351. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53174 by Enlightenme.. on June 30, 2007 at 1:04 am

^ Apart from actual infertility, we are also conscious beings, who know there's a ticking clock for increasing risk toward Down's syndrome.

352. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53149 by Enlightenme.. on June 29, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Well, so far I've found out it was punctured equalibrium, not punctured evolution!

I'm new to this learning game, after 30 yrs as an anglican!

353. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53140 by Enlightenme.. on June 29, 2007 at 4:02 pm

He lays into S.J.G again there at the the end :)

Is this just 'cos he 'sold out' or something with the Rocks of ages book? (I must find time to read some of his books sometime) I'm gonna wiki punctured evo to find out what it means right now anyway. I know it can't be as simple as 'accidental mass extinctions create a new space'?

354. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53124 by Enlightenme.. on June 29, 2007 at 2:24 pm

^ ad-homs based on sartorial inelegence would be a welcome relief from the current attacks on Hitchens' atakiraqphilia, alkophilia or Trotskyapostacy

355. Sally on Sunday with Alister McGrath

Comment #52738 by Enlightenme.. on June 28, 2007 at 1:01 am

^ Works with realalternative (uses a windows media player basic)

356. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52699 by Enlightenme.. on June 27, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Really enjoyed this, it was great towards the end there where he had to go back to being an a-level teacher for a while, when dealing with the questions on neutral mutations, it's the basic maths stuff with triplets giving 64 possibles, but only 20 aa's plus a start & 3 stops - takes me right back to my schooldays!

Also fascinating was that letter to Wallace, I remember my teacher telling us about Mendel being a contemporary of Darwin, but the importance of his discovery not being recognised in his lifetime, the way she put it was that one of the turn-of-the-century men published a paper, and it was only then discovered that an obscure monk discovered it in 1860!

But I can't understand how if it was 'on record' his work didn't come to the attention of Darwin? Was that in some way because of religion?

And Darwin worked with peas as well!... and his letter to Wallace is in 1867.

357. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52602 by Enlightenme.. on June 27, 2007 at 12:41 pm

#53; "The brian power on display here..."

Simple typo?, or were you thinking 'life of Brian' ;)

#59; "If Dawkins is supposed to refrain from talking about religion, perhaps you should refrain from talking about science."

NOMA ? No, let them keep digging I say!

I also forgot to mention that I had to be delivered with forceps - so it's a 'miracle' I'm here at all really.

Atheist's suffering, Yes, having to suffer fools like these indoctrinating the most powerful & tooled-up nation on the planet.

358. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52331 by Enlightenme.. on June 26, 2007 at 6:44 pm

^The eye? again already, these people need to be told about the digger wasp, that cannot have come about 'by accident' now cannit?

The comment that got me though was the airhead 'miracle of childbirth' f'kn priceless, Shuggy (#28) beat me to it what I was gonna say, so I'll just tell you how painful it is to watch my mother shrink before my eyes because me and my siblings robbed her of calcium in a less scientifically informed time.

359. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51213 by Enlightenme.. on June 22, 2007 at 1:19 am

30. Comment #51201 by pewkatchoo on June 21, 2007

"Enlightme..
'Arsenal stinks...'

Don't sit on the fence man, tell us what you really think."

You found me out Pewkatchoo, I'm a Spurs fan, but I normally keep that under my hat, because I know how much that colours peoples judgement of my views on religion..!

360. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51170 by Enlightenme.. on June 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

14. Comment #51148 by cathjm on June 21, 2007

"What is it about you all guys, adoring this Bush/Blair/Rove/Gonzales CH zealot? Are all the enemies of your enemies, your friends? This CH guy is a (brilliant) polemist, not a scientist; beware."

You find out your sister is into s&m/is a serial divorcee/supports Arsenal/drinks too much/...

Do you;
A: Disown her, and everything she stands for.

B: Attempt to respect her differences in opinion in some things, maybe even attempt to raise her consciousness to the fact that Arsenal stink?

361. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51166 by Enlightenme.. on June 21, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Don't know much about Peter, is he a 'dyed in the wool' ?

