The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why have a Global Atheist Convention? > Comments

Why have a Global Atheist Convention? : Comments

By David Nicholls, published 3/4/2012

Religion has gone too far and it is up to the non-religious to let them know that.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 53
  7. 54
  8. 55
  9. All
"Atheism will never use force or coercion on the religious"

Big call. Very big call indeed. Colour me, er, skeptical.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 8:15:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How true Mark Duffett. The author of this article would benefit from some history lessons methinks. Also, there is nothing happening in respect to oppositon to religion today that hasn't occurred many times throughout history. Militant atheism is not a new phonomenon.

If you turned around the point of argument in the article it could very well have been written by a fundamentalist Christian or any other person who holds the opinion that theirs is the only valid view of the world. The problem with religion generally does not lie in the fabric of belief, but in how human beings respond to that belief.

Whether a person has religion or whether they don't does not in and of itself determine whether they can do evil things. That is determined by their human nature.
Posted by Ian D, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 8:28:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Militant atheism, the leading edge of the homosexual lobby...Welcome to the negative new-age marketing of political minorities; dominating agendas, eliminating mass traditions, riling against Christian morality, castigating Islam: Atheism, a confrontation to social stability, offering noting in return!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 9:26:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David lists numerous 'reasons' why the god haters and deniers need to comfort one another. The main truth is that they want their godless lifestyles validated. The pathetic misuse and abuse of science in still insisting on the evolution fantasy is clear proof of that. They also want to poison the minds of children with their anti intellectual garbage.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 9:27:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>the very recent Reason Rally in the USA gathered a crowd of around 20 thousand of the non-religious who stood in the rain to hear speakers expounding on what this shift in thinking means.<<

“Mock them, ridicule them in public, don’t fall for the convention that we’re far to polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe, which need to be substantiated.  They should be challenged and ridiculed with contempt.” - Richard Dawkins at the Rally.

He illustrated what he meant by a further call, ridiculing Catholics: ““Do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that?  Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?”.

I am sure also Jews and especially Muslims have things - symbols (or facts you are not allowed to deny) - which are as holy to them as is the Eucharist to Catholics. I do not have the full text of Dawkins’ speech at this Rally to see if he found the courage to also ridicule things holy to religious Jews, Muslims, etc. in their understanding of their religion. I wonder, especially where Islam and Mohamed are concerned.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 9:28:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh gosh.

Please spare us from this nonsense.

We have an article written by the president of the Atheist foundation, and yet he doesn't even know what atheism is! (I took him to task on this in a discussion on this very website a while back, and this awkward truth quickly became evident).

And then this ignorant author comes up with baseless assertions such as....

"Atheism will never use force or coercion on the religious, as religion has done for centuries against atheists"

Someone who values evidence and thinking could surely not disregard the history of the 20th century in such a fashion as this....could they? Well, they just did. And the president of the atheist foundation no less. What is the world coming to?

But, by all means, support the atheist convention. To hear more, um, free thinking, rational speakers.
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:00:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David - the real problem for atheists is that, if atheism is true, then there is no particular way that the world ought to be.

Everything has come about unintentionally and there is no goal that the universe is moving toward. Therefore one way of living is just as good or bad or right or wrong as any other. For sure you can have your personal preferences about how things should be but your preferences have no more validity or significance than anyone else’s.

You write about “negative affects”, “going too far”, and “making change in the polity for good”, but given your basic premises, this is all quite delusional on your part. If atheists are going to be genuinely rational and consistent, just do whatever you like, but please spare us from any pretensions of morality.
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:43:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I have come to see as most frightening about the upsurge in 'militant Atheism' is the all too common argument put up by so many theists:
“If you don't believe in God, how can you know what's good and what's evil?” (expressed in various ways).
I strongly believe the very worst thing anyone can do is try to take belief away from such people.
Taking the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell (an external moral compass) away from someone who clearly has no internal moral compass is a recipe for disaster.
Disillusioned ex-religious fanatics are probably even worse than religious fanatics.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:02:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately many equate morality as connected with religious belief. Morality seems to me a way of working out the best way for people to deal with each other when we live together. There need be no big daddy in the sky telling us that.

Religious Christians found justification in their Christianity both to support and oppose slavery. "The Arrogance of Faith" by F. W. Wood tells how Christians supports slavery by their religious beliefs. On the other hand Wilberforce found his Christian beliefs impelled him to oppose slavery. The morality derived from religion gives conflicting messages which quite often serve economic interests.

In general the Scandinavian societies rank well when it comes to such indices of human well being as a low crime rate, general level of popularity and the lack of corruption. They are also some of the most irreligious countries on earth. Their lack of religiosity might be due to living in a more secure society and feeling less need for the comforts religion offers in an uncertain world.

There simply is no proof of any kind that religion is necessary for morality. Such a belief is like God, a human invention.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:11:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David N, is your atheism purely a rejection of an almighty deity, or is it also a worship of Reason? Near the end you write: " ... reason over superstition is the only way forward ...". The "only way"? Sounds like a very religious assertion to me.
Could your atheism not be a broader, more tolerant church? How about welcoming people like me, for whom some of my views and actions are guided by reason, others by custom, others by values formed by deepest feelings, and so forth?
On the matter of education your atheism also sounds a little too authoritarian. You write: " ... teach children about the main religions ... allow them to choose one or none for themselves."
"allow them"? Who are you, or your fellow atheists to be "allowing" or not allowing what people do with their minds? And why are the options in your system limited to "one or none". Why is there not room for someone like me, who is part Buddhist, part Hindu, part humanist / rationalist, and finally, when the Census comes around with its question on religion I answer: "Worship of the Great Wombat" as it the best approximation I can come up with for the great mixture that forms my value and worship system.
Your numbers may be growing, but I wont be included among them unless your stance becomes more tolerant, broad and far less prescriptive.
Posted by DrKnowalittle, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:44:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm saddened by all this pompous blathering about atheist "conventions", "gatherings" and "demonstrations".

And this, most regrettably, is a classic from our own Australian atheist arch-bloviator.

Whichever way you cut it, Mr Nicholls, you are not promoting the rational benefits of atheism, and its blissful freedom from the mental tyranny of religious belief. You are mindlessly inciting activism against people who are religious.

"Atheists and freethinkers who have before sat quietly by as all this has been going on are beginning to see that acquiescence to this unreasonable controlling force on their lives will no longer be tolerated."

That is quite clearly a threat.

Threats that bear a dismal similarity to those that are so frequently made by one religion against another.

The Troubles - or at least the most recent version, with its genesis in Belfast in the late 1960s - began with a similar threat, that economic discrimination against Catholics "will no longer be tolerated".

I'm sure also that the current crop of Sunni and Shia activists are similarly motivated by a determination that oppression of their particular cult "will no longer be tolerated".

Quite why there is a bunch of atheists who feel the need to brandish atheism as a weapon against religion, is an utter mystery to me. It plays so easily into the hands of the religionists who are determined to convince themselves that atheism is simply another form of "faith". With Mr Nicholls quite determined, it would appear, to prove them right at every possible opportunity.

So much so, that if I were a fan of conspiracy theory, I'd be tempted to the conclusion that he is running his little group of fellow-travellers with the express purpose to discredit atheism as much as possible.

There can be no other explanation.

All very depressing.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:45:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf sums up the self righteousness of man

'There simply is no proof of any kind that religion is necessary for morality. Such a belief is like God, a human invention.'

The denial of the depravity of man is a denial of history. Among the worse atrocities are those committed by 'non' believers. That is why they justify the slaughter of the unborn and try and put some scientific justification for what is clearly abhorrent. Keep dreaming David. I hope you wake up to your own deception.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:47:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Grim

I don't seek to tell others to give up their beliefs. I just want them to keep their beliefs out of my life. Current religious meddling in our society (see David Nicholls' essay) warrants a response, but I don't care what other people believe, so long as they don't try to use their beliefs as leverage to oppress others or gain advantage for themselves.
All I want is equality. Believers see this as threatening their right to free practice of religion, when all it really threatens is their privilege.
Posted by Diver Matt, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:50:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Runner

Atheism can't cause a person to do anything. It has no dogma, no catechism, and no men in funny hats telling people thou shalt and thou shalt not on pain of alleged eternal torment.
Atheism has been co-occurent with some dangerous dogmas, such as communism, but in such cases it has been a result and not a driver of those dogmas. Churches offered people an alternative source of guidance to the party, and so were quashed, except when it was convenient to bring them back for party purposes (see Russia in 1942).
To call atheists militant when the words strident or outspoken, or the phrase "sick of being trodden on" are available to you is to dabble in superlatives. Militant theists are armed with bombs and guns. The atheists gathering in Melbourne are armed with statistics and reasoned arguments. Is that really so scary? Perhaps only if your historical precedents for discrimination and tax breaks are under threat.
Believe what you like but kindly keep you ghosts off my lawn and out of our government.
Posted by Diver Matt, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 12:05:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Matt

'Believe what you like but kindly keep you ghosts off my lawn and out of our government.'

That is a little hard considering at the end of the day God is the one that appoints and brings down Governments. Do you really think Pilate could of had the Messiah killed had not God allowed it or for that matter you have air to breathe had not God allowed you such? You are being very presumptous for someone who claims 'reason'.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 12:19:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Runner

You are the one presuming stuff. You presume, on no evidence you have provided so far, that a supernatural being exists who can control outcomes in our world.
All I am doing is telling you not to try to act like I should heed your claims, because I don't have to. The same freedom of worship that allows you to enjoy your religious claims means that I am allowed to reject those claims. You shouldn't try to shoe horn your alleged deity and the associated, highly dubious morality into a position where that morality influences legislation until you can show, to the satisfaction of a court of law in which that legislation will be interpreted, that the deity actually exists. Good luck with that.
Posted by Diver Matt, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 12:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“All I want is equality”.
Hear hear, Diver Matt. Really, a simple sense of true equality is all that is necessary for the 'internal moral compass' I mentioned earlier.
If we truly believe we are the equal of the next person (no better, no worse) then we have to accept that the other person has as much right to life, liberty, health, happiness and yes belief as we do.
To my mind, a person has a right to describe themselves as an Atheist whether they strongly disbelieve in God, or -as in my case- just find no compelling reason to believe in God.
But can any truly rational atheist say with absolute certainty that the theists are wrong?
The irritating thing -to me- about theists is their superior attitude. Their utter conviction that they are better able to know the unknowable than I am, and are therefore better for it.
It bothers me when Atheists show the very same attitude.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 12:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Grim

I can't say theists are definitely wrong, but until they come up with something compelling, I won't say they are correct and will dispute any claim they make regarding having the right to boss other people around.
Technically my position is that of agnostic atheist, since I lack certainty on the matter, but atheist is easier to say and, since I have yet to be made aware of any compelling evidence for the supernatural, an apt description of my position regarding deities.
Please don't tell me you're willing to take a betting slip from M. Pascal.
Posted by Diver Matt, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 12:43:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilarious as usual, atheism gets mentioned and someone claims that horrible things have been done by bad people in the name of atheism. Yet, no names were given, who are these vile people? Please name them folks. While your at it, prove they committed these acts in the name of atheism and not in the name of a political or racial or some other sort of ideology.

As Diver Matt noted, atheism has has "no dogma, no catechism, and no men in funny hats telling people thou shalt and thou shalt not on pain of alleged eternal torment."
Posted by Rhino, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 1:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DiverMatt you write

'You shouldn't try to shoe horn your alleged deity and the associated, highly dubious morality into a position where that morality influences legislation until you can show, to the satisfaction of a court of law in which that legislation will be interpreted, that the deity actually exists. Good luck with that.'

To late mate. All the benefits of the Western world including your right to rebel were as a result of the One you deny. Look at those who wrote the Amercian constitution. Funny how everyone wants to immigrate to these nations to enjoy the God given benefits.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 1:15:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I say, runner...are you suggesting that God has favourites? Does he cast his benevolence only in the direction of the West? I thought he created the world, etc, etc...for all of mankind. Do ya reckon he is captivated by the greed and excess of the West? Jesus didn't go in for that sort of thing at all, from all accounts. It's curious that you seem to exalt the very conduct that Jesus preached against.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 1:32:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner has his own type of religion, and not the norm as we know it
Some religions are putupable, and some are radical.
Some are against women.
Some are money making ventures.
Some are against science.
Some are fairytales.
I am glad to be athiest, if that means i don't have a religion.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 1:47:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Such belligerence!
There is a God.
There is not.
Biff!
Take that you dirty rat.
Are we confusing faith with belief. Belief systems, including atheism, go to war with each other, and history tells us they always have.
But faith? When did anyone ever go to war for the positive uncertainty of faith?
Perhaps a quick way to determine the difference between the two is to ask which always concerns itself first and foremost with sex, with what you can do and what you cannot do, and with whom.
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 2:11:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Matt and Grim – you both say that you want equality. Okay, so you can treat other people equally if you want to but why shouldn’t other people treat others unequally if they want to?

Do you think they shouldn’t just because you don’t like that? Why should anyone care what you think? Why shouldn’t everyone do just whatever they like and if what they do annoys you, hurts you or even kills you, why shouldn’t they?

Atheists just don’t seem to be able to get it – if atheism is true then everyone is absolutely free to do whatever they like. We would be under no responsibility to care for anyone or to care if what we do upsets or hurts others. There can be no meaningful morality in an atheistic universe – the best there can be is just raw law
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 2:11:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP,

Every society evolves criteria for acceptable behaviour, morals and ethics, etc. We are social beings and derive our sense of 'right conduct' from the social mores invoked around us.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 2:33:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Atheists just don’t seem to be able to get it – if atheism is true then everyone is absolutely free to do whatever they like"

Alternatively we could say that if christianity is true then christians should be stoning homosexuals to death since that is what their holy book states. Ultimately, you are right in that people are free to do as they wish. However most humans have a sense of morality and most realise that to live in a society it is best to follow basic laws that protect the rights of others. Religion is not a necessary component in formulating morality or laws. The fact that a highly religious country such as America has such an appalling murder rate is an indicator that religion does not necessarily act as a preventer of lawlessness.

"there is nothing happening in respect to oppositon to religion today that hasn't occurred many times throughout history. Militant atheism is not a new phonomenon."

Atheism is greatly different now compared to the past. You clearly didn't try walking in to a book shop 30 years ago to try to buy a book on atheism! Atheism was regarded by society as unacceptable, and religion held a hallowed position that it should not be publicly criticised. Atheist organisations existed but where largely unheard of by the general public. Then the internet arrived!! Atheists realised that there are many like minded people out there. Atheist organisations gained momentum as the means was now available to communicate freely with others. With this realisation that atheism is a valid position books started to appear in book shops, and now there are hundreds of books on atheism available from Amazon etc. To say that there is no difference between opposition to religion now compared to the past is a complete denial of reality.
Posted by BlueDevil, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 3:57:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheism is the absence of belief in a God.

A meeting of atheists has nothing to discuss in relation to their belief or lack of belief, because they believe in nothing.

Their confabulation can only proceed on the basis of setting up something to oppose, because there is nothing for them to support.

They cannot discuss achievements, because belief in nothing has never achieved anything.

Belief in Christ has brought about at least one tremendous achievement, for a great part of the human race, in the ending of human sacrifice.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 4:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blue Devil....

"To say that there is no difference between opposition to religion now compared to the past is a complete denial of reality."

It's a good thing JP didn't say that, then. What they did say (which you quoted, so you should really know) is this:

"there is nothing happening in respect to oppositon to religion today that hasn't occurred many times throughout history. Militant atheism is not a new phonomenon"

A comparison between bookstores in the 1970's and a discussion on public criticism of religion in the Western world over the previous short little while is completely irrelevant to what JP actually said.
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 4:13:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Talk about lumping atheists all in the same basket. Many atheists have spent some time in arguing that atheism is not a movement or a cause, just an absence of supernatural belief, but apparently the author knows better and speaks for all atheists.

The article is not wrong in arguing for free speech and in rightly condemnation of evil acts. However this is not usually the nature of radical movements, even atheist inspired ones.

Pericles has touched on something important.

God help us if even the atheists start spouting the same arrogant rhetoric in asserting their way is the only way for everyone.

During a time when Religion is evolving and becoming more humanistic, atheists should be rejoicing at the prospect of a more broader and egalitarian approach to human rights. And yes holding organisations to account is part of that, but radical outbursts against religion per se poetentially do more harm.

While some religious groups/people have condoned, inspired or overlooked horrific acts this article sadly misses the point.

Free thinking is not confined to atheism. Indeed free thinkers are merely people not too afraid or confined in their thoughts to a cultural norm or precedent. Over time this has also included religious people in pursuit of freedoms to practice religion without fear or favour. (Yes many forget the favour part... but that is what freedom of speech is about).

