Comments by Steve Zara

2451. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226993 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 6:33 am

Comment #226979 by Grumpy Max

But for crying out loud, I am genuinely shocked at the wholehearted "Bill's on our side, so whatever underhandedness he employs MUST be OK" responses here.

I am not shocked. It seems a common attitude. To dig up the whole "crackergate" thing again, this kind of attitude was present there too. Whether or not you think it is right to offend religious people, there was a frequently expressed attitude that it just didn't matter, as we are in the right.

Perhaps it is just me, but I don't want to live in a society where people get to just declare they are right.

Oh, and I never liked Candid Camera!

2452. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226961 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #226959 by Mitchell Gilks

Thanks for that.

It is pretty much as annoying as the original article in many ways.

Purves may be right that there might not be much hard belief in creationism, but that a large number of people are prepared to give the nod to ID in recent polls suggests that at best the public in general has a poor understanding of science and how it works. Which is why Dawkins is so important.

2453. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226954 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #226949 by Laurie Fraser

I don't expect David to post anything sensible on the subject of evolution, and I really don't expect him to choose sides. My hope is that if any of his flock read threads he contributes to, they will see how he won't commit any particular view on evolution. Possibly people on both sides of the "debate" on evolution will be less than happy with this.

Creationism could be the issue that splits his already split Church....

2454. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226952 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:35 am

Comment #226948 by Donald

I thought Libby Purves' response to Richard was much better than her original piece. She had the grace to refer to her original piece as "ranted reservations".

That is a pretty bad admission for a journalist, isn't it? I am not sure the editor of the Times would be happy to know that a contributor is writing "rants".

2455. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226941 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 1:10 am

Comment #226939 by AllanW

Actually, I think David's post is quite illuminating.

Either he is being sarcastic, as I suspect, in which case he considers a belief in creationism to be acceptable in educated circles, or he is being truthful, in which case he agrees that creationism is a position of ignorance.

So, there is no fudge here. Either the creationists or the evolutionists amongst his flock are going to be offended by this post.

Time for him to choose sides, perhaps.

2456. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226935 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:53 am

Comment #226933 by clearthinker

So no progress on clearing up your position on evolution then?

2457. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226931 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:40 am

Comment #226929 by clearthinker

Any progress with a statement of your opinion on the fall, and on whether or not there was death and disease before the arrival of mankind on the planet?

If you have no problem with evolution, then you must have no problem with the mechanisms of evolution, which involve death and disease. But that is a bit of a problem for any idea of a "fall", as it means death and disease were around long before people.

Please explain which you believe - evolution, or a "fall" of mankind? Or if you manage to squidge the two into some intellectual gloop, I would be interested in how you do that too...

2458. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226927 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:17 am

The same is true in this particular case. The Expelled team's actions are morally wrong because they are factually wrong, and Bill Maher's actions are morally right because he is factually right

I don't see a problem with mild deception in order to expose people and find out their views. That is part of the way that investigative journalism works. The problem is if people's views are misrepresented, but that is a different matter.

What I do have a major problem with is statements like the above. For one thing, part of scientific rationalism is realising that there are few certainties. All we can do is believe we are probably right.

Also, if we use the above argument, we have to accept that others may justify their actions against us using precisely the same words.

2459. Gerin Oil

Comment #226755 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Well said, "low dose" Gerin Oil or "moderate" religions including Buddhism may not be harmful in themselves, but they are a gateway drug.

I don't really agree. The real problem with religion is dogma and faith. There are types of Buddhism which encourage scepticism. I think that is healthy.

2460. Gerin Oil

Comment #226744 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Comment #226740 by deadaluspark

Basically my point is: I am fairly sure humans are generally evil/stupid, by nature. If this is the case, bitching about one or the other being wrong isn't helping anything.

There is a profound difference between science and religion. Science works through scepticism. It does not privilege the personal viewpoint. Religion by its very nature encourages individuals to consider themselves to be superior (such as to have the ability to perceive the supernatural) and panders to prejudices (personal feelings are said to have come from, and agree with, the Creator), and that pandering is actively encouraged by most societies. If someone religious feels that homosexuality is wrong, that is considered acceptable simply because it is a religious view.

Religion is thinking without a seat belt. Just because most get away with it, it does not mean it isn't a fundamentally bad idea.

