251. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52832 by Robert Maynard on June 28, 2007 at 6:48 am

Right, because people choose to be black, gay or atheist, in much the same way they choose to study and pursue a career in engineering.

If you feel too old for LOL, I recommend a :P - it is a timeless disclaimer and appeal to nonseriousness. ... :P

252. God Hates the World

Comment #52108 by Robert Maynard on June 26, 2007 at 7:29 am

Although Dawkins never made the connection between WBC and "all religion", David would most likely argue that because some other posters have connected the Phelps with all religious traditions - as we should, while retaining an appreciation for the very real spectrum of natural variation in philosophy and character this obviously includes - this is evidence that Dawkins' "tactic", however phrased, has somehow wrought the effect David describes.
But David needs to recognise that these posters also form part of a spectrum of personality variation amongst atheists; I don't think the more radically angry posts here are testimony to dogmatism, so much as variation in our willingness to beat around the bush and avoid declaring the core issue from the rooftops: religious 'moderates' (including David, by comparison at least) are forestalling effective criticism of groups like the WBC because they're working from the same books, and this needs to change.
I think David also needs to recognise that distancing himself from these weirdos and calling it poor form to try and draw connections between them and more diluted forms of the same thing, isn't going to work, and isn't going to improve any situation.
You can't criticise fundamentalists of your own faith, without having the guts to step away from the scriptures you're both using. It's their textbook, but it's just your CliffsNotes.

253. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52098 by Robert Maynard on June 26, 2007 at 6:35 am

I knew someone would say that, but it isn't necessarily so. Scientology is structured around private counseling sessions rather than groups or communities, and while many religions do encourage tithing and other such donations, these are explicitly voluntary within the practicing of religion and mainly carried on by peer pressure (or should I say.. pew pressure? ..no? okay). Meanwhile the session-driven and "progress" oriented nature of Scientology can become ..quite expensive. While the practices are informed by nonsense metaphysical (and historical) claims, they're not nearly as critical, and the structure and delivery of the teachings is.. really very different. It's like some kind of 'stealth' religion. I guess you could compare it to one of those ancient "mystery" cults. *shrug*

So national governments are quite happy to throw rocks at them - the reason not many beneath that level do is because of how viciously litigious and intimidating the group is to critics.

254. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52095 by Robert Maynard on June 26, 2007 at 6:20 am

This isn't six degrees of separation folks, the article is really only related to Scientology and Nazis.

On that note, bitbutter, Tom Cruise is the most aggressively scientologist celebrity around. He has essentially been dubbed Scientology's 'head prophet' by senior leaders in the organisation. He'll denounce psychiatry whenever someone is willing to let him drift off topic, and claim that things like drug addiction are solely caused by body thetans, which can be teased out through 'expert' auditing. The man is a menacing clown, which (I think we can all agree) is the worst kind. :P

As the article states, Germany is one the European countries openly opposed to Scientology, basically by describing it as a criminal organisation of frauds. They can really do whatever they want with their military sites, to be honest.

255. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #52091 by Robert Maynard on June 26, 2007 at 6:03 am

..they published that?
No honestly, that shouldn't have made it past the editors desk. Does The Sun have an editor?

..Theory of Relatively?

"Hey Rich - can I call ya Rich? - why are you so dumb and stuff, Rich? I'll bet you infinity to twelve you're some kind of dude who doesn't know what he's talking about - unlike Einstein. He knew his stuff, relatively and all that. Have you ever crossed over, how can you know there's no God? By the way, I do know. There is. Jerkface.

Alright, that's a wrap!"

$$

256. God Hates the World

Comment #52034 by Robert Maynard on June 26, 2007 at 1:54 am

I didn't actually articulate "delight". I expressed disappointment that I missed the beginning of the argument, and I described the landslide of criticism you've received (in my opinion, most of it entirely defensible)

In regards to your latest comment, I only found this part worth remarking on:
"You are not engaging in 'good journalism' – any more than a journalist who films a nutty black supremacist group which believes in raping white women, would be engaging in 'good journalism' when he then went on to state that such a group shows that black people are inherently evil."

I'm sorry, this is a false analogy, because it simply doesn't describe the particulars of the situation. There are no inductive arguments taking place here on the part of Dawkins. Certainly you've described several people generalising the Phelps to be indicative of all religious tradition, but we could return to that later.

Dawkins: I have been attacked for using the phrase 'child abuse' about certain aspects of religious indoctrination.

Here's a wording that would've helped your charge make a little more sense -

I have been attacked for using the phrase 'child abuse' to describe religious instruction. Here it is, plain as day - religion teaches children everywhere that god hates the world. Disgusting.

How about this one?

Dawkins: I defy any civilized person to watch this video and then deny that 'child abuser' is a completely appropriate description of the little girl's parents

And here's the passage through Robertson-Goggles^TM

I defy any civilised person to watch this video and deny that 'child abuser' is completely appropriate for everyone who believes in supernatural entities. Seriously, they suck so bad. GRRR

Of course, you will argue "Don't be a fool Robert, he doesn't have to spell out the implications of what he means to achieve by posting this video. Unless he accompanies this with at least 16 videos of well adjusted, clever children in religious households - it is crystal clear what he's trying to say here. It's an unfair treatment. I mean, if I found a video of an atheist parent BEATING HIS KID WITH A PLANK OF WOOD, you certainly wouldn't see me pointing to it and sneering 'oh, nice secular morality, dickface!' No! Because I'm respectful enough to understand that it would not be representative of atheists at large. Just like those unidentified individuals who threw rocks at my church windows - did I assume without evidence they must have been atheists, and were evidence of atheist hatred? Have I ever claimed that the posters on this website are mostly dogmatic cultists? Have I ever explicitly associated atheists and atheism with Stalin, or Mao? Have I ever charged that secularists can just as easily become suicide bombers (even when they were actually Hinduists?) Well, have I?"

Then, while I am apparently in control of your embarrassing exposition, you'd hit yourself with a frying pan.

257. God Hates the World

Comment #51994 by Robert Maynard on June 25, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Darn, it looks as though poor David went away before I woke up. Talk about a beating. You're obviously upset David, but it's really remarkable to me the reasons you're upset.

The ideas in the Bible have consequences - this concept of a furious and judgmental deity didn't just pop into Phelps head one morning. You simply cannot make the argument that it is the people of WBC who are at fault, while completely excusing the repeatedly cited source of their inspiration and philosophy. The oft-invoked "human capacity for evil" is directly throttled by ones upbringing and environment. This is freewheeling, seething hatred siphoned straight from the pages of the Original Gangsta Testament, and you simply can't make a case that this is not so.

