251. Fortune-telling no longer in the cards in Philly

Comment #38959 by Donald on May 9, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Man in medieval costume: you are a sinner, you will burn in hell for ever, but you can still save yourself through Jesus. Please make a donation when the collection plate comes round.

Fortune telling for gain or lucre?

Nah. Donations are voluntary. The organised religion scam is one step ahead of the simple remedies.

252. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #38165 by Donald on May 7, 2007 at 6:48 am

Fanusi Khiyal:
Oh boy, is my face red. Sorry, the way things were organised I thought that my comment hadn't been published, so I entered it multiple times.

You can delete your own posts if you would like to tidy up. When you login again look for the X button top right of your post.

You could delete the redundant posts and leave only one. You can also edit your posts.

253. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38126 by Donald on May 7, 2007 at 3:59 am

I had never read so much rubbish before I started visiting this website.

I refer, of course, to all the crazy and ignorant stuff this site exposes, which I had previously not paid any attention to.

This article is one of the few that give me hope. EXCELLENT.

254. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #38000 by Donald on May 6, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Donald:
"The stoning is horrific. It is religiously inspired."

David Robertson:
"And your evidence for this statement is? What religions are being referred to?"

From the article heading this thread:
"Miss Aswad, a member of a minority Kurdish religious group called Yezidi, was condemned to death as an "honour killing" by other men in her family and hardline religious leaders because of her relationship with the Sunni Muslim boy."

I guess you missed the reference to religion in the above paragraph. The religion is Yezidi.

From http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_yezidism.htm:
"The Yezidi revere the Prophet Mohammed and the Sufi mystic Adi Musafir, a descendent of the Umayyad Caliphs (Kalifs)."
"The influence of Islam on the religion is heavy and obscures other aspects."
"Yezidi clegy are patterned after the Islamic Hierarchy of Sheiks and Mullas."
"There is no specific Yezidi Holy text, but important information about Yezidi practices is contained in the Mes'haf i Resh, or "black book" attributed to Adi's son, and the Jilwa, or "book of revelation," a brief homily attributed to Adi. Neither book is considered sacred, however- Yezidi tradition is strictly oral, and consists of prayers, songs, and hymns in the Kurdish language."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yezidi:
"The Yazidis' concern with religious purity, and their reluctance to mix elements perceived to be incompatible, is shown not only in their caste system, but also in various taboos affecting everyday life. Some of these, such as those on exogamy, ..."
"Exogamy is the custom of marrying outside a specified group of people to which one belongs. In addition to blood relatives, marriage to members of a specific totem or other group may be forbidden."
"Miss Aswad married a Sunni Muslim."

Can you see the connection behind all the above? You probably don't want to spend that much time, so I'll rewrite it for your convenience:

The stoners were Yezidi. Their religion strictly forbids marriage to non-Yezidi. Miss Aswad took as lover (or actually married) a Sunni Muslim. The Yezidi rely on oral traditions for their religious rulings and punishments. Their leaders prescribed stoning in this instance.

See the connection with religion now?


Still not sure?

Note that Yezidi is partly based on Islam. Islam is partly based on the old testament. Yes, of the bible. And the old testament - guess what - tells you that god (yes, that god, one of your three gods who are not three but one, and yet still three - the father one) prescribes stoning for various offences, including forbidden sexual activity. Check out Deuteronomy 22:13-21, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:2, Leviticus 24:16, and Numbers, for example. And there is more where that came from.

255. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37842 by Donald on May 6, 2007 at 1:17 am

Donald:
"But to most people who understand the complexity of modern human knowledge, the verdict is clear. God was invented in man's image. Not the other way around."

David:
"Oh dear. And your post was going so well up to this point and then you go and cotradict yourself by giving us a simplistic and arrogant answer. If you are religious then you are stupid and do not really understand the 'complexity of human knowledge'. So I guess that's it then. End of discussion?"

My apologies for not being clear. Although I did not say so, I had in mind that the main reason that people do not understand the complexity of modern human knowledge is that they do not know enough of it.

I think you misunderstood me in order to find something to attack, and you introduce more straw men.
You said "if you are religious then you are stupid", not me. Please do not attribute to me things I do not say or mean. I also object to your ad hominem "arrogant". My statement was not meant to be an accusation that believers are stupid.

I say that there are very intelligent people who believe in god, and that believing in god does not imply stupidity. There are many other reasons for belief, for example:
o) indoctrination
o) ignorance or insufficient knowledge about important relevant matters
o) brain wired differently
o) subconsciously preferring comforting belief over truth
o) subconsciously wishing to align with other people

End of discussion? Not if you are genuinely interested in the truth. Are you?
For my part, I found some of your posts interesting, but you have always responded with shorter and less detailed replies than my comments, and I am not interested in exchanging one-liners or going round in circles.

Let me repeat part of my post you said was going well:

Most of the people here on this site would like to conduct debates at a less simplistic level, for example:
reasons for belief in god:
people I trust told me so;
holy book;
awe at complexity of life;
feelings of love;
other special human qualities;
prayer helps me.
reasons against:
other trustworthy people say there is no god, preachers have motives other than pursuit of truth, and childhood indoctrination is commonplace;
different holy books say very different things;
individual holy books contain gross contradictions;
excellent and ever-increasing scientific explanation of complexity of life;
alternative scientific explanations for feelings of love;
similarities of human qualities to other animals;
prayer shown to be ineffective at producing any results outside the brain of the person praying.
Less simplistic judgement: OVERWHELMINGLY probable that god (of the bible/koran) is a human invention.


Do you want to add constructive comment to any of that?

256. My response to the GOP evolution question

Comment #37760 by Donald on May 5, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I'm impressed by the fact that you are doing something constructive Brian. Posting here is well and good, but posting videos on youtube is better. Well done.

257. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37756 by Donald on May 5, 2007 at 3:55 pm

David, #37742.

The stoning is horrific. It is religiously inspired.

You say yourself "The whole thing is [..] yet another example of how human beings can use religion to reinforce tribalism and all manners of evil behaviour."

You then go on to make some simplistic and triumphalistic statements that you say are implied by the posting of this item on this site. After you made these statements, you then say we shouldn't make them.

Do you really understand the phrase STRAW MAN ??

If you feel that religions have redeeming features, please concentrate on reminding us what they are, and explaining why they can't be equally provided by humanist and secular institutions.

258. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37747 by Donald on May 5, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Hello again David, comment #37597.

Yes, atheist leaders could be just as mad and fanatical as religious leaders.

Others have made the "atheism isn't a cause for fanaticism in the way religion is" point.

So, I'd like to point out something else implicit in your argument. It's a version of sublimal reasoning we see over and over. The reasoning treats unequals as equals, for example:

"you can't prove God"; "you can't prove he doesn't exist"; arguments subliminally implied to be "equal"
"can't prove evolution"; "can't prove creation"; arguments subliminally implied to be "equal"
"atheists can be bad"; religious zealots can be bad"; subliminally implied to be "equal"

Actually each pair of arguments above is very unequal, but to make that judgement requires a more detailed survey of the evidence.

