401. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68447 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 7:50 am

Let's say it yet again. Exposing children to some kinds of religious belief - those which involve subjecting kids to terror - is indeed seriously abusive. To say that the psychological torture often inflicted on children in the name of religion is just as bad as some of the milder kinds of sexual abuse is really an understatement. I get sick of the kneejerk reaction that if a sexual element is involved in something it must automatically be at the highest level of evil. Pedophilia is doubtless an evil; there are other evils which are even worse. As I said last time this came up, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_house.

402. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68437 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 7:24 am

So, Hobson is still worrying about Hitchens being "sexually liberated". You'd think that Hobson would do better to engage with the irrational sexual asceticism in the writings of Augustine and Aquinas, and the whole tradition of Christian orthodoxy (whether to try to defend it in some way or to distance himself from it). The attempt to trivialise - and personalise - an important issue makes him appear simultaneously shallow and churlish.

Actually ... after Hobson made such a fool of himself on this topic last time, you'd think he'd slink off and opine about the most suitable material for making lamp shades, or the price of cat food, or something equally likely to keep him out of trouble.

403. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68427 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 6:57 am

Wow, what a load of incomprehensible gobbledegook.

404. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68426 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 6:53 am

LOL, Countdown has a very different meaning in Australia.

Anyway, it's good to see this judgment which deals with the substance of what happened, rather than the form of it, which was an obvious contrivance.

405. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68315 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 7:30 pm

I don't see any need for a rematch - it seems to me that Richard won the radio debate very clearly, despite the dangers of such debates. The tone was just right - he was courteous, while also demonstrating how Cornwell had simplified and distorted his views to the extent that they were nothing like his actual expressed views in The God Delusion.

Cornwell struck me as simply shameless. I suppose a more charitable view might be that he's sincere, but entirely deaf to tone and nuance.

406. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68310 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 7:16 pm

I listened to this with some trepidation, wondering how it would come across.

Fortunately, Richard emerged the clear winner of the debate. He demonstrated that Cornwell was drastically simplifying and distorting his views, to the extent that Cornwell's version was nothing like what Richard had actually said in The God Delusion. Cornwell should have been pretty unhappy with how this went.

But the interview also showed how dangerous public debate can be. Cornwell was prepared to pronounce in such a confident-sounding manner, with his smooth style and patrician voice ... while grossly misrepresenting Richard's position. If Cornwell had been given the last word, and if it had included some further shameless misrepresentation, the overall impact of the interview might have been very different. So much depends on exactly how an interview is conducted.

407. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68289 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 4:06 pm

The Vatican statement is a joke, just like the wonderfully liberal constitution of the USSR, which was full of protections for individual rights, etc.

To take just one example, many people believe that abortion is morally acceptable. One would assume, then, that the Vatican would be opposed to any coercion to prevent them acting on that belief. However, it's not so. The Vatican routinely supports the use of coercion, in the form of criminal laws backed by police and prisons, etc., to try to stop people acting on that belief.

There are many other practices that lots of us consider morally acceptable, or even desirable, but which are not considered so by the Vatican. In many of those cases, the Vatican actively campaigns for the use of coercive power to prevent people from acting on their beliefs.

It's well known that the Vatican, these days, pays lip service to notions of separation of church and state, etc. It's also well known that it actively campaigns for the coercive power of the state to be used to suppress activities of which it disapproves.

408. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68070 by Russell Blackford on September 6, 2007 at 2:25 am

Go, Polly. She's very articulate. Nice interview.

409. In God we doubt

Comment #67926 by Russell Blackford on September 5, 2007 at 7:17 am

Nah, you can't go that easily, V.. Your contributions would be missed, and besides you've been one of the most constructive people who post here, in the letters that you write to challenge folks like Salley Vickers.

410. In God we doubt

Comment #67780 by Russell Blackford on September 4, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Northern Bright, those are great posts, with much food for thought in them.

