both conflate emotions with morality. A massive logical error. It is undoubtedly true that emotions are evolved, but morality is not emotions and therefore not evolved.

The morality of the day (and it constantly changes - e.g. The 'Golden Rule' has often been seen as a vice of a weak-heart) simply maintains a class in power.

Sympathy for the weak empowered the slave classes, of course (the origin of Christianity) just as 'political correctness' predominantly maintains the power of the European Upper-middle classes today.

This is not to say that only religion can issue morals; rather, there are no morals, only behaviour. One can never say what someone else 'ought to' do. One can only impose one's preference and disguise it as objective fact (as 'morality').

Morality is a faith like religion; and like religion, it maintains a power structure.

220. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67399 by Henri Bergson on September 3, 2007 at 9:24 am

I've always despised this woman. She's part of the multiculturalist ideology elite. This ideology maintains the power of the upper-middle European classes.

It's essentially fascist (ironically) as it cannot accept other ideologies (memes) that oppose it: every person, culture and religion is equal. If you disagree you are 'immoral'.

However, none of the actual creeds agree with the same principles.

This is why Alibhai-Brown could never accept the God Delusion. It threatens the 'neutrality' that maintains her power.

221. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66308 by Henri Bergson on August 29, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Sweden is destroying itself at the moment by 'accepting' all cultures & religions.

Last year the Swedish courts didn't pass sentence on a muslim who beat his wife because in his culture that sort of behaviour was the norm, and it would be 'intolerant' to jail him.

Sweden's 3rd city, Malmö, has been predicted to be the first European city with a muslim majority.

This foolish priest says that Dawkins' atheism is dangerous as we 'need a sensible dialogue between [sic] different cultures', not sensible atheism...

Sweden, wake up and smell your great coffee!!

(Thank Odin the God Delusion has been translated into Swedish though.)

222. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64434 by Henri Bergson on August 20, 2007 at 4:45 am

Solution: ban faith schools.

223. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64113 by Henri Bergson on August 17, 2007 at 7:09 pm

"That's offensive" - yeah good! Feckin' pvssy

224. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63903 by Henri Bergson on August 16, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Richard,

I have just sent a letter of complaint to the rt. hon. Malcolm Rifkind. Let's see if he replies...

225. After 60 Years, Will Pakistan Be Reborn?

Comment #63672 by Henri Bergson on August 15, 2007 at 9:52 am

Epeeist,

You write, "Perhaps it is time for states to act ethically in the same way as people should."

But there's really no difference between self-interest and altruism (as even Marx and Engels write: 'morality is false consciousness, empowering a particular class').

The false distinction is a mainly religious one. I.e. you think in religious terms.

226. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63440 by Henri Bergson on August 14, 2007 at 6:28 am

Epeeist,

Ich habe einzige nicht schreiben... (ehhh hmm, I mean:)
I have not only written about Nietzsche. Come on, I use many thinkers, not just the mustached one.

(Good to hear, though, that Hitchens has finally embraced Nietzsche's concept of the will to power (hear his last radio debate).)

But granted that most Yank Christians are a threat to the progress of mankind; muslims are now a threat to the progress AND freedom of Europe.

Christianity (at present) is the lesser of two 'evils'.

----

There is a rally organised in Brussels against the introduction of Sharia Law in Europe. It should take place on 9/11. The mayor there has banned it, but hopefully this will soon be overturned.

227. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63424 by Henri Bergson on August 14, 2007 at 5:32 am

Epeeist,

Thanks for the link, though I was being rhetorical. I have not served in the middle east, though I am pro-war – Must you be against war if you have not served? Obviously not.

Another thing, let's not start having a go at weeflea again! Last time I checked, there were no Scottish protestants flying into skyscrapers!

Focus on the immediate threat.

---

Here's the actual documentary:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

228. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63386 by Henri Bergson on August 14, 2007 at 3:59 am

Great article.

It seems that Saudi Arabia should have been invaded, not just Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wonder why it wasn't...

229. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63096 by Henri Bergson on August 13, 2007 at 5:25 am

Good to hear that Hitchens has finally embraced Nietzsche's concept of the 'Will to Power'.