Most of the people here on this site would like to conduct debates at a less simplistic level, for example:
reasons for belief in god:
people I trust told me so;
holy book;
awe at complexity of life;
feelings of love;
other special human qualities;
prayer helps me.
reasons against:
other trustworthy people say there is no god, preachers have motives other than pursuit of truth, and childhood indoctrination is commonplace;
different holy books say very different things;
individual holy books contain gross contradictions;
excellent and ever-increasing scientific explanation of complexity of life;
alternative scientific explanations for feelings of love;
similarities of human qualities to other animals;
prayer shown to be ineffective at producing any results outside the brain of the person praying.
Less simplistic judgement: OVERWHELMINGLY probable that god (of the bible/koran) is a human invention.

Notice that the reasons against tend to be longer, and require more detail to explain. "God did it" is much simpler. But to most people who understand the complexity of modern human knowledge, the verdict is clear. God was invented in man's image. Not the other way around. (And if god does exist and wants to change my mind, he knows where to find me. Why doesn't he? And I'm still waiting for the tooth fairy to deliver. Why doesn't he?)

Returning to the "mad atheists bad","religious zealots bad" issue. There is one reason why a mad atheist ruler is not as bad (other things being equal) as a mad religious ruler. Namely, that belief in god is effective at making people obey orders they are told come from god, and so a mad atheist ruler can't exploit religion to do some of his brainwashing for him.

259. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #35737 by Donald on April 28, 2007 at 4:30 pm

re: comment #35216 by Friend Giskard and the comments which followed

I am an occasional visitor to the http://www.jihadwatch.org/ site, and have been for some time. I think Spencer does a useful job of raising awareness.

I agree with posters who said that Spencer is biased and hates Islam. But for me the important issues are whether what is said is true, and not so much the agenda of the person making the statements (except for the purpose of assessing whether the statements are true - there the motivations of the writer should be part of the truth assessment).

I seek the truth. If someone says the Koran says such and such, I go to the Koran and check. If someone says XYZ said such and such on a programme, I view the programme on youtube/whereever and check. Whenever possible, and time permitting, of course.

What I have found is that, as far as I can tell from university internet sources, when Spencer quotes the Koran, he does so accurately and in context. The extremists seem to be people who have read the Koran and take it literally. He is also correct (as far as I can determine) in saying that the main sects of Islam all have a doctrine of believing the Koran to be the literal dictated word of god, and that the main sects of Xianity do not take the bible as literal, but as only partly literal, with parts being allegory, parable, or for other reasons subject to modern-day modification and interpretation.

Yet most muslims are ordinary people (just like us). They try to live their lives without conflict and, just like most Xians, don't actually read and study their holy book independently. Such bible/koran study as ordinary believers do (not much), is mostly attending church/mosque services and listening to a cleric read selected passages.

So, you can take your pick. Spencer thinks Islam is dangerous to humanity. Apologists offer reassuring versions of what the Koran says (I disagree with much of what apologists say - I'm with Spencer on what the Koran actually says) and point to the overwhelming majority of muslims who are peaceful and don't really know or care all the full detail of their holy book says (I think apologists are right about that).

Spencer is a Catholic, so he's not a person I would recommend for ultimate reality. But as far as his views on Islam are concerned I think he is only slightly wide of the mark.

As far as the practical reality of life under Islam is concerned, I tend to think fonex_86 is best placed to tell us.

260. Flea Circus!

Comment #33693 by Donald on April 21, 2007 at 6:40 am

David Robertson (weefree) comment #33006 wrote:

Once again the incompetance, intolerance and ignorance of this site is being demonstrated. Keep up the good work.

It is incompetant because despite being contacted by myself and my publishers you manage once again to give my book the wrong title and the wrong cover. If you want to see the correct version then go to http://www.freechurch.org/popups/07special.htm

I have to wonder why Josh does not correct this and continues to post information which is false. All of you making the statement about the cover and the apostrophe are wasting your time. You are commenting on something that does not exist. I am sorry that it takes so long to get this through to this website but I really cannot do anything more. If the website manager wishes to perpetuate myth and falsehood then I guess it is in keeping with the rest of the site.

I think this site is tolerant, fairminded, and run very competently. So I was a bit surprised at this.

Out of curiosity, and because I believe that all errors and misinformation should be corrected when identified, I sent an email to the contact address on the contact page of this site. It was a short polite email, pointing out your complaint above.

One day later your draft cover (with typo) had been replaced with the current cover as in your link above, as you can now see.

Perhaps you and the publisher didn't send your emails to the right address.

Anyway, pleased to be able to help you.

(BTW, I agree that there are some insulting posts here, but I think that's a consequence of running an open forum. The site itself seems to be run very fairly.)

261. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #30306 by Donald on April 7, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Welcome to the clear thinking oasis, Dr Guertin.

I tried to post this several days ago, but seem to have been blocked. The conspiracy theorist types who are in such abundance here will find significance in that, I'm sure.

There is a fault in the forum software which causes some posts to be lost. It's happened to me and many others. No conspiracy theory needed.


Rather than hiding behind a claim that your work is only understandable by specialists in your field, why not give us some clear explanations of your work and why it is worth doing? Professors with genuine insight are usually particularly good at that.

That would be much better than claiming we are not expert enough to understand it.

Otherwise we might think Bonzai's view (that it's banal and preposterous concepts concealed by and decorated with misused scientific jargon) is right.


Also a claim that rubbish makes sense if only people "look deeper" is one I have seen employed by crackpots in the past.


Lots of people initially said Marshall McLuhan was a crackpot too, but to have the website of the most celebrated research unit at the University of Toronto declared a hoax! That's really funny.

Although Dawkins queried whether your work was a hoax, and a couple of people here queried whether the mcluhan website was a hoax, not one has declared it to be so. As a specialist in English, I'm sure you will appreciate the distinction.

I'm interested to hear that lots of people said Marshall McLuhan was a crackpot.

And I can't help wondering whether "celebrated" in your sentence means "admired" or "talked about".

262. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30128 by Donald on April 7, 2007 at 2:33 am

On this occasion, at the beginning of the evening, there were 826 votes for the motion, 681 against, and 364 don't knows. At the end, there were 1,205 for, 778 against and 103 don't knows.

Very encouraging. Public debate is really worthwhile.

As regards Moore's attempt to tar atheists as elite, it shows he has run out of anything useful to say in defense of religious belief! Also encouraging.

263. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30056 by Donald on April 6, 2007 at 2:00 pm

There are some very good posts in this thread, touching on very important issues.