Then of course you do your usual thing of "woah, real nice - how old are you, mr. rational-pants?" when people fly off the handle and abuse you for being an annoying brat. I've said as much to you before, it is unfortunate that we are not more patient with belligerent detractors. Nobody's perfect. At the end of the day, you are repeatedly showing up to make passive-aggressive slights at Dawkins and atheists in general, you spend so much time chiding posters as immature while bandying brick-dumb labels like "fundamentalist atheist" and "secular capitalism" (as opposed to, y'know, that other kind?) instead of making arguments, and when you do make arguments, they have the constitution of wet potato chips. It's ...really very frustrating.
For example, here you're demanding a retraction and an apology for posting this video - as if this will make everything okay. What are you imagining?
*delete* "Whew, now that this video has been removed, and atheists have been made to apologise for it existing and being distributed by a religious group, no one will be able to find it anywhere else on the internet and be shocked by it!"
It's hosted on a video hosting site, it was posted by PZ Meyers of Pharyngula, and it's sourced here, on Richard Dawkins' website, presumably because he saw it on Pharyngula and was all "son of a bitch!"
You're essentially trying to restrict what information someone can source, in part to support their arguments, on their personal website. "I demand you apologise for exposing people to this information; it is irresponsible of you to present supporting evidence for your arguments! It's devastating to my case! I'm totally disgusted that you seem to think you can just do whatever you want on your own website. Yucky icky poo!" Do you see what I meant by wet potato chips? The entire concept is intellectually insulting.

I encourage you to churn your stomach and cry like a little girl. You're welcome to return when you can handle what the chefs are serving. Oh, and free speech, apparently.

258. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51768 by Robert Maynard on June 24, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Fair enough and understood.

As to your analogy being about why discussing 'ALL' options is not a good idea, I think it's fairly clear that the concept of "all options" is to be taken with moderation, and with respect for the confines of financial practicalities and civil law. As I suggested before, there are many solutions to any given problem which exist in the realm of physical possibility, but a lot of them should not be considered practical or legitimate options. The principle of 'advising patients on all options' obviously involves some measure of common sense.

Discussing how doctors should handle ethics from situation to situation obviously grows to become a 'complicated issue', as does any issue when put under a microscope.
However, I do not agree that denial of care on the grounds of personal beliefs is a complicated issue. If the situation is taking place in the "First World", it's really no big deal - it's free enterprise, if a doctor decides not to offer a service, it should be okay - someone else will. Just say "screw that noise!" and go to another doctor who will care for you.
If it is in the developing world, or any situation where there is a scarcity of available doctors, say due to financial difficulties, it's basically unacceptable. Someone basically needs to dismiss those guys and replace them with better doctors. That's really all there is to it. Carrying out that solution is likely to be more complicated than stated, but the answer to the situation is straightforward.

As for confusing vaccines with cures... *smacks forehead*

259. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51645 by Robert Maynard on June 23, 2007 at 11:41 pm

They may have the well-being of their patients' eternal souls in mind.

A physician's expertise simply does not extend to metaphysical concepts. I can't say it any simpler - they don't teach that in medical school - it isn't medicine. In this regard the doctor is no better than a layperson in terms of information, yet they are exercising an experts level of authority. Advice that enters 'eternal soul' territory has explicitly left the doctors expert purview, and they are authoritatively speaking about things no one could possibly know - including existence after death. This is.. highly unethical.

If there are any metaphysical beliefs a doctor should respect, it is those of the patient. Doctors are not priests, and they do not treat unwell "souls" - they treat unwell bodies.

EDIT: I realise you were addressing Corylus about 'options', but your counter-argument makes no sense. A doctor is encouraged to use his medical training to provide a patient with expert perspective on any situation, especially if he is concerned the patient is making an uninformed or poor decision. That's their job.
The first paragraph should have dealt with that dust eating nonsense, but let's turn to the second one.
In your example of the tuberculosis vaccine, if the doctor did not "screen, quarantine and drug" the patient according to national policy, he would be betraying his own expert perspective, as he is surely breaking some rules and endangering others by recommending they leave the country.

To draw this out in comically bizarre fashion, if there were an ebola vaccine in another country, which was not endorsed or stocked by their own country, it would be the purest criminal idiocy for a doctor to recommend that an ebola-infected patient should leave expert care and try to reach that cure by their own means.

"You have tuberculosis/ebola? My advice - leave this hospital and GET ON THE NEXT PLANE out of here. Just.. try not to cough."

Ethical responsibilities don't end with the individual patient. Doctors aren't like criminal defense attorneys, who must always work in the best interests of their client, even when these interests are in direct opposition to those of the public at large (defending a known murderer, for example). If a doctor recommended a potentially terminally infectious individual leave professional care, and increase their potential sphere of transmission, he or she would be the worst doctor ever. It is no more a legitimate "option" than suggesting murder as a source of organs needed for transplanting.

That was such a stupid example, kamisama, honestly.

260. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51558 by Robert Maynard on June 23, 2007 at 11:50 am

This IS a very complicated subject - but not to the fundamentalists who want to impose their atheistic morality on everyone else.

Impose what, exactly? "Atheistic morality", insofar as it should be considered as something separate from 21st century moral philosophy (it shouldn't), is not an imposition on anyone. It holds the simplest precept in the Hippocratic oath paramount - "do no harm", better phrased as "suffering sucks - help each other avoid it".

It is literally free of any impositions precisely because it is a system which (at its core) seeks and encourages the freedom and happiness of all individuals, and guards against actions which visit suffering on others. I cannot see why you consider the guarantee of personal liberties an imposition.

When a physician denies any treatments based on personal beliefs, he is imposing his beliefs onto his patients, and he is clearly and unambiguously 'doing harm' by refusing to give them what they want. A doctor is certainly encouraged to use his medical training to provide a patient with expert perspective on any situation if he is concerned the patient is making an uninformed or poor decision. But at the end of the day, so long as the patient understands what they are doing, anything less than serving that patient is an unethical imposition.

In other words, I think your claim that -

if medicine was left to atheists and secularists then we would be in a pretty poor state

really makes no sense at all. I don't understand what you're basing it on.

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

Comment #51553 by Robert Maynard on June 23, 2007 at 11:14 am

I didn't mean that you have to crucify those who deviate even slightly from the True Faith!

David, you are again running up against the problem that atheism does not have any doctrinal cohesion from which to 'deviate'.
You're also comparing derisive commentary to an ancient method of execution so intensely painful the word 'excruciating' was invented just to try and relate to it, but (quite worryingly) this is the least of your problems.

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

Comment #51522 by Robert Maynard on June 23, 2007 at 8:57 am

Jesus guys, it's just a light-hearted fluff piece in an entertainment column..

It's arguable whether it was worth posting to the sites newsfeed, but we should be considering its context.

263. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51222 by Robert Maynard on June 22, 2007 at 1:57 am

Let's be clear - neither am I. :|

264. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51217 by Robert Maynard on June 22, 2007 at 1:41 am

Bizarro

If the Universe has somehow defied logic and existed for eternity past, then it seems that, based on the 2nd law's implications, stars would no longer exist, nor would any organized energy and matter. The Universe would have reached the state of heat death an eternity ago, but this is obviously not the case as I am writing you right now as an organized mass of matter and energy.

This is a misunderstanding. The 'universe has existed in some form forever' argument does not entail that stars and other loosely organised systems in space have existed in state forever - it merely requires that the energy has been present forever. This is, after all, the first law - energy cannot be created nor destroyed (Is it worth mentioning that God must necessarily break the first law of thermodynamics to create the universe out of nothing? That dude just won't play by the rules)
All the evidence on the movement of objects in space (and background microwave radiation) implies that everything used to be much closer together - converging on a singularity - precluding the formation of anything more complex than a fiery maelstrom. So, yeah, the 'eternal universe' argument has nothing to do with eternal complexity, just the energy.