Or does he play God's advocate, either from principled a-humanism from 'objective morality' reasoning - somewhat like Dianelos Georgoudis ?

Or, even - this may sound a bit mad! - from some kind of sibling rivalry gone bonkers ? (Cain & Abel?)

362. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50757 by Enlightenme.. on June 19, 2007 at 8:36 pm

My god, is Ruse bitter or what!

The only 'vitriol' I can remember in Dawkins' book is that reserved for the Templeton prize seekers.

363. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50751 by Enlightenme.. on June 19, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Thanks, USA_Limey, that is classic Hitchens.
I believe he's on BBC question time this week.

364. Richard Dawkins on his online alterego

Comment #50733 by Enlightenme.. on June 19, 2007 at 6:18 pm

I have left clear instructions with my avatar that he is not to eat the apples.

365. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50577 by Enlightenme.. on June 18, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Another a-humanist throws up a courtier's reply then takes out a bunch of strawmen - sheesh.

366. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50416 by Enlightenme.. on June 18, 2007 at 1:12 am

714. Comment #50393 by Dr Benway:

"Ok, I see we're circling. New approach to make my point:

Objective statements are always in the indicative voice. Ethical statements are always in the imperative voice.

Some ethical statements seem to be indicatives, e.g., "torture is wrong." But there's a hidden imperative built into the meaning of the word "wrong." "Wrong" means, "one ought not do." "


We're going to spend some days going through Hume's guillotine now, aren't we !

367. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #50332 by Enlightenme.. on June 16, 2007 at 10:31 pm

How do they get all the way to "super entity " from "I don`t know"

By assigning agency, or intentionality, to 'mother' nature.

368. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50327 by Enlightenme.. on June 16, 2007 at 7:51 pm

I think Dianelos' position must fall into one of the following categories:

1. Enjoys philosophical debate, takes a contrary position of god's advocate, either 'for the sake of argument' or maybe simply because you'd receive more attention that way in an atheist forum.

2. A genuinely reasoned position of a-humanism, based on a version of belief in belief; that is, that we (or at least the plebs) require religious doctrine for moral guidance.

3. Refusal to accept that we will all too soon cease to exist.

My gut now suggests, based on the mounting body of evidence, that he's a Cat 1.

369. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49911 by Enlightenme.. on June 14, 2007 at 4:28 am

613. Comment #49880 by steve99


Myself:
Steve 99, being a carrier of 1 sickle-cell allele does provide the advantage of malarial resistance, but getting two SCA alleles is deadly.

Steve99:
"I know, but the reason it persists is because even though fatal in that case, it provides less overall fatalities than malaria."

Indeed,
My - o.k. clumsily put - alliterative point to Dianelos is in the possibility that:

Even if the genesis of consciousness was detrimental in evolutionary terms, it may have been carried in a whole chunk of errant chromosome which also contained something advantageous.

It could have started off being as unimportant as blue eyes.

Of course that would only be looking at things if they were genetically simplistic first rather than some critical brain-mass cascade-effect.

370. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49901 by Enlightenme.. on June 14, 2007 at 3:35 am

^ I guess the operative word in that profound sentence must be 'justified' !!

371. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49895 by Enlightenme.. on June 14, 2007 at 3:29 am

^ post #615 above,

My reference was to Dianelos' post #588.

372. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49885 by Enlightenme.. on June 14, 2007 at 2:47 am

My apologies to some on this thread for stating that the only objective good is reproduction.

The only person that pointed out the error of my ways was Dianelos, when he stated correctly that no one can demonstrate the objective good of life itself. (sorry I can't find that post now) - Of course that is right.

There is *absolutely* no such thing as objective good.

373. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49882 by Enlightenme.. on June 14, 2007 at 2:33 am

542. Comment #49347 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

Enlightenme (476):
ethics is entirely subjective

Dianelos:
"If you really believe that then you have less reason to believe in God. But many people, including myself, think that some ethical precepts such as that one should not torture children are obviously objectively true and not just a case of subjective personal opinion or social convention."


No comment on my full sentence Dianelos?, which is our point of disagreement.