230. 'Delusion' Revisits Faith Vs. Reason Debate

Comment #63095 by Henri Bergson on August 13, 2007 at 5:24 am

The rise of Christianity in South Korea is frightening and reflects badly upon the people of the country.

Their neighbours are forced into sheepishness, they choose it!

231. When did the police start collaring television?

Comment #62954 by Henri Bergson on August 12, 2007 at 1:02 pm

The West Midlands police should be counter-sued if Ofcom find no issue with their complaint.

232. The Out Campaign

Comment #61338 by Henri Bergson on August 4, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Goldy,
'Loquations' (sic) twists the word 'loquacious'.

Epeeist,
I dread your oncoming band of female fencers. By the way, fencing is an effeminate sport.

Veronique,
Do you understand the function of inverted commas?

Bls (abbreviation of 'bullshit'?),
It's not a freedom to believe what we want to, but a freedom not to believe. Atheism is not theism by definition. I bet you're American.

J,
Thank you for your brief book chapter.

---


Bah humbug.


This thread is running dry, time to jump ship. Isn't it a pity there is no imam to criticise here rather than the usual clergyman? A mere Scottish vicar is hardly a threat to Europe.

233. The Out Campaign

Comment #61120 by Henri Bergson on August 3, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Goldy,

Antiquarian? Bow tie? Not really: I'm a 27-year-old rock star...

About our debate: I won.

'Judeo-Christian' is used as Christianity is a branch of Judaism. The celts who were Christianised still inherited that. The celtic Christians were more or less quashed by the catholics in Britain (before the Reformation).

So 'Judeo-Christian' is more apt, even in Britain.

'Hell' comes etmylogically from the Scandinavian 'Hel'. However the Christian notion in the new testament is based on the Greek notion of tartarus, a connotation given through the Greek translation of the old testament, the Septuagint. In the original testament, Hell was mainly known as 'Gehenna' (valley of Hinnom - burning rubbish dump outside Jerusalem). It was more literal than metaphysical.

By the way, the Jews have lived in the Celtic land of Cornwall for 2000-odd years. The Romans brought them to mine. Thus names like 'Marazion'.

I'm proud to say that my ancestor, Gorme the Olde (father of Harald Bluetooth - from which we get 'Bluetooth' technology), fought the Christianisation of Scandinavia vehemently. I aim to follow in his footsteps.

234. The Out Campaign

Comment #60980 by Henri Bergson on August 3, 2007 at 8:26 am

Epeeist,

You might want to watch the Olympics, it rather undermines your assertion. I'd rather watch my clock tick than read the book you mention.

Obviously women have a different physique to men, thus their general inferiority in sports.

I can't believe I even have to bother stating the obvious here.

235. The Out Campaign

Comment #60975 by Henri Bergson on August 3, 2007 at 8:21 am

Veronique,

I did address your concern. I can give as much information in one sentence as you can in three paragraphs.

"What's wrong with being sexy?" in the words of Nigel Tuffnel?

236. The Out Campaign

Comment #60946 by Henri Bergson on August 3, 2007 at 6:56 am

Charlou,

Physical strength is part & parcel of sport skill in most sports. Saying that it is a separate aptitude is like saying that quick reactions is an aptitude separate from sport skills.

BAEOZ,

Change it for his 'Philosophical Investigations' (a masterpiece).

237. The Out Campaign

Comment #60942 by Henri Bergson on August 3, 2007 at 6:50 am

BAEOZ,

Ironically Nietzsche is often called a 'perspectivist'.

Wittgenstein rejected his earlier work (the Tractatus), not his corpus. He was certainly no metaphysician.

Idolising Nietzsche? Heard of 'Twilight of the Idols'?

238. The Out Campaign

Comment #60930 by Henri Bergson on August 3, 2007 at 6:29 am

Kkant,

You conflate assertions of value with assertions of fact, a common mistake. "Suffering" can possibly be verified, that it is "wrong" cannot be. I.e. morals are relative and therefore cannot be said to be objectively better or worse.