The universe is a closed system (in that it is not being supplied with new energy). But no, the coalescence of gases into stars, and stars venting material which coalesces heavier elements that coalesce into planets, is not a violation of the second law. Spacetime itself carries an energy gradient, the weakest part of which serves to draw matter towards other matter, in the form of gravitational attraction. You may have heard of it. It is not a violation of the second law because these formations of organised systems are not efficient, and do result in the NET 'loss' of functional energy, while gaining localised regions of increased complexity.
A heat death is inevitable because gravity is not enough to deal with the fact that all the matter in the universe is accelerating away from wherever the Big Bang singularity occured, which will separate all things, sap all energy into useless radiation, and ultimately obey the second law.

265. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #51186 by Robert Maynard on June 21, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Cameron's argument is the purest Paley, and it should be refutable in less than 20 questions.

- So where did the camera designer come from? Their parents, I suppose.
- Was he or she born with the knowledge necessary to design a camera? Of course not
- So where did the knowledge come from? They learnt it.
- From who? College, probably.
- Where did the college get it from? The contemporary state of engineering and electronics knowledge, and stuff like that.
- Contemporary? So it changes over time? Well yeah, we couldn't always build a flashy camera.
- I see. So you're saying it incrementally improved over time, with effective solutions being kept and faulty ones discarded? Yes. But there was still a first camera designer, of a pinhole camera or something of the sort - you have to admit that.
- Well, maybe. I think an idea that simple could be discovered by practically anyone. So the contemporary designer of the TV camera owes his intelligent complexity to generations of previous designers, but then does that 'first' designer of a pinhole camera necessarily deserve credit for the intricacy of modern TV video cameras? Well no, that's kind of unfair..
- Right. So the camera's "ultimate" designer isn't really responsible for the complexity of modern TV cameras, rather their intricacy is the result of subsequent improvements in the course of a collaborative, incremental, evolutionary process? The credit mainly goes to the process of selection itself, carrying on across multiple generations.
..I ..well, yes.

Okay good. Now shut the fuck up.
(Well, it probably wouldn't go that smoothly with a real person, but you could ask 11 more questions before you hit 20)

266. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51067 by Robert Maynard on June 21, 2007 at 10:45 am

There are yawning chasms of silliness here that I'm sure others will pounce on with reliable passion - for my part I think the critical misstep is this:

What was our great mistake? It was to assume that the church had an absolute monopoly on how truth was to be defined

I actually think a bigger problem in their thinking was assuming that 'redemption' could not be facilitated in a way that didn't end in execution. Conversation is all a good idea ever needs to spread - good ideas are contagious. The ideas atheists are criticising are demonstrably bad, because they can barely stand on their own merits.

Our world is driven forward by technology - ideas to alleviate suffering, and ideas to support our ponderous bulk as a species on this planet. If we stop anytime soon we'll die out fairly quickly. Persistent scientific illiteracy in this world can only lead one down a path of economic and intellectual impoverishment and obsolescence.

So if one is intent on looking for a parallel to the 16th century Inquisition in the 21st century, they need look no further then our global marketplace of ideas. Agents in the market that disagree with the highly useful and insightful findings of science, will be dealt with most coldly, by an indifferent market that gorges itself on innovation and discourse.

It's by no means a clever or an insightful parallel - it makes it sound like we must toil against our will in service of these wonderful ideologies of progress, lest we be tortured - when in fact it is a highly rewarding process we as a species are compelled to participate in - but that's what happens when you're stretching a lousy parallel.

267. Opus comic

Comment #50579 by Robert Maynard on June 18, 2007 at 10:27 pm

Hehehe, cute.
Thanks for the scan.

268. A Compass That Can Clash With Modern Life

Comment #49966 by Robert Maynard on June 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

"life destroying gibberish"

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

Comment #49923 by Robert Maynard on June 14, 2007 at 5:46 am

Google Notebook is the prolific commenters friend.

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

Comment #49718 by Robert Maynard on June 13, 2007 at 6:22 am

I've encountered many people in life, who are so dull they cannot even conceive of a world without gods, and so they refer to peoples deference to other causes or beliefs as "making gods" out of capitalism, sex, drugs, or in this case, luck. In their eyes, it is pitiable idolatry on our part, to 'worship' 'gods' of our fleeting material existence, when a 'real' and transcendent god is available (and by available I mean threatening you for non-compliance).

Short answer: Luck is not a god.
We have been over this before devolved, but I understand it didn't end with much agreement, and I won't link bomb you to old exchanges.

But I'm simply at a loss to figure out how to proceed on this particular topic if you can't understand what luck is, what probability involves, and by extension what the anthropic principle explains.

271. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #49327 by Robert Maynard on June 11, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Shigawire:

California Republicans Endorse Paul
Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron Paul

That's fantastic, and I hope the sentiment spreads among the public. But this just seems to be an advocacy club. I mainly meant Republican representatives. Ron Paul claimed in an interview with Tucker Carlson recently that he had been "asked to leave" by member(s) of the Republican Congress in the past. I'm just worried he won't fit in with the neocon sentiment, even if he captures the hearts and minds of Americans. :|

272. Tome truths

Comment #49315 by Robert Maynard on June 11, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Ramen.

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

Comment #49300 by Robert Maynard on June 11, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Bravo devolved.
I would have a few things to say about your comment, but that's for Tim to do - I know him, and I'll let him know where to find this. Meanwhile, I'd like to comment on your preliminary points.

1. I cannot physically respond to every single challenge. There have been dozens if not hundreds of questions and I do not have the time to deal with every one.

The problem is that there has been a cumulative buildup of arguments you have left - which has left more and more of us frustrated by your behaviour - which is to stop commenting on an article, and then repeat similar assertions on another ones - even assertions which were specifically dealt with in previous arguments. This is especially frustrating because often your comments have little to do with the article - they are specifically pushing arguments on general points which you've brought up elsewhere. It's no surprise you should be proverbially deluged - they're bad arguments. If you don't have time to keep up, you could always.. I dunno, stop.

2. The nature of this site mitigates against ongoing dialogue.

I understand that the comments section for these articles is not conducive to an ongoing dialogue - which makes me wonder why you use it to seed conflicts, often unrelated to the article. There is a forum, where you can opt to receive e-mail reminders whenever someone replies to your comments. The only problem is that its buried in the site and isn't readily seen by 'public' visitors - which I assume is the reason you're here. Teaching the "controversy" and all. :P

3. I have already said that I don't plan to reinvent the bicycle. Where I find a web link that I believe supports a particular idea I post a link. You're free to follow it.

Isn't that a bit like offering people books to read during a dinner party conversation, rather than.. having a conversation?
The articles from CMI or AiG weren't composed as replies to our specific arguments - they're belches of assertions, and it puts us in a position of having to compose OUR responses to deal with the article - with the presumed goal of shaking your confidence in them.
So, say we've responded to an article - shouldn't we be entitled to a response dealing with the specific points we've made? Instead, you have just thrown up another link more often than not, and we're left in the same position.

That's not a dialogue, that's clay pigeon shooting.

Surely you can see how it would hardly be constructive if we both just threw links at each other. Rather than having an argument, we'd be throwing a puppet show, using the unrelated monologues of opposing parties to make arguments that do not address each other.

..Do I need to mention that would be a complete waste of everyones time?