There is already a wonderful system in place to punish those who would break the law whether done in the name of religion or otherwise. It is called the Law. And ultimately it is the individuals who perpetrate these acts who are responsible.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 4:21:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Leo Lane

Everything your wrote would apply if this was a convention of nihilists, it isn't a convention of nihilists.

As for this comment:

"Belief in Christ has brought about at least one tremendous achievement, for a great part of the human race, in the ending of human sacrifice."

I suspect someone like Giordano Bruno would disagree with you, but he was sacrificed in a blaze of fire at the alter of maintaining the status of the Catholic Church.
Posted by Rhino, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 4:39:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science puts religion in the fiction part of the book-shelf. So what are you believing in, is certainly not realism.
As we see in other parts of the world, where it is good to sacrifice your life for a misguided belief.
My personal opinion about religion it should be banned world wide. But that will not happen because some people put farytales in front of realism.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 4:43:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579
That is absurd, you can't seriously be arguing a ban on religion. What is the difference between the various Inquisitions and religious atrocities and a religious ban?

Will the religious be the new heretics?

Be careful what you wish for, you may not like the outcome.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 4:48:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that there should be a strict separation of church and State, but it won't make an iota of difference. Secularism presupposes a religious cauldron. I doubt atheism will be more than one of the myriad minorities competing for attention. Atheism is just another small sect, like Scientology, and has nothing to offer in terms of real emancipation (which is why people will continue to turn to religion), idealistic or actual--indeed considerably less than that offered by Christianity, who's followers have a set of ethics, the next world to look forward to, and a way to rationalise their behaviour in this one.
I'd have more respect for the New Atheists if you "did" have a communist agenda, which would suggest political engagement and a concern for justice and human potential. Pushing atheism for its own sake, with no larger agenda or vision for reformed humanity makes you no different to the Tea Party.
Sadly this push (like Braxton Hicks contractions) will come to naught. Certainly church should be divorced from state and our schools should be purged of overt religious bias, but this is a mere technicality, as attested to by the United States, which has been secular for centuries yet remains one of the most religious society's on Earth.
Beyond that, as usual David Nichols gets carried away with himself. I'm glad he makes the distinction "atheists 'and' freethinkers" at least because the two, in my experience, are rarely synonymous.
Bear in mind too that radical Muslims are not trying to proselytise; they see themselves rather as in a war against the "great Satan"; what could they mean?
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 5:01:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Squeers I am sure the Tea Party is shaking in their boots at that comparison...for God and Country and all that.

David,
Your approach will either be, as Squeers opined, largely insignificant (a mere thorn in the lion's paw) or, at least potentially dangerous if you inadvertently incite calls to ban religion. I suspect the former, only in that the world has moved forward to embrace a broader perspective of freedom and as such the nutters on both sides are largely ignored.

Not only are you attempting to define atheism beyond it's essentials but you will will no doubt harness the usual anti-secularists who seek a more dictatorial approach in forcing a particular belief system on it's people. We have all seen what happens in those circumstances.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 5:18:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot – you say that every society evolves morality. That is just another way of saying that societies, for their convenience, make up something that they call morality. I see that you put ‘right conduct’ in quote marks and that would seem to indicate that you actually agree with me that in an atheistic universe there is no actual right and wrong, only preferences that we have that we choose to call right and wrong.

Of course groups of people in a society who have the same preferences may band together to force their preferences upon the rest of the society – whether by social pressure or by law - but that does not magically make their preferences into morality.

In an atheistic universe there is no morality, just the preferences of individuals and groups of individuals. There is no reason why anyone should take any notice of the preferences of another – accept of course that the other(s) may be stronger and be able to force the dissenter to acquiesce. But that is not morality.

Pelican – I would say the same as above to you too. You say things like “atheists should be rejoicing at the prospect of a more broader and egalitarian approach to human rights” but you give no justification for why anyone, let alone atheists, should do anything you suggest. You seem to think that you have somehow determined some objective, non-relativistic moral principles in an atheistic universe and that these should be aimed for. But you haven’t – you need to face it that these are just your preferences and no one needs to take the slightest notice of your preferences.
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 5:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
absurd, what is absurd is the behavior of the head's of these organizations, and yet it doesn't matter.
What choice do children have, when their religion is chosen for them before they are born.
The biggest con the world has ever seen is religion.
And someone is clearly taking sides when they say scientology is a fake.
I am glad someone can spot a scam when they see one.
And who really follows their religious teachings.
Religion is a crutch, to sanitize realism of life.
It's not for real.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 5:42:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP
You are right - I don't expect anyone to take note of my preferences as sacrosanct only that they are allowed freely into the discussion along with the multitude of others.

My comment about atheists rejoicing was intended as to provoke some thoughtful alternatives of the author. ie. why such a rally against religion, when we are in a time of re-examining and broadening freedoms rather than inhibiting them.

Yes we can argue all night about morality or about who decides what constitutes freedom. Morality is by it's nature subjective no matter it's source. That is a complex and a never concluding discussion.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 5:44:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JP,

When you write " .... if atheism is true then everyone is absolutely free to do whatever they like .... " we get a glimpse of the religious mind, what it would be thinking in the absence of any belief in a god. I don't know any atheist who would think like that.

Of course, in a state of nature, humans would have no sense of higher purpose. But that imposes an immediate obligation on humans who have no need to believe in gods, to try to devise such a purpose, and atheists certainly do that at least as much as people who let their lives be ruled by superstition and a belief in the supernatural.

In fact, it could be said that, from the earliest times, the great philosophers did not share the beliefs of their societies in the multitude of gods: were Heraclitus or Socrates or Eratosthenes immersed in such balderdash, or did they move beyond that to occupy themselves with trying to understand how the world really worked ?

As to whether atheists have much to talk about amongst themselves, think of it asa bit like believing or not believing in astrology, the influence on human lives of the movement of the starts and planets. If you don't believe in such rubbish, it's not as if you spend any time discussing it with other non-believers.

You just get on with the business of living as best you can, doing as little harm as you can and trying to leave the world a slightly better place than you found it.

A preoccupation with one's own welfare, with whether or not one, alone, was going to live forever and go to a heaven, and with whether - in one's egocentric world - one's preferred god would or wouldn't smite you for breaking some rule or other - these are hardly going to advance mankind. To think so much just of oneself is surely immoral ? To be 'good', just so that some god won't punish you, not for good in itself, is surely immoral ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 6:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> " .. if atheism is true then everyone is absolutely free to do whatever they like. We would be under no responsibility to care for anyone or to care if what we do upsets or hurts others. There can be no meaningful morality in an atheistic universe – the best there can be is just raw law." <<
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 2:11:51 PM

That is simply one premise of a false dichotomy i.e. "reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to the absurd) as a strawman misrepresentation.

We have established "social norms and mores" via now long-standing traditions of ethics and morals from a number of backgrounds. Many argue that Christianity is a predominant one, but it is mostly a side-show - there are a number of non-christian, non-theological traditions that have shaped societies, including an overwhelming human desire for peace and human traditions of altruism and empathy.

Many argue Christianity facilitated the end of slavery, but Christianity stood by for most of its existence until slavery was dismantled.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 6:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh all these comments are a great example of what atheists are up against.

I'm looking forward to the convention, bring it on! :)
Posted by woot, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 7:01:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'... that is not one of the strong points of people who not only live a life in perpetual cognitive dissonance but whose sole ambition is to make everyone like them. At this point, just pick your religion, as most have this purpose in mind.'

Does that exclude atheists and atheism?

'. Yes, we are trying to be reasonable and ask that you teach children about the main religions, that there is no evidence for them, inform them of the various effects of cultural programming and, then, when they are mature of mind, allow them to choose one or none for themselves...'

Errrr I thought religions teach all people that belief is a matter of faith and that they do have a free will. Isn't that true?

If it is indeed the case, then your request is stupidly uninformed.

'... or worse, a part of the problem.'

What problem?
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 7:18:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day diver matt,
No, I'm not inclined to make Pascal's wager... but then again maybe yes.
I'm not going to profess a belief I don't actually have, nor do I see the point. If such a being exists, surely It would capable of seeing through such a shallow deception?
OTOH, I try to lead a moral life, in that I try to abide by the 'Golden Rule', and that really is the only rule I drummed into my children.
My terms and conditions for my customers are:
“Be nice, be kind, be friendly,
And try to treat others the way
you would like to be treated.
Unless you're a masochist or
a crazy person...”
I figure if God exists, and he has a moral code at least as high as mine, my ass is covered.

G'dayJP,
it doesn't bother me that you believe in God. What bothers me is that you think you are moral for doing so.
In secular Australia, we don't even practice the death penalty, or indulge in corporal punishment.
No whipping, no caning, no beating...
Your God condemns sinners to 'burn in Hell for eternity'. Not just for a moment, or an hour, or a day... forever.
If that's your idea of morality, please keep it to yourself.
Runner points out that Pontius Pilate was inevitably an agent of God.
So, therefore, must also have been Judas, who did play an equally pivotal and poignant role.
Indeed, if God is omnipotent, we can only assume Satan himself is just as much an agent of God.
Jesus' rather less likeable brother, perhaps?
Believe in God as you will. Just don't confuse him with any concept of morality, please.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 7:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
imajulianutter writes "Errrr I thought religions teach all people that belief is a matter of faith and that they do have a free will. Isn't that true?"

Sure, they teach free will, but they get first crack at children's minds, day in, day out throughout their formative years, shaping, conditioning, brain-washing, readying them to do the same to their own kids. Baptism comes with the contract upon parents to continue the cycle, children receiving sacraments, religious education, all the trimmings.

Religion is an inter-generational virus.

In putting myself out there saying that, I have no issue with it until I have forced upon me that I must yield to "god", as relayed by those claiming knowledge of god's mind through interpreting a book supposedly written on his behalf.

The price of protecting secularism is eternal vigilance
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:29:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Militant atheists annoy me just as much as Christian fundamentalists do.
It beats me why some so-called atheists feel the need to rid the world of religion, when in actual fact they are not supposed to recognize any God or religion as real at all.

Even though I myself no longer believe in fairytale Gods, I would never presume to tell others what they should or should not believe in (although I would reserve the right to question it), just as I would not welcome anyone 'preaching' to me about invisible beings.

I do welcome healthy debate about religions or Gods, but unless there was violence or coercion involved in a religion, I would not support the banning of any religion.

Many people in this world get comfort from believing in the various Gods that are supposed to be around us, and it would be unkind to deny them this comfort.
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheists just don't understand what religion is all about. Atheism means that humanity must be the source of the ultimate answer to everything, a dismal prospect, I assure you.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:45:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Militant atheists annoy me just as much as Christian fundamentalists do."

Well the important thing is you have found a way to feel superior to both.
Posted by woot, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 12:17:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atman wrote: "Atheists just don't understand what religion is all about. Atheism means that humanity must be the source of the ultimate answer to everything, a dismal prospect, I assure you."

Atman doesn't know what atheism is all about. Atheists do not believe there is a God. That does not mean they believe there is a source of an ultimate answer to everything. Atman has incorporated three beliefs - a belief in God and a belief in a source of an ultimate answer to everything and a belief in an ultimate answer to everything.

Atman does know what religion is all about either. One can be religious without believing in God. Buddhism is a religion which does not incorporate a belief in God.

That does not mean all atheists are Buddhists. Buddhism incorporates other beliefs besides a belief in God.

Religion is a complex phenomenon. Religionists may see other religions in terms of their own. If their own religion has a belief in God they may see all religions as incorporating a belief in God.

I am an atheist. The belief that there is a source of the ultimate answer to everything is not a belief that I have. I think humanity is just one of many species and see no reason to think in terms of an ultimate answer to everything. Possibly we are only gathering pebbles at the edge of a vast sea of ignorance, but I don't know that such a metaphoor is anything more than a metaphor. I don't think humanity has any more purpose in being here than any other species and think humanity and all other species will eventually become extinct.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 2:49:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> "Atheists just don't understand what religion is all about. Atheism means that humanity must be the source of the ultimate answer to everything, a dismal prospect, I assure you." <<
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:45:03 PM

The ultimate answer? To what? the "ultimate question"?

Religion certainly doesn't have any answers. None have. None do. None will.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 7:08:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again, with exquisite precision, Mr Nicholls has provided us with all the arguments necessary to demonstrate that whatever else it is, atheism should not - must not - become a "movement".

As a "movement", it is nothing more than a vehicle for a bunch of self-promoting posers to broadcast their own fundamental misreadings of human nature, while pretending that they are doing the world a favour by drawing its attention to the hollowness of religious belief.

Critically, in order to do so they are forced to represent atheism as an alternative "belief system". Which it most definitely, categorically, is not.

The "Global Atheist Convention" has no more relevance to the world and its workings than Sexpo. Each turns a simple, everyday activity into an overblown, look-at-me circus, and in doing so parades a level of self-obsession that is embarrassing to all but themselves.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 8:33:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All of which is true…

"whatever else it is, atheism should not - must not - become a "movement"."

But as conventions go a, er, 'friend ' told me that Sexpo has better audience participation – even if you're doing it all by yourself.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:16:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe - you say that, “To be 'good', just so that some god won't punish you, not for good in itself, is surely immoral ?” As I have pointed out though, the problem for the atheist is that they have no means for establishing what being good is (beyond their own personal preferences). One atheist may say that one behaviour is good while another may say that it is not. Who can say who is right and on what basis?

McReal – I don’t dispute that ‘we have established "social norms and mores" via now long-standing traditions of ethics and morals’ but, so what? These are just the preferences of people in the past that happen to have been around for a long time now. That does not give them any real authority over anyone’s life. So, yes, atheists are completely free from all so-called moral restraints.

Pericles – in making pronouncements such as ‘atheism should not - must not - become a "movement’ you are surely overstepping the mark just like those you want to criticise. You have your opinion about this but your opinion is no more significant or meaningful than anyone else’s and so your demands are just as pompous and hollow as theirs.
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:26:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The similarities are actually quite compelling, WmTrevor.

>>But as conventions go a, er, 'friend ' told me that Sexpo has better audience participation – even if you're doing it all by yourself.<<

There's a word for that, is there not?

I suspect there will be a great deal of similar activity - mostly of the mental variety, fortunately - at the Global Atheist Convention.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:30:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of Sexpo atheism as well as masturbation can be enjoyed alone or with suitable companions. I am going to the atheist convention and will meet suitable companions.

My wife and I will be accompanied to the convention by a woman who has three children. Two of the children have become fundamentalists. One of her fundamentalist children will probably drive us to the airport. He accepts our outlook, and we accept his outlook.

Difference is not the problem. Lack of acceptance of the difference is the problem.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:33:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day JP,
I have belatedly come to realise that in disagreeing with you I have broken my own injunction.
Please, by all means continue to do what is right, according to your God:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “Love your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind.”
And the second commandment is like unto the first:
“Love your neighbour as you love yourself” Matthew 22.

If you don't JP, you will surely burn in Hell.

“Who can say who is right and on what basis?”
For all the moral atheists out there, just treat others the way you would like to be treated.
You will surely NOT burn in Hell.
Why? Because if we are all equals, none of us has the right to harm another without according them the same right to harm us.
Not harming others works better.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:03:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" .. established "social norms and mores" via now long-standing traditions of ethics and morals’ ... are just the preferences of people in the past that happen to have been around for a long time now. That does not give them any real authority over anyone’s life." <<
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:26:25 AM

They are more than preferences. They are expectation, with authority through social currency. Which makes this ....

>> "So, yes, atheists are completely free from all so-called moral restraints." << Posted by JP, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:26:25 AM

... a bald assertion without authority, and an inmoral one.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:05:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To many people think their type of religion is the only worthwhile one.
That is the problem with religion.
Besides believing in fairy tales, there is no tolerance.
Atheists or non religious, believe the world is round.
Churches dictate to people how to live their lives, and violate the rules of humanity, themselves.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:17:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP,

" .... the problem for the atheist is that they have no means for establishing what being good is (beyond their own personal preferences). One atheist may say that one behaviour is good while another may say that it is not. Who can say who is right and on what basis?"

Yes, indeed. And some of us spend our lives, on and off, sifting the good from the bad, trying to nut out what to do in different situations, and all without the 'guidance' of a book of magic and miracles. I'm sure that there are atheists who are total b@stards, psychotics, criminals, just as there are amongst any set of people, believers or not, but searching for the best path is what some of us keep trying to do.

The search for purpose, and the concern to do as little harm as possible, and to leave the world in a better state than it was wneh one entered it - these are pretty constant issues for many atheists. I'm sure they are for many religionists too, but we don't have - or seek - the assurance of some invented fairy godfather/mother, or the confidence that there is someone on our shoulder. Whatever there is 'there', we make it, we construct our own sense of morality and are constantly questioning it and trying to improve it. As, I'm sure, many religionists are doing too.