Just to remind you it was:

Ethics are entirely subjective; therefore we require religion.

I think that succinctly sums up the sophisticated a-humanist's position - 'it doesn't bear thinking about' - it's simply not safe to trust humanity to do without religious instruction.

374. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49876 by Enlightenme.. on June 14, 2007 at 2:08 am

540. Comment #49342 by steve99;

Danielos:
"Genetic diseases persist because there is little evolutionary advantage in eliminating them. For example sickle-cell aenemia kills people long after sexual maturity and therefore does not negatively affect the spreading of their genes."

Steve99:
"Actually, we do know the advantage that sickle-cell anaemia provides. It gives resistance to malaria."

Danielos, full expression of sickle cell aenemia kills people young.

Steve 99, being a carrier of 1 sickle-cell allele does provide the advantage of malarial resistance, but getting two SCA alleles is deadly.

It had relevance originally, in this thread, when Dianelos posited that no-one has shown a survival advantage of evolving consciousness. (!!) - of course - if you believed that - you could fall back on Dianelos' answer above!

i.e. - 'consciousness persists because there is little evolutionary advantage in eliminating it'.

I rather like that; consciousness as genetic disease!

375. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49475 by Enlightenme.. on June 12, 2007 at 4:10 am

517. Comment #49227 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Enlightenme (463):
Surely the only objective good is simply reproduction.

Dianelos;

"So stealing money without being caught, something that clearly increases one's reproductive success, is objectively good?

Or: Violating women without being caught is objectively good? After all that too increases the attacker's reproductive success.

Probably I misunderstand what you mean."

No misunderstanding, in fact I think you're being disingenous there.

Yes, In nature, and - Pre-Reason, and empathy in evolution - correct.

376. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49197 by Enlightenme.. on June 11, 2007 at 1:06 am

Dianelos,

I'm no mathematician, but even I can see that pi is not 'a number' but an intrinsic value we have attached a name to, an abstract concept as simple as saying 0 exists ( a very much more recent invention than 1 ).

We are very lucky it didn't exist before us mind, as - being infinite - it's recording would consume all matter in the universe.

Perhaps the only way for it to exist would be for there to be a prior intelligence to invent spherical objects to hold it's value at the inception of the system - oh f**k, now I sound like you.

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

Comment #49097 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 9:44 am

^ "Please note I didn't even use the word Mexican."
...till now.

I've never used the word Somalian, oops, till now.

378. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49057 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 6:03 am

^ Of course we are special, and it's about time we acted our age.

379. 60 SECONDS: Richard Dawkins

Comment #49056 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 5:55 am

I applaud Metro for also having a regular page called Micro-cosm, which engages in pop-science, with a light-hearted, sometimes effective, sometimes crass manner.

Small mercies !

Somewhat amusing was the coverage in the same issue as RD's 60-second interview, of the possible discovery of Higg's bosun (TBC)

The articles title? :

God particle found ?

I'm sure they were having a dig at the Prof !

380. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49052 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 5:20 am

^ I think Danielos simply enjoys philosophy, and keeping an 'open mind'. (addressing him in the 3rd party seems all that is left - I doubt even backhanded or direct compliments are helpful)

The inability to realistically entertain doubt (of the position of God's advocate) stifles any possibility of an exchange of minds, summed up by that amusing gif of the keyboard hammerer that dissolves.

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

Comment #49045 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 4:43 am

#96, by Yessspam,

<<<<<< So, first science, then philosophy, politics and culture were rebuilt on foundations that did not depend on doctrine or dogma but instead on experiment and observation, reason and inference. >>>>>>>

"He almost makes this sound like a bad thing."

Not to mention the crass error in the ordering !

Is this a case of being blinded by the enlightenment. ;)

All the burning's before by churchmen can be forgiven - for if they hadn't been corrupted by Epicuris, they were rightly judged blasphemers.

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

Comment #49041 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 4:20 am

[Exchange];
"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."

He should of course be Lord Dawkins by now :)
At least Sir.