4. I have attempted to keep my focus on a particular aspect of the evolutionary hypothesis, namely the questions of mutations and information increases.

I think there are mistakes in how you think about information theory and genetic evolution, which I have discussed in the following links
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1190,Another-Christian-Science-Fair-embarrasses-itself,PZ-Myers-scienceblogscom,page4#47268
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page3#35421
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page4#36014
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page4#36045

While my posts are purely descriptive analogies on the concept, BillySands has presented a great deal of brute science on the matter. Unfortunately I've found that if you include more than five links in a post it is caught as spam, and arguably, it is. :P

7. I am not a liar.

Either way,
I don't think you are telling the truth.

274. Evolution: God as Genetic Engineer

Comment #49247 by Robert Maynard on June 11, 2007 at 6:29 am

ab_initio
A quick google search revealed it to indeed be pronounced bee-hee.

I've been pronouncing it bay-hay all this time. :P

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

Comment #49184 by Robert Maynard on June 10, 2007 at 11:41 pm

devolved,

I haven't seen your critique so if you want one you'd better post it again.

*shakes head* You have some balls on you, my friend
You are either a liar, an amnesiac, or multiple people. ..or you just don't read the responses.

Here is my original post, long ago in April, responding to your request to critique the 20 year old Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter's page on radiometric dating -
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page4#36153

Here is another reference to the same post, on another article you were commenting on .. which you also must have missed, even though you wrote a reply addressing a different part of the same comment - you liar.
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1190,Another-Christian-Science-Fair-embarrasses-itself,PZ-Myers-scienceblogscom,page4#46957

Here is a post by Tim on the superiority of materialist 'presuppositions', which you may have missed
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page4#36302

Here are some questions from epeeist about the Flood, which you haven't answered
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1190,Another-Christian-Science-Fair-embarrasses-itself,PZ-Myers-scienceblogscom,page4#46769

And more:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1190,Another-Christian-Science-Fair-embarrasses-itself,PZ-Myers-scienceblogscom,page4#46849

That's from searches made from memory - a scouring would bury you. I think you should reply to these. If not there (where they might get lost in the 'latest visitor comments' roll) then here.

The word play is on your part Robert. It is a perfectively reasonable inference on my part to claim that the laws of the universe have been given by God.

Reasonable if you can make the case that the social definition of 'law', and its relationship to 'lawgivers' can be carried over and applied in every sense to scientific 'laws'. Which you cannot.
Scientific laws are axiomatic principles of how things naturally operate, which scientists articulate as inviolable principles - a ball tracing a parabolic arc in the air is not "obeying" the laws of physics. There is no choice in the matter.
The scientific definition of a law and the social definition of a law are literally polar opposites to one another. A scientific law is a condition of physical necessity, which we articulate as a trend based on the consistency of our observations. A social law is an invented imperative, intended to artificially influence or constrict a range of phenomena and behaviours that naturally vary well outside the constrains of the law. One is a discovered description of how the world is, the other is an invented insistence of how the world should be (according to someone). If anything, devolved, the scientific community owes you an apology, for using the word 'law' in a manner that would so obviously confuse you.

To try and carry over this social definition of law to scientific observation would be like formulating a rhinoceros constitution, based on watching their behaviour. They're not 'governed' by the laws you've described - your descriptions are governed by their behaviour.
Again, I say you are the one playing with words.

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

Comment #49111 by Robert Maynard on June 10, 2007 at 11:40 am

philos, I agree we're essentially saying the same thing, and seeking the same ends - where I think we disagree is what approach is likely to be effective in building 'atheist PR'.
When I stress the necessity of engaging people - I do not mean public acts of community service or charity. Because again, I feel that these could be less than effective at changing opinions towards atheists (particularly in America).
I just mean engaging people in dialogue on any issue we feel passionately about, without shying away from our identity as atheists if it's relevant to the discussion, and how that informs our opinion.

Speaking of issues I feel passionately about, illegal immigration isn't one of them. The Lou Dobbs joke was off-the-cuff - you needn't worry about not identifying Mexicans as major "culprits" on the issue.
I can only continue to wish our American friends the best of luck in smoothly scaling their gargantuan edifice of failed policies, in all areas.

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

Comment #49038 by Robert Maynard on June 10, 2007 at 4:03 am

pewkatchoo,
It is Doctor Dawkins
and Professor Dawkins

He earned a Sc.D and a Ph.D, and holds numerous honorary doctorates. His role as an educator doesn't mean one can't refer to him as Dr. Dawkins.

No need to be pedantic.

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

Comment #48983 by Robert Maynard on June 9, 2007 at 9:16 pm

darwin2:

Would a scientist conclude that the Space Shuttle, one of the most complicated aircrafts in existence, was made by natural selection. The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation.

Yes, but there is a grave danger in your single step regression. The Space Shuttle may be complicated, but its creators are necessarily more complicated. If it is complexity you want to explain, invoking 'intelligence' to explain the space shuttle solves nothing, because you haven't taken this to its conclusion - you need to explain the even more complex intelligence behind it.
So where did the intelligence behind the space shuttle come from? Well, it came from the minds of various experts - engineers, aeronautics experts, etc.
They weren't born with this knowledge, so where did that come from? It came from their college education.
Their college education? So if college education can produce people with the knowledge to build a space shuttle, why couldn't we build space shuttles 50 years ago? 100 years ago?
Well, college education improves over time, as people make more and more discoveries about the world, allowing them to do more and more complex things.

The Space Shuttle WAS the result of selection. Not necessarily natural, but definitely the result of non-random, incremental improvement in intelligence over time, from a time when we couldn't make shuttles, to a time when we could. Thus we could satisfyingly explain the Space Shuttle as being a complex thing, with an ultimately simplistic origin - it is directly tied to human knowledge, another complex thing with a simplistic origin, which is itself directly tied to human physiology, also a complex thing with a simplistic origin. To mix a McLuhan-type concept with Dawkins, the space shuttle can be described as part of our extended phenotype. (I haven't read that one, but I assume that's essentially what he's describing)

Now turn to the universe. It is complicated, yet cosmologists can already describe its general history as deriving from simpler and simpler elements, coalescing under gravity to form complex systems. If you want to describe a universe created in its current state, you must necessarily postulate a more complex creator - you will have explained nothing by doing so. nothing.

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

Comment #48977 by Robert Maynard on June 9, 2007 at 8:26 pm

philos, I still disagree.
Oddly enough I recently read of a real life version of your analogy of the kindly innocent criminal. Recently in Australia a truck collided with a train, killing 11 people and injuring some tens of others. Admidst the tales of folk bravery, there was a story of a man who was once held on suspicion of murder but released due to a lack of evidence, who had described something similar to the distrust of the community (though I doubt pamphleteering was involved :P). The report told of his hope that his act of bravery - saving the truck driver - would restore his standing in the community as a decent man. I wouldn't be surprised if this example was the latest in a series of attempts to be accepted again.
Though it is too soon to tell (and I doubt they'll do a follow-up), the reactions that were gathered in the article were fairly lukewarm. Most overtly negative was the parent of the girl he was accused of murdering, who certainly hadn't changed her mind about him in light of the news - in fact her fear of the man had only been refreshed seeing him for the first time in years.