I guess some of us are trying to do the best we can in the absence of any supernatural force. No, it's not particularly easy being human and more or less alone in the universe, each of us for our limited time on Earth.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:46:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP,

"In an atheistic universe there is no morality, just the preference of individuals and groups of individuals."

Seems a bit odd make the point that "groups of individuals" comprise what we refer to as "society". Different societies engage in both similar 'and' differing ideas of acceptable conduct, morals, ethics - religious belief.

Are you saying that human "morality' is entirely dependent on the invocation of "God"?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:02:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579, enough of the jokes already!

I think many of the astute readers have by now figured out that you're really a religious person with a sense of humour, on a mission to make atheism look bad. The game's up now.

Let JP etc have their serious conversation- I am finding it illuminating.
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 12:04:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi loaned me this david f…

:)

Though I don't twit myself, I think #athiestcon was an unfortunate choice, pass it on to an organiser if you would.

It is because I know you are 'a true Scotsman' who appreciates the distinctions between individual atheism/religiosity and organised or formal religion/atheism that I can agree with your comments and to also extend a wish for 'more power to your elbow' (as my Cornish Bible Christian forebears may have said) as you congress in Melbourne.

And at your age! I am humbled and deflated.

But now back to Trav, JP and acceptance...
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 12:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those concerned at atheists organising: I would like to explain my position on the matter in hope it might allay your fears of being burnt at the stake for postasy.

I joined the AFA a couple of years ago because they are working toward goals I share. Collective effort can achieve more than the sum effort of the individuals, so it makes sense to add my resources and energy to a larger entity headed my way.

The reason I don't see a parallel between my joinging the AFA and joining a religion is that I can leave at any time without penalty. If the AFA adopts a policy I am not happy with or its members begin to behave in a way I find reprehensible, I can reprehend them with impunity and rescind my membership without threats of temporal discrimination, or of eternal damnation, being made against me. I do not rely on the AFA for my ethics. The AFA doesn't try to tell me how to feel about issues or how to act toward women or gay people, or that I should try to make converts. Again, if they start up with any such nonsense, I and my support are gone in short order.
Many people who subscribe to religions are told how to act and what to think and they lack the freedom to simply walk away. So long as they believe, the dual threats of punishment for disobedience and the withholding of rewards alleged to stem from acquiescence hang over them.

You have nothing to fear from this convention unless you are indulging in unjustified prejudice or soaking up tax payer's money as part of your religious practices.

On the matter of prejudice: someone asked if atheists would seek to control whether or not people can be prejudiced. This, besides being impossible, is not desirable. You have a right to be a bigoted jerk if you choose. Be as prejudiced as you like. You just shouldn't expect tax breaks or government grants to help you in your discrimination, and you shouldn't expect respect for your efforts.
Posted by Diver Matt, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 1:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If theists are so certain and self-assured about how right their beliefs are, then why do they seem so threatened by the very mention of atheists.

I would imagine that any true-believers would just laugh it off and move on but nothing seems to rile them more than somebody else daring to disagree with them - as if that would have any affect on their lives whatsoever.

Since there are no arguments for the conversion of atheists in these discussions then maybe the constant assertion and declaration of belief really is an indication of personal fear and doubt.

I don't see the need for a convention however. It's like a gathering of people whose hobby is "not collecting stamps".
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 1:51:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do see the need for a convention. I see it in the myriad of people that discuss the issues their family are confronting in the education system and social circles (and this extends into economical circles especially in rural towns, as has been my experience)

The numbers of atheists speaking out, coming out and getting together to discuss issues is why there is a convention.

Of course the religious and those not influenced by religion go 'what are you going to talk about?' because of exactly that. The convention is simply a reflection of the huge amount of people that are sick of religious influence and privilege, and (as we have seen in the previous posts) sick of the arrogant, misinformed and bigoted approaches those that hold faith positions present as soon as people organise that do not hold their convictions.
Posted by woot, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 2:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wobbles,

Unless that gathering had a problem with people who do collect stamps, and organised themselves to stop the collecting of stamps - or to argue against the practice.

I'm an atheist/agnostic/whatever, yet I'm wondering why the need for a convention?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 2:41:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not to stop people from collecting stamps, it's to discuss the issues regarding stamp collectors (religious) having rights above and beyond others in our society.

There are myriads of issues, one of them is the estimated 35 billion given in tax exemptions (outside of their charity arms) given to religious organisations simply because of their belief.

If stamp collectors had tax exemptions, exemptions from many of the anti-discrimination laws, stamp collectors in our schools to offer 'support' to children where it was advertised that one had to be affiliated to a local stamp club, undoubtably I would be going to a non stamp collecting convention as well, to discusss these issues and point out how it is totally unfair that simply having a belief in a super stamp gives people privilege over others.

So I think it ridiculous the arguments that somehow pointing out such beliefs do not warrant privilege over others is approached with mainly theists whining that 'those non stamp collectors want to wipe out stamp collecting!'

It's ridiculous, if the stamp collectors in the analogy didn't intrude into decision making, didn't claim rights above and beyond others, there would be no convention. No one would care what stamp collectors do in the privacy of their stamp collecting club.
Posted by woot, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 2:48:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<I joined the AFA a couple of years ago because they are working toward goals I share>.

Diver Matt,
this sounds promising. Can I ask you to expand a little on what these goals are?
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 3:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last time I joined a conversation on this topic, I offered a link:
http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=724:most-people-dont-even-think-about-religion&catid=186:errors-in-religious-arguments&Itemid=72

From this perspective, I guess it makes sense for atheists to have a convention.
Nobody else will talk to them.
Seriously, try starting up a convo about religion/atheism at your local Pub. Life expectancy of conversation? About 30 seconds, I reckon.
Nobody cares any more. Get over it.
There's probably one thing Atheists and Theists have in common.
Atheists and Theists can both look forward to the day when the concept of Atheism doesn't exist anymore.
For slightly different reasons, of course...
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 3:45:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot you make an interesting point

'I say, runner...are you suggesting that God has favourites? Does he cast his benevolence only in the direction of the West? I thought he created the world, etc, etc...for all of mankind. Do ya reckon he is captivated by the greed and excess of the West?'

I would say that biblical foundations led to largely hard working honest people. The blessings followed. Secularism over the last 50 years has started to produce much more greed, lust and hate than ever before. Look at the number of Government workers in places like the Climate Change department getting large salaries for producing nothing but lies. Secularism produces greed although it is often masked by self righteous causes. Look at the 1000 or so junkets to CopenHagen.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 3:50:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim – you advise, “For all the moral atheists out there, just treat others the way you would like to be treated”. You can live by that principle if you like Grim but if another atheist believes that he can live a much more comfortable life by secretly taking advantage of others, why shouldn’t he? Really, why shouldn’t he? Why should he care what moral principles you choose to make up and live by?

You then assert, “if we are all equals, none of us has the right to harm another without according them the same right to harm us”. For a start, on what basis can you make the claim that we are all equals? It might give you warm, fuzzy feelings to say that but can you back it up?

Even if there is a case for saying that in some sense we are all equals, it does not necessarily follow that we therefore must treat each other fairly. A person can say, so what if you are my equal – if by exploiting you I can make my life better, too bad for you. You also introduce the term ‘rights’ – where do rights come from in an atheistic universe? Just like morality, rights are just a convenient fiction and can be ignored at will.

McReal – you say that morals “are more than preferences. They are expectations”.

So, are you saying that you have your preferences about what you think is right and wrong and that you expect others to abide by those preferences? You might think a certain action is wrong and you expect others not to do it. Another atheist though may not think that action is wrong and does not expect that he should be penalised for doing it. How then does your reference to expectations solve the dilemma for atheists as to what is right and wrong?
(cont)
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 4:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe – so what if some atheists are “concerned to do as little harm as possible, and to leave the world in a better state than it was when one entered it”. Again that may make you feel warm and fuzzy but it does nothing to answer the question of how do we know what is right to do. You make the assumption that doing little harm and making the world better is right – but it is just that, an unsupported assumption. Another atheist may say that having the easiest, most luxurious ride through life is the right thing to do and if that means stealing from others, including you, and ravaging the world’s resources then so be it.

You acknowledge that “we [atheists]construct our own sense of morality” , which I agree with, but then you go on to say, “and [we] are constantly questioning it and trying to improve it”. If morality is something you just make up it is hard to understand what you mean when you say you are trying to improve it. It is like saying that you are trying to make a better image of Santa Claus. If it is made up it can be anything you like and it can never be wrong.

Poirot – you ask, “Are you saying that human "morality' is entirely dependent on the invocation of "God?" What I am saying is that in the absence of someone greater and wiser than us, all we are left with are human beings each with their own preferences for what should be considered right and wrong. There is no way to establish why one person’s preference for claiming that some particular act is wrong should override another person’s preference for calling the same act right.

If there is an all-wise and all-good God who has created us and indicated what is right and wrong, then there can be a non-subjective basis for morality.
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 4:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP,

Who or what told human society how to behave before God revealed himself - or do you believe that 'morality' only began with the advent of (sky-god) religions?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 4:35:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting approach to argumentation JP…

A more word dense version of the three-year-old's constant rejoinders of why? or why not? to whatever is said by an adult.

So are you suggesting that there was never an occasion or time when moral or ethical behaviour was not externally suggested and internally accepted by people?

How is this not subjective?
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 4:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JP,

On your interpretation of what I was writing:

" .... it does nothing to answer the question of how do we know what is right to do. You make the assumption that doing little harm and making the world better is right – but it is just that, an unsupported assumption. Another atheist may say that having the easiest, most luxurious ride through life is the right thing to do and if that means stealing from others, including you, and ravaging the world’s resources then so be it."

Yes, that's about it, nothing is pre-ordained, so we are free to do as you say. Some will do as you say, I suppose, but I live in hope - there's not much else - that others will try to take the high moral road. I'll try to stick to my own assumptions and goals.

Then you write:

"If morality is something you just make up it is hard to understand what you mean when you say you are trying to improve it."

"Just make up" ? No, the quest for the most moral course is a constant project, it is never finished, if only because different problems and issues are constantly arising. So in this sense, one's morality, one's elaborations of right and wrong, can always be improved: they are constantly evolving, like so much else in the world.

What you write is very illuminating of how a religious person would view the world, and morality, if he or she did not believe, if he or she believed there were no supernatural constraints, no imminent punishment, no Hell if you like. And it's not really a pretty picture :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 4:55:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Squeers

I want to be left alone. Getting involved in social justice causes may seem like I am failing in that ambition, but I see it as a short cut to my long term goal. If I just sit on my heels and wait, religious organisations will continue to get all up in my face and our government.

So, in order to get to a position where I will be left alone by religions and theists, I would like to see people treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.

I would also like to see tax law reforms so religious charities are held to the same standards of scrutiny as other charities, as the four hundred year old exemptions they currently operate under mean that simply promoting the religion is enough to qualify for tax breaks which extend to business ventures which have nothing to do with charitable ends. From Buddhists to Scientologists, if you promote supernatural religion and have a building and regular meetings, you don't have to pay tax.

I would like to live to see section 116 of our constitution upheld as the barrier separating church and state it was intended to be. The 1986 decision in the Defence of Government Schools case in the High Court relies on a pretty weak interpretation of a single word, apparently because to interpret the section in the spirit in which it was written would have generated too much work for the courts. This leaves society with no legal recourse when religions begin interfering in the making of laws or the running of government bodies.

In short, I want my children to go to school without interference from preachers, to be able to marry whom they wish, and to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology.
Posted by Diver Matt, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 5:01:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So it will be, at base, a rant against religion and religious institutions, woot.

>>The convention is simply a reflection of the huge amount of people that are sick of religious influence and privilege, and (as we have seen in the previous posts) sick of the arrogant, misinformed and bigoted approaches those that hold faith positions present as soon as people organise that do not hold their convictions.<<

A bit like the Taliban having a meeting to discuss the Great Satan, I suppose. Or the Provisional IRA/Ulster Defence Association discussing how to address their "differences", and whose kneecaps would feature in their action plans.

Just a bunch of like-minded folk, in fact, having a bitch and a moan about people who don't agree with their views, and mulling over "what to do about it". With the only difference - at least, I hope it is a difference - being the level of violence proposed to "rectify" the situation.

Incidentally, JP, you missed the point entirely.

>>Pericles – in making pronouncements such as ‘atheism should not - must not - become a "movement’ you are surely overstepping the mark just like those you want to criticise. You have your opinion about this but your opinion is no more significant or meaningful than anyone else’s and so your demands are just as pompous and hollow as theirs<<

Read it again. I wrote:

>>Once again, with exquisite precision, Mr Nicholls has provided us with all the arguments necessary to demonstrate that whatever else it is, atheism should not - must not - become a "movement"<<

Where are the "demands"?

Context is everything.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 5:22:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From my reading of the history of religion there were sky-gods who did not prescribe morality. The religions of the Roman Empire had pantheons of sky gods. People made sacrifices to seek the favour of the Gods. However, morality was determined by philosophy in the case of the more educated or local custom in case of the less educated.

In Sumer religion was connected with morality, and much that was incorporated into Judaism followed Sumerian beliefs. The works of Samuel Noah Kramer who translated many of the cuneiform tablets contained descriptions of Sumerian beliefs. The connection of morality and religious belief was made after the invention of the sky gods. Christianity preserved the connection of morality and religion, but the connection is not inherent in religion as such.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 6:21:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilarious.. So you think 10-20 thousand was a big figure that "deserves media attention".. How about the March for Life which attracted about 400,000 in 2011? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.C.)

So by your own logic you would have to agree that the March for Life deserves tons of media?

"Atheism will never use force or coercion on the religious" ... Haven't you ever heard of mass murderer Joseph Stalin who founded the "League of Militant Atheists," who'se goal was to "spread atheism and eradicate religion"?

It's atheists who insult and slander anyone of faith. You think you're being persecuted when people don't like you? Awwwwww... I bet the Jews from the Holocaust and the Christians who were fed the Lions in Rome feel really sorry for you! I bet they shed a tear every time you feel sorry for yourself.

Also, atheism is nothing new. Even the Bible addresses atheists, so they were obviously around at least 2,500 years ago (which is the age of the oldest Bible we have).

The fact is, theism will never die because it's true. You can't talk a person out of an actual experience they have had. Many people know your position is not logical. People know that a builder has a builder and they know this earth, our bodies and soul had a designer. People know that a universe cannot spawn out of nothing for no reason. It defies science.

You can try if you choose, but it's impossible to suppress Christianity as you seem to dream of doing- just ask your friend Joseph Stalin.

Oh and by the way, want to know what an Atheist Empire looks like? Just ask the recently deceased Kim Kong Il- in his country, North Korea, a person who recently escaped from there said that when they are born they are told by the government that "there is no god and you should worship your leader instead". It's every atheist's dream, a nation where the government persecutes the religious and tells everyone to worship itself instead of God.
Posted by Tidus, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 6:33:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Matt: (I suspect we've met once or twice..)

<I want to be left alone>
There was a time when such a statement meant solitude and an ascetic sensibility (or a Steppenwolf); these days it's more likely narcissistically-antisocial. Perhaps 'twas ever thus.
Clearly, you're setting the scene, a rhetorical device; you desire freedom of conscience and religion keeps poking its nose in?

<Getting involved in social justice causes may seem like I am failing in that ambition, but I see it as a short cut to my long term goal. If I just sit on my heels [you mean hands?] and wait, religious organisations will continue to get all up in my face and our government.>

This is exactly my gripe against New Atheists. On the one hand, you suggest that religion is the root of all evil, but you're not that stupid. The truth is, you're not on a crusade, you're ordinary progressives; you've identified backward religious sensibilities and institutional cronyism as something you despise (with some justice) and would like to eradicate, so you demonise it in the hope that being over-the-top will prove more effective. And it does tend to be; people start believing their own rhetoric and the very weak-minded start making explosives. Meanwhile, you're just after tax-reform!
Sorry, you're also passionate about young minds and malign influences--at least that's what you tell yourselves.

cont..
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 6:48:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...
Really, you're just bored and in need of a cause and don't have a clue what's wrong with the world beyond those in it who irritate you. I speak with some authority here and am as repulsed by conservatives as I take you to be. But there's a qualitative difference between rebelling against authority for the sake of it, like an arrant teenager, and rebelling aspirationally and constructively, and that's why I wanted to get some idea of your vision.
Religion is not the problem, it's a symptom, and all you're saying is you support the disease but you hate the warts.
Has it occurred to you that your cause on tax reform is in sync with a neoliberal agenda (at least fiscally)?

<In short, I want my children to go to school without interference from preachers, to be able to marry whom they wish, and to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology>

Respectively:
All teaching is preaching.
Why do they need the institution?
Sovereignty--no accountability--tends to tyranny and indifference.
Would you have a society of sovereigns?
That's libertarianism: the freedom to do what others don't prevent you from doing--the law of the jungle.
It's a far cry from the freedom to realise your human potential, and your children have no hope of achieving that in the current set-up, religion or no.
The New Atheists gurus and groupies just haven't thought it through, and that's my objection. You're just as intellectually-embarrassing as the fundamentalists you're fixated on.