Helian states: "There is no logical basis whatsoever for considering one thing "good" and another "bad." [...also...] That [Communist] "good" was in no way shape or form intrinsically, objectively, "less good" than the "good" of modern progressives, the "good" of the Christians, the "good" of the conservatives, or the "good" of any other ideological in-group."

I assume Helian meant there is no logical basis for an absolute meaning for "good".

This links to the continual debate about whether atheists have any intrinsic morality and goodness. It's an important element of debate with religites. I think there are insufficient articles about atheist morality in circulation, considering the emphasis religites give to it.

As an atheist, I do feel able to define "good" logically and explain atheist morality rationally.
As a preliminary, if the universe consists of particles following laws of physics, and all higher phenomena are emergent properties of sufficient assemblies of those particles, then everything that happens is just what happens, neither good nor bad, from the perspective oif the universe as a whole. I agree.

But when people talk of good and bad, they are talking about human actions and morality. Is a human action good? Are some people evil? Is an altruistic act a good act? Is a selfish act a bad act? From the perspective of the universe, they are neither good nor bad, they are just what happened. So, the religite argument goes, why be altruistic, why be kind to people you don't know, why not steal if you get the chance, etc, etc. Atheists should logically be amoral, and should be disparaged for it, so some religious people say.

Yet I'm an atheist, I believe the material universe is all there is (but including all emergent phenomena), and I find ample reason to be moral, in the sense of traditional morality as found to varying degrees in most religions. So why is that? To me the answer is that the morality of human actions is derived from its effect on other humans. A human action is moral or immoral according to whether it is beneficial or detrimental to other humans. This judgement can be applied at different levels - to family, to friends, to a local community, to a nation, to humanity as a whole. Sometimes an action will be beneficial to all or most levels, sometimes an action will be beneficial at some levels and detrimental at others, giving rise to moral dilemmas.

Evolution has resulted in humans with an innate sense of morality at a personal level. We feel good when we help others and we feel bad when we lie or cheat. Even young children recognise the effect their actions have on other members of their family. They go through periods of trying different behaviours, and learn how those behaviours affect people. Young children can share food, and try to make parents happy, in addition to selfish behaviours and behaviour which drives parents mad. As children grow up into adults and throughout their lives, they acquire wider and wider perspectives on how their actions affect other humans. The culture and environment that they find themselves in will determine how wide that perspective can become.

As our perspective of the effect of our actions grows, so our morality grows. The morality of children will differ from adults because of the different extent of their perspectives on how their actions will affect others. Their view of good and bad will likewise differ. Similarly, our education, the surrounding culture, and to a lesser degree, individual intelligence, all affect our perception of the effect of our actions. But at the heart of it all are the feelings implanted by evolution - the good feelings when we help others, and the bad feelings when we lie or cheat. This, in a nutshell, is the atheist view of morality, as I see it.

The above represents the essence of an explanation for atheist morality that satisfies me.

It also gives a rationale for judging the "good" of Communism against the "good" of Christianity, against the "good" of Islam, etc. As our collective understanding of the effects of those creeds grows (partly from the "experiment" of actually using those creeds to run large segments of humanity, and partly from extrapolation from those "experiments" based on how modifications of those creeds might have affected outcomes [this second source has to be treated with extreme caution]), so our judgement of how good" they are can grow. Within the context of "good" equated with "good for humanity", this is an objective approach.

I think other posters have similar views, and this discussion is really about small, but important, differences in how we are using the word "good". I reject the old sense of an absolute "good" because I see it as tied to a religious view that God created everything and "good" is what God wants, and is absolute. The simple substitution of the "universe" for God does not result in any sensible definition of "good". So I regard "good" as being what is good for humans. Non-human animals, insects and plants (if they could talk) would have a different definition of good. However, as our perspective of what is good for humans develops in the 21st century we now see that it is beneficial for humanity to preserve the diversity of life on the planet, and help non-human animals have "good" lives from their perspective.

PS I forgot to say above what "good" for an individual is. I regard the main things as being as being the absence of pain, the satisfaction of basic needs implanted by evolution (food, shelter, sex), opportunities for the satisfaction of other instincts implanted by evolution (satisfy curiosity, solve problems, and construct things, etc). There are some instincts which are entangled with the needs of society, for example an instinct to acquire power and control over other people. That one requires more detailed analysis before attaching "good" or "bad" to individual instances of it.

264. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29941 by Donald on April 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm

m g wrote: "It is my conviction that this is either a hoax or something made up by students in communication. [...]
I'd be glad to know if other visitors share my doubts"

The whole site "http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/" looks like a very elaborate hoax. But then, to me, many religious and creationist sites look like elaborate hoaxes, so I find it hard to tell.

However, I take the following (under contact information) on the mcluhan main page as an important clue:
"or send a message in a bottle
or via tribal drums
or tin cans on a string"

I looked at the site briefly on 1 April and posted an earlier comment. Since then I have been offline since due to random blocks on my main machine's harddrive becoming corrupted that day. Yet on that same day I did full system scan with an up-to-date antivirus program, and got the all clear.

An as-yet-undetected virus is still a possibility. If so, I hope it is not connected with visiting the "mcluhan" site!

I'm still in the process of rebuilding my digital world, due to failures in data recovery as well.

265. The God Debate

Comment #29093 by Donald on April 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm

HARRIS: Any scientist must concede that we don't fully understand the universe. But neither the Bible nor the Qur'an represents our best understanding of the universe. That is exquisitely clear.
WARREN: To you.

I think this illustrates a common problem with atheists debating religites. The atheist may well have a much more detailed and knowledgeable view than the religite, but the religite merely dismisses the extensive scientific knowledge.
(Typically, the religite combines this dismissal with weight of numbers: Billions of people can't be wrong. Actually they are. Are you calling billions of people stupid? - you're arrogant!)

I'm slightly troubled by something here though. Theologians have constructed elaborate "knowledge" structures and literature about religious belief. I've read some of it and conclude it's junk and not worth reading. But how do I objectively justify my dismissal of theology, while objectively condemning the religite's dismissal of science.

Ah, simply writing the question, has prompted me to realise an answer - science makes predictions, and they can be tested and result in useful technology, whereas theology is only rhetoric. So, when I read theology and find no predictions, nothing to test, no new facts, only dubious interpretations, after a while I judge the subject to be worthless. In contrast, in science I find discovery after discovery, verification by testing, new technologies resulting from it, and so I judge it worthwhile to read and continue reading.

266. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29034 by Donald on April 1, 2007 at 9:01 am

From Guertin's sponsor's description:
"The McLuhan Program's mandate is to encourage understanding of the impacts of technology on culture and society from theoretical and practical perspective"

Guertin has either not noticed the word "understanding" or doesn't have a clue what it means. But she scores highly on vocabulary and superficiality. If she doesn't make tenure as an academic in media studies, perhaps she could become a feminist theologian?

267. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #29020 by Donald on April 1, 2007 at 8:08 am

cheshirecat wrote: "Just found my old copy of 'mission to mars' by patrick moore in which Mars is described as having a thin oxygen atmosphere and animal life."