Our judgement of people - indeed, groups of people - is inextricable from our beliefs about them. Unless we consistently engage with people, their beliefs about us - and our beliefs about them - will be informed entirely by the beliefs of other people. This is the source of racial, sexual and religious stereotyping. Simply, that mother and anyone willing to listen to her aren't going to consider the aforementioned act of heroism as being committed by a person feeling lonely and isolated in his community, it was committed by a murderer.

Public acts of goodwill aren't going to help abstract us from being recognised as an atheist (along with the social beliefs about atheists) to being recognised as an individual person. Once you're engaging others person to person, empathy kicks in and they will unavoidably think of you in terms of a person rather than by their set of beliefs about atheists. I believe psychologists refer to this as the contact hypothesis.
When these acts do help, it's only on the level of individuals directly affected by your kindness - group stereotypes must be challenged on an individual basis.
An illegal immigrant saving someones life might change that persons opinion on the immigration issue, but someone like Lou Dobbs will undoubtedly (and quite forgivably) say "Well, that's all well and good, but the fact is.. [..I still hate Mexicans]" It's unlikely he has met many illegal immigrants, and it's almost certain he's never communicated with any. He approaches the issue by forming beliefs about the demographic, influenced by his disconnect and by his beliefs about their negative economic influence.
Perhaps the truck driver in the train disaster story will contact the suspected murderer again and become friends, who knows. I don't know if he even lives in the community, or for that matter knows about his rescuers alleged past.
It occurs to me that I'd love to use the Spiderman movies as a case study in this, but even saying that sounds ridiculous, and I don't want to write another post that gets too long. :P

I'll say it again - I think the best way to improve 'atheist PR' is to try and engage people, both personally and publicly, without concealing the reality that we're atheists. As long as we strive to conduct ourselves well (as really all human beings should), this will inevitably help erode public misconceptions about what atheism is, and who atheists are. This is partly what you have described in your analogy - being involved in the community, integrating - but there is a real disconnect between that and establishing or donating to an atheist charity.

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

Comment #48905 by Robert Maynard on June 9, 2007 at 12:36 pm

devolved..
Only the lying and self-deluded claim to have absolute certainty in any of their knowledge. The rest of us, Dr. Dawkins included, work on probabilities, availability of evidence, intuitions, and thresholds of credulity.
The reason Dr. Dawkins, and indeed all good scientists, frequently use the term 'almost certainly', is because it describes a probability that is rationally sufficient to make a functional conclusion about what one is likely to encounter.

Neither you nor I know, with any absolute certainty, that the Earth itself will not geothermally explode tomorrow, but we are 'almost certain', based on all the evidence we have experienced and considered on the matter, that it will not. We understand that it's a physical (or at least conceptual) possibility that this could happen, and we could in theory have no prior indication of it. But it is simply not sensible, or even reasonable, to waste time intellectually engaging possibilities that we have every reason to suspect are a waste of time.

Your claim that laws may, by definition, require some kind of lawgiver, is little more than an argument based on the connections drawn on a social level between 'laws' and their authoring by intelligent agents. It's pure wordplay.

Now, are you ready to talk about genetics with Billy, astrophysics with epeeist, or presuppositions with Tim? Do we need to add your misunderstanding of probablistic certainties to your litany of failure?

I myself am still awaiting either a rebuttal or an apology, in response to my critique on that idiotic, 20-year old Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter piece on radiometric dating.

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

Comment #48898 by Robert Maynard on June 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm

pewkatchoo said:

maybe I have missed your point.

Damn. There's always the danger of misinterpretation on the internet.
Short answer: everything but the last paragraph was disgusted sarcasm, and the words in quotes were used non-seriously.

Specifically, in the last paragraph, I was making the point that atheists should recognise that people defining themselves as separate from an 'out-group' is the entire problem. The more we try to define ourselves as a coherent group with standardised beliefs and goals (literally: anything beyond being a-theists), we caricature ourselves, and the more church-like we could become. We all have personal causes, and these often coincide with the personal causes of others. But we don't have a unified cause, and we should never apply one. It'd be lovely for atheists to find things they can agree and work together on, such as science advocacy or political activism - but we should never conceive of ourselves as some kind of team, in my opinion.

The charge that we should have atheist charities, while specifically discounting secular charities because they don't include the word 'atheist', is laughably shallow.
The appeal to Christian charity has been used as a defensive measure by religious people in debates, but usually when they're practically frenzied, grasping at straws - and you know they're one breath away from pulling the Stalin card.
Does philos also think our current esteemed atheist writers would do well to compose a statement disowning Stalin and Mao, like they even had anything to do with them in the first place, and maybe get every atheist on Earth to sign it? Will that stop people making snide jabs about the atheistic USSR? Would that improve atheist PR? I should think not.

I don't want to call philos himself shallow, but the argument is. Then again, he is speaking of realities in what is arguably a shallow world - arguing we need to improve our PR, apparently by demonstrating that we're good people.
The trouble is, being a 'good person' does nothing to change our theological destination in the eyes of Jesus Christ, or his followers, so I have trouble imagining an atheist charity being interpreted as anything besides insidious and subversive. The bigger trouble is, there's a blurry distinction between drawing attention to yourself for being a good person, and being a good person to draw attention to yourself. We should be good people because it feels good. Those who do not derive personal satisfaction from being charitable and humane, have no business pretending that they do.
The biggest trouble is, an atheist charity is no more a guarantor of overall atheist goodness, than a Christian charity is of overall Christian goodness.

The best way to improve PR is to try and engage people, both personally and publicly, without concealing the reality that we're atheists. As long as we strive to conduct ourselves well (as really all human beings should), this will inevitably help erode public misconceptions about what atheism is, and who atheists are.

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

Comment #48880 by Robert Maynard on June 9, 2007 at 10:17 am

Having atheist run quilting bees, horticultural clubs, square-dancing groups, charities, animal shelters, baseball teams, symphony orchestras and other social institutions is about as silly an idea as proclaiming that atheism is a belief. Isn't it enough for you to simply be a rational human?

But.. but Deja Fu, what can we atheists do to address the needs of the square-dancing community?
..doesn't anyone know of a square dancing club run by atheists??

If we don't host our own, exclusively operated club for square-dancing, how will people know that atheists can enjoy square dancing as much as ordinary people? :P

The same goes for charity.

It's not enough for atheists to simply contribute to existing non-profit organisations. Even if these are explicitly non-religious, secular organisations - philos has made this clear - atheists are not a charitable demographic, unless they have their own charity with the word 'atheist' in it, and perhaps a mission statement specifically declaring their atheist motives.

It isn't enough to neutrally participate in areas of our lives where beliefs about the world are simply not a factor. We need to start impressing people. We need to get out there and be socially responsible - but we can't just work with the systems already in place to help people - we need to make atheistic versions of everything, so we can unambiguously advertise what good people we are. After all, we're not doing this to help people, we're doin' it for the fuckin' PR.


..Seriously though philos, it is the rational inclinations of atheists, as a group, which make us the least inclined to engage in this kind of sectarian branding. In general, our minds should not be nearly so discontinuous as to assume that we need to dilute our humanitarian efforts via exclusion in order for them to "count" for our "cause".

283. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48732 by Robert Maynard on June 8, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Ragnar0kk said:

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate with half a brain and the media treats him like he has leprosy (because he doesn't advocate pre-emptive nuclear war).