2461. Gerin Oil

Comment #226732 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Comment #226729 by deadaluspark

Where in the practice and methodology of science is there any ethical position that encourages evil?

2462. Gerin Oil

Comment #226728 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Comment #226716 by deadaluspark

Adorno's very true statement that the enlightenment, a period of great scientific and philosophical upheaval, led us realize that humans can use science for evil just as well as they can use religion.

And that point of that is what, exactly?

Yes, their work is serpentine and often confusing, but it can also be amazingly brilliant work if you suffer through thinking about thought.

I suspect you may be missing the point of what Dawkins is saying. I am no expert in philosophy, being merely an enthusiastic amateur, but what the philosophy I have read can be difficult, but clearly written and with appropriate metaphors. The criticism of Deleuze and others by scientists (such as Sokal and Bricmont) is that he abuses science and mathematics by using terms in arbitrary ways. It may be fashionable in some philosophical circles, but it is sloppy and is a real barrier to acceptance of views.

I have seen scientists abuse philosophy (and it is embarrassing to see). It should be equally embarrassing to see philosophers abuse science. It was entirely appropriate for Dawkins to complain about this.

2463. Gerin Oil

Comment #226703 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:20 pm

deadaluspark-

You are going to be thought of as a troll unless you actually post sensible arguments. So far you have just thrown out what seem like a series of random rants.

I am afraid using the good old straw man of claiming that Dawkins or anyone is blaming religion for everything does not illustrate clear thinking.

Dawkins has a specific agenda. He is interested in the public understanding of science, indeed passionate about it, it seems. We have a major battle with religion attempting to corrupt and stifle science. His attacks on religion are well-founded.

2464. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226651 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Comment #226643 by Bonzai

My problem with Chomsky is perhaps not really with him, but the fact that he tends to attract a rather uncritical following. He does not seem to be a person whose views some people can take or leave.

2465. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #226636 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Comment #226630 by Teratornis

It's possible that sex robots will make future generations of people look better, assuming the pleasure plagues do not cause a massive dieback, since people who are only marginally attractive, or worse, will not have to get drunk so they can bring themselves to have sex with other marginally attractive, or worse, partners. Since no one will have to settle for anyone less than a stunningly attractive partner, it's possible that in fairly short order, only stunningly attractive people will still be having real sex.

Seriously, you are either joking or need to get out more.

2466. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #226600 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #224859 by thewhitepearl

Just consider those posts like messages from a parallel reality not quite like ours, a world of sober cyclists which is slowly dying out due to their sexual obsession with robots.

2467. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226507 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 7:31 am

Quetz-

Heck, for all we know the aliens could be fascinated by stars, Newtonian mechanics and vacuum.

Sure, but size of the universe is vastly in excess of what you would need to study all that. A sample size of around 10^22 stars is a bit excessive.

Regarding your blog entry - nice little joke about the cheque :)

2468. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226501 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #226500 by irate_atheist

Bits like that. The resource requirements of simulations would mean that such subsets would been evolved away, leaving things more like Brighton on a Saturday in July.

2469. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226497 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comment #226488 by Quetzalcoatl

No, honestly, the universe really is dull! Science works because nothing much changes. This would be a very boring simulation indeed. And, as there will always be competition for resources (even in the world of the simulators), they just would not get research funding for such a pointless simulation.

There, you see! A nice Darwinist argument against the simulation idea.

2470. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226483 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 6:35 am

Comment #226474 by irate_atheist

I have always found the simulation argument rather silly. It is rather like arguments based on fine tuning - the universe we see does not appear like one that is designed to be a simulation - it is wasteful of resources and rather boring. When scientists run simulations they focus on the interesting bits.

2471. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226458 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #226356 by newskin

Natural Selection.

2472. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226408 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #226400 by Brian English

trepanation?

2473. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226406 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:42 am

It is simple to understand experimental results in terms of the many worlds interpretation.

Personally, I find things simpler to understand in terms of the Transactional Interpretation.

I guess we all have different ideas of what is "simple to understand"

2474. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226403 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:40 am

Comment #226392 by Oystein Elgaroy

I'm not anything really. I just know that the pilot wave idea tries to reconcile the idea of waves and particles by allowing non-locality.