But please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 6:48:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A bit like the Taliban having a meeting to discuss the Great Satan"

You equate discussing the issues those without belief face, like the Taliban discussing the Great Satan? lol

"Or the Provisional IRA/Ulster Defence Association discussing how to address their "differences", and whose kneecaps would feature in their action plans."

Yea a convention of atheists is just like the IRA kneecapping people. *rolls-eyes*

It appears to me that Australians getting together to deal with issues that they see in society is such an anathema to you, that you have to equate it to terrorist organisations. How sad :(

"Just a bunch of like-minded folk, in fact, having a bitch and a moan about people who don't agree with their views, and mulling over "what to do about it"."

Actually people getting together that feel the impositions imposed by religion in their life, it's about the privileges demanded by it, to be for example absolved from anti-discrimination law. I named a few others as well.

Why exactly should a religious group be able to discriminate eg: against single mothers? Isn't the person discriminated against regardless of the person doing it having a belief it's ok to do so? Do you think so long as someone believes something they should be able to impose that belief on others?

"With the only difference- at least, I hope it is a difference- being the level of violence proposed to "rectify" the situation."

Darn atheists, they are TALKING ABOUT STUFF. Violence! terrorists! militant atheists!

Darn atheists are having a convention! It's just like theists shooting doctors or flying planes into buildings! *rolls eyes*

Thanks for showing the bigotry that many atheists deal with every day simply for not having a belief in a god and daring to gather and voice it.

Your post is just a sample of the bigotry that permeates throughout our society.

You can be good without god. It's nice that many of faith have actually been supportive of the convention with the religious organised events also been published on the GAC fringe page.

While bigots are hamming it up.
Posted by woot, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 7:19:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F, you did not understand my post, thus proving my assertion that relying on humanity, in this case, for even the most trivial considerations can sometimes be a perilous thing.

You assumed my statement meant that Atheists must seek the 'ultimate answer' from their fellow man. I am using the word 'ultimate' here as meaning final, not as the answer to life's deepest mysteries. My statement means that Atheists can only source their fellow man's opinion when asking any question, not when asking the ultimate question (whatever that may be).

Your lack of faith in humanity is fairly obvious from your posts, which leaves you with no God AND no sense of the relevance of humanity,which is clearly a bad place to be. It might be logical to you, but as it leaves you with an empty basket at the end of the day its not a particulary effective philosophy.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 8:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Dawkins is not an Atheist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 8:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Atman,

You wrote: “the word 'ultimate' here as meaning final, not as the answer to life's deepest mysteries. My statement means that Atheists can only source their fellow man's opinion when asking any question, not when asking the ultimate question (whatever that may be.”

There are better means of answering questions than seeking opinions. One can examine the evidence, set up experiments and use reason based on the known facts. These procedures are embodied in the scientific method. If we restrict ourselves to answering questions based on what we are told big daddy in the sky recommends or what other people think we don’t get very far.

You mentioned my lack of faith in humanity.

Faith of any kind is a poor substitute for examining the evidence and using our reason to follow where it leads. We will find we cannot answer some questions. Sometimes questions are faulty in that they embody unprovable assumptions. Eg What is the purpose of life? That is a faulty question since it assumes that life has a purpose. If we ask meaningless questions we get meaningless answers.

I really don’t know what faith in humanity means. What do you mean by it? I don’t think there is such a thing as an ultimate question.

I think it best to ask particular well-thought out questions to which we can get answers. The answers can lead to further questions.

I am 86 and am still asking questions. If there were an ultimate question there would be no point in asking further questions.

One thing I am most interested in is fungi. I have been out with the Queensland Mycological Society on the last two weekends studying the fungi we find in this area of Australia. What we observe inspires us to ask questions. I have an interest in all forms of matter both animate and inanimate. We can find much in the world that doesn’t involve humanity at all. We are just one species among many. When we become extinct the world will simply go on without us.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:17:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"People know that a builder has a builder and they know this earth, our bodies and soul had a designer. People know that a universe cannot spawn out of nothing for no reason. It defies science."

Actually, it doesn't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Science is nearing the creation of a universe via a singularity in a collider while simultaneously growing to understanding that the creation can occur without purpose or reason. If god exists, it is within ourselves.

Squeers, so many words trying to convince of the existence of a moral god. The Bible was written by men. Science has no place for morality, people determine that.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 9:36:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Squeers

I don't think we can have met. I am sure I would remember someone so patronising and presumptuous repeatedly pissing in my pocket. Pocket's all warm, now, so you can stop.

I am not a nihilist and I am far from bored. I can think of many things I would rather be doing than defending my rights against theists and my intellectual integrity against your straw man characterisations of me, but here we are.

You are incorrect. There is much in human behaviour that is unpleasant in isolation from religion, but religious doctrines and heirarchies offer independent and unnecessary mechanisms people can use to be unpleasant to each other.

Don't try to speak on my behalf again. Besides getting it badly wrong, it is arrogant and makes you look like a bully, more interested in getting your way by intimidation than through reasoned argument and evidence.
Posted by Diver Matt, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> ""McReal – you say that morals “are more than preferences. They are expectations”.

"So, are you saying that you have your preferences about what you think is right and wrong and that you expect others to abide by those preferences? You might think a certain action is wrong and you expect others not to do it. Another atheist, though, may not think that action is wrong and does not expect that he should be penalised for doing it. How then does your reference to expectations solve the dilemma for atheists as to what is right and wrong?"" <<

Posted by JP, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 4:18:41 PM

The expectations are a collective, a consensus. Via many overlapping civil entities, from schools to sports clubs to professional and trade associations.

Still, some entities get it wrong; which is why some churches have a history of higher rate of child abuse than others.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 5 April 2012 6:59:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Matt,

clearly I've pissed you off, but I don't see how I pissed in your pocket? Or that it's even possible to do both simultaneously?
Normally I'd interpret your pissed-offedness as a sure sign I'm right, but you don't seem to have understood what I was saying beneath the gentle persiflage (I'm glad I wasn't rough!). Perhaps I should change my style, I notice more and more these days that people are often incapable of "reading carefully", or seeing beyond their preconceptions on whatever topic's at hand. They just scan stuff, and rather than "reading" they reconstruct their own preconceived, and generally cliched, thinking, oblivious to anything that goes beyond their intellectual horizon. Yet that is the whole point and joy of reading; expanding the mind. Dawkins is the patron saint of the New Atheism and his mind is closed to anything beyond its fixed-horizon. Even worse, while he's critical of religion and other cultures, he's incapable of reflecting critically on his own thinking or on behalf of his society and its evils.

< Don't try to speak on my behalf again. Besides getting it badly wrong, it is arrogant and makes you look like a bully, more interested in getting your way by intimidation than through reasoned argument and evidence>

I thought it was clear above that I was referring to new atheists in general and not to you or your "integrity".
I read and responded to your comments. I don't believe in stroking egos or massaging my meaning, and there's a great deal to find fault with in this article, in the new atheist line, and in your post.
So far I've been unable to get a straight answer from your crew. Rather, and again here, I get impressive dudgeon.
The new atheists can dish it out but they can't take!

If you care to have another go, my numerous questions, criticisms and observations, here and above, stand.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 5 April 2012 7:07:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the chuckle, woot.

>>*rolls-eyes*<<

It was fun reading your post, along with its in-flight descriptions of your facial expressions.

Your protests were nicely dramatic, too, indicating just how much my analysis of your convention had hit the mark.

The simple fact is that - by your own admission, not by my speculation - you will be spending your time bitching and moaning about religious groups, and their activities.

>>...people getting together that feel the impositions imposed by religion in their life, it's about the privileges demanded by it... Why exactly should a religious group be able to discriminate eg: against single mothers... etc etc<<

You really cannot grasp the fact, can you, that you (collectively) are doing the rest of us atheists a serious disfavour, by your slavish imitation of the way in which the religious folk conduct themselves. If you think my illustrations a little strong... then, tough. Give it a little more thought, if you are able, and you will see why the whole idea of banding together with the objective of bagging religion is a really dumb, pointless exercise.

By all means, complain about discrimination. But there is no justification whatsoever in labelling yourselves "a Global Atheist Convention" in order to do so.

In fact, you are diluting what could be a perfectly logical, reasonable and acceptable position, by expressing it from your "Global Atheist" bully pulpit.

Sadly, you probably cannot see the irony in this statement of yours.

>>Thanks for showing the bigotry that many atheists deal with every day simply for not having a belief in a god and daring to gather and voice it.<<

"Daring to gather and voice it..."

Your courage is indeed boundless, woot.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 5 April 2012 9:03:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, you have expressed a good deal of opinion but you haven't asked that many questions. All I read that are not rhetorical are (with their preceding assertions):

"All teaching is preaching.
Why do they need the institution?
Sovereignty--no accountability--tends to tyranny and indifference.
Would you have a society of sovereigns?"

Why do they (children) need the institution (school and marriage)? Each has its societal purpose which is obvious (is this really debatable?), but they certainly don't need to be rooted in religion. Cavemen took wives and taught their children enjoyment and survival skills (which you call preaching?!). Where was/is the necessary role of religion in this Religion is lower in the order of man's needs, a luxury, and that's how many people live it.

"Sovereignty" and "no accountability" ? In what way are they co-joined? You could just as easily replace the word sovereignty with religion and argue over that 'til the cows come home. More throwaway assertion Squeers, but on to the question of a "society of sovereigns"

We would be no more such a society under an atheist state than a religious one because there is so much more that binds than merely religion. Nihilism is not the obverse of atheism yet you and other posters assert it as if without religion there can be no healthy societal norms. You would assert your version of a "healthy" society, imposing "your" norms over all, rather than simply living by a creed of "live, let live, do no harm, defend the rights of others".

Your focus upon the tax status of churches attempts to make it a jealousy issue. It is an issue at the heart of the power of churches to grow to infect future generations of children with fairytale belief systems.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 5 April 2012 10:20:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

More to the point is that an "atheist convention" is organising itself as a counter movement to religious influence - a movement "with a purpose".

The question, therefore, is why are atheists imitating the institutional behaviour inherent in religion as a mechanism devised to oppose it? It's all very well if they choose to go down that road, but let's call a spade a spade. According to this article, this convention is organised with a purpose in mind, not as some nebulous forum for people to congratulate each other on their lack of belief in a deity.

It seems that atheists bang on interminably about wanting to be left alone to "not believe" - they don't approve of control linked to "belief" - yet it is becoming increasingly obvious that "organised atheism" is now clamouring for control linked to "non-belief".
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 5 April 2012 10:52:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot – You asked: “Who or what told human society how to behave before God revealed himself - or do you believe that 'morality' only began with the advent of (sky-god) religions?”

If humans did not exist until God created them then there never was a time that there was human morality without God.

Wm Trevor – I don’t know why you object to me asking questions. I am just trying to find out what answers atheists have.

You asked: “So are you suggesting that there was never an occasion or time when moral or ethical behaviour was not externally suggested and internally accepted by people?” What I am saying is that unless there is someone who has made us and who is greater and wiser than us, then all we are left with are each person’s subjective preferences about what is right and wrong – and when there is disagreement there is now way of determining who, if anyone, is correct.
Posted by JP, Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:28:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe – in a earlier post you wrote “we construct our own sense of morality” – and yet you seem to object to me saying that atheists make up their morality. How are “construct” and “make up” significantly different?

You also say: “one's morality, one's elaborations of right and wrong, can always be improved: they are constantly evolving”. For this to make any sense there would have to be some objective moral standard out there somewhere by which you can measure your progress. Do you really believe there is such a standard and if you do, who set it as the standard and how did it come into being?

You also suggest that what I write is inspired by religious convictions – I have not been the one to raise references to God in this discussion, others have. I have simply tried to logically determine, if atheism is true, can it sustain morality. I don’t see that it can.

McReal – you say that: “expectations are a collective”. So are you saying that whatever the majority says makes something “right” or “wrong”?

You then assert: “Still, some entities get it wrong”. That is the issue at point however – how do you know that they get it wrong? Is it just because they disagree with you, or with the group that you agree with? That would seem to be completely subjective and does not answer the question of how do you know what is right and wrong.
Posted by JP, Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:31:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Yes, I wonder why there has to be this false organising of 'us vs. them' at this time: who needs us atheists to get together and form a single, compact target ? For whom ?

If I may take a leaf out of Arjay's World Book of Conspiracies, who might benefit from such a pointless gathering apart from some nameless religious fruit-cakes who need just such a target to rail against, who might see such a gathering as a provocation, as the work of Shaitan/Satan, and atheists as the ultimate unbelievers ? Lucky we don't have a flag, or it would be getting burnt somewhere in Pakistan as I write :)

The deeper question is, how does it all relate to oil ? Oops, too much Arjay.

JP,

No, we don't just make up whatever we like, we engage in the long and painful process of constructing our sense of right and wrong, from examples around us, and from experience, trial and error. We all do it, I guess, religious and non-religious, good and bad.

And we don't need some unseen hand to help us as our morality evolves - and there simply isn't some objective moral standard 'out there' either, we have to fashion such standards ourselves. So they evolve as our lives unfold.

And I love the circularity of your 'argument', that " .... If humans did not exist until God created them .... " (your premise) " ....then there never was a time that there was human morality without God." (your conclusion). The problem is that, to be 'logical', not necessarily valid, of course, merely logical, it should include another premise:

"Humans cannot develop a sense of morality on their own, they need a god."

If one doubts each of your premises, or either one, then the whole thing collapses, doesn't it ?

Of course, the truth is that gods did not exist until us humans created them. We are alone in the universe ;)

Scary, isn't it ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 5 April 2012 12:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The simple fact is that - by your own admission, not by my speculation - you will be spending your time bitching and moaning about religious groups, and their activities."

With good reason. Just because you are not outwardly affected by religious privilege does not mean others are not. The convention is testament to that. Equating it to terrorism tho? ludicrous and deceitful. But throw all the mud you like, the response was what was intended by the article being posted here. Enjoy showing up exactly what was intended to be displayed, the intolerance of those that dare be vocal about their disbelief ;)

"You really cannot grasp the fact, can you, that you (collectively) are doing the rest of us atheists a serious disfavour, by your slavish imitation of the way in which the religious folk conduct themselves."

Oh codswallop. If you haven't got anything to complain about with the way religious people conduct themselves, then what are you doing complaining that atheists are doing the same?

I don't see atheists claiming tax exemptions, or atheist chaplains in schools teaching atheism while religious kids sit in the hallway, or asking and getting exemptions from anti-discrimination law. What a furphy. I see atheists calling for equality, for the religious not to impose their beliefs on others and folk saying 'Oh don't rock the boat atheists! you are doing us all a disservice!' what a load of hoo-harr. Just bigots hamming it up, just like you did.

violence! terrorism! would be funny if your attributions were not so sad. Atheists speak out and it's militant, but takes a religious person to kill for them to be so. I must be a militant a-santaist too. *rolls-eyes*

"Richard Dawkins is not an Atheist." - Atman

Agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism and is about knowledge.

Atheism is the opposite of theism, and is in regard belief.

They are different logical spheres. I am gnostic atheist to the abrahamic god, and agnostic atheist to the wishy washy deist god.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
Posted by woot, Thursday, 5 April 2012 12:26:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
post limit.

Luciferase,
I asked Matt to expand on the goals he alluded to that he and the AFA were working towards.
The response confirmed for me, at least from Matt’s point of view (and I’ve gleaned as much from D Nichols), that my surmise in my original post was correct: that there is “no larger agenda or vision for reformed humanity”. In other words you’re happy with the world the way it is; you just want to get rid of theistic influences on government, education and morality. As I said, I support this. But the AFA push is just another form of identity politics, the only difference being it’s conservative rather than radical, and that’s what I despise.

One again, please correct me if I’m wrong.
My latter comments were in response to Matt, who after his preliminary profundities said, < I want my children to go to school without interference from preachers, to be able to marry whom they wish, and to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology.>

My response was: <Respectively: [this means I’m itemising]
All teaching is preaching. [hence the full-stops]
Why do they need the [religious] institution [of marriage]?
Sovereignty--no accountability--tends to tyranny and indifference
Would you have a society of sovereigns?>
The fetishistic delusion of individual sovereignty is beloved of neoliberals—the most dangerous sect of all that is rapidly becoming an institution! Not that you Galahs have a clue, or give a damn, probably.