I really like Ron Paul (even though he's a pro-life obstetrician). But the problem isn't just with his treatment in the media, which isn't entirely negative by any means other than confirmation bias (I also don't agree that it's because of his nuclear stance - he's been having trouble before making that stance clear). The problem is that he is also seen as bizarrely non-mainstream in the GOP. Chances are that his own party would not endorse his candidacy should he pull closer to the lead nearing the primaries.

Which is a real shame. I think Gravel would face the same problem, even if all the college students in the country supported him. :P

284. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48485 by Robert Maynard on June 8, 2007 at 6:29 am

I admit, if I had to order my preference it'd be Obama, Paul, Gravel, and Romney last. However:
Romney's reputation as a 'flip-flopper' (changing your mind is a bad thing, apparently) is encouraging.
Furthermore, I think a Romney administration has a better chance of reforming American foreign policy than a Giuliani one. Mormon views about the end of the world don't seem to be tied to specific prophetic events relating to Israel and violence. The foreign policy of a Mormon president then, is one that is not particularly concerned with the imaginary theological implications of conflict in the Middle East, and more than likely concerned with the suffering it causes. That's not what's putting him ahead of Giuliani, who is quite a secular Christian - it's what pushes him above the rest of the Republicans (not including Ron Paul).
As conflicting as the situation is, I understand there are good reasons to suspect that leaving Iraq is not going to make the world a better place, and Romney's stance on Iraq is one of regional stability. Then again, I support Paul, Obama and Gravel's wish to withdraw, because America's economic stance is at risk if it does stay.
..it is complicated. :|

On the other hand, Giuliani is an aggressive, fear-mongering, pig-ignorant weasel and I hate his stupid face. :P
His progressive domestic stance is as nothing compared to his dangerously vengeful, foolhardy and intimidating foreign stance. It will bleed America dry, and plunge it into poverty. Then I'll have to either learn Chinese or submit to the global Islamic Caliphate. (I actually wouldn't mind the former, but seriously..)

285. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48481 by Robert Maynard on June 8, 2007 at 6:10 am

I'm an Australian, so it doesn't count for much - but I will only be satisfied with Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or maybe Mike Gravel in the White House come 2008. Nothing else is acceptable. All else are dinosaurs and schmucks. :P

286. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48154 by Robert Maynard on June 6, 2007 at 8:51 pm

..the gifts of Christianity alone to culture, Islam to early medicine, Roman Stoicism to philosophy and Judaism to the legal order are priceless. It is also impossible to think of anti-theist print journalists without the Gutenberg printing press invented by Christians to make mass copies of the Bible.
Indeed, the only reason religion rejecters can tally the apparently long list of religious errors is because religious believers invented the intellectual disciplines and furnished the academic tools that are used today to attack religion.

Let's distill the logic here by substituting some terms and paraphrasing..

"Modern anthropologists are always taking subtle jabs at the primitive stature of our ancient stooped ancestors, measuring their cranial capacity and making comparitive analogies to our own brains which are nothing short of derogatory and belittling. Yet our caveman forefathers invented many of the basic tools which have led to the current prosperity these arrogant scientists enjoy. Fire, the wheel, clothing. It's hard to imagine how these rude anthropologists could even write about their gifted ancestors without the knowledge of mark making that cavemen stumbled upon, and used to make humbling art about everyday life."

Therefore.. what?
Could we expect John Heard to pen an article which ran along the lines of -

Back off the cavemen, you jerks!

..maybe he already has?

We are absolutely indebted to Gutenberg, just as we are indebted to our barbaric hominid ancestors, and our parents for that matter. But are we to suppose, then, that an idea is worthy of protection from criticism so long as you can enumerate sufficient examples of accomplishments by people who incidentally carried it in their head, alongside their intellect? I think we should rather marvel at what some of the individuals of our past achieved in spite of what they were willing to believe.

"Sectarian beliefs don't kill people, people kill people! (over ..sectarian beliefs)"

287. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #48129 by Robert Maynard on June 6, 2007 at 5:54 pm

It was stirring to hear that blowhard douchebag in the crowd declare that evolutionists were communists, and that atheists should not be allowed to speak in the debate - the poor guy he accused had to distance himself from atheism just to keep speaking.
I was also amazed to hear Richard Dawkins, speaking a year after I was born, mentioning The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. This laughable document is still online, and can be found at this address:

<http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder.htm>

Strangely enough, one of this sites resident trolls devolved challenged me to critique its section on radiometric dating only a month ago. Learning of its yellowed obsolescence only makes me angrier, and my rebuttal seems even more futile.

The more things change..

288. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47913 by Robert Maynard on June 6, 2007 at 3:12 am

Bizarro said:

To retain no metaphysical beliefs would be to believe in nothing (in the sense that it is being used above), and that would obviously still mean believing in something

Again, I think this is a problem with the semantics used. There really is a difference between holding the belief that there is nothing metaphysical, and not holding the belief that there is something metaphysical.
Teaching students to hold the former is a form of bias bordering on faith-based indoctrination, so that's not on.
The latter could only come from teaching children honestly, to understand that there are certain issues about which no one can be certain, which various mythologies and philosophies seek to address - in classes of comparative religion. From this position, students aren't taught to believe anything specific, nor exclusively, and they are still quite free to decide to arbitrarily believe in the claims of any religion.

I was not referring to vacuums in the scientific context, but rather the philosophical one.

Philosophical vacuums do not have the benefit of being part of the fabric of spacetime and sprinkled with quantum events, so they really are not something. I'd rather not think that being able to articulate a concept grants it "existence". Vacuums are the nothingness that separates things that exist. They are, by definition, a complete absence of anything. We can do all kinds of axiomatic acrobatics, and coyly ask "if the space between objects does not exist, why is there any space between objects?", but reality is queerer then the flimsy dichotomies of human logic, and .. I really don't know what else to say on the subject. :P
Back to education!

I agree to an extent [on 'how' rather than 'what']. I think however that this statement is a bit short-sited. You can teach a child to use and strengthen reasoning skills, but if your son asked you what the sun was, would you tell him to just figure it out using reason and logic? Certainly not. [goes on to discuss an example of instruction in social development]

Absolutely. This is why I provided an explicit caveat, which I will now repeat.
"Children should be taught how to think, not what to think - obviously the principle of skills over knowledge doesn't precisely extend to stuff like history and math [that is, things we have reasons to believe] - but you are specifically referring to questions of uncertainties, what children should be taught to believe in the absence of reasons."

For example, a child needs to know that hurting other kids on the playground is wrong. This information cannot be gleaned from merely learning how to think, because there exists no experiential basis for understanding the morally unacceptable nature of physically assaulting another person.

I think my first discussion with you (would've been ages ago now) involved ethics, and reasons to suspect a biological basis for our morality. Arbitrary instruction (a parent telling a child that something is just so) need only begins when parents fail to satisfy a chain of "why?" questions from children - when they fail to supply reasons. The simple truth is we really can learn that physical assault is not a good thing using reason and logic, and the only experiential basis required is experience of suffering on the part of the child.