Secondly, of course humanism and utilitarianism are remnants of the Judeo-Christian legacy. Read some history. For example, compassion was seen as a vice by Plato, the Spartans, the vikings, the Imperial Romans, etc.

You insult your namesake.

---

Veronique,

The reason that there is a men/women category distinction in sport championships is because men are better at sports. If not, there wouldn't be the distinction.

Although I do prefer women's tennis as they are slower and more enjoyable to watch.

---

Steve,

Believe it or not, heterosexuals can also be consoling. So your evolutionary explanation of homosexuals as gene-pool consoling guardians doesn't work. In fact, I would call it 'heterophobic' (if I were a pedant).

---

Goldy,

All you're saying (in too many words) is that gradable adjectives are relative. So 'feeble' would be relative to common humanity today (not to future cave-dwelling space explorers: "ground control to major Tom, take your protein pills").

It's amusing that the chattering classes cannot accept human hierarchy. This has a Judeo-Christian cause ("all men are created equal under the eyes of God").

Get your Centuries right: Ayer was 20th C; Nietzsche, 19th; Kant, 18th.

---

BAEOZ,

The fact that Nietzsche was self-admittedly feeble makes his arguments FOR strength and power more objective. If he was some He-Man lookalike, one could accuse him of bias!

Russell did critise Nietzsche – he had to considering the fact that he comes from a famous British aristocratic liberal family. His objections are not fair. Note that his protégé, Wittgenstein ultimately rejected Russell's philosophy but admired Nietzsche.

Your allusion that I, possibly like Nietzsche, am afraid of women was ironic. I left the discussion as, out of the blue, a stunning Italian girl paid me a visit. If only you knew who I am.

---

Flea,

It's strange that you think Dawkins and Hitchens rightly criticise the ontological argument when this is the one mistake they make that could legitimately be used against them by Christians. I suppose you haven't studied Kant.

---

My time here in London is now 14:26.

239. The Out Campaign

Comment #60797 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 9:06 pm

BAEOZ,

Haven't read it, but hear it's good as it also employs Foucault and Deleuze.

240. The Out Campaign

Comment #60796 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 9:01 pm

goldy,

Indeed I do believe you need to return to planet earth.

241. The Out Campaign

Comment #60790 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Relative to the same species, to state the obvious.

242. The Out Campaign

Comment #60786 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 8:49 pm

The complex of genes responsible for a feeble body/physiology I call feeble. Or is a 'feeble body' not possible?

Are you a victim of your environment - I think so

243. The Out Campaign

Comment #60782 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 8:39 pm

goldy,

Missing point methinks... badly worded as well - clean it up!

Veronique,

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. Moreover, of course women are worse at sport. Surely the inhabitants of our little prison colony can now think a little harder?

244. The Out Campaign

Comment #60774 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 8:18 pm

It does not depend on the environment goldy, it is an unconditional logical tenet.

Environment does not change logic.

245. The Out Campaign

Comment #60771 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 8:07 pm

"Suffering is wrong" is unverifiable.

Do not confuse descriptive with prescriptive ethics.

246. The Out Campaign

Comment #60766 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Charlou,

Read the Ayer quotation at the top of this page. 'Humanitarian' means Judeo-Christian.

It's difficult to hold meaningful debates about morality with those not versed in Nietzsche, the Anti-Christ.

247. The Out Campaign

Comment #60761 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 7:50 pm

You got me!

248. The Out Campaign

Comment #60750 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 7:35 pm

BAEOZ,

Utilitarianism is an unwitting form of Christianity (why is maximizing overall happiness good? - it cannot be verified true or false).

Read, for example, Nietzsche's 'Genealogy of Morality'. Great atheist book.

249. The Out Campaign

Comment #60745 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 7:23 pm

BAEOZ,

But you still hold Christian ideals. I.e. you believe in slave morality.

250. The Out Campaign

Comment #60739 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 7:14 pm

kkant,

Are you the cousin of that 'rage boy' we see everywhere?

I agree with you though. As Ayer wrote, "No morality can be founded on authority, even if the authority were divine."

Have you heard of the 'Euthyphro dilemma'? –
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"