I think you should also mention that it was fiction. It was a novel, not one of his educational books!

268. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24603 by Donald on March 7, 2007 at 2:21 pm

These sites are appalling, but it's good to know what the deluded are getting up to.

I just looked at http://creationwiki.org/Creation_vs._Evolution

Actually, it gave me a good laugh.

I noticed this, which seems to be new:
Creationists would also agree that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species. In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark.

I'll repeat that:
Creationists .. agree that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species.

I wonder if Andy McIntosh and the second law have been told? Perhaps they need to start a rival creationwiki?

Or maybe the creationists' memes are evolving. Actually, that's a good explanation. Their ecological niche is shrinking, thus creating increased competition and selection pressure.

Regarding:
In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark.

Now, if they could only agree where the dinosaurs fit in... (They certainly didn't fit in the ark.)

I do hope the section I've quoted is for real, and not the result of some mischievous editing.

This looks real:
For those theories described above which are fully scientific, a collection of specific predictions can and have been made. Creation scientists, using a young earth or young universe model, have accurately predicted magnetic fields of other planets prior to our observations [2], rates of helium diffusion [3],[4], and radioactive carbon 14 retention in putatively ancient rocks[5].

At first I thought this was a joke, as creationism in the sense of creation of living organisms has nothing to do with radioactive decay. When I clicked on the links though, I realised creationism here meant "young earth".

Their reference [5] was a bad link, but the intended paper is easy to find, has the look and feel of serious science, and had me riveted (for a few minutes). These creationists claim to have found Carbon-14 in rock formations millions of years old. This could indeed clobber the credibility of radioactive dating and a whole slew of fossil dates and much else besides.

However, their "rock" was coal, which often contains uranium. C14 is produced from C13 (1% of all carbon) by irradiation from uranium decay. They didn't mention that!!

269. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24510 by Donald on March 7, 2007 at 1:59 am

I submitted the following comment to the ocregister. I've started advertising this site in comments to newspapers, etc. It seems a good idea. Perhaps others here might like to do the same, even if some newspapers will edit out the URL.
-------------------------------------------
Atheists aren't really atheists if they have morals?
What utter rubbish.
Atheists occupy far fewer prison cells (proportionately) than the religious.
Atheists say "ought" because they recognise the things that are in the interest of humanity as a whole, and the interests of their community, as well as any personal interests they have. Just like all people, in fact.

Paul Campos needs to meet and get to know more people. He should visit
http://richarddawkins.net for a start.

And, regarding the fact that humans don't exist for ever, so what?
-------------------------------------------

270. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #24246 by Donald on March 5, 2007 at 2:11 pm

I admire your patience MouthAlmighty, but Ryan has rejected debate against strong arguments. He seeks out the weakest of the arguments put to him, and only replies to those.

This is an effective kind of debate for the purpose of convincing a naive audience (it's a standard technique of evangelism), and useful for someone with doubts trying to bolster their own belief, but it is completely against the ethos of science.

I think his indoctrination is very deep indeed, and he is unlikely to overcome it.

271. Darwin's God

Comment #24066 by Donald on March 4, 2007 at 2:52 pm

"If you have negative sentiments toward religion," he tells them, "the box will destroy whatever you put inside it." Many of his students say they doubt the existence of God, but in this demonstration they act as if they believe in something. Put your pencil into the magic box, he tells them, and the nonbelievers do so blithely. Put in your driver's license, he says, and most do, but only after significant hesitation. And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.

And he concludes from that that nonbelievers have some unacknowledged belief?
Who is more intelligent - Atran, or his test subjects?
The subjects of that test are far more likely to be suspicious that the box might be rigged in some way (like a stage magician's box). I would not stick my hands into an unknown box offered by a weird guy who says it's an African magic box. But it has nothing to do with belief in magic, or spirits, or god!!

272. The return of God?

Comment #23865 by Donald on March 3, 2007 at 8:29 am

Here's the essence of Craig's case:
# God created the universe. The proof lies in the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist; therefore it has a cause. It was brought into existence by something which is greater than (and beyond) it. And that something was a "personal being".
# God "fine tunes" the universe for ever. There is no other logical explanation for the way things operate.
# Without God there can be no set of moral values.
# The "historical facts" of the life of Jesus prove the basis for Christianity.
# God can be known and experienced.


Here is how I would respond with an atheist case:
# The "universe" is everything that exists. That includes gods, if any exist. Craig is talking about the "material universe", a narrower concept. Atheists will believe in the existence of non-material spirits, ghosts, souls, gods, fairies, etc as soon as adequate evidence shows up.
# The universe is no more "fine-tuned" than earth. Earth is one in billions of billions of planets, all differently "tuned". Only one of those planets produced us. Physical "constants" may vary in different universes. No evidence of fine-tuning there - looks like pure randomness.
# With God moral values are corrupted into worshipping fictions instead of improving our understanding; and following ancient rules instead of ones suitable for today.
# The "historical facts" of the life of Jesus are extremely few and dubious. The basis for Christianity is unsupported allegations of virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc, and they are remarkably similar to other myths circulating at the time and earlier.
# Human love, mutual emotional support in social groups, and self-hypnosis can be known and experienced.


Even better, stop letting the deluded set the agenda, and create our own agenda:
# Hey, did you know how wonderful the universe is? It's predictable!! Everything operates according to fundamental rules!!! And it's fun finding them!!!!!
# Hey, did you know biologists have figured out how we all evolved? We are the best of the animals!! We have bigger, better, brains (well some of us)!!! We can figure out how to survive and make our world better for us!!!!!
# Hey, did you know molecular scientists have figured out how cells work? We can cure diseases!! We can create better crops!!! We can copy some of the mechanisms to make biological gadgets!!!!
# Hey, did you know that nuclear scientists have figured out how atoms work? We can date rocks!! We can date fossils!!! We can build power stations with uranium!!!!
# Hey, did you know that psychologists have worked out how the religious become deluded? We can figure out which part of the brain is responsible!! Maybe we can cure them!!!!
# Hey, did you know that helping people makes you feel good? We can practice it!! We can live really fulfilled lives!!!!
# BTW, did you know that telling lies and cheating people makes you feel bad? And that crime and violence doesn't pay? Just visit any prison if you want to check on that!!
# Hey, did you know that atheists are fun people? We have clubs, internet communities, and no tithes to pay!!

273. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23745 by Donald on March 2, 2007 at 11:50 am

Ryan (aka Bizarro):
"If I comment on that old article, I'd just get more comments that I'd have to respond to and the cycle would never end. I therefore feel that the best use of my time is to post on current articles and not beat a dead horse."

You previously implied you would reply. Could it be you didn't have any good answer and preferred to throw soundbites at other targets?