I think it's discussed in The God Delusion, but it's pretty easy to imagine how unquestioningly accepting arbitrary instruction from parents confers a selective advantage to ancient human children, and we could construct a simple scaffolding of 'pretend knowledge' from a young age, by just assuming that whatever our elders tell us is likely to be true.
Instruction in the ways of the world clearly works, but it's even better if these beliefs can be fortified with reasons.
Science is increasingly reporting that there are very likely selective adaptations which have helped predispose humans to an animal approximation of morality.

Our knowledge on these fields is less than complete, but it's destination is fairly predictable.

289. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47540 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Bizarro Dawkins said:

At the heart of this monstrous idea lies the incredible misunderstanding that children can be taught to not believe anything. To believe in nothing is still to believe in something.

This is nomologically false. Anyway, that isn't exactly what I think is being advocated, and its at least not what I would advocate. Children should be taught how to think, not what to think - obviously the principle of skills over knowledge doesn't precisely extend to stuff like history and math - but you are specifically referring to questions of uncertainties, what children should be taught to believe in the absence of reasons. What is being advocated is that children deserve honest answers to questions no one can claim to be certain they know, like what happens when we die, or where life and the universe came from.

A vacuum is still something ... it does not not exist.

This statement is incorrect, at least in the sense you are attempting to apply it. We could talk about energy and spacetime curvatures, but I don't think that's really what you were getting at. ..or maybe it was. *shrug*

290. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47533 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 10:02 pm

On one hand, it's a non-event to read passages lifted in their entirety from books I've already read by Sam Harris, and a part of me wishes he'd say something new and cool.

On the other hand, these passages are concentrated searing blasts of good argument, which aren't less effective by repetition, and which he is essentially circulating for free by including them in articles like this, so that they might reach people who haven't read his books (on.. secularhumanism.org? ..well, the audience there might be a little skewed).


On the torture issue, in The End of Faith he explains himself quite well, drawing a moral equivalence between torture and our apparent nonchalance at the prospect of causing collateral damage by waging war. "I believe I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage. Paradoxically, this equivalence has not made the practice of torture seem any more acceptable to me; nor has it, I trust, for most readers".

A friend of mine summed it up pretty well. "The argument seems more anti-collateral damage than it is pro-torture."

291. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47386 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 9:48 am

JRG, your devolved Hive Mind Theory is an awesome one. :D

But hasn't he made several references to living in the UK or something? He struck me as more like a disciple(s) of the Free Church of Scotland Rev David Robertson is a part of.

Still, I like the concept. :P

292. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47376 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 9:14 am

Mostly agreed. I just can't respect the way he and especially devolved make and repeat claims which have been criticised in past articles, and behave as though the conversations never happened. The only thing about their approach that could be construed as respectable is the strength they draw from their convictions, to wade into "enemy territory" and consistently make a scene - but their convictions are rotten and they seem to suffer memory loss from any previous discourse they've engaged in, effectively rendering these threads a bitter exchange of monologues - it's not courageous so much as just exasperating..

293. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47334 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 5:32 am

David Robertson:

"The intelligent discussion you call for will only happen when the assumptions of our liberal elite are allowed to be challenged."

..huh?
Don't tell me, naturalistic presuppositions? Secular humanism as doctrine? Progressive liberalism as dogma? I really hope not, David. But if so, challenge them with what? You've defined the discussion that needs to take place as "intelligent", but I honestly have yet to see anything in your lil' bag o' discourse besides assertions and appeals to scripture. It is on the same such shaky scaffolding of reason that the status of unborn children is approached by the faithful.

It's not a good thing that modernity is a source of stress to the faithful, and for that reason we should respect their concerns and include them in our civil discourse. But at the same time it must be repeatedly considered that their concerns are founded on false certainties about death, and their influence on these matters should be as marginalised as, say, a 9/11 "Truth" proponent on a committee discussing the handling of WTC memorials. (I just didn't want to reuse Holocaust denial as an example :P)

294. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #47304 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 3:31 am

NMcC:

Congratulations on coming up with such a novel view.

Thank you.

It's usually argued the other way round; that the problem with 'communism' is that it centralises everything, especially in the hands of the state.

..Yes, but that's saying exactly the same thing. You wouldn't be able centralise all power into the "State" unless you dismantled existing "bourgeoisie" institutions that propagate inequality and prolong the class struggle.

How exactly can a communist party say they have consolidated all power in the hands of the State unless there are no independent locuses of power?

Of course, 'communism' doesn't argue anything at all, much less what you claim. [goes on to bemoan revolutionary betrayal of Marxist principles]

I didn't claim much, but what I did was true. Communism "necessarily requires the dismantling of all centralised institutions, like businesses and churches" (I should have added qualifier, "with these institutions being absorbed into the State"), because Marx's ten planks endorse, among other things, the abolition of private property ownership and inheritance, precluding the existence of churches and private enterprise.

Besides this, I thought I'd made it clear that I understood there were distinctions between Marxism and its implementation in Russia and China. Again, I have to say I don't think this absolves Marx of all culpability for how people implemented his philosophy - which is composed of some genuinely misguided ideas.

295. The planet hunters

Comment #47293 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 2:20 am

NMcC said:

Bizarro Dawkins is right. If life was found on another planet it wouldn't have the slightest effect on the faith of most religious people simply because nothing ever would.

A devastatingly succinct comment. :)

Really reminded me of this passage:

"As long as a person maintains that his beliefs represent an actual state of the world (visible or invisible, spiritual or mundane), he must believe that his beliefs are a consequence of the way the world is. This, by definition, leaves him vulnerable to new evidence. Indeed, if there were no conceivable change in the world that could get a person to question his religious beliefs, this would prove that his beliefs were not predicated upon his taking any state of the world into account. He could not claim, therefore, to be representing the world at all."

-- Sam Harris, The End of Faith

296. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47268 by Robert Maynard on June 3, 2007 at 8:23 pm

devolved said:

What is not immediately clear to me from the article is in what sense 'newness' is being defined.

I know exactly how you feel, especially when you say things like:

Two copies are definitely helpful but that does not demonstrate new information.

I've been over this with you before, here and here and here, and you have not been very helpful in discussing the definitions you use in the information issue. A gene duplicated in a single generational accident is by no means the end of the story, and biologists do not claim that it is, but the way you refer to "new information" as the result of random mutation really does seem to suggest that you expect functional changes to manifest in the space of a single generation. If this is not your position I expect you to clear it up - you know, along with everything else.

I think it's quite hard to use the descriptive power of analogies to illustrate how mistakes can result in improvements. Needless to say, I think your bike analogy, much like the old photocopier analogy, glosses over some pretty important factors in the chemical nature of DNA. I've often found the analogies of navigating "design space" put forward by Dawkins and particularly Dennett to be quite inspiring in picturing evolution, so having just finished bemoaning the limits of analogies, and also bemoaning what a waste of time it is trying to persuade you, I'll try making my own analogy which occured to me now.

When I was a kid I joined the Scouts (laugh it up :P)
One of the useful skills we learnt on hikes was orienteering, that of using a compass to follow a path, described in precise degrees and distances. We would sometimes practise this skill on miniature courses in groups.
If our measurements were precise and our alignments straight, we were able to follow any path set through bushland quite accurately. While slight errors in distance were generally self-compensating (we were usually instructed to look for something specific), even slight errors in angle could manifest over long distances as massively divergent trajectories. Anyone with a passing familiarity with trigonometry or triangles in general shouldn't have trouble seeing why a difference in angles will take two lines further and further apart the longer they run.