I don't see a simple solution to the conundrum you describe. Totally anodyne books, TV presentations, etc., won't work, and there has already been comment on other threads about the difficulties of trying to deal politely with the Bill O'Reilly types of the world who will do their best to shout us down rather than engaging in genuine discussion. We really need to have people like Hitchens to go out and fight the good fight in arenas where only an adversarial approach will work.

But I do often feel that some folks on this site are sometimes too dismissive of the emotions of our religionist friends, and can seem genuinely intolerant - in a way that Dawkins is certainly not - in expressing contempt even for the most reasonable, moderate, separation-of-church-and-state-loving religious people.

As long as we have illiberal religious leaders attempting to use the power of the state to attack our liberties, it will be necessary to ask by what right they do so. What is the force of their actual arguments? What is the source of their supposed authority? We need to critique their arguments and their claims to a higher knowledge without mercy, and out there in the popular arena. This makes something like the New Atheism necessary ... and, indeed, urgently needed.

But, for one thing, I don't see why we would make this forum more off-putting to curious religious folk than is necessary. I guess there are limits - I'm not about to give up writing satirical limericks, and we need to make the place fun. But I think we should try to be above vulgar insults and exhibitions of virtual-reality machismo.

411. The New Atheists

Comment #67621 by Russell Blackford on September 4, 2007 at 3:26 am

^Michel Onfray often gets thrown into the discussion here, mainly, I think, because he did a high profile tour here, not that long ago, for the English translation of The Atheist Manifesto. That included a pretty big public event with Phillip Adams, which was broadcast on ABC radio.

412. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67593 by Russell Blackford on September 4, 2007 at 1:06 am

Let's not mince words here: in some cases, teaching religion to children is child abuse.

The tragic situation (perhaps) is that there may be ways of treating children that are terribly harmful, and which we are correct to regard as abusive, even though there may also be strong political reasons why we hesitate to ask the state to intervene. If that's the situation, we can at least protest ... and do so loudly, with our heads held high.

I, for one, feel no compunction whatsoever in seeing the exposure of little kids, or even older kids, to this sort of horrible, horrible thing ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_house ... as child abuse of one of the worst kinds. Why feel defensive about it?

413. The New Atheists

Comment #67580 by Russell Blackford on September 3, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Actually, there are good grounds for separation of church and state that most genuinely moderate religionists can sign up to.

By "genuinely moderate religionists" I don't mean, for example, staunch Catholics. However, many Catholic laity, and even some of the religious, are far from staunch. Many Anglicans, Episcopalians, Uniting Church members, and others are genuinely moderate.

I have no difficulty at all with these people, even if I consider them deluded to some extent insofar as they believe in some sort of deity vaguely like the orthodox one. I also have no problem with deists, most Buddhists, and anyone else (Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, or whatever) who has genuinely moderate views that enable them to embrace the separation of church and state. I reserve my right to argue with them about matters of metaphysics, but I'm happy to have them as political allies. I don't know why metaphysical naturalists like me should have to declare anyone with a different view - no matter what it is - some sort of enemy, especially if he or she is prepared to fight for secularism.

414. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67495 by Russell Blackford on September 3, 2007 at 3:38 pm

India is so often held up to the world as a model democracy, but in many ways it is still a repressive society. The best that can be said for it is that it's a lot less repressive than Pakistan.

I signed the petition after some consideration. I do wish such petitions were kept shorter so that people don't have to worry about whether they agree with every thought, or whether they have enough knowledge to do so.

415. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67300 by Russell Blackford on September 3, 2007 at 3:12 am

This bit is pretty good, though I have some problems with the last sentence ...

Since 9/11 Islam, Judaism and Christianity have become dangerously politicised. Too many people today have developed an intensified religious identity. I also believe strongly that public spaces and institutions should be wholly secular.
An established church, state-funded faith schools and increasing encroachment of religion into politics are bad for us all. Sixty years ago, the inspirational leaders of liberated India established a secular constitution without which the country would have been ripped apart by its many competing, received religions. The gods had to keep to their place in free India, but they remain vital to individuals and communities.

416. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67275 by Russell Blackford on September 3, 2007 at 2:17 am

It's all good. I stand by my criticisms of her, but I don't see any reason to believe that she is religious herself any more than I necessarily think Terry Eagleton is (for example). I would guess that she kind of believes in belief, like so many other people.

As for the "disciples" thing, it doesn't matter. It's the obvious comment for someone to make. Richard gets criticism, however mild, from just about everyone here from time to time, so of course it's the wrong word, but we really can't expect her to know that or to refrain from making such a comment. As Northern Bright said, she may think she's the first to come up with this irritating trope. The best response is not to get too irritated.

I enjoyed the poetry exchanges, as always, but I'm losing track of my own poetical offerings. Did I write a limerick here at one point or was it just my Yeats imitation and my Shakespearean sonnet? Must go and check.

417. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67231 by Russell Blackford on September 2, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Since Salley Vickers is joining us for tea, I've been looking at her website, and I actually found myself warming to her. Clearly, she is intelligent, can write, and generally comes across as a nice enough person. I could probably have an enjoyable conversation with her about Venice or the work of John Julius Norwich.

If I ever have time, I might even read the guardian angel novel that she wrote. I don't at all mind a bit of fantasy literature, and maybe it'll be revealing about how people like Ms Vickers think, and how she could come to write such a horribly wrong-headed review of The God Delusion Darwin's Angel. Her main character is evidently a ferocious anti-theist who gets religion, or becomes soft on religion, or something of the sort, so the author must have thought about the issues a bit.

Now, if only she could see how cruel and miserable religion is, more often than not, in the real world, and why robust, sceptical scrutiny of its pretensions is currently needed so urgently. I guess if reading The God Delusion didn't convince her, she may be rather ... hmmm ... resistant to the idea.

418. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67211 by Russell Blackford on September 2, 2007 at 4:53 pm

It should also be said that Ms Vickers misunderstands the hypothetico-deductive method, judging by her final paragraph. First, it's true that, in principle, science's theories are always provisional, but they are sometimes so well corroborated that it is unlikely that they'll ever be totally overturned, as opposed to modified and/or contextualised. For example, the general idea of Darwinian evolution is unlikely to be overturned. Second, and more importantly for the discussion, science can - and often does - decisively reject particular theories.

That is not to say that we currently have grounds for decisive rejection of all possible theist or deist accounts of the universe. It's just to say that there is no unscientific atitude being displayed if someone says, with firmness and confidence, that a particular worldview, taken as a whole, is contrary to all the evidence. What would be unscientific is insisting that some replacement be considered beyond future rejection or modification. Since no one in Dawkins' camp is putting up a comprehensive and immutable alternative religion, nothing like that is happening.

And, V., you did what? OMG (as it were). Well, if Ms Vickers does have a look here at least she'll see that people who use this forum have a sense of humour.

419. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67143 by Russell Blackford on September 2, 2007 at 7:09 am

Sweet Salley sighs at archetypal things
Like angels, full of creativity,
(Though not with flimsy garments or bright wings,
Or bearing news of Christ's nativity).

She sees herself as seraphic and good,
And not a scientistic philistine
Like Dawkins. If he visited her "hood",
She'd set him straight - the literal-minded swine!

How could he think that anybody swallows
The literal truth of Genesis and such?
Why would he think that anybody follows
The so-called word of God? It's all too much!

So, what to do about the Dawkins hype?
Portray his work as semi-racist tripe!

420. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67138 by Russell Blackford on September 2, 2007 at 6:18 am

Not that young anymore, dammit.

421. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67128 by Russell Blackford on September 2, 2007 at 4:02 am

Down in Salley's garden
My love and I did roam.
We wandered round the garden
As if it were our home.
She told me take life easy
As the fleas grow on a dog,
But I was young and foolish,
And eager for a snog.



(Just thought I'd put that out there, V., while we were talking about Yeats and all.)

422. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #67126 by Russell Blackford on September 2, 2007 at 3:43 am

Happy about it though I am, I must admit that Hitchens wins a lot of these debates largely on his lack of fear or inhibition, confident body language, and wonderful speaking voice. Dammit, those are powerful weapons for the cut and thrust of one-on-one public debating, and I hereby confess my envy. (E.g., my rather nasal working-class Aussie accent would not go down anywhere near as well.)

Still, a well-deserved victory in this instance. Hitchens kept to the point and marshalled salient facts, while Donohue was all over the place.

423. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67057 by Russell Blackford on September 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I also posted a comment there yesterday. It made a similar point to the one that Dr Benway is making on this thread, i.e. that religious ideas are analogous to political ideas, and are fair game for robust criticism (including criticism of those who adhere to them). They are not analogous to skin colour or ancestry.

My comment does not ever seem to have appeared. Certainly, it was not there when I checked just now.

Of course, this is a small complaint compared to the fact that Richard's own comment has not appeared.

424. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66909 by Russell Blackford on September 1, 2007 at 1:24 am

How much idiocy can you take in one day?

So, I now have to read this rubbish after having already watched Val Noone, this morning at the Melbourne Writers' Festival, claiming that the "New Atheism", or at least the publicity surrounding it, is all a smokescreen to conceal the evils perpetrated by the West. Yeah, right. Got it.

There was even worse than that from Noone, who was extremely emotional in his attack on Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, who was on the panel with him. Fortunately, Grayling stayed calm and unruffled, and made Mr Noone look, by comparison, exactly like the loudmouthed irrationalist that I now take him to be.

As for this piece by Vickers ... well, whatever. It seems that we will keep being told, over and over until our days run out, that religious folk are all highly sophisticated individuals who don't literally believe in the words of the bible (how jejune!) and desire only to assist the suffering and needy.

Fine, I actually know some people a bit like that. Very nice people, too, and I'm happy to have them as friends. Unfortunately, they are a small minority.

Contrary to what Vickers imagines, the real world is actually crawling with Apocalypse-minded evangelicals and hardline Vatican apparatchiki, many of whom crave - and often exert - political influence and power. These people will quite happily violate the liberties of everyone else. Wake up, Ms Vickers, and smell the hellfire burning.

425. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66844 by Russell Blackford on August 31, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Richard Morgan accuses me of having lost credibility by stating the fact (that no one reputable disputes) that even infanticide is not the same as killing a person.

Well, I stand by my statement. If I have lost credibility in the eyes of some fools and irrationalists so be it. However, I'm surprised that anyone here - an oasis of rational thought, and all that - would bother pointing it out.

My views as to why infanticide should be considered morally wrong, but is still not the same as killing a person (a rational, self-conscious being with a sense of its own past and future), are already on the public record. I have defended them at length in The Journal of Medical Ethics and elsewhere, and I maintain the reasons I've given there (rather than making this thread even more of a train wreck).

Frankly, I see no point in opposing religion if we are going to go on being irrational about moral issues anyway. I have no intention of refraining from making rational statements about morality in order to conserve my credibility with the irrationalists.

426. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66815 by Russell Blackford on August 31, 2007 at 4:05 pm

I can see an argument for looking askance at someone who has a very late abortion without compelling reasons, not because a late fetus is a person but because we nonetheless expect pregnant women, in normal circumstances, to develop emotional attachments over time to the little critters growing inside them. It's good for society that this should happen - the widespread existence of this kind of developing bond even before babies are born gets mother/child relationships off to a good start. All the same, this does not make even a very late abortion the same as killing a person. Even infanticide is not the same as killing a person, though we have good reason to be horrified at it, unless there is some damn good reason for it (but, yes, I do think that there can be good reasons; one totally clear reason would be the birth of an anencephalic baby).

I can see no rational argument against a woman getting an early abortion for any reason whatsoever, rather than letting it go on and becoming emotionally attached, and I can't express how disgusted I am by people who try to make such women feel guilty. It's the woman's body and the woman's life; she is free to decide not to be a mother (at that time, or at all).

I wasn't going to comment on the abortion issue, but since the matter won't drop ... well, the above is my stance on it.

427. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66664 by Russell Blackford on August 30, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Dammit, my second limerick doesn't work because this is RichardDawkins.net, as opposed to com. I invite others to tinker.

Edit: Care to collaborate, BAEOZ?

Further edit to avoid cluttering the thread with my frivolous observations:

If Hitchens' opinions aren't all
Wholly liberal, then comets will fall!
RichardDawkins.net
Will get vexed and upset,
While the horses eat men in Bengal!

428. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66662 by Russell Blackford on August 30, 2007 at 9:21 pm

If Hitchens' opinions aren't all
Wholly liberal, then comets will fall!
RichardDawkins.com
Will explode like a bomb,
While the horses eat men in Bengal!

429. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66660 by Russell Blackford on August 30, 2007 at 9:05 pm

The Vatican line on Mother Teresa can be summed up like this:

The Catholic fanatic, MT,
Had doubts that increased in degree.
She suffered for years,
Losing faith, shedding tears,
So she's all the more saintly. You see?

430. Another view

Comment #66351 by Russell Blackford on August 29, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Damn! He's a disgrace to his proud surname.

431. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66049 by Russell Blackford on August 28, 2007 at 5:23 am

LOL, I can see that I need to give a few of you some lessons in scansion. :)

432. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65981 by Russell Blackford on August 27, 2007 at 4:48 pm

There once was a pastor named Ted,
Who resigned to take up higher ed.
He'd explored his gay side,
And could no longer hide
His unbiblical actions in bed.

433. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65976 by Russell Blackford on August 27, 2007 at 4:32 pm

You have to admire Pastor Ted's gall.

434. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #65974 by Russell Blackford on August 27, 2007 at 4:11 pm

That wasn't Jesus. That was Christopher Hitchens. It wasn't beer, either.

435. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65971 by Russell Blackford on August 27, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Is anyone else annoyed at how misleading the story is? Even if you read the whole thing carefully, it's difficult to tell whether each football had multiple flags on it or whether there was a range of footballs with different flags. At least, I can't work out which is meant. In any event, it's possible to work out that many flags were used, not just the Saudi one. It's also possible to work out that the name of Allah appeared only insofar as it was on the name of of the Saudi flag. There's no issue here of giving out footballs to kick around, with just the name of Allah written on them as a sort of logo.

But look at the opening of the story: "A demonstration has been held in south-east Afghanistan accusing US troops of insulting Islam after they distributed footballs bearing the name of Allah."

The following para starts to clarify, but you have to read on carefully for quite a while to be able to work it out - to the extent that you actually can at all.

I submit that anyone who reads this story carelessly, as most readers do with news stories (the inverted triangle structure, or whatever it's called, taught to journalists assumes this), will have a totally false impression of what happened.

436. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65581 by Russell Blackford on August 25, 2007 at 1:13 am

At least one of the comments published on CNN's I-Report originated here. Specifically, Russell Blackford's. :)

437. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65572 by Russell Blackford on August 24, 2007 at 10:30 pm

I had more to say on the other thread, but Shermer's biggest mistake was to use the open letter device, which has a history and a cultural meaning. As soon as he made that decision, he was conveying to those addressed, "I am going to criticise you, and I'm going to do it in public to embarrass you (and other people who are critical of you will be able to use my words against you)." There are other problems as well, as I've said elsewhere, but if Shermer considers these people allies, then this, all by itself, was a stupid decision.

My heart sank when I read it, because I could immediately see the implications.

Again, it's not that everything Shermer has said is without merit: it isn't. But he has framed it so badly that it will end up being a stick with which to attack his supposed friends and allies. Nothing I've read in his defence dissuades me from asking, yet again, what the hell he thought he was doing when he took this approach.

438. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65545 by Russell Blackford on August 24, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I'm not entirely surprised. I'm sure many prominent religionists feel similar doubts, but are unable to take an extra liberating step into the light of disbelief. What does bother me is what a few others said above ... if she requested that the letters to be destroyed, why weren't they?

439. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65116 by Russell Blackford on August 22, 2007 at 11:50 pm

I prefer my response on the other thread, of course. ;)

I also prefer "dudette" to "chick", but that's just me.

Actually, this is a great response ... and I'd be prepared to endorse just about everything it says. Good for Brian. I still don't know what Shermer was thinking.

440. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65055 by Russell Blackford on August 22, 2007 at 6:45 pm

My comment to CNN:

I believe that the current sceptical scrutiny of religion in the public sphere, exemplified by the work of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray, and others who constitute the so-called "New Atheism", is absolutely necessary and desirable. It is not just that religious belief is false; more importantly, it stands as a barrier to any rational consensus on morality and justice, since it fossilises and valorises moral judgments from more barbaric times.

Ideally, we will be better off if religion withers away entirely or becomes a force of only marginal social influence. At the very least, we should hope to see it transformed into something unrecognisably different from what it has been, historically.

In any event, we are at a time in history when contesting religion's intellectual and moral authority has become an urgent need. Religion's political ambitions must be challenged, and the best way is to address the roots of the problem: despite all its pretensions, religion provides a false view of the world and the human situation. This means that we need popular, entertaining, robust critiques of religious belief and its dangers.

441. Rational Atheism

Comment #64873 by Russell Blackford on August 22, 2007 at 6:38 am

I do find this piece by Shermer annoying, even though it has some suggestions with a degree of merit.

First, he didn't have to word it as an open letter to Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. That is framing the whole thing as something like an attack on individuals who are basically his allies.

Second, the use of such expressions as "militancy" is a red rag. He should know that this has unwanted connotations. He's just gone and given his prestige and authority to a usage that is deployed rhetorically against those who are of the party of freedom and reason.

Third, what is he doing by ending with the platitudinous comments about freedom? Since it is a letter to Dawkins et. al., the implication seems to be that they are somehow in danger of denying people their freedom. That, however, is ludicrous. The people concerned have no power to do any such thing - surely it's the religious folk who are much better placed to do this, via their political influence, and do it all the time. How often do we need to be reminded of the role taken by the Great Queen Spider Cult Vatican in trying to make, or keep, abortion illegal? How often do we need to be reminded of its opposition to stem cell research? How many times do we need to recall its success, very recently, in getting draconian laws on reproductive technology enacted in Italy? How many times do we need be told of its largely-successful opposition to gay rights? The enemies of freedom are not Messrs Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Grayling, Onfray, Stenger, Myers, and so on. They have said nothing to indicate a wish to suppress other's beliefs. If you want to identify the enemies of freedom go and look at the websites of a variety of prominent and vocal religionists. Why was the open letter not addressed to them if the point was a peroration in praise of freedom? It could have been an open letter to Messrs Ratzinger, Haggard, Pell, and on and on.

Apart from this, Shermer totally misses the point that there is plenty of valuable secular thinking being done by people who are not among the "New Atheists". Why should Dawkins, etc., have to do everything? Where's Peter Singer when you need him? Where's Jonathan Glover? Where's John Harris? Where's Thomas Pogge? Where's Kenan Malik? Where's Ronald Dworkin? Answer, they haven't gone anywhere. Their work is still being done and getting plenty of attention, if not the current notoriety attaching to what Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., are up to. Even small fry like me are trying to make a contribution to secular ethics. It's totally unclear why Dawkins and Co. should have to bear all the burden of developing moral and political messages from a secular viewpoint.

And another thing while I'm on a roll here. I'm sick to death of the double standard, and I'll go on saying this. There is a wide spectrum of tones among the voices of the New Atheists. Hitchens and Onfray are extremely forthright and provocative, but Dawkins is far less so. I read The God Delusion again a second time a couple of weeks back, and was struck once more at how good-humoured, careful, and fair it is. Sure, there's some satire, but it is so much better natured than almost anything on any other subject of social importance that it's quite noteworthy just how mild it is. Dennett's book is even more so; it's absolutely gentle.