Best not to read too much actual knowledge into my posts :)

2475. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226382 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #226380 by Brian English

My point doesn't really require the in depth discussion it just asks do we say photons are equally waves and particles or on a deeper level waves (or particles)?

I haven't a clue :)

2476. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226375 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:00 am

Comment #226367 by Brian English

The thing is, though, that photons do do very "wavey" things, like being polarised, and they do very "particley" things like knocking electrons out of metals.

The way to treat something as both wave and particle is to use the Bohm "interpretation":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

2477. Darwin's bulldogs

Comment #226345 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #226342 by newskin

I believe the biologist Lynn Margulis has some objections to "Darwinism".

2478. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226333 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 1:56 am

Comment #225875 by HumanisticJones

Does this validate the Copenhaggen Interpretation and invalidate the Many Worlds Interpretation? It seems that if the Many Worlds version were true, then unmeasuring would result in the collapse of the split off universe

I am afraid it does not distinguish. In terms of Many Worlds unmeasuring would not collapse anything - it would just mean that a certain division into different worlds "heals".

2479. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226327 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 1:50 am

Comment #226324 by irate_atheist

That was because I took too long to post! As soon as I saw the updated page I realised you had summarised the situation far better than I.

2480. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226322 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 1:39 am

Comment #226303 by epeeist

The Times may have gone downhill, but Purves hit a low standard decades ago and has been stuck there. When I read her writing, or hear her on the radio, I get the impression of someone who really isn't that bright but doesn't quite realise it.

2481. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #225711 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 9:20 am

But suppose a scientist claimed, with respect to a particular unexplained phenomoena, "We haven't got a scientific explanation for that one yet, but sooner or later we will find one."

How is "God" an explanation for anything? Unless you can provide a testable hypothesis for how a deity interacts with reality, invoking "God" is pointless.

2482. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #225708 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #225706 by jakedanger

Science can easily claim a privileged position because it provides ways that we can test each others claims about reality.

Science doesn't claim to be able to find all truths, or be perfect. But no other effective approach has been suggested.

If you want to use the word "miracle", you are going to have to provide testable evidence that demonstrates beyond all doubt that a phenomenon is supernatural. How would one do that?

2483. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #225705 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 9:08 am

Comment #225701 by jakedanger

Almost all cosmologists are atheists for a good reason. Science works. This is science that deals with things on the scale of billions of light years - all of what some people call "creation".

Materialism isn't something we start off with. It isn't something we choose in place of theism. It is the result of millenia of observations of nature, and finding that what we observe follows rules.

Materialism is not just a conclusion that one can come to because science works, but it is also a solid philosophical position. Theism requires supernaturalism, and supernaturalism is very dodgy indeed. Many (like me) believe that it is not even a sensible term to use. How would someone demonstrate that some observation was the result of something that did not follow any laws? I don't think that even makes sense. What exactly is a "non-physical reality"? How could we test for its existence? How could it have any influence on us?

And let me add a cryptic (but hopefully insightful) statement about the limits of scientific inquiry: "To a man armed only with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

I am afraid that this is neither original or insightful, as no useful alternative method of investigating reality has ever been proposed.

The scientific method is simple. It requires corroborated independent and repeatable objective evidence, and the use of testable and falsifiable hypotheses. There is no sensible alternative if we aren't going to allow ourselves to be fooled by the fallibility of our own minds.

Because of these problems, theism isn't even a reasonable concept, let alone something that is incompatible with materialism.

2484. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225679 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 7:42 am

Comment #225676 by decius

Some are more subtle, and think that a sufficient volume of arguments that evolution is flawed is enough to open the door to creationism, but I doubt that such tactics would work in any good science class these days. I doubt that Storey has any idea about what science is about, which is a bit troubling for the chair of an Education Committee.

I am becoming increasingly concerned. Only a couple of days ago I was talking to some old friends who teach undergraduate courses in London universities. Problems with creationists are common these days, with requests from students to avoid certain classes. Fortunately, that is just not allowed.

2485. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225677 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #225673 by phasmagigas

This post of Dr Benway's is appropriate:
http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/creationist-logic.html

2486. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225670 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 7:28 am

I am utterly baffled by this. How is Creationism going to be taught in science lessons? What would the laboratory experiments be? What is the evidence for divine intervention? What predictions does Creationism make? How can it be falsified?