Now, to apply it to evolution: Imagine the distances travelled as generational time, and the angle used as a genome.
Most mistakes- mutations- first manifest as tiny, incidental changes with no immediate effect. However, over long distances these differences in trajectory will be unavoidably apparent in comparison to the original path.

I realise it's difficult to maintain the theme of the analogy, for example by using a group of scouts splitting up over disagreements regarding direction, seeing most people agree that drastic divergence (such as speciation) seems to require isolation of the potential lineages to let them drift apart, while a group of scouts walking side by side at slighty different angles would be self-correcting in one direction or the other (although you could probably use that to discuss how many mutations ultimately decay into non-functional scrap genes, in stable, non-diverging populations - maybe?). It's also difficult to define the path of this group of scouts, given that evolution has no 'goal'.
One solution would be to extravagantly expand the analogy and say that there are many thousands of groups of scouts, all lost in a dangerous forest at night, the survivors being those lucky enough to have a set of instructions which hasn't gotten them killed so far. Sometimes they have disagreements and split up. Most of these defections lead to death, but every so often, a defecting group of scouts will stumble across a path which is even safer. As time goes by the defectors and the group they left will more than likely just keep getting further and further apart, but be no less safe. Then of course I'd have a bit of trouble reworking this purely subtractive scenario to reflect the way that evolutionary fitness leads to proliferation. ..It's a laboured analogy, and I probably should have run with the simpler concept of lines and angles.. but it's still better than your stupid bikes.

297. Man to die over insult

Comment #47154 by Robert Maynard on June 3, 2007 at 7:35 am

JesusH said:

This may come as a shock to your little delusion world of hatred but no, there are NOT many religious people here in the west who would seek death for blasphemy

The comment referred to "hardline Christians", ie. the dominionists, WBC, and so on. The groups that do support the death penalty for (practically all) crimes, imaginary or otherwise. No implications were made as to their demographics.

You're right, it was neither the time nor the place, and it was perhaps single-minded snark, but the contents of the remark weren't deluded or necessarily hateful.

It's certainly not worth getting upset about. There are people saying much stupider things in.. say, the forum. :P

298. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47070 by Robert Maynard on June 3, 2007 at 12:39 am

Oh - and hands up anyone who believes he used to be an atheist?

I think it's plausible - I just don't think he was a very good atheist. Being "born again" really is a frighteningly transformative change, but it does require pretty significant credulity and ..shall we say, a lack of critical faculties?
I can believe he was once an atheist in the same sense I can believe that drug addicts have been reformed into utterly sober citizens through the power of faith. Their capacity to change just means they weren't very "good" at being drug addicts, to speak crudely. :P

The same goes for atheism, though I would obviously not want to make a comparison on the virtues of either. If you don't have good reasons for being an atheist, deep down you'll find it unsatisfying (like if you're a teenager facing moral anxieties and unsure how to conduct yourself ethically), and you'll just need a little nudge from bankrupt institutes like Answers in Genesis to topple your rebellious facade and make you cry Hallelujah!


..it is upsetting to think how many young atheists might relapse because their non-belief was a consequence of their adolescence rather than their knowledge.

299. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46957 by Robert Maynard on June 2, 2007 at 12:04 pm

You didn't address Nail's point, devolved. You could have at least made your next tiresome link have something to do with haemoglobin.

The article you linked to has a few problems, to say the least.

The most glaring and comical was the assertion that

"Although the methodology is available, evidence of functionally useful genes as a result of duplication is yet to be documented."

Not one page later, in citing "problems" for gene duplication, the paper mentions that "Zhang, in a study of gene duplication, concluded that many duplicated genes become degenerate, nonfunctional pseudogenes and, in only 'rare cases', 'a new function may evolve', as is believed to have occured in the douc langur monkey."

So it's not documented.. but it is, and is even acknowledged as such in a creationist article. It's also apparently a problem for gene duplication that only "rare cases" are beneficial, even though this is exactly - EXACTLY - what evolutionists say is the case.
I mean, this is a joke, devolved.

Why don't you try following this link, that I asked you to criticise in April:
The Origin of New Genes: Glimpses From the Young and Old [pdf]

Let's discuss the problems with this paper. No paper is perfect, and this is four years old, so I'm sure there's a mistake or two in there. Find them.
You asked me to criticise one of your "science" articles, and you never responded when I did, yet we still find you here saying radiometric dating rests on unprovable assumptions. Have you come across new information that counters the simple explanations I provided at your request? Let's talk about them.

300. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46950 by Robert Maynard on June 2, 2007 at 10:56 am

This is just ridiculous..
Devolved is the sites whack-a-mole - knock him down on one article, he'll pop up in another one. Despite being repeatedly discredited and utterly rebuked by diligent posters in article after article, and despite abandoning these threads without answering the rebuttals, as soon as people refuse to credit his information he accuses them of being close minded. Given his record, the accusation is so ludicrous, ironic and enraging it would almost move me to physical violence were it in person. ..Almost.

The biggest problem with this is that it takes an unfairly disproportionate amount of effort to post a CMI or AIG article compared to patiently writing long rebuttals to them.
The way he abandons old arguments, only to start new ones FRESH, as though he has completely rebooted his mind and forgotten about all previous arguments, is disgusting. By all rights he should be branded a troll, because he more than meets the criteria.

I think we should try playing his game, and try to scale down our response - I'm sure we all have better things to do with our time, goodness knows how much time I've wasted replying to him.
Why don't we begin demanding that he read our links, or refute our science articles, and refute our arguments, instead of just trying to talk past his latest CMI article and letting his evangelical amnesia for past arguments kick in.

I mean, we should all feel free to argue with him, discourse is invaluable, and as Sam Harris says, "reasons are contagious". But when our reasoning isn't catching on, I think it makes sense that we shouldn't feel the need to redouble our efforts and waste our energies, when there is a growing edifice of past discourse. Discourse we have already invested in, which he has abandoned or failed to address, which we can draw from.
So when he goes away and surfaces somewhere else, keep track of the old articles you've dealt with him in, and link and re-link them, cumulatively, again and again, wherever he shows up, asking why he stopped replying. Pretty soon you'll have quite large 'resource bombs' that you can just copy and paste in whenever he posts, and refuse to deal with him until he deals with the growing trail of wasted time he has left behind him. If your collection got too large you could break it up into specific topics he has failed to continue discussing in the past.

This really cuts to the core of why we waste so much time on people like this. We (or at least I, I guess) do it because we don't want them to just say nonsense and go unchallenged, or unanswered. I doubt any of us familiar with devolved will be able to imagine him eventually realising that he is wrong, as a result of whatever strength our arguments have. As soon as the CMI articles start flying it should be clear he has no intention of changing his mind. So why do we keep responding? It's possible that we can't stand not having the last word on an issue. It's also possible that by speaking in a public forum, we fear that someone might be led astray by unrefuted information. If we just dropped a post full of links to old articles, science articles or what have you, and told him to first resolve past arguments before proceeding, anxieties like these would be dealt with.

This is just a suggestion, because I'm just about done letting myself get exasperated by this boob.
Someday I'm going to go back and find more of my responses to him in old articles - in my free time of course. :P