And, as Bob Paisley has campaigners for a (deserved) posthumous knighthood. (Didn't hear the full debate - possibly it's like the Nobel, not correctable as in the case of Rosalind Franklin)

So should Charles Darwin.

But it ain't gonna happen is it? except in Bob Paisley's case (if it works that way)

I know the V.C, can be posthumous - for obvious reasons.

383. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49009 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 1:59 am

"Thirdly the naturalistic worldview entails some deep problems related to the objective reality of ethics"

No it does not, ethics are entirely subjective, hence the need for apologetics, in some peoples view.

384. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49006 by Enlightenme.. on June 10, 2007 at 1:39 am

"One problem here is that nobody has explained what evolutionary advantage consciousness provides."

Errors in information transfer weren't designed to provide evolutionary advantage Dianelos.

Nobody has explained what 'evolutionary advantage' sickle-cell aenemia provides either, yet it persists, and it's carriers are the luckier for it, but sadly only until they perform their function.

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

Comment #48965 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 6:23 pm

"Don't repeat the Brits mistake of creating an Israel."
Oh purlease cobber, mate, dude, not here.

Balfour was not a relative of mine, not my father, grandfather, or great-grandfather.

And none of my immediate forebears were blown up by the Irgun either,

Of course they may well have been involved in sentencing one of your ancestors to be transported, that's out of even living memory.

Please take in the spirit intended ;)

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

Comment #48961 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 6:12 pm

"can we love, not hate, the people not like us?"

And another thing, why, really, why the absolutes ?

Not just in his sentence clause, but throughout.

I mean, obviously theres a path one can follow isn't there ?

Is there any room for people who are 'a bit' like us? or should I come to a 'judgement' that they are 'them' but I should switch my hatred to love ?

Presumably this was drafted, by a proffessional communicator, but the more I look, the more it looks like loo-roll !

Bit harsh I s'pose, I guess I'm not in the constituency to whom this is addressed, that's what makes it hard to read ?

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

Comment #48934 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm

^ I wonder if the Rabbi want's to give us his insights on sex as well !

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

Comment #48933 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm

"can we love, not hate, the people not like us?"

This is (yet) another thing about religion, it's in the words, when I hear/see the word hate it always makes me want to scratch an itch. Religious context or not.

But moreso, when I hear the word Love from religious lips, there is some 'deeper' meaning one is supposed to tune into that also makes me itch - likewise evil, sin, good, pure, purify, (the one that senator Brownback used) cleanse.
And an 'expanded' meaning to hundreds of other more mundane words, including us & them.

Who th fk should I want to listen to telling me whom I should, or could 'love'.

RRespec' (not)

389. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48927 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 3:58 pm

#6 Logicel,

"Now in America, if a guy wants to win a gal, he needs to show off his ignorance of science."

That word 'geek' has something to do with this anti-'scientism' thing I reckon.

Everybody knows geeks can't get laid.

America's gonna be up the swannee pretty quick if the delusion gene turns out to be the fittest !

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

Comment #48917 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 2:45 pm

philos,
It's the herding cats problem, and I'm in agreement that it' a foolish notion.

And what would happen when a Nick Griffin becomes the chairman of your Atheist working man's club before he reveals himself to be a Nick Griffin ?

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

Comment #48915 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 2:37 pm

RD wrote;
"If he applied to science the same critical intelligence as he displays in his ethical writings, perhaps he would become an atheist too."

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that he is one? I'm pretty sure (though with the benefit of hindsight) in my case I was an unbeliever some time before I stopped professing faith (I am a christmas lectures fan).

An earlier post in this thread posited the notion he is an apologist.

Maybe he does labour under a delusion: that ethics are all subjective, and consequently we require religion.

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

Comment #48912 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Re; Post #46, by Robert Maynard.
Great post,
I'm also made to feel uncomfortable with a current meme doing the rounds - that there could be such a thing as a 'political lobby group to rival the weight of the Jewish lobby' in the U.S.

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

Comment #48909 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 1:37 pm

"They need to give up this notion of 'difference'. However, in order to do this they must give up the idea of having exclusive access to truth's provided by God, the notion of "God's chosen people" has to go and the idea that some of us are hell bound and others saved really has to go."