Ryan (aka Bizarro):
" "Does Bizarro really seek the truth about God's existence?" "
"Do you?"

Yes. Again, I answer you, but you don't answer my question.

Ryan (aka Bizarro):
""Or perhaps there is an open-minded LU student within the Bizarro cloak.""
"Hahaha, that's just funny imagery."

Thank you, it was intended to be funny as well as make a point.
However, looking under the cloak, I see only a troll, not an open-minded student.

274. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23517 by Donald on March 1, 2007 at 11:54 am

In another thread Bizarro (comment #22759) wrote:

I honestly seek to broaden my own intellectual horizons, as well as to help others broaden theirs. Debating is a fantastic way to do it.

I made a polite and thoughtful reply:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,658,Battle-for-Europes-secular-values,British-Humanist-Association,page2#22786

Bizarro didn't find the time to reply to that, but he did find the time to post a slew of new comments on Whittenberger's article. This is a poor kind of debate - flitting from one thread to another, and not following up replies.

Does Bizarro really seek the truth about God's existence?

For at least 2500 years highly intelligent intellectuals have declared their disbelief in religious beliefs, starting with the numerous gods before Christ. The intellectual argument has been won over and over again. The argument grew immeasurably stronger with Darwin and the tens of thousands of scientists since.

The biggest problem lies in an emotional commitment to beliefs. We sometimes think that intellectual debate is emotion-free. Not at all. The best and highest quality debates may be, and perhaps most of us strive for that. But people get emotionally attached to beliefs. Then objectivity is abandoned.

Perhaps Bizarro is a troll. Perhaps he is indoctrinated beyond recovery. Or perhaps there is an open-minded LU student within the Bizarro cloak. After all he is spending time here on a sceptics forum. I may be more charitable than some here - I am still willing to believe he is open-minded.


Bizarro: reply to my comment #22786 in a thoughtful manner, and I will give you some polite feedback on your comment #23458.

275. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22786 by Donald on February 22, 2007 at 11:48 am

Bizarro (comment #22759) wrote:

I honestly seek to broaden my own intellectual horizons, as well as to help others broaden theirs. Debating is a fantastic way to do it.

I had not intended to reply, then I saw the above.

So here is another post to see if there can be a polite worthwhile debate.

Bizarro (also comment #22759) wrote:

"All human concepts are partly obtained from other humans and earlier concepts."
I'm not talking about generic human concepts. I'm talking about the origins of morals. Morals are indeed shared between cultures and people groups, but there still must have ultimately been an original source.

Your section above was in reply to my earlier post about morality (comment #22638), extract repeated below for convenience. I think you must have replied rather hastily. I was talking about morals too. If you disagree with anything in the extract of comment #22638, say what, as it would help to clarify where your beliefs differ.

I'd like to follow up on your "original source" point as well. To me, this echoes the divide in the evolution/creation debate. Ideas (and languages) have evolved through human history, and for long before that. Just as biological structures evolved over billions of years, so cultural ideas and concepts have been co-evolving with humans for at least tens of thousands of years (probably much longer). Just as our ancestors could (if we had enough records) be traced back indefinitely, with genetic changes along the way, so ideas and concepts (and the languages in which they are expressed) could (in principle) be traced back indefinitely, with changes along the way. According to the collective wisdom of modern science, anyway. Where do you seek to challenge this view?


Extract from Donald's comment #22638:

Bizarro wrote:

The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me.

"steal" is at least pejorative and perhaps insulting. All human concepts are partly obtained from other humans and earlier concepts. The average amount of additional useful information that is added to the cultural mosaic by each individual human is, I think, very small.


I would agree that Christianity has served as one conduit for moral codes (and immoral advice as well). We disagree however, about where the moral codes originate. You have been steeped in a belief system that says the codes are guidance from an invisible creator who "loves" his created creatures, but has also created cancer, death by burning in volcanoes, tsunamis, and all the other pain, gruesome diseases, and afflictions for humankind. I have read the bible, koran, and volumes of religious propaganda, and concluded that all of it is human invention, that there is no reliable evidence for a god, and that the moral codes are human inventions too.


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


Also, I believe, from observation of other people and personal introspection, that humans have an intrinsic morality, derived from evolution in the same way as other genetically-determined characteristics. This intrinsic morality is the result of genes that shape our brains to make us feel good when we help others, and feel uncomfortable if we lie or cheat.

276. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22646 by Donald on February 20, 2007 at 6:12 am

stpetes (David Robertson) wrote:

"We, the people of Europe, hereby affirm our common values. They are based not on a single culture or tradition but are founded in all of the cultures that make up modern Europe."

Really? So the Islamic culture that demands the subjugation of women is part of our common values.

David, did you misread this? "Common" here refers to present in all of them.
So subjugation of women is clearly not part of common values!

(Or are you trolling, as you were accused of before?)

The rest of the declaration is a worthy attempt to find things in common across all religions and the non-religious.

Also, please keep in mind that when people speak of human rights, there is an implicit understanding that conflicts between rights will be resolved in a socially responsible way. For example, if you have a right to exercise your arm, and I have a right to not be punched in the face, then a fuller statement of your right to swing your arm would say something like "you may swing arm freely, except where it would hit people in the face". To explicitly elaborate all such conflicts would inflate the declaration enormously, perhaps without limit. So, in practice, these conflicts are ignored for simplicity in drafting the rights, and it is expected that conflicts will be treated with the same ethos that guided the rights.

Some of your criticisms of the rest of the declaration suffer from apparently ignoring this.

277. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22638 by Donald on February 20, 2007 at 4:45 am

Bizarro wrote:

The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me.

"steal" is at least pejorative and perhaps insulting. All human concepts are partly obtained from other humans and earlier concepts. The average amount of additional useful information that is added to the cultural mosaic by each individual human is, I think, very small.

I would agree that Christianity has served as one conduit for moral codes (and immoral advice as well). We disagree however, about where the moral codes originate. You have been steeped in a belief system that says the codes are guidance from an invisible creator who "loves" his created creatures, but has also created cancer, death by burning in volcanoes, tsunamis, and all the other pain, gruesome diseases, and afflictions for humankind. I have read the bible, koran, and volumes of religious propaganda, and concluded that all of it is human invention, that there is no reliable evidence for a god, and that the moral codes are human inventions too.

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

Also, I believe, from observation of other people and personal introspection, that humans have an intrinsic morality, derived from evolution in the same way as other genetically-determined characteristics. This intrinsic morality is the result of genes that shape our brains to make us feel good when we help others, and feel uncomfortable if we lie or cheat.

Returning to your jibe about atheists stealing ideology from Christianity, I would describe it quite differently. I would say atheists are seeking to improve the moral health of humankind by discarding the belief in fictitious gods and much inappropriate advice bundled with that belief, and replacing it with an enlightened view of self-interest.

278. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #22395 by Donald on February 16, 2007 at 6:42 am

Dear Bizarro,


On the assumption that you might really be a Liberty University student, and not a troll (I feel safe in assuming that "Bizzaro Dawkins" is not your real name in either case) I would like to offer a couple of reactions.

Your posted comment starts reasonably, then fails at the following paragraph:

Now Dawkins argues that, although he may not know how the Universe came into existence, he's darn sure that a supernatural Creator isn't a reasonable answer due to science's inability to explain such an entity.

Straw man alert!! This part was fair:

Now Dawkins argues that, although he may not know how the Universe came into existence, he's darn sure that a supernatural Creator isn't a reasonable answer ...

The next part is a straw man:

... due to science's inability to explain such an entity.

You attribute to Dawkins something he has not said and does not believe. Dawkins disbelieves in a supernatural creator primarily because the evidence for it is essentially negligible, not because of some inability of science.

The evidence for a supernatural creator comes partly from assertions in ancient texts, which are mutually contradictory, written before modern scientific knowledge, in times when many people still believed the earth was flat!, and partly from "personal incredulity" - people of any age who marvel at the complexity of the world and living things and assert "a god must have done it". The "god did it" argument is weak for two main reasons (1) modern science over centuries with tens thousands of scientists has assembled enough knowledge to provide explanations of how modern living things came to be (2) postulating a god to explain why anything exists, merely shifts the mystery of creation to "what created god". Unless "god" explains something other than creation, it is a pointless invention.

Having created your straw man, the rest of your post demolishes the straw man. This does nothing to convince atheists, justify your beliefs, or clarify any mistakes in the reasoning of either side.

279. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15702 by Donald on January 2, 2007 at 6:19 am

No it doesn't. One could call for banning of fox hunting, which is a specific, highly organised activity. But what does it mean to "make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion".

I don't see this requested law as less clear than laws using words such as "blasphemy", "insider trading", "grevious bodily harm", "discrimination", "inciting hatred", etc, etc. All of these use terms which different people will interpret differently. The law makers reduce the ambiguity as much as possible in the detailed wording, and leave the remaining ambiguity to judges and juries. Standard English legal practice.

I am supportive of the petition because I think religious indoctrination of children is damaging to modern society, whether performed inside or outside state-funded schools, and because I think the petition serves as a contribution to consciousness raising, provided enough people sign it.

I am a supporter of free speech and civil rights as well. The petition does not seek to outlaw adults holding religious belief, and does not seek to prevent educating children about religious belief. I see the petition as merely ahead of its time.

280. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15683 by Donald on January 2, 2007 at 3:01 am

The petition you signed is naively foolish because it does not specify want it wants the UK government to do; it's a complaint without content.

The petition requests the PM to introduce a specific law.

However, it is extremely unlikely at this time that the government will do so. Was the petition creator naive and foolish? I think there is room in political life for some calls for action before public support enables the action.

The petition states truthfully what the petitiom creator wants. It is often the case that the first petitions for contentious laws (universal suffrage, ban fox hunting, etc, etc, etc) are ahead of their time. I see this petition in that light.

281. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15680 by Donald on January 2, 2007 at 1:57 am

Richard is a high-profile figure who has to consider how things are perceived in the USA as well as the UK and around the world. He decided to distance himself from that particular petition. It is his call.

But here is the reply I would have liked to see Richard write to Ed Brayton.

Yes, I signed the petition. It isn't realistic at this time to expect that the petition will result in a law affecting religious instruction in the home and in schools funded privately. The petition however helps to raise consciousness about the issue. Religious indoctrination, and religious labelling, of children is undesirable and should be regarded as child abuse. Note that it is indoctrination (teaching dubious beliefs as fact when children are too young to judge) that is opposed, not religious education (explaining what a variety of religions believe).

I signed the petition. We currently have a law prohibiting parents and teachers from hitting (includes smacking) children. That law would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. I hope that the petition will contribute to Richard's campaign of consciousness-raising, and that in a future time, a law against religious indoctrination could actually be possible.

282. William Crawley, BBC Belfast, names Richard Dawkins as Person of the Year 2006

Comment #15577 by Donald on January 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Congratulations!
Nice end to a great year.

283. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15573 by Donald on January 1, 2007 at 11:39 am

I don't know what to make of this. I had thought Richard opposed religious indoctrination of children, and had described it as child abuse. If it is child abuse then petitioning for it to be made illegal makes sense (although unrealistic in the sweeping form of that petition). However, from the above, it seems it is only the labelling that Richard is campaigning against, not the indoctrination.

Perhaps we need more clarification on "indoctrination" as well. To me it means teaching dubious beliefs AS FACT when the recipient is either too young to judge for themselves, or has been placed in a vulnerable state of mind by psychological techniques.

284. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15309 by Donald on December 30, 2006 at 9:35 am

Andy McIntosh is wriggling but he can't get off the hook. He has asserted in the "Sunday Sequence" programme that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In his BBC blog entry he tries to set up an escape route by making a smoke-screen distinction between selection of existing structures, and creation of new structures. He tries to drop his claim of 2nd law violation for evolution by natural selection, in those cases where selection is choosing amongst existing structures, but maintain the claim in respect of creation of new structures.

Does he not realise that every mutation is the creation of a new structure? Does he not realise that every duplication of a DNA section is the creation of a new structure? Does he not realise that every new combination of genes is a new structure? Do these violate the 2nd law? Which of these mechanisms for creating new structures violates the 2nd law, 'Professor' McIntosh?

All it takes is enough natural variation due to mutations, duplications, and recombinations, for long enough, with natural selection, and new, more complex creatures are the end result.

McIntosh also claims that a book called "The natural sciences know nothing of evolution" is available on Amazon. I wonder how much McIntosh checks his facts before rushing into print. The book is listed, but NOT available, in Amazon UK. It has no sales rank, so perhaps has never been sold by Amazon UK. It has no reviews, despite being listed by Amazon UK as published in 1992. Another book with the same author and title is available from Amazon USA, but it has just one review (by a sycophant who says it presents the same ideas as his own, unpublished, manuscript and is therefore great). The USA book is listed as published in 1981, so neither version of this book will be informed by the tremendous advances in biochemistry in the last decade or so (and some recent impressive discoveries that reduce gaps in the fossil record). Is this obscure book the best McIntosh can recommend? And why does he say, of such an obscure book, unavailable from Amazon UK, that BBC blog readers should "read AGAIN if they have not done already"? Another matter on which he is out of touch with reality?

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

Comment #13722 by Donald on December 19, 2006 at 7:52 am

Robertson, comment #13644: have a look at http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/decb06.htm

I did. It's the same as comment #13050 to which my comment was a response. And it was after reading your article that I wrote "theists are conditioned not to notice that that any designer would itself be something complex". I see nothing in your article that contradicts my view. I note that you either consider that god need not be complex, or that you bypass the question.