I’ve written many times on the separation of church and state and getting RI and chaplains out of State schools, but this doesn’t amount to serious reform—as I said, “secularism presupposes a religious cauldron”—and leaves the real inequality our society is founded on unmolested, indeed renewed! The reforms you advocate are merely idealistic and superstition remains rife; the new atheists become just another sect, and the government happily deals with society in the abstract.
But I shouldn’t have to endure the tedium of dumbing down what I’ve already said so you can understand it.
Btw, nowhere in this thread have I used the word “nihilism”.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 5 April 2012 3:57:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With the 2012 Global Atheist Convention nearly upon us, I really haven’t the time to enter the fray but I feel I should make one comment.

Only the poster(s) who is/are guilty of supercilious twaddle will respond to this.

Thank most of you for your comments, it has been somewhat interesting, although a little bit predictable, but please don't let me interfere with this discussion continuing .

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Thursday, 5 April 2012 6:19:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> "McReal – you say that: “expectations are a collective”. So are you saying that whatever the majority says makes something “right” or “wrong”?" <<
Posted by JP, Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:31:39 AM

No. What is reasoned to be right is right, and waht is reasoned to be wrong is wrong.

>> "You then assert: “Still, some entities get it wrong”. That is the issue at point however – how do you know that they get it wrong? Is it just because they disagree with you, or with the group that you agree with? That would seem to be completely subjective and does not answer the question of how do you know what is right and wrong." <<

My point was the example - churches, that are supposed to have authority from a god, got it wrong; so very wrong. or do you disagree?
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 5 April 2012 7:07:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>What I am saying is that unless there is someone who has made us and who is greater and wiser than us, then all we are left with are each person’s subjective preferences about what is right and wrong – and when there is disagreement there is now way of determining who, if anyone, is correct.<<

Fail. I agree that we can only go by people's subjective preferences of what is right and wrong: as it has always been, so shall it always be. But are many tried and trusted methods of determining who, if anyone, is correct. Ostracism, religion and the law stand out as the winners. There are of course far cruder methods like pistols at 20 yards: personally I prefer to ro-sham-bo for it.

>>I have not been the one to raise references to God in this discussion<<

Epic fail: you just said this 3 paragraphs back:

>>>What I am saying is that unless there is someone who has made us and who is greater and wiser than us<<

Who's that supposed to be if it's not a monotheistic God? Xenu?

>>I have simply tried to logically determine, if atheism is true, can it sustain morality. I don’t see that it can.<<

There's none so blind as they that won't see. This is where too much logic gets you people: the evidence is all around him and poor old JP cannot see it. There are atheists all over the place and most of them don't go around raping, killing and plundering just because they are Godless heathens. Not because they are scared of the legal repercussions: just because they are well-adjusted, normal people with a sense of empathy. At the end of the day it is our sense of empathy that underpins and sustains human morality. Maybe our sense of empathy is God-given. Maybe it isn't. Either way: nobody actually needs to believe in God to have it.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 6 April 2012 12:57:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

"Only the poster(s) who is/are guilty of supercilious twaddle will respond to this."

Okay, I'm up for the challenge.

The comment above is in keeping with the arrogant and bellicose and tone of your article - so much so, that I'm visualising the stage at the convention replete with a phone box, into which you step, mild mannered man about town, and emerge moments later decked out in spangled lycra.

Is it a bird. Is it a plane - no, it's "Atheist Man!". Here to prize the grubby fingers of religious fundamentalists off our nuclear arsenals (although, strangely enough, not to interrogate the rational science that brought forth the scourge)

Go forth, David - your convention awaits you.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 6 April 2012 1:04:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Overnight a/numbers of poster(s) has/have been in contact asking me, for reasons best known to himself/herself/itself/themselves and not shared with me, to respond on his/her/its/their behalf in agreement/disagreement with some/most/all of your article and comment.

Sounds weird but I was told this would make sense to you.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 6 April 2012 6:12:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"""David,

"Only the poster(s) who is/are guilty of supercilious twaddle will respond to this."

Okay, I'm up for the challenge. """

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA :)
Posted by woot, Friday, 6 April 2012 8:38:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*At the end of the day it is our sense of empathy that underpins and sustains human morality. Maybe our sense of empathy is God-given. Maybe it isn't. Either way: nobody actually needs to believe in God to have it.*

Various experiments in the field of primatology, have been able to
show that primates do have a sense of empathy and as social species,
also seek acceptance etc. Given that these genetic traits evolved
in those species, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the same
happened to us.

In other words, JP will probably help the little old lady across the
street, not because he fears burning in hell forever, but because
it makes him feel good to do so
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 April 2012 9:08:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I should apologise, woot. I seem to have confused my super heroes. If David is Atheist Man, that must make you the equivalent of Batman's Robin - Boy wonder and utterer of inanities.

Holy Free Thinker!

Picture the scene - centre stage at the convention....

Boy Woot - "Golly gosh!, I'm used to seeing you do the impossible, but getting out of that telephone box was impossible!"

Atheist Man - "Much easier than it seemed, woot. I simply held my breath."

Boy woot - "Holy Frogman!....by the way, I dig your threads."

Atheist Man - "No time for compliments, woot. We must find some religious hegemony to thwart - to the Atheistmobile!"

Come to think of it, this convention might be worth attending after all.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 6 April 2012 9:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc:
<Only the poster(s) who is/are guilty of supercilious twaddle will respond to this.>

“Supercilious” is the perfect word to describe the New Atheists (and I’ve applied it to him/them before now). It’s not merely the swaggering of the new atheist that’s objectionable, it’s the cock-suredness, and the absolute poverty of thinking that underwrites it.
I may appear confident in my polemics and assertions on this and other topics, but the truth is I’m anything but. I’m not so much opinionated as putting hypotheses out there to have them tested. This is the great value of forums like OLO imo; not to trenchantly maintain a view, but to test it, and to be prepared to bend. I’m actually far less confident in my views than I was a few years ago, be it on atheism or anything else. I’ve come to see that opposing positions can be equally compelling and that, at the very least, nothing’s black and white. Judging by their representations on OLO, this is something the dogmatic New Atheists have yet to learn.
There’s a great deal of depth and complexity in both theistic and atheistic positions and philosophies, unfortunately we don’t see much of either; both sides are too busy torching straw-men.
Hopefully next time D Nichols will test an article based on “atheist theology”, if I can call it that, rather than trying to draw kudos from beating up on his puerile conceptions of theism. You can’t build a legitimate following purely on being anti-something, fomenting intolerance in the name of spurious freedoms. You have to offer a genuine alternative, underwritten by more than clichés.
Lose the lycra (I'm seeing your vision, Poirot:) and get some depth!
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 6 April 2012 9:55:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ol’ Blunderbuss method might take out a few unintended casualties but overall some of the projectiles do reach the aimed at target(s). :))

It is hellishly busy here, so I must be off.

“Up, up and away!”

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Friday, 6 April 2012 10:24:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You can’t build a legitimate following purely on being anti-something, fomenting intolerance in the name of spurious freedoms. You have to offer a genuine alternative, underwritten by more than clichés."

It's not about a following, it's about atheists simply speaking up rather than staying silent because bigots howl them down if their privilege is threatened, or socially banish them once they come out as atheists. Loud and proud.

Hearing those that have the privilege not to be personally affected whine about it is neither here nor there to those that are. It's sad that they relate everyone's experience to their own rather than see an outcry as a reflection of a deep problem. It's simply arrogance to do so.

There is alternatives offered and discussed. Reasoning and logic is undervalued especially considering the value put on faith in our society and around the globe. This affects different people in different ways. It allows us to talk about issues in society where religion garners rights above and beyond others and how to tackle them. It is about promoting the fact it is ok to be atheist, and folk are not alone. It is about curbing the bigotry toward those that do not believe that is prevalent in our communities. It is about showing solidarity with others that have been oppressed and or victimised by institutions, individuals and sects. In regard how decisions should be based on their merits. That inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self deception, and error, and that logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.

Not having a belief in a god does not stop people from considering all that is, and revelling in the wonder and beauty of the universe and our inspection of it, of discussing concepts like anyone else. Rather than just be told from thousand year old scriptures, we inspect concepts and ideas, build upon good ideas and if found to be flawed, start again. This process is a method that is self-correcting.
Posted by woot, Friday, 6 April 2012 10:27:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Hang on...

Here one minute and gone the next.

Holy hole in a doughnut - what happened?

Darn those super powers....
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 6 April 2012 10:33:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, woot. Now it's the "poor me, the victim" schtick.

>>It's not about a following, it's about atheists simply speaking up rather than staying silent because bigots howl them down if their privilege is threatened, or socially banish them once they come out as atheists. Loud and proud.<<

It looks as though you are classifying atheists as some form of downtrodden, disadvantaged group, constantly under threat from "bigots".

Social banishment for atheists? Maybe in your imagination, but certainly not in my world. I have been consciously atheist for very many years, and have not been "socially banished", ever. Not once. Perhaps it would help us understand your sense of victimhood, woot, if you were able to provide a couple of examples.

>>Hearing those that have the privilege not to be personally affected whine about it is neither here nor there to those that are.<<

So, by all means, share.

We are all listening, with boundless sympathy for our downtrodden atheist brethren at the ready.

You see, we do care.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 6 April 2012 11:21:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
woot,

the New Atheism "is" about a following, inspired by a shallow "debate" between Dawkins and his mates against Os Guiness and co. Neither side can vanquish the other because both are limited to the constraints of reason; "reason functions in this atheistic/theistic debate in a very limited, even reductionist way as it becomes the final arbiter of all truth forced into propositional form and thus sundered from everyday life" (Creston Davis).
I tried to make a similar point recently about the experiential side of religion, which is effectively rendered inadmissable. In terms of sterile reason, the only terms permitted, the New Atheists have the running.
Even so, in both Dawkins's musings and those of his followers here there's not even any depth in terms of reason!
Not only is this facile struggle between materialist/idealist worldviews "overdetermined" (can only be resolved in reasoned terms), but according to the much deeper "atheist", Slavoj Zizeck, "the (big bestseller 'troika' of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett) is certainly sustained by the ideological need to present the liberal West as the bastion of reason against the crazy Muslim and other irrational fundamentalists".
These strawmen are the bread and butter of the New Atheist crusaders, who are not only oblivious of the philosophical/theological/experiential depths of theism, but they're equally oblivious of their own unconscious depths (prejudices).

Apart from this, woot, your complaints above are both hyperbolic and suggest "society" can be ordered in simplistic terms of "individual" freedom. The reason debates over education, abortion etc. are so rife is "because" we live in a secular state, and the fact is that the concessions made to Christian groups (whose members far far outnumber atheists) are miniscule. Freedom of choice "is" dominant but you want it to be absolute. It can't be! We live in a "society" based on shared norms and "co-operation". Debate is certainly the lifeblood of healthy society and our norms should be perennially contended, but all sides have to be interrogated, even, indeed especially, your vaunted "freedoms".
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 6 April 2012 11:37:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot asks "The question, therefore, is why are atheists imitating the institutional behaviour inherent in religion as a mechanism devised to oppose it?"

Because it has come to this. Opposing theists of the world are leading us to a bad place, with more and more moderate people becoming radicalized/polarized through atrocities suffered in the name of one god or another (although this is not always overt).

Atheists have nothing uniting them other than what they oppose. They convene because they are against an increasing shift towards theocracy emanating from polarization processes and which is facilitated by societal privilege. Theists would rally against living
under a theocracy with which they do not share belief and makes them feel unsafe, so why should we expect otherwise of atheists?

The convention is not mardi-gras. It is where what can be done to oppose the polarization process and further entrenchment of religious interests can be discussed. Does it have to come out with a declaration of war on religion to satisfy some here? Who knows, maybe it eventually will.

Squeers, your opinion is that I am a galah and need your viewpoint dumbed down for my consumption. Well, hold that thought if it makes
you feel superior but if "individual sovereignty" is a feature of the atheism you assert it is not a feature of mine. If I am a neo-liberal I am one for community with the belief it can function in a civil manner without theism. I partake in acts of community right alongside theists. If you're concern is that godlessness is an excuse to escape civic participation and responsibility you've no basis to be. If your concern is that the atheist convention is just a narcissistic mardi-gras then we've had your big bellyache and now let's see how it goes with time. Heck, you might even see a good bombing as a sign of things progressing.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 6 April 2012 11:59:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Err, only jokin' about the bombs, if that's permissible, Squeers?
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 6 April 2012 12:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,
I don't think for a moment that the convention is going to be a turnout of New Atheists. It'll be a highly eclectic group and I wouldn't mind going myself. I don't know you but you seem intelligent. I was referring to New Atheist Galahs(showy, noisy birds), led by the tone of the article into supercilious propaganda and refusing to consider the issues in depth.
I don't feel superior, in fact my reading makes me feel decidedly mediocre, but one does tire of being wilfully of otherwise misunderstood. Admittedly, sometimes my prose is a bit dense, or cryptic, but this medium demands it and I only ask people to read what's said carefully, or to ignore it. One of the causes of intellectual degradation is people expect everything to be instantly accessible, as if profundity is a beat-up, we all live on surfaces, and anything can be said in a banal sentence or two. The pleasure in reading a Shakespearean sonnet is penetrating its layered-depths, which can't be apprehended in a single reading, or even ten. Probably why no one reads them any more! Ours is an impatient age. This is not to say philosophy or theology has to be opaque, but that a large part of signification is rhetorical, and it's not merely embellishment. language is a living, irrational thing that all to easily arranges itself not only into cliches, but along well worn neural pathways.

I hope to hear of some positive outcomes of the convention--some of my (perhaps former) friends will be attending--and maybe even to read some atheist theology in due course : )
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 6 April 2012 1:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Squeers,

I'm with you on this one. 2012 and we are still f@rting around about science, sense and reason vs superstition, magic and religion. I know it's fun picking at scabs, folks, they itch so much, but if you want them to actually heal .....

I just wonder however, if there really is some underlying agenda pushed by some interest, not necessarily atheist. Think of it this way (and indirect acknowledgements to Arjay: he/she keeps us vigilant).

Currently, there are forces in the world which seek to use religion to promote a certain agenda, mainly against the West with its rationalism, modernism, scientific approach, economic power (fading somewhat) and recognition (at least formally) of equal rights of men and women. Forces which badly need specific, Satanic-type targets.

Lo and behold, up jumps the AFA. No, I'm not saying they are the puppets of religious forces, but given that one can be an atheist in one's daily life (at least in Australia: I can't vouch for Muslim countries), and get on quite well with one's neighbours, what's the rush ? Why give a toss ? Crackpot beliefs and superstitions will probably be with us for a long time yet, from evangelical Christianity through to Salafist Islam and neo-traditional or neo-Aboriginalist beliefs, but I'm confident that their idiot hold is fading.

And that's the point: how do the crackpot religions rally the troops, so to speak ? By being able to point to new Shaitans/Satans, somebody whose flag they can burn, whose portraits they can trample, whose champions they can beat to death. [Why does it always come back to Pakistan?] And, thereby, whose values they can spurn, re-valorising their own in the process ?

Make light of superstition, my fellow-atheists, don't take it too seriously and thereby give it air. Follow the lead of Voltaire, when he was asked on his deathbed to renounce the Devil: "This is not the time to make enemies." My kind of atheist. I think I know the feeling [It's getting warm in here] ;)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 6 April 2012 2:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who have not heard, Q&A on ABC TV, will be hosting a debate
between Dawkins and Pell, on Monday night, which should make for
entertaining television.

My take on it all is that Pell will try to use similar arguments to
the ones used by JP on this thread. ie without a god, that there can
be no morality. Hopefully Dawkins will point out that all the claims
made by the Catholic clergy, that only they are in touch with the
Almighty him/herself, have not a scrap of substantiated evidence to
back them up and as far as we know, are merely snakeoil used
to manipulate the masses. It should be an interesting debate.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 April 2012 2:51:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yabby,

Well, I hope that Dawkins gets beyond this infantile point-by-point demolition of superstitions and magic and oral history accounts of miracles, to delve deeper into why people need religion in the 21st century (or much earlier) at all.

I think I was pre-occupied with that point-by-point stuff in primary and secondary school, until it vaguely occurred that not much of that mattered to believers anyway, and that the real issues involved why anybody felt a need to believe in magic, superstitions, miracles, witch-burning and so on, in a booming, crass, obviously-science-oriented, modern world.

Then, over the last ten or fifteen years, it became obvious also that much of the world craved to stay in a pre-modern frame of mind. It hated the modern world. It wanted to get back into the womb of 'innocence'. And so, this grotesque confluence of Green and Muslim, both craving to crawl back into the deepest recesses of Plato's cave.

Question to the AFA: do you have much involvement from the Greens ? Just curious.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 6 April 2012 3:05:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It looks as though you are classifying atheists as some form of downtrodden, disadvantaged group, constantly under threat from "bigots"."

Um I explicitly made a point that _many_ atheists feel this way even tho you may not and simply deny it exists. The convention and experiences coming from people speaking out are testament to this occurring.