Compare these books with the writings of Leon Kass or Catharine MacKinnon or any political figure, or indeed anyone with a degree of passion who sees certain things as evils to denounce. The fact is that Dawkins and even-more-so Dennett are already writing in a very civil style, given what they feel about religion as a source of many (though not all) evils. How much more can Shermer really expect? And yet, the standard seems to be that books such as those by Dawkins and Dennett are too strident because they argue against religion. Their tone would be fine if they were about anything else. Give me a break.

Yeah, I really am annoyed at this article. It could have been so much better, so much more useful, so much less likely to give succour to Shermer's own opponents, so much less a brand-new stick, with nails stuck in it, with which those same opponents can whack Shermer's actual allies. What did he think he was doing, apart from being sensational and stirring things up? What was the need for it, especially worded the way it was with all its lashings of counterproductive rhetoric? What sort of friend of reason, and of the freedom he says he so loves, is Shermer being here?

442. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64629 by Russell Blackford on August 21, 2007 at 3:58 am

I assume that Seed has an insurance policy that covers this sort of thing. Hopefully, the insurers will fight it tooth and nail. It's a totally unmeritorious action. The assault claim is absurd and the alleged defamation was fair comment.

443. The Politics of God

Comment #64362 by Russell Blackford on August 19, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Wow, this article is really good stuff. I need Lilla's book, when it comes out.

444. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #64107 by Russell Blackford on August 17, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Well, whatever the situation might be with Finkelstein (whom I have bad vibes about, but maybe I'm wrong) and Chomsky, this is a timely article by an important public intellectual, written in defence of the separation of church and state.

Do I agree with every aspect and emphasis? No. For example, I do not especially care about whether the US retains its economic pre-eminence. The article is very much written for an American audience. But Dershowitz is right on the main point: the separation of church and state is under attack from many sides, and is worth fighting for.

445. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #63984 by Russell Blackford on August 17, 2007 at 6:45 am

Great interview, Josh! And thanks and congratulations for all your work on the site.

446. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #63966 by Russell Blackford on August 17, 2007 at 4:20 am

There's always something to nitpick about with any review, as with any book, but this review does a good job. Whenever I like a book, I'm always interested to see what concerns will be expressed by another person who also likes it.

447. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63796 by Russell Blackford on August 15, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Not sure what you're getting at, pewkatchoo, but hi anyway. I don't think Occam's razor is the issue here, as no one is trying to explain anything. I mean of course we'd reach for Occam's razor if someone suggested that we're living in a world controlled by a Cartesian demon. The additional entity does no explanatory work, but that's not what this is all about.

As I said, the thought experiment is inconclusive, but it was in another context entirely.

448. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63795 by Russell Blackford on August 15, 2007 at 11:52 pm

I'm not a big fan of paternalistic laws, though I don't think it's true that they can be ruled out entirely on principle. Anyway, I think the main thing is to expose this sort of stuff, not think that the state has to get involved with every issue.

449. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63792 by Russell Blackford on August 15, 2007 at 11:42 pm

^ Ah, so it's all just my confusion. Sorry about that. I plead only that being introduced to a whole bunch of people at once immediately before giving a talk can be confusing, at least for me. Oh well, the main thing is that it seemed to go okay.

Back to the thread, Nick Bostrom is thinking about this for an entirely different purpose from any religionist, if I have the idea right. He's trying to think through the possibilities of what might happen in the future, not trying to solve questions about the origin of the universe. I'm sure he'd say that if we were in some kind of simulation that there'd ultimately have to be something like an evolutionary explanation for how such complexity arose in the first place.

The trouble with the thought experiment is that, even given its own assumptions (e.g. computationalism), it's inconclusive (though suggestive in various ways). If we actually had some way of knowing that we are not in a simulation, we might be able to draw some better probabilistic conclusions, but we can't actually rule this out. It doesn't feel like that, of course, but then again it wouldn't.

450. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63786 by Russell Blackford on August 15, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Sorry, I met various people and I thought that one introduced himself as Barry and had to go before the talk. I took him to be you. How confusing! Maybe I misheard his name.