I stated my view and gave reasons, and gave a suitable analogy illustrating the logical structure of the argument. You stick to your view, and we would only go in circles from here.


Robertson, comment #13644: Unless you are a biologist who has evolved to a Higher Consciousness (see TGD!)

This is an ad hominem, and not a response to my comment. The point being debated was dishonesty. You say Dawkins was accusing people of dishonesty when he said people 'compartmentalise' (and by implication, fail to notice contradictions in their own thought). I pointed out we all 'compartmentalise' (some of us more than others though) and it isn't an accusation of dishonesty (or patronising) to say so.

And, I have read TGD.


Donald, comment #13563: Incidentally, did you know that although there are theists at all levels of scientists, belief in god amongst scientists has decreased over time, and the higher up the scale of scientific achievement one looks, the smaller the proportion of believers?

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD	1914	1933	1998
Personal belief	27.7	15	7.0
Personal disbelief	52.7	68	72.2
Doubt or agnosticism	20.9	17	20.8

DISBELIEF in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

From "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.

Robertson, comment #13644: No. The most through research has shown that the number of scientists who are theists has remained static in the 20th century. Which given a century of atheist propaganda is really quite astonishing. It is no wonder that the 20th Century has been called the failed atheist century.

You say "No." So, what, in the article I quote, is wrong? Where have they gone wrong? And what is this "most thorough research"? Can you provide a reference?


Donald, comment #13563: "Religion made the assertion that god exists."
Robertson, comment #13644: Actually human beings made the assertion.

Hmm. My first thought was to say the standard of this discussion is going downhill, but on second thoughts, that's a very useful point. I agree, of course, your statement is true. (And so is mine, under normal interpretations of English.)

Yes, human beings made the assertions. Human beings made the assertion that god exists. Human beings made the assertion that god wrote commandments on stone. Human beings wrote the bible. Human beings made the assertions that heaven and hell exists. Human beings made the assertion that there is an afterlife. Human beings made the assertion that god wants us to worship 'him'. Human beings made the assertion that god made man in his own image. Human beings invented the story of Adam and Eve. Human beings wrote the story of Noah's Ark. Human beings claimed that Jesus became alive again after three days dead. Human beings claim that Mohammed received instructions from allah and that allah is angry with those who don't believe in the allah version of god.

Ultimately, for all us, it depends on which human beings we believe. We all receive nearly all our beliefs from other human beings. I expect we agree on that.

You believe the handful of human beings who wrote the bible. I note that similar handfuls of people wrote about: greek gods, jewish beliefs, christianity, islam, hinduism, etc, etc, and they are mutually contradictory. At most one can be true.

Once one knows about the variety of different beliefs, each one claiming to the only true one, the true situation becomes obvious (to people who escaped indoctrination).

The combined efforts of thousands of scientists over the last few centuries have greatly expanded our knowledge about the universe and have found it to be predictable, following simple rules that allow for the emergence of life without a god. I believe them (in the sense of collectively - there are a minority who are mistaken or liars, just as with any large collection of people).

Part of my overall belief in them comes from the ethos of science. Science is open. All scientists argue, and the criterion for survival of scientific beliefs is consistency, and observations. This leads to confidence in the result.

Religions are less flexible. The 'holy books' are unchanging. Some religions do the best they can by throwing out some bits, and reinterpreting some bits, but the results are not convincing to those with a broader perspective.


Donald, comment #13563: The forces of reason, weak at first, gradually gaining in strength as evidence is gained over the centuries, have lately been raising their voices in this debate."
Robertson, comment #13644: Again you are allowing your own worldview and prejudice to cloud your statements. Why do you attribute the 'forces of reason' to only atheists?

I don't. Reason is used by theologians too. The phrase "forces of reason" is yours. I was responding to your criticism of Dawkins in comment #13050. You said "...always the forces of reason and science against the blind irrationality of faith..." I was commenting in the context you set up.


Donald, comment #13563: "I'm genuinely baffled here. What is the evidence and science that leads to god?"
Robertson, comment #13644: Many things – if you read all my articles you should get most of them.

I had already read your articles. That is why I also said in my comment #13563:

"Perhaps for you, awe of the complexity and beauty of the universe and human love is evidence for god.
That's ok, but it causes confusion to us scientists if you call it scientific evidence. We just call it awe."


Thank you for your interaction.

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

Comment #13563 by Donald on December 18, 2006 at 11:44 am

Wow, this is a long thread.

David Robertson has my respect for being so patient and polite, and engaging with atheists. I like politeness.

The thread seems to be still live, so perhaps I might get an answer from David too.

(1) From comment #13050:
You [Dawkins] think you have the killer argument [...] Your argument goes like this. Evolution is true. Evolution explains the illusion of design. The design argument is the main argument for God. [..] The [killer] argument is "Who designed the Designer?" [...] It is clear that this point is very important to you and the foundation of the rest of your arguments. When I read it I was genuinely shocked. Not because of its originality, killer force or overwhelming logic, but rather because of its banality. 'Who made God?' is a question I would expect from a six year old. Likewise "Who made God then?' is the accusation I would expect from a sixteen year old.

The trouble is that the 6-(or 16)-year-old's question is like the child in the story saying "but the Emperor is naked". It is TRUE and is exactly the right point to demolish an illusion, but the adults are conditioned not to say it. In that story the adults are frightened of appearing stupid, or of challenging the Emperor.

In this case, the indoctrination, and endless repetition of dogma, has the effect of conditioning even intelligent adults to say "but God just IS". After the indoctrination and repetition it no longer seems to need an explanation. To atheists, it needs explanation exactly as much as the wonderful world around us does.

If you see "who made god?" as trivial instead of a powerful argument, that is the result of indoctrination and repetition.

Actually, we agree implicitly on one thing. -- that the infinite regression of "but who designed the designer of the designer....." is pointless.

Theists take one step along this chain because they consider that life could not have arisen without a designer, but then condition themselves not to notice that any designer would itself be something complex, and would require just as much explanation.

Atheists prefer to say, "the world just is" instead of "god just is", because after evolution to explain the wondrous array of life, and scientific theories(*) that explain the wondrous working of the universe, atheists see no need to invent a "god" to explain the wonders of life.

The "what's underneath the turtle?" question is similarly devastating to the myth that the earth is supported by a turtle. Rather than say "the turtle just floats in space" we prefer to say "the earth just floats in space".

The variant "but God is outside space and time, so we can't ask what created/designed it" is sometimes used. It is equivalent to saying "God just is", but has the advantage that the space/time distraction provides a figleaf for refusing to admit that God must be something complex, and refusing to allow the question. It isn't any more credible to atheists than the simple "God just is".


(2) From comment #13050:
I am sure you would not call him [Ken Miller, a theist against Intelligent Design] stupid but you do accuse other theists who are also 'good' scientists of 'compartmentalising'. To my mind this is patronising and the equivalent of accusing them of a fundamental dishonesty.