"Social banishment for atheists? Maybe in your imagination, but certainly not in my world."

No not in your world, I accept that, mainly because you probably don't hang out on forums and groups that are supporting those dealing with issues. I can give you just some personal examples not a problem, I could also go into the myriad of parents I have spoken too via the FIRIS campaign, including those of other faiths with exactly the same issues from religious privilege in society.

I just moved to QLD recently, before that I ran a local business in a regional area of Victoria, dealing with a service industry in part to many business, mainly in the tourism industry. Via the AFA I met others in the same rural area, other business having a hard time for exactly the same reasons I was. The christian groups in the small towns know who goes to church and who doesn't, who is a believer and who isn't.

Especially in the tourism sector, business would band together to support each other, but being a known non-believer? No one would refer business on your way, you were always made second class within the community, even within the local business groups.

I have seen 2 business running on shoestrings because of this very issue, and one woman so at the end of her tether she has spent evenings in tears speaking to me not knowing what to do because no business in the town (70km from where I lived) referred people on to her. She was even considering pretending to have a 'conversion' just to stay afloat. She ended up selling her accommodation because of it and has literally dropped from sight :(

We band together because we need too.
Posted by woot, Friday, 6 April 2012 3:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Well, I hope that Dawkins gets beyond this infantile point-by-point demolition of superstitions and magic and oral history accounts of miracles, to delve deeper into why people need religion in the 21st century (or much earlier) at all.*

Joe, I fully agree with you. Dawkins is no fool but he'll still have
Pell to deal with and have to address his questions. Pell will no doubt
take the church line, ie, without us interpreting what god
really thinks, you'd all be a pack of heathens killing each other.

He'll completely bypass the the question of empathy having evolved
for good evolutionary reasons, for of course the Catholic Church
retains its powers, by convincing mega millions from childhood, that
only they are in touch with God himself, so the rest of us should
take notice.

Sadly the Catholic Church retains its powers, because there are still
so many poorly informed individuals out there. As far as I am concerned,
they are the biggest pack of snakeoil salesmen which
ever existed, all financed by tax free money
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 April 2012 3:28:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony - you say that most atheists don’t go around raping, killing and plundering, and I would agree that is correct. But your statement implicitly concedes that some people who are atheists do do these things. I presume you think those atheists who do those sort of things are doing wrong – my question to you is, on what basis are you able to state that what they do is wrong?

Yes, you have your preference that they not do those things but if their preference is to behave that way, why should your preference prevail over theirs?

Yabby – It may the case that apparent examples of empathy have been observed in primates, but it has to be asked, so what? How do you justify the leap from the observation of primates displaying empathy to saying that humans ought to be empathetic? You can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”.
Posted by JP, Friday, 6 April 2012 3:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP,

You don't seem to grasp that humans are social beings who congregate in communities. They share communal interests and evolve their moralities from the machinations within that model. Things that are deemed "wrong" violate the accepted standards of the community.

Empathy is a principal human emotion. Without it human [primates] would experience fundamental and catastrophic developmental and behavioural deficits (as in those with classic (low-functioning) autism).
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 6 April 2012 4:17:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Simply staggering, woot.

>>...but being a known non-believer? No one would refer business on your way, you were always made second class within the community, even within the local business groups<<

Here we are, in a free and democratic country, it is 2012, and you are telling us that your business failure is down to your being an atheist.

My deepest sympathy goes out to you in your time of religious trial, as I am sure does that of every other atheist reading these words. Such shameful, callous persecution against an individual's beliefs has no place in a just and tolerant Australia.

No wonder you feel the need to band together and sound off against religion.

But tell me - what remedies can you expect, that will assist you against these forces of evil that are aligned against you?

Just curious.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 6 April 2012 5:45:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must admit I feel a little for Woot. It must be like a Christian (not just in name) trying to get a high profile job in the current Government. It seems that you need to be a woman no matter what your ability or a head nodder to feminism. Discrimination is unavoidable in a fallen world. Just ask Warick Marsh.
Posted by runner, Friday, 6 April 2012 6:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found it difficult and existed, but it was not a reason for a business failure at all not for me personally due to having more cosmopolitan clients within the city and overseas which were my bread and butter. But I definitely know of others as mentioned where it was a definitive contributing factor to them bailing out of their industry.

"But tell me - what remedies can you expect, that will assist you against these forces of evil that are aligned against you?"

It's already happening. Atheists coming out of course there has been a big backlash and it will continue for a long time yet (much of it just in the way folk like yourself approach it, verbally looking down your nose), however many folk that are religious are actually dealing with the issues presented and realising there are certain problems that are causing atheists to speak out and loudly, and are making a point of de-stigmatising non belief themselves with their communities, promoting understanding rather than hatred, listening rather than chastising.

The GAC is obviously talking with religious groups, with many events around the fringe having atheists speaking at such gatherings as the Reason For Faith Festival which are also advertised on it's site.

But there is a long way to go and that takes us speaking up so people that are feeling alone feel less so, are not alone and feel more empowered. So that the religious understand atheists are all around them, are diverse, with the ONLY thing they have in common being a lack of faith. That you can be good without god.

It's a long road, we see that even in the responses here that come from people that may be atheist, but simply have no inkling of some of the issues people face with religion and it's divisiveness, they label people speaking out about what they think as somehow the same as those institutions they are speaking out against. I suppose they have just found some way to feel superior to both eh?
Posted by woot, Friday, 6 April 2012 8:44:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby – So what do you make of what Dawkins wrote here? “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”River Out of Eden: a Darwinian View of Life, p.133 If there is no evil and no good in an atheistic universe I find it hard to see how there can be any morality in such a universe.

Poirot – You say: “Things that are deemed "wrong" violate the accepted standards of the community.” So are you saying that whatever the community accepts or condemns becomes “right” and “wrong”? If that is so, slavery was morally “right” in Alabama in 1800? Today, female genital mutilation is morally “right” in some African countries? Were people who opposed slavery in Alabama “wrong” in 1800 because they opposed the majority? Are people who oppose female genital mutilation in those African countries today “wrong” for doing so?
Posted by JP, Friday, 6 April 2012 9:06:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't understand why we can't simply get along
as people. What difference does it make whether
a person follows a certain religion or prefers
not to do so - as long as they aren't breaking
any of society's laws or hurting anyone. Why do we need
to make judgements about the private lives, and
beliefs of others. Why can't we simply respect
each others choices?

Today we have increasing
individualism and diversity in our societies.
However in times of uncertainty and rapid social change
some people look, as they have in the past to
religious values to stabilize and revitalize their
culture. Take the US as an example.
The need for religion has re-asserted itself
quite powerfully in a nation that has become one of
the most industrialised, rationalised, and materialistic.

It seems that some people need emotionally satisfying
explanations for the problems of earthly existence that
they find religion can provide. Others find their answers
elsewhere.

I'm all for a Global Atheist Convention. Why not?
A health society is not one in which we all have to agree.
It's one in which different points of view are welcomed.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 6 April 2012 9:32:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*If there is no evil and no good in an atheistic universe I find it hard to see how there can be any morality in such a universe.*

Perhaps JP, because you don't fully understand the implications of
evolution theory. Robert Winston covers a few points which may interest
you, in his "Human Instinct". Amongst other things, it shows extraordinary
acts of kindness observed in various species with
larger brains. Topics like mirror neurons and the various fmri scans
which show a biological basis for empathy, are discussed too.

The thing is, it is in the interests of social species to cooperate,
to share, to live harmoniously together. So the evolution of something like
empathy and a sense of justice, makes perfect sense.If say chimpanzees had
regularly killed each other, they would have gone extinct a long time ago.

The three year old which comforts another toddler or its mother when
she is crying, did not learn to feel that way from religion, it comes
naturally as part of genetic makeup.

In the end, JP evolved to want to be liked, to want to have friends,
to want to sometimes be social and interact with others. Unless of
course things went wrong and JP was what we call a psychopath. In
that case the rest of us would ostracize JP and most likely lock him
away. I don't see why alleged godly input is required to do that.

Mind you, deception too evolved as brains became larger. Being able
to claim to be the only ones to decipher what the Almighty actually
thinks, would give those claimants enormous powers over those who
believe them and to me, is the ultimate form of deception. The
evolution of religion is an interesting topic
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 6 April 2012 10:04:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby you are a comedian

'Perhaps JP, because you don't fully understand the implications of
evolution theory.'

no one does because its a load of c_ap. Of course JP is not 'smart' enough because he isn't blinded by the dogma of evolution. You certainly need a lot of faith to believe such baloney and that's exactly what those at the up coming denial fest have.
Posted by runner, Friday, 6 April 2012 10:15:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that theists on this forum think some sort of reset switch is flicked once a new forum thread has started and that none of the points made in earlier threads count anymore...

JP,

Not only have all your arguments on this topic been thoroughly discredited in every thread you've ever posted on but my fundamental point, at the end of our first encounter, still stands:

If you honestly believe everything you claim on this topic, then you have sacrificed your humanity in deference to your God. That point of mine is still valid. It didn’t disappear with the posting of a new article.

And as someone who - from our first lengthy encounter - understands your position on this topic quite well, I feel I should remind you that the main point in my last post to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13321#230298) still stands:

If you think that we’d be wise to invent a God and convince ourselves of their existence - whether or not a God actually exists - purely for the sake of maintaining morality, then not only do not understand morality and its origins, but your whole take on it is dishonest and shallow.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 6 April 2012 11:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The (God created) universe (demonstrates) nothing but blind pitiless indifference”
Perhaps JP can offer evidence of morality in the Universe, outside the sphere of Humanity? Perhaps in the worm that converted David Attenborough to Atheism, which slowly and with excruciating pain burrows into the eyes of it's victims?
“If that is so, slavery was morally “right” in Alabama in 1800?”
Slave owners justified themselves using the Christian Bible. Apparently God has nothing against slavery.
“Today, female genital mutilation is morally “right” in some African countries”
A religious practice, performed in the name of God.
“Are people who oppose female genital mutilation in those African countries today “wrong” for doing so?”
No, they're Atheists. At least, literally atheistic towards that particular aspect of religion.
In an earlier post, Yabby suggested JP would help a liitle old lady across the street -not because he feared the fires of hell.
That's presumably if the little old lady could prove she wasn't a witch, in which case JP should burn, stone or drown her to death, in the name of his moral God.
G'day Runner. Once again, scientific theories are accepted in science if they work. A theory works if you can use it to make accurate predictions.
Geneticists use evolutionary theory every day. So do biologists, bio chemists, botanists, farmers and dog breeders.
Tell me, were there 2 dogs on the Ark, or 2 Great Danes, 2 Poodles, 2 Australian cattle dogs...
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 7 April 2012 7:13:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the moral dilemmas being presented here, JP, is your continued pretension of logical enquiry when numerous posters have pointed out that the structures of your questions are neither formal nor valid and are most definitely circular when not implying an 'appeal to authority'.

If your enquiries are merely informal in nature, fine – accept the answers you been given and move on. If they are a mere rhetorical device then expect to be challenged.

From yesterday, one of your questions can be reflected as:

JP you may have your preference that people worship your god but if their preference is not to believe that way, why should your preference prevail over theirs?

And, from a bit later, you may as well be asked:

JP, on what basis are you saying that slavery and genital mutilation are morally wrong?
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 7 April 2012 7:45:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They must have been really, really unlucky, woot.

>>But I definitely know of others as mentioned where it was a definitive contributing factor to them bailing out of their industry<<

According to a poll conducted by the Christian Research Association at the end of 2009, only 16% of Australians attend a religious service "at least once a month".

Statistically, then, it has to be highly dubious that "christian groups in the small towns [who] know who goes to church and who doesn't, who is a believer and who isn't", have anything whatsoever to do with business failure or success.

I think you may be suffering from a persecution complex, if such a tiny minority of the population can cause you such distress.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 7 April 2012 10:05:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"They must have been really, really unlucky, woot."

Possibly so, but it still occurred. These were two towns, one a waterside border town in Victoria, the other a gateway to the mountains.

The business 'boys club' that ran these towns decidedly favoured their own to the point of refusing to stock advertising of an accommodation in one.

"Statistically, then, it has to be highly dubious that "christian groups in the small towns [who] know who goes to church and who doesn't, who is a believer and who isn't", have anything whatsoever to do with business failure or success."

National statistics mean nothing in towns of a few people if that, running business.

But this is the problem. Folk like yourself will just refuse to see this happens. The general lack of acceptance these things happen is what people are dealing with.

But outside that, try listening to some of the video's put out by FIRIS on youtube, with non believers AND believers talking about the influence of evangelical christianities privilege in our public schools on their children. My own experiences are just one tiny section of very complex issues that come about by the general attitude of 'don't rock the boat' and 'if you complain, you are just the same as them' that abounds.
Posted by woot, Saturday, 7 April 2012 10:56:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like to try to find solutions, but I suspect you may be doomed to failure, woot. Every commercial situation and transaction ever, has been on an uneven playing field – it's only the degree of tilt that is in question.

(I am aware all generalisations are wrong)

What to do about it? Here's the best I could come up with…

Maybe it's about time we took runner at his word that atheists have faith, tenets and dogma… have the AFA register as a religion.

Then go "The business 'boys club' that ran (those) towns" on the basis of religious persecution – or its equivalent.

That might stop them bragging, "We've got woot!"

It might also be a helpful weapon for FIRIS. Best of luck.
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 7 April 2012 11:43:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, if only it were true...
Jesse Jackson was quoted as saying:
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” 
Wouldn't it be wunnerful if a business advertised itself as “staunch Christian” or holding to “real Christian Values”, and you could believe it?
Wouldn't it be nice if you could think to yourself:
“Well this bloke's a church going Christian, so he's not going to rip anyone off.”
“This business must be honest. They believe it's impossible for a rich man to pass through the gates of Heaven”.
“This bloke must be good to work for, he believes the last should be first, and the first should be last (to get paid, and at an equal rate)”
“This company believes in treating everyone the way they would like to be treated”
No way they'd ring up right on dinner time to try an sell you something you don't want and don't need.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could find out you were doing business with a God Botherer, and feel relieved?
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 7 April 2012 11:47:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Looking for a potential common creed between himself and ‘many’ atheists, Chris Mulherin (Anglican minister) arrived here:

“1. We believe that we live in a wonderful and ordered world, where the law of cause and effect is the norm and where human rationality is, in some extraordinary way, able to comprehend much of its amazing complexity.

2. We believe that science is the major source of truth about the physical universe in which we find ourselves, from the microscopic to the macroscopic level. More than that, we put our trust in the consensus of scientific experts in their respective fields, recognising that while they might be proven wrong, we would be foolish not to believe them.

3. We believe in the old-fashioned and common sense concept of truth. When it comes to factual claims about the world or about God, we agree that we can’t all be right. In such matters we are frustrated with a so-called postmodern relativism that talks of tolerance as an excuse not to deal with the issues.

4. We believe that, because of 2. and 3., these issues matter. Climate change won’t go away. It is not just “another metanarrative.” It is not “true for me but not for you.”

5. We believe human beings need to activate their little grey cells (please say that with the accent of Monsieur Hercule Poirot.) We have been created with brains; we ought to use them.

6. We believe in the problem of evil. Appalling things happen in our world. All is not good. Something must be done about it.

7. We believe in the problem of evil. No, I am not repeating myself: this time the issue is the theological problem of evil. For both of us, the question of how a good God could allow evil demands an answer.

8. We believe that atheism can be a rational and internally coherent worldview.

9. We believe that intolerant fundamentalism is a bad thing.

10. We believe that Monty Python is funny and that Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy was ground-breaking science fiction.

On this we stand united.”
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 7 April 2012 12:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*no one does because its a load of c_ap. Of course JP is not 'smart' enough because he isn't blinded by the dogma of evolution*

Runner, there is good news and there is bad news for you.

The good news is that you are free to cling to your beliefs, if they
help you cope with life. I concede, some need guidance in their lives,
of one sort or another. Our society guarantees you those rights.

The bad news is that the Catholic Church, unlike some of the Fundie
churches, does in fact employ various intellctuals to examine these
issues further. Today the Vatican accepts evolution theory as a given
and realises that they would have too much egg on their face, if they
ever tried to deny it.

The most interesting question has in fact been raised by AJ Philips.

*If you think that we’d be wise to invent a God and convince ourselves of their existence - whether or not a God actually exists - purely for the sake of maintaining morality, then not only do not understand morality and its origins, but your whole take on it is dishonest and shallow.*

JP comes across as having remarkably similar philosphies as Pell.
Perhaps those in the Vatican don't even believe the dogma that they
are preaching to the masses, but they might think its good for society
and of course gives them huge power, quite a cushy lifestyle is thrown in,
for the Vatican is not exactly poor, so those running this
huge shindig are doing very well.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 7 April 2012 2:20:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lol...Oh the forces of good and evil, and the uneasy bedfellows rest the swords. I've always wondered about what would happen if the pillars of transition didnt take place? Would we be still wild animals today like humans were 2.5 million years ago, and what part did religion/spiritual play?