I would be very interested in the prospectus for such a course.

2487. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225620 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #225619 by Bonzai

So we keep out both Muslims and wussy veggie liberals? :)

2488. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225614 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #225611 by Bonzai

I consider it flippant because actually converting to Islam (or saying you have) is clearly not going to be a crime.

You can't block immigration based on having points of view that aren't criminal in the country people are entering.

2489. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225595 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 4:16 am

Perhaps, with the increasing sensitivity (and portability) of brain scanners, we will be able to have something like a tricorder, and set to "scan for Islam".

2490. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225591 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 4:01 am

Comment #225590 by Fanusi Khiyal

So, at a very bare minimum, Muslim immigration needs to end. And end soon.

Just out of curiosity, how would you achieve this?

To put in flippantly, would you have a box that would be ticked asking:

"Please mark here if you are one of those naughty Muslims. If you don't bother to put a mark here, we will let you in".

2491. Breeding for God

Comment #225575 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #225573 by Fanusi Khiyal

Now you are starting to sound more reasonable in my opinion.

I do have two concerns though:

5) Certainty of extreme retaliation for physical and military assaults on western societies.

That is probably what many extreme fundamentalists actually want us to do, as it may encourage recruitment to their cause.

3) Demand Muslims accept western liberal values to become citizens, or deny citizenship.

Good luck trying to define "Western liberal values" :) We still seem to be trying to sort out what this means!

2492. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225539 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 1:24 am

Comment #225536 by black wolf

For most people in the UK, those things are "under the radar". The attempts to ban plays and films is considered to be by just a few nutters. The UK has had a long tradition of supposedly relatively harmless faith schools. Creationism is (rightly or wrongly) not taught in science classes, and won't be in publicly funded schools because of the national curriculum.

These impressions may be wrong, but I believe they are the feelings of most people.

2493. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225535 by Steve Zara on August 7, 2008 at 12:59 am

I am not surprised there has not been a rush to fund this, fun thought it sounds. Atheism is not a movement, and does not instruct its followers to "spread the word". Also, most non-believers in the UK probably consider religion mostly harmless, so would not see any urgency in spreading this message.

Now, if there was something in support of evolution for example, I would find that a different matter.

2494. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225408 by Steve Zara on August 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm

But there again is that whole passive-aggressive "well, it's not ME being an asshole, it's God, and it's okay when God does it".

Months back I had this formal debate with a theologian called Bnonn Tennant. He seemed a nice enough guy. Then I discovered a blog post of his in which he described atheists (and particularly scientists, who supported reason) as deluded fools, ignorant of true knowledge.

When I challenged him on this, he said that it was not his problem, as it was what scripture said.

At least when I call some religious people deluded and ignorant, I take responsibility for my own words.

2495. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225371 by Steve Zara on August 6, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Comment #225366 by Quetzalcoatl

No Weddings and a Funeral?

2496. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225368 by Steve Zara on August 6, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #225358 by phil rimmer

EDIT AS per Steve and TWP I think the explanation of sin as a cause of say homosexuality leads to a great many Religious Homophobes who can manage to pity the "afflicted".

That really gets me angry. I detest the patronising attitude of supposedly moderate and nice Christians who consider homosexuality sinful, "but we have to hate the sin, not the sinner". I have a similar detestation of the term "toleration" applied to homosexuality.

I consider myself a full and equal part of society. I am not someone who should be "forgiven" or "tolerated".

2497. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225349 by Steve Zara on August 6, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Comment #225335 by Diacanu

We gays are the result of sin, don't you know? Once men and women started doing bad things, evil came into the world, resulting in earthquakes, famine, death, disease, Jerry Springer, cheese whizz, and gays.

2498. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225343 by Steve Zara on August 6, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #225341 by decius

Indeed.

I suggest people read a rather excellent book - "Evolving the Alien" by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart. It helps to demolish the idea that life has to be only Earth-like, and evolve on planets like ours.

2499. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225327 by Steve Zara on August 6, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #225318 by squinky

Sorry, you did indeed say that.

2500. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #225290 by Steve Zara on August 6, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #225268 by thewhitepearl