I read TGD and I didn't read "dishonesty" into Dawkins' use of 'compartmentalising'. I think we all 'compartmentalise'. We may think our knowledge is integrated and pretty consistent, but really it's patchy, incomplete, and fragmentary for all of us. The growth of children's knowledge is an endless sequence of adding, amending, correcting, improving, and resolving contractions. It doesn't ever stop really - we tend to notice it less as adults. But throughout life, we occasionally encounter contradictions or inconsistencies and have to amend our beliefs about things or people.

Incidentally, did you know that although there are theists at all levels of scientists, belief in god amongst scientists has decreased over time, and the higher up the scale of scientific achievement one looks, the smaller the proportion of believers?

BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD	1914	1933	1998
Personal belief	27.7	15	7.0
Personal disbelief	52.7	68	72.2
Doubt or agnosticism	20.9	17	20.8

DISBELIEF in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

From "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.
or read: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm


(3) From comment #13050:
Why is there something rather than nothing? And why does that something manage to produce you and I? That is not a question which you can just brush aside or express no interest in.

This is an interesting question. We only have partial explanations from science. Complex life from single cells is explained now. The first cell is not yet explained, but the knowledge gap between chemistry and biochemistry is shrinking all the time. Looks to me that science will explain how the first cell could have got assembled before too long. As regards physical constants being fine tuned to enable the complexities of chemistry, well we are in THIS universe, not any other. I'm not sure it needs explanation, although you are right that many scientists are beginning to suspect (for various other reasons) that this universe is only one of many others, much as our sun and solar system are only one star and planetary system amongst billions of billions(**) of others in the observable universe.

All very interesting and wonderful, but I still don't see any benefit to imagining a god in addition to the stuff we have discovered.


(4) From comment #13050:
Your position is the scientific one and you set up the debate so that it is always the forces of reason and science against the blind irrationality of faith. I'm afraid that that just does not square with the facts.

In a way I agree with those words, your first sentence does not square with the facts. I know this is not what you meant :-). I must jump in here and challenge the assumptions you built into the first sentence. I think it's Religion that set up the debate. Religion made the assertion that god exists. Religion asserts that faith is required, and must be sustained in the absence of evidence. The forces of reason, weak at first, gradually gaining in strength as evidence is gained over the centuries, have lately been raising their voices in this debate.
But what did you mean by "not square with the facts"? I read your text, but I could not find which "facts" you meant here.


(5) From comment #13050:
The reason that we believe in God is because of the evidence, because of science (knowledge), because of what we see in the universe.

I'm genuinely baffled here. What is the evidence and science that leads to god? Please itemise the most important points, because when I view the evidence I know about, I see it indicating that god is superfluous.
I share your awe of the wonders of the universe and understand the natural human reaction of the pre- scientific era to postulate a god to explain it all, but that doesn't count for me as scientific evidence.

Perhaps for you, awe of the complexity and beauty of the universe and human love is evidence for god.
That's ok, but it causes confusion to us scientists if you call it scientific evidence. We just call it awe.


(6) From comment #13050:
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

GREAT! We agree!!


(7) From comment #13050:
To raise the dead or create a virgin birth seems to me to be, if not quite chickenfeed in comparison, at least very probable and doable and certainly not illogical. Besides which I would regard it as a whole lot more logical to believe that an eternal omnipotent God could raise the dead, than to believe that the explanation for our universe involves there being multi universes...

Oh dear, we don't agree after all.


I wonder if David will give a thoughtful reply.

Donald.

(*) that's theories in the sense of scientifically-established theories, a.k.a. facts. Unfortunately the word 'theory' covers a wide range of meanings.
(**) note that I do mean "billions of billions" not "billions and billions" - very different!!

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

Comment #13312 by Donald on December 17, 2006 at 1:31 am

Joadist comment #13276 wrote:
---Swinburne: "[Dawkins] writes that 'a God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple'. And why does he think this? He doesn't say"---

This is the result of an ambiguous statement.
I can start a fire. I can monitor and control it by adjusting fuel and air. It isn't necessary for me to monitor every particle individually, since I control them as a group.
If God uses gravity, then he doesn't have to take each apple off the tree and place it on the ground.
I think it is a moot point.
-----------------------------

Swinburne is arguing for a personal god, one who answers prayers, performs miracles, monitors the billions of human individuals continuously, etc.

When you start a fire, can you control the burning of each particle?

These analogies only work if you abandon the Abrahamic god and reduce god to creating the machine (universe). Abrahamic gods cannot be simple, even if (a big if) one thinks that creating the universe could be done by something simple.

The god of the bible cannot be simple, Dawkins is clearly right about that, and I don't think there is room for mooting here.

Swinburne is trying to confuse simple things with complex things that have simple descriptions.
"God did it". Really simple. But only suitable for simple minds.

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

Comment #13273 by Donald on December 16, 2006 at 3:03 pm

Swinburne is clearly intelligent, but uses deceptive techniques.

For example:
Swinburne: "[Dawkins] writes that 'a God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple'. And why does he think this? He doesn't say"

It doesn't need saying. But Swinburne uses this to create a strawman:

Swinburne: "his reason for thinking this is that, if God gets his knowledge and exercises his power in the way in which we do (via brains) he will need to be very very complicated"

Dawkins does not attribute a physical brain to 'God'. But Swinburne is developing the strawman.

Swinburne: "I am not the same thing as my brain"

Ah. Swinburne's going to use the mind-body duality argument. This is a bit of a meander from the initial issue of whether 'God' has to be complex, but we'll read on to see what Swinburne has to say.

Swinburne: "And I (a simple entity) control quite a bit of my brain (a much more complicated entity)"

Cunning. Without admitting that mind-body duality is as contentious as the existence of God, he has slipped it in as a premise. Also in separating out a "mind" from the "body", he takes the opportunity to assert that (a) minds are simple, and (b) minds control bodies. All without explicit mention. What a wordsmith.

Swinburne: "whether a hypothesis is simple or not is an intrinsic feature of that hypothesis, not a matter of its relation to observable data"

True, we must be careful not to confuse simple things with complex things that have simple descriptions.

Swinburne eventually continues: "[...] The postulation of one entity (God) [...] is intrinsically simple."

Having anaesthetised the reader with lengthy prose and gained the reader's confidence by mentioning the dangers of confusing simple things with things that have simple descriptions, now comes the confidence trick! Swinburne asserts that postulating God is simple. Of course it is! But casual readers by now will be reading this as ' God is simple, and thus Dawkins is wrong'. It's like stage illusionists. Misdirecting the audience with flimflam including one or two swift moves and the audience are left believing things that didn't happen, or that the performer did things he didn't do.


Why bother to deconstruct the tendentious writings of a someone who is probably beyond change?
If no-one challenges them, or simply dismisses them with insults, any neutral reader will take the well-written, but tendentious and deceptive, writings as credible, or true.