Well the two are the same. Being a conscience species we are, (and the only one in all living history of the earth) we forget the fact there was a transitional, and ever since man was pulled away from the comforts of remote instinct, after that we could not stop naming everything that couldn't be understood.

The moon god, the sun god...and so on...

And that in short, is the real birth of religion.....IMO.

Dont some find it strange that we are the only lifeforms that need it? (religion)

It certainly seems some human-beings have forgotten what our species needs in order to function correctly, and the first human mammals that saw this raw world, still today need that little comfort from some higher power. Why you might ask?......some still need the whip.

Just the very thought of replacing it with something else is moot at best,since the programing for it has being running from that first day we said by by to the animal kingdom.

So thinking one can change millions of years of EVOLUTION in-side you is very laughable indeed:)

In your brain, you just cant press delete:)

Have a great day.

CC
Posted by planet 3, Sunday, 8 April 2012 10:11:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Maybe it's about time we took runner at his word that atheists have faith, tenets and dogma… have the AFA register as a religion."

Um no, that would be the day that I left it, as would everyone I know in it. The AFA exists only because there is a need for it not as a group to try and also garner the privilege above others that religion claims.

No, the best way is exactly what is occurring. The de-stigmatisation of being atheist. It won't happen overnight, but it is occurring as more people are educated in regard what atheism entails and that being atheist is common place. Social perceptions of atheism will change.

Issues like this might not obviously for quite a while, but providing supporting frameworks and social connections with others without faith does wonders for peoples moral. onwards! :)

I look forward to great talks, great conversation, great food, great drink and entertainment with like minded folk at the convention. It's gonna be AWESOME :)
Posted by woot, Sunday, 8 April 2012 11:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
What is the significance of different denominations (e.g. Catholic and fundie) having various points of view and variations among their belief? I would have thought that from an atheist perspective all theological refinements would be equally irrelevant.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 8 April 2012 4:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan, I was highlighting runner's mistake. The Christian viewpoint on evolution theory is hardly as radical as runner, who takes the bible literally. Runner would be classified as being at the extreme end.

Plenty of Christians accept evolution theory, for the evidence is so overwhelming.

The Catholic Church remains a big player in global politics, so their
credibility matters a bit more, then runner's sing and clap church.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 8 April 2012 5:03:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue....One defines what you have said as EGO at best.

cc
Posted by planet 3, Sunday, 8 April 2012 6:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread proves one thing.....there is No money in peace.

Cryptic:)

cc
Posted by planet 3, Sunday, 8 April 2012 8:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan and Yabby,

Here's a short article on the intersection of faith and science - from 2001 when John Paul II was Pope. He describes the Catholic Church's method of reconciling the two...world's away from runner's viewpoint.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,134926,00.html
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 8 April 2012 8:18:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby and Poirot,
Plenty of Christians accept evolution, and plenty don't. 
There is no one authoritative Christian view on the matter, even within the Catholic church (a brief Time Magazine article is hardly 'gospel'.) I've heard a diversity of opinion, and one doesn't need to have an extreme or literal view of the Bible to doubt evolution. 

The evidence is hardly overwhelming. It's more dependent on philosophical assumptions. 

The Catholic or any other church should not be aiming at credibility, they should be aiming for truth.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 8 April 2012 8:59:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan.

You mean a brief Time article isn't the final word?...well fancy that!

Anyway, here's a little more from John Paul II for anyone that's interested.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 8 April 2012 11:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Squeers

Pardon my absence.

"All teaching is preaching.
Why do they need the [religious] institution [of marriage]?
Sovereignty--no accountability--tends to tyranny and indifference"

I disagree.
Teaching and preaching are different words with distinct spelling because they represent different concepts. Teachers, if they are any good, can demonstrate that what they teach is true. Preachers can't.

No-one can be said to need marriage, but if they want it they should be able to have it. It is not a religious institution. Concepts of marriage pre-date all current religions. A wedding might be performed by a religious celebrant, but it means nothing until the relationship is registered with the government. Marriage is a societal instition. That secular celebrants can officiate in ceremonies carrying equal weight in the eyes of the law chucks your claim out the window.

If my children are not to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology, who will have a say in when they should become parents? You? The Roman Catholic Church? Please provide a model of how you think their access to birth control should work so I can compare your vision against my own.

While my pocket has gone cold, please don't feel you need to start pissing in it again.

On that note, don't try to use my being pissed off with you against me. Being angry is not inherently bad. If someone does something to make you angry, anger is justified. Anger, while neither fun nor pretty, has provided motivation to get some amazing things done. Ending slavery; women's suffrage; civil rights in the USA; all of these historical events featured people sufficiently pissed off with the status quo that they stood up for their rights or to defend the rights of others. If you want me to be less angry, do less to make me angry, you patronising and arrogant person.
Posted by Diver Matt, Monday, 9 April 2012 12:57:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
What I'm suggesting is that Time Magazine has its own bias and interpretive slant.

Here's the Time version of what JP II said:

"... recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis."

Here's the same thing from the Pope's address in the other article you supplied,

"... the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. "

and also gives it in French (perhaps what the pope actually said?), 
"... à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse."

I wouldn't say that the translations are significantly different. But I would be cautious about anything Time Magazine says. For instance, the same article also says that creationists in Alabama and Tennessee were having "battles against the teaching of evolution". From my memory of that era, that simply is not accurate. School boards in various states were trying open up discussion away from the dogmatic presentation of evolution.

Should science be taught as dogma?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 9 April 2012 6:05:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the Chris Mulherin quote, DdeM – more interesting than other lists I'd seen, like this one...

1, You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One. 2, Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying. 3, In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different. 4, There Are Good People On Both Sides. 5, Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them. 6, We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy. 7, We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too. 8, Focusing On Negative Examples Makes You Stupid. 9, Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table. 10, You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out Of Existence.

Does this work as a counterpoint?

"I've heard a diversity of opinion, and one doesn't need to have an extreme or literal view of evolution to doubt the Bible.
The evidence is hardly overwhelming. It's more dependent on philosophical assumptions."

Your question, "Should science be taught as dogma?" Is easily answered dogmatically… Science should be taught as science. Also, religious dogma should not be taught as science. But, religious dogma should be taught as religious dogma.

I might even agree with… "The Catholic or any other church should not be aiming at credibility, they should be aiming for truth."

[Imagine how much more difficult it would be if it was subjective and not absolute.]

But I've got to wonder whether after more than 2000 years of contemplation they're getting closer or further away?
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 9 April 2012 7:43:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Dan,
I would certainly agree that “science” should not be taught as dogma, or even aspects of scientific enquiry. That would be unscientific.
Science, or simple rationality is about accepting that which works, is testable, and is predictive, and rejecting that which doesn't work, isn't testable, and isn't predictive.
Science demands that when a theory is disproven (Earth is flat, sun revolves around Earth) it be rejected.
Evolutionary theory has proven so much more useful (roughly 100%) in so many fields than the religious alternative (prayer), that even -as has been pointed out-, a large (overwhelming) number of religious scientists and thinkers use and accept it.

I really don't think either you or runner could possibly seriously reject the 'theory' of evolution, when it is observed and used so much by so many, for so long. I think you are simply rejecting evolutionary history; the idea that just because it works today, doesn't mean it can offer a complete explanation of how life began and has continued.
At least, I certainly hope that's the case.
As far as teaching goes, evolution is a marvellous learning tool. It can be discussed, experimented with, tested, explored... There are, and will always continue to be I think, a number of alternative theories to classical Darwinian evolution, for instance.
Not the 'What', mind you; that's pretty much universally accepted. Just the 'Why' and the 'how'.
Creationism, OTOH, I think would be a very short course.
“God did it”.
Do not argue, do not discuss, just believe and shut up.
That's dogma.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 9 April 2012 8:11:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Matt,

It's true, strictly, that all teaching is preaching, in that an authority figure dispenses value-laden learning among his equally prejudiced/delimited charges. Objectivity is unattainable.
I support gay marriage, though I'm indifferent to it. According to queer theory gay marriage is a way to reconstruct discursive formations and compromise hegemony. I support "this". In practice, however, the push is overwhelmingly driven by your kind of "puerile" libertarianism, rather than commitment to addressing real injustice and inequality. Puerile libertarians, as distinct from "purists", are those who ingenuously forward neoliberal ideology with their callow/zealous infatuation for "freedom" (hilarious). I suspect Dawkins is similarly ingenuous in his ardour, but his implicit imperialism is yet more despicable, in that he's supposed to be intelligent and his want of self-reflexivity is damnable.
The idea of individual "sovereignty" is delusional libertarianism, notwithstanding it's the West's unofficial religion. I'm pro-choice but I'm also for social accountability. I've expressed my views on the topic here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13262&page=0#230146

But my little epigrams were based on this: <In short, I want my children to go to school without interference from preachers, to be able to marry whom they wish, and to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology>

I'm against proselytising at school too, but it's miniscule and I'm much more concerned about other institutionalising effects.

Yes, let them marry who they wish (yawn).

They "do" have sovereignty over their "reproductive biology", but we live in a society whose ethics haven't yet been reduced to the indifferent dictates of the free market, wherein individuals and groups in our "society" are entitled to differ on the vexed idea of the sanctity of life.

So, apropos my original question, <Can I ask you to expand a little on what these goals are>
..is this all you pompous twits have going for you?

I don't give a toss about your anger, you tosser. Or anything you've got to say, unless you've got something shrewder than this.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 9 April 2012 8:32:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a brief insight into the thinking of two Catholic astronomers working at the Vatican Observatory. They are scientist-clerics and find no opposition between their faith and science. To them, the 'whats and 'hows' of science are equally important as the 'whys' of theology and philosophy.

"....Faith is one way of being in contact with God, and certainly the reflection on faith, which is theology. The reflection and understanding of our world - science - is another way of approaching the truth..."
http://www.australiancatholics.com.au/content/view/243/
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 9 April 2012 9:20:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

Yes, you have touched on something fundamental in this discussion: the incommensurability or otherwise of paradigms - one based on faith and the other on rationality and evidence. Incommensurability may not be the right word, as your account of Vatican scientists shows - 'talking past each other' ? 'Parallel universes' ? I don't know.

People with faith simply don't need evidence, even those in the form of Biblical fairy stories: their veracity or otherwise simply doesn't matter. True believers would even discount counter-evidence as being no more than god's testing of one's faith: I'm informed that in Islam, this aspect of a faith-paradigm is very common, that to many believers, Allah and Shaitan are always putting up false 'realities', 'evidence', one to test and the other to mislead, which they must ignore and resist.

On the other hand, people who try to base their view of the world on rationality and evidence don't need faith. They certainly may have faith in the veracity of scientific methods of research and discovery, in the confidence that such methods will reveal more and more of the complexities of the universe as time passes, and in the eventual worth of humanity and the environment. But faith in an unknown, and unknowable, X would seem pointless and idiotic to an atheist oriented to this paradigm.

Which means that something like the 'discussion' tonight on Q & A between Pell and Richard Dawkins will be more like two people talking past each other, rallying their respective troops to fight on neighbouring paddocks, perhaps within sight of each other but never really coming into contact. Each side can then record a Great Victory.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 9 April 2012 10:23:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

The question is what should we deem "unknowable". Many revelations and explanations that we now take as "given" were once considered unknowable or, at least, beyond rational comprehension.

I find it an eminently reasonable proposition that man can augment his faith with investigation and understanding of the mechanisms of the material universe.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 9 April 2012 10:41:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

As an atheist, I don't consider anything ultimately 'unknowable', if it exists at all. What doesn't exist doesn't have much interest for me.

And since the two paradigms don't really have any point of contact - one based on faith, one based on rationality and evidence - I guess it would be quite possible to 'believe' in both at once, to operate more or less simultaneously, or more likely alternatively, in both paradigms without much sense of conflict, precisely because they don't use each other's criteria for validation: unreasoned faith in one sphere or domain, rationality and sense in another.

I certainly hope that Dawkins can get beyond this impasse tonight.

Cheers,

Jo
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 9 April 2012 11:05:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, picking up on your invitation to visit the other thread and having a trawl I came across:

"Freedom of conscience is a matter of private conceit and indulgence, and shouldn't be used in the public sphere as an excuse for dumbing-down important issues."

Also, "The state of populist politics these days is such that no one seems to think they have to justify the position taken, it's intuitive. Freedom of conscience is starting to look like a euphemism for "I dunno it's just what I believe"."

I share with you a concern about the post-modernist notion that all viewpoints are equally valid (irregardless of how uninformed they may be), and that truth is relative. What spins from this is nobody has a "responsibility" to robustly justify their position, just the "right" to hold it. Post-modernism is infused into the education system so will be with us for quite awhile yet.

Your attack, Squeers, on those you disagree with you in the current topic, labelling them as "neo-liberals", is insulting because, IMO, most do write from an informed position, do seek one truth, do justify their position and are prepared to concede well argued points.

Your glass is half full, so stick to arguing your position with more respect. Vehemence and dismissing others as inferior with simple labels that unfairly encapsulate them do not make your argument stronger.

Thank you for conceding, at one point, that I just may have a little intelligence. Coming from you that was high praise indeed and I have had my chest puffed out all Easter!
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 9 April 2012 11:16:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A block-buster Easter Monday, Hawthorn v Geelong, Dawkins v Pell, but I agree with Joe, the guys won't be playing the same sport.

Experiential faith can not be denied and that's Pell's game and what he'll stick to. Dawkins won't touch him even when he's got him on the ropes, Pell spinning out of trouble jabbing with demands for proof there is no god, not just probabilities. Dawkins will slightly lose his lolly, I predict.

I'll watch both contests but the footy will have the clearer result
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 9 April 2012 11:48:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The Catholic or any other church should not be aiming at credibility, they should be aiming for truth*

Dan, no doubt they did that, when the church had their little spat with
Galileo and locked him up. It took them some hundred years to
apologise, but they no doubt learnt a valuable less. Its pointless
claiming something as the truth based on interpretation of old texts,
if the overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

Of course religions need to maintain some kind of credibility. They
are marketing a brand after all. Their brand can be badly damaged,
if even true believers can see that they are claiming outright nonsense.
Today those true believers can run off to some other Christian cult or church, to satisfy their spirtual needs.

When I see adverts in the paper promoting the Catholic faith, I guess
that is not so much different from those people flogging something else.
They all need customers for the goods or services that they
sell or promote.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 9 April 2012 2:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim,
I don't know how to say this politely, but can I ask that you at least open a book written by a creationist before making your next comment on creationism.

You are right in suggesting that I would not reject any valid scientific observation out of hand. In regard to observation, can I ask when it was you or anyone else observed a bird evolving from a reptile, or a person evolving from an ape. For these are the types of claims  about which we have right to be sceptical.

Poirot, 
With regard to there not being any opposition between faith and science, you won't find any argument from my side.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 12:09:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tonight I watched the debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell.
Interestingly, I was hoping to be impressed by Pell. I've read Dawkins' book and although most of his points made sense to me, I tended to view him with skepticism because I was dubious of his role as a headline personality in an unfolding movement.

I have to say that Cardinal Pell came across to me as spectacularly underwhelming. He was wishy-washy and arrogant and, frankly, just plain muddling and ordinary. I think we enjoy better debate and deeper insight here on OLO from those of religious persuasion. I very much desired to be impressed by this man of God (he is a cardinal, after all) - instead I found he didn't give me food for thought. No challenging insights. No higher wisdom.

On the other hand, I found Richard Dawkins to be sensible, clear and measured in the points he was making. Where I had perhaps expected him to come across as arrogant and dismissive, I came away with the opposite impression.

Perhaps I'm biased - I wonder how others found it?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 1:11:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>In regard to observation, can I ask when it was you or anyone else observed a bird evolving from a reptile, or a person evolving from an ape.<<

How are we meant to do that, Dan? Surely you acknowledge that if these things happened they happened in a prehistoric era. Do you know how to build a time machine which allows travel to the past? Neither does anybody else. Which makes it impossible to gather the sort of observations you demand as evidence for evolutionary theory. How very convenient.

Although we don't have time machines we do have lots of fossils which show quite clearly evolutionary changes over time: changes which include birds evolving from dinosaurs and people evolving from ape-like ancestors.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:47:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Dan,
it would be pointless to go over the same ground, trying to supply all the evidence for evolution again (and again and again...) I would however quote from your earlier contribution:

“ 2. We believe that science is the major source of truth about the physical universe in which we find ourselves, from the microscopic to the macroscopic level. More than that, we put our trust in the consensus of scientific experts in their respective fields, recognising that while they might be proven wrong, we would be foolish not to believe them.”