"The people on this website astound me on a daily basis. This statement should be enshrined, with minimal re-write, in every countries constitution. I hope you don't mind if I use this myself where necessary."

It does need some editing - 'they' appears twice.

394. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48907 by Enlightenme.. on June 9, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Danielos,
Surely the only objective good is simply reproduction.

Torture of children of the out-group is theoretically logical. (sorry!)

The beauty of our ever-evolving ethics lies in the fact we dream them up for ourselves, yes, with the help of irrationality - so, thanks for the memories, we can do it for ourselves now.

Still waiting for my cat to evolve empathy, and stop torturing mice.

395. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48708 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 7:11 pm

^ point taken Logicel, I was being a bit contrary that's all. (I am new, and don't know the actual definition of troll) I'll stop pushing submit.

The thing that worries me is the herding cats thing - I'm all for the consciousness raising agenda in this 'culture wars' time, but I just can't picture a 'lobby group to rival the Jewish lobby' in American politics without it going all embarrasingly tits-up.

I think the only hope is to slowly chip away until a critical mass is reached, and I know we need to win over religious doubters - not confirm their fears all atheists are amoral idealogues.

396. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48702 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Zwingli;
"Bonzai wrote: "So which parts of the bible is relevant and how do you decide? Based on what criteria?"

Well, you asked. The assumptions are, of course, that God did and does exist, that God did inspire the writers, and that God has the right to tell us how to live. Here are some pretty standard guidelines (I'd start with a short book in the NT if you want to try it):

1. Exegesis
Firstly make sure you understand what the Scripture was intended to mean to the original recipients. Ask yourself (and God in prayer):
A. What was the original purpose of writing the book / letter etc?
B. What was the author's train of thought?
C. Ensure you understand what difficult words or phrases really meant.

2. Hermeneutics:
Interpret what the Scripture means to us in the "here and now". Using the following pronciples:
A. God's Word to us is first of all His Word to them - see "Exegesis". It is not some novel interpretation.
B. The core message of the Bible (nature of God and man, salvation etc) cannot changed.
C. God's view of morality doesn't change either (eg Rom 1:29-31; 1Cor 5:11; 6:9-10; 2Tim 3:2-4), BUT behavioural commands may.
D. If our particular circumstances are the same as the original readers God's Word to us is the same as His Word to them.
E. If the circumstances are different then the principles behind the original reasoning may still apply - if our circumstances are genuinely comparable."

"I'd start with a short book in the NT if you want to try it"

Well that sounds like sound advice anyway LOL.
:)

"The assumptions are, of course"..
of course, yes, I follow..

"1. A. What was the original purpose of writing the book / letter etc?"

Oh for God's sake, erm, one would assume ?

397. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48699 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 6:18 pm

^ Steve99 Re #s 426 &427

"What are you talking about?"

Atheists,
and people who fall for marxist dogma.

Religious beliefs (or lack of),
..and politics,

are a NOMA (apologies if you mean you haven't heard of Non-overlapping magisteria)

by your logic - either that or my brain became numb after reading Dianelos !

398. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48695 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm

^ baeoz;
"I'm an Atheist and I haven't read Marx or Mao. I think Marx got a bad reputation because of how his economic ideas were twisted into communism, which most definetly was a state sanctioned religion."

Same here, basically.
My old Trotskyist friend told me Marx & Engels said things could not be bought about by force, capitalism had to die from it's own corruption first or summat - like it was some far-future utopia.

Don't know the veracity of any of that, also the guy was a bit of a nutta, and just might have had a Trotskyist agenda to boot!

399. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48692 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 5:54 pm

"Communists and fascists are similar to theists in the regard that religites embrace their non-evidential religious dogma, no matter how cherry-picked and personalized it may be, and regard it as constituting a large part of who they are"

Will I find this again in the morning, 'cos I don't know where to start - it just looks iffy.

400. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48690 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 5:41 pm

"Science also suffered in the U.S.S.R under the Stalinist inquisition, just look up Lysenko"

and two wrongs never did make a right!

Still went Nuclear in the '50s though didn't they.