Since all scientific institutions and most religious ones accept the theory of evolution, this quote is germane. Thank you.
The point I have been trying to make here concerns your query “should science be taught as dogma?” and the answer as I said is no.
I assume we can accept the definition of 'dogma' in this instance to be “a doctrine accepted as unquestionably true (by any particular group, ie scientists in this instance)?
While I would regard Dawkins as a very 'dogmatic' person, and extremely staunch in his belief in Darwinian Evolution, I believe as a scientist even Dawkins would accept that there are and possibly always will be questions.
Again, to qualify as science, it must be testable and predictive.
Since the study of science must involve testing and questioning, I really don't see how it can be taught as 'dogma'. At the same time, I don't see how Creationism can be taught as anything else.
If new and incontrovertible evidence were found proving Creation, it could logically only be found by a scientist, not a Creationist, who is bound by his belief not to even ask the fundamental question.
Incidentally, I did read Denton's “Evolution, a theory in Crisis” and have read others. It is interesting that Denton has, in his latest book unconditionally accepted the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the tree of life.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 7:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase:
<Your attack, Squeers, on those you disagree with you in the current topic, labelling them as "neo-liberals", is insulting because, IMO, most do write from an informed position, do seek one truth, do justify their position and are prepared to concede well argued points>

A) I haven't "attacked"; I've criticised first the article and then the tone and vacuous content of a few posters. B) no one has responded to my questions or criticism in a way that indicates I've been understood. I've questioned and critiqued (which means not necessarily critical in the negative sense) New Atheism (it's my target, not individuals. Though New Atheists like Dawkins and Nichols tend to all the vacuity of gurus and charismatics) several times now to no avail, barring a full measure of resentment, indeed hypersensitivity. Like Dawkins, his followers apparently have no understanding of theology or philosophy; more importantly, they have no comprehension of their own ideology and its tendencies.
I haven't called anyone a neoliberal btw, my position is that the New Atheists are neoliberals by default--this is plain in what I've said. I cannot argue my position with people who don't know what I'm talking about.

And I didn't "concede, at one point, that [you] just may have a little intelligence". I said, "you seem intelligent", once again to defend myself against the charge of arrogance etc that you've repeated here.
However intelligent you or your comrades might be, you've failed to show the New Atheism is founded on anything but straw-men, high-dudgeon and vacuity--both in its criticism of religion and in itself.

Poirot,
I never expected anything more from Pell. He's about the worst spokesperson Catholics could elect. But the whole affair was an embarrassment, from the giggling audience to the pious Pell to the indignant Dawkins. Absolutely nothing of any depth was discussed.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 7:50:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I watched the debate. I wish they had extended it by another
hour, for IMHO it revealed quite a bit.

Both men clearly had their cheer squads there and I think that Jones
did quite a good job at keeping an even balance, to avoid things
getting out of hand.

Pell had clearly done some homework leading up to the show, but as
I had suspected, he has yet to learn a great deal about evolution
theory, which Dawkins understands in minute detail.

I agree, Pell was fairly wishy washy about heaven, hell and all the
rest. I guess religious leaders act a bit like politicians. They
do that deliberately, as if they are too specific, their words can
come back to haunt them, at some later stage. Its ok for Pell to say
that hell is for Hitler, but of course his church has a history of
teaching 5 year old kiddies that if they commit a mortal sin, they
will burn forever. The other comment that I found interesting is
that Pell thinks that animals have souls too.

Clearly Pell's understanding of Christianity is quite different to
that of somebody like runner. They all make up different versions,
as they go along
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:05:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

"I never expected anything more from Pell. He's about the worst spokesperson Catholics could elect. But the whole affair was an embarrassment, from the giggling audience to the pious Pell to the indignant Dawkins. Absolutely nothing of any depth was discussed."

I agree - and I'm now supposing I was a bit naive to have expected anything more. The Q & A forum is apparently constructed so that discussions are trite. I think I would have been indignant as well, confronted with a giggling audience and a pious cleric who appeared to lack any intellectual depth outside of his brief.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:23:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again, I only managed to watch the first few exchanges on Q&A. The whole programme seems to be constructed to encourage the lowest common denominator to prevail, and to allow pre-processed views to be articulated in response to pre-processed questions.

I'm not sure why I expected a Dawkins/Pell edition to be any different. I found the whole thing to be about as exciting and controversial as a can of tomato soup.

It certainly demonstrated - at least, the fifteen minutes or so that I saw - the pointlessness of having an atheist and a theist conduct a discussion. They did not talk to each other, they talked past each other, one using the language of science and observation, the other using the language of faith and the supernatural.

It is interesting to speculate what the protagonists, the studio audience, the programme's producers and its viewers each expected to learn from the show, except a confirmation of their own stance. Because I doubt there was anything of substance that emerged - from either the questions or the answers - that was in any way enlightening.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:52:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A had two non believers of Scripture debating. I would not pay a penny to see either of them. Pell was a disgrace in his denial of Scripture while Dawkins came across as totally foolish. I loved Dawkins idiotic explanation of nothing.NO doubt his disciples squirmed even though they put on a brave face. It was not as idiotic as Pells desire to have creation/evolution blended. What a jokers!
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:35:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Tony,
You ask how could we possibly observe something happening that occurred in prehistoric times, or words to that effect. To say that is impossible is precisely the point that I was trying to make (thanks for emphasising it.)

I was in fact responding to Grim who was placing a heavy emphasis on 'observation'. His useful examples given (Earth is flat, sun revolves around Earth) are precisely those that can be measured and observed in present time. So how and why does he (and other evolutionists) then  make the logical jump to include those things which can't be observed in present time?

When you bring in an examination of the fossils, that is a possible entrance into the discussion. Although 'time and time again' (to quote the words of Grim) we have creationists (who are also scientists, despite what Grim was asserting) who argue the opposite to what you just said. The fossils quite clearly do not show the necessary evolutionary changes over time: They do not evidence changes which include birds evolving from dinosaurs and people evolving from ape-like ancestors.

This is where the debate could begin. But you highlight why it won't easily be settled. Because these events allegedly occurred in prehistoric times (talk about convenient) and are therefore not to be observed (without time machines) and not to be repeated (which makes Grim's standard of 'testable' and 'predictable' quite the challenge.)

Grim,
When I asked should science be taught as dogma, that was a rhetorical question. Of course the answer is 'no'.

You say that you have read some creationist books. Could you show from where it is the creationists are saying. "Do not argue, do not discuss, just believe and shut up," as that is your earlier caricatured accusation.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:44:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby & others,
It's hard to find the perfect match for Dawkins in attempting to get an interesting presentation between a theist and atheist. Dawkins' speciality is evolutionary theory. Pell's is theology. If you wanted to try and bring it into the same field, I know that there would have been ample numbers of qualified scientists of the Christian persuasion who would be willing to go up against Dawkins. It's the creationists that are the natural opponents of Dawkins in the wild, but unfortunately Dawkins presently refuses to share the stage with any of those, his natural adversaries.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:47:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was surprised at Pell's interest in the attempts of science to explain the origins of the cosmos, questioning Lawrence Krauss' conviction in his own explanation in physics. Of course he jumped directly to attempts to discredit the physics, but at least he appeared to be some way across the subject, perhaps more than Dawkins is across aspects of theology.

On theology, if you start with the premise god doesn't exist then I guess the whole field can be dismissed immediately as much ado about nothing. It cannot be denied, however, that belief helps many people live their lives (which Dawkins sees only as a placebo effect), and that people have experiences of god that are real to them, even if to others this is wishful thinking (your miracle is my hallucination).

Squeers, I referred in my second last post to your comments I regard to having more to do with with a distaste for post-modernism's lack of focus on one truth rather than for liberalism. One can be a liberal without being a post-modernist. Any confusion over your criticisms, in my mind, comes from your conflation of these. We can all hold different truths outside the field of science (ie in the realm of non-falsifiable hypotheses/beliefs) but science is a hard master when we seek truth within it.

(cont'd
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You wrote early in this thread that, "You can’t build a legitimate following purely on being anti-something, fomenting intolerance in the name of spurious freedoms. You have to offer a genuine alternative, underwritten by more than clichés."

If it is your simple criticism that Dawkins is not offering something to replace that which he would take down then I think you miss the point of science, which has no such responsibility attached to it.

If an adult destroys a child's belief in Santa Claus must he have something ready to fill the hole left in the child's life. How would he be viewed if he instead encouraged the child's belief indefinitely? Dawkins is the child who has come to question the belief he has been encouraged into, angry that the adult won't concede its deficiencies and continues only to highlight the value of the belief. If it is Dawkins' responsibility, as you contend Squeers, to offer an alternative then what could that be, surely not "follow me"?

There is a concern within Dawkins and other atheists about the power of religious banners to lead humanity into conflict as it has done down through the ages, conflict that atheists, who realize they are in growing number, want no part of. The fight against this has to begin simply with taking down religion and in doing so growing the number of atheists world-over, not offering suggestions for its replacement.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:36:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I think you're right that Pell gave us the dumbed-down version.

Luciferase,

It seemed to me that Cardinal Pell wafted in the direction of knowing something about the science he was discussing, then abruptly resorted to nebulosity that floated away like incense. His vague assertion that Homo Sapiens are "descended" from Neanderthals was a good example.

What of Hell - apparently it's a receptacle/state where the likes of people such as Hitler are contained. That is not a compelling argument for the existence of Hell. It is a "placebo" for humanity's need for a sense of Justice.

Squeers,

As you can see, I'm conflicted as to New Atheism forming a "church" that may further promulgate the status quo, yet I'm mindful that Christianity seems to have jumped on board the neoliberal bandwagon of consumer/industrial society without much more than the odd muted call in opposition to secular economic ethics. It's all just rolling along as it is at the moment.

Pell may have been an unfortunate spokesman for the theist cause, but only because he was vague and unconvincing (IMO). There is much, no doubt, that our minds can barely hope to grasp, yet I find the Christian explanation contrived, patched-up and sadly wanting.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:40:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Absolutely nothing of any depth was discussed.*

The problem there, Squeers, was in your expecatation of what Q&A
is all about. It's for plain vanilla Australians asking plain
vanilla everyday questions. The sort of discussion that you, Poirot
and Pericles might have enjoyed, would go clean over the top of
most of the audiences heads and that is not the purpose of a show
like that. Those kinds of shows do exist, but that is not what this
one is all about.

I did learn something, namely it gave me more of an insight as to
what Pell thinks of religion and why.

Dan, Dawkins has debated plenty of creationists, just do a bit of
a google search. The thing is, creationists cannot even explain
the basics, like what happened to the freshwater fish during Noah's
flood. Perhaps they should get their own story a bit better worked
out, before they try to tackle serious intellectuals.

Runner, Pell represents the views of the largest Christian church
in Australia. Clearly your personal view is not one shared by
most Christians.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:50:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Although 'time and time again' (to quote the words of Grim) we have creationists (who are also scientists, despite what Grim was asserting) who argue the opposite to what you just said. The fossils quite clearly do not show the necessary evolutionary changes over time: They do not evidence changes which include birds evolving from dinosaurs and people evolving from ape-like ancestors.<<

Yes: but those Creationist biologists are vastly outnumbered by the evolutionist biologists. The scientific consensus is that evolutionary theory is sound at least broadly speaking: much argument goes on about the actual nuts and bolts. Consensus does not imply a theory is true: there was consensus on phlogiston. But consensus is achieved via the scientific method: theories become widely accepted if and only if they provide a better match for the available evidence than opposing theories.

Which evolution does in spades. Most of the Creationist conjectures on the subject of the fossil record that I've read involve fanciful notions about Great Floods and can be so easily and quickly falsified that they should be regarded more as jokes than legitimate hypotheses.

>>This is where the debate could begin. But you highlight why it won't easily be settled.<<

What debate? It's already been settled: science has gone with evolution because Creationism didn't match the evidence as well as evolution. That's why evolution is being taught over Creationism in every public school, every Catholic school, most other private schools and as far as I know every university in the country.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 5:31:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THIS IS GOD SPEAKING. I SEE ALL WHICH UNFORTUNATELY INCLUDES THAT POOR EXCUSE FOR A DEBATE.

PELL IS A TOOL. ME KNOWS WHAT THE LAST POPE WAS THINKING WHEN HE APPOINTED HIM. BUT DAWKINS HAS LOT TO LEARN AND IS IN FOR ONE HELL OF A SURPRISE (PARDON THE PUN) WHEN HE DIES.

DAN - I WORK IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS. DEVO WERE RIGHT - I MADE MAN BUT I USED A MONKEY TO DO IT.

HOPE YOU ALL HAD GOOD EASTER.
Posted by Metatron, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not sure about that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>It's the creationists that are the natural opponents of Dawkins in the wild<<

The problem with creationists debating science is straightforward: absent the Bible from the discussion, and there would be no creationist theory.

There is no possibility whatsoever, that given the evidence available - fossils, rock strata etc. - that you would be able to demonstrate that once upon a time there was a Garden of Eden. Or that there was a guy called Noah who built an ark etc. etc. The pre-existing narrative is an essential prerequisite. As such, knowledge of geology etc. is of no value whatsoever, unless you first accept the Bible stories as accurate.

So your dismissive pigeonholing - "Pell's [speciality] is theology" - is odd, since he was for that reason exactly the right person to put across the creationist perspective.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:12:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,
I don't so much have a problem with Pomo's relativism as it's prevarications and quietism. I agree with Jameson who sees postmodernism as a malaise rather than a philosophy: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/jameson.htm

When I said you have to offer more than cliches I was referring to the fact that Dawkins and co are seeking to institutionalise "apolitical atheism", to purge the system of "irrationalities". Like them or not, these irrationalities are part of the foundering efficacy of "democratic capitalism": free market ideology confounded by democratic/humanist reformism--a fight democracy is losing. The New Atheist push is just another path to privatisation, to libertarianism and its vaunted freedoms. I've asked time and again, what are the politics of the New Atheism? Technocratic apoliticalism is neoliberalism by default. Just as science, as you correctly say, "has no such responsibility attached to it", Ditchkins' liberal rationalism is equally oblivious. Just as science indifferently developed nuclear and biological weapons and the gas chambers, Ditchkins is similarly blasse about the material effects of market-driven scientific progress. But Ditchkins is worse than that; rationalism has evolved into liberal rationalism, getting its knickers in a not about religious influence, tax concessions and "irrational" thinking (freethought's cool so long as it's sterile) while it's absolutely serene apropos the dreadful inequalities and obscenities, domestic and collateral, that our elitist, rapacious and vainglorious society is predicated on. Instead of pointing the bone offshore at benighted Muslims, what about an appraisal of Western lifestyles and say the destructive irrationality of consumerism?

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:53:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

And then, following Dawkins, you prate about religion and philosophy as though they were no more than fairy tales we should be disabused of. As though the whole human race and all it's generations of geniuses were the dupes of nothing more than a perennial delusion and wishful thinking--and Dawkins, without a clue, sees through all. As if today's commodified pop-religion is all there is to theology and the religious experience. Similarly, postmodernism has administered the kybosh to philosophy! Do you really think all those great thinkers and mystics, whom Ditchkins has never read, whose learning you would struggle to fathom, devoted their lives and conceived their absolute convictions based on nothing more than flagrant conceit? An embarrassingly obvious hoax?
Even supposing Dawkins is correct in his ignorant and simplistic deconstruction of religion, at the very least his own conceit, to paraphrase Heidegger, is that rather than following an intelligible progression from superstition to reason, his ascendency is part of a contingent succession of superstition, the most stubborn of which may prove to be that which now presents itself as the most rational.
But I need much more time than I have to begin to make my case here, which is, ironically, a case for free thinking.

Poirot,
I certainly don't defend what passes for religion. And it's in a similarly symbiotic relationship with hegemony as science. I find both sides "contrived, patched-up and sadly wanting [mainly in self-reflexiveness]".
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:53:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

I liked your bit on the "...great thinkers and mystics...whose learning you would struggle to fathom [who] devoted their lives and conceived their absolute convictions...."

I'm often overtaken by the notion that there is "something I'm not getting" about religion and religious experience. I'm drawn to the sacred space of churches and the grammar of the architecture, but no matter what I read or to whom I listen, I can't accept the premise or penetrate the mystery - and my curiosity is piqued for the very reasons you mention above.

But I often feel much less astute than people take me for, as if I'm missing some vital point of departure that would reveal why I'm attracted to the wisdom of religion, yet reject its irrational dogma.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I downloaded and just finished listening to the Dawkins-Pell debate. I was embarrassed how unprepared Pell was. After all, Dawkins did not say anything he has not said or written before, and there are certainly counter-arguments - convincing to ones, unconvincing to others - that could have been presented. Probably Pell did not have time to study Dawkins’ books, and he certainly is not an expert in the field of science that Dawkins bases his anti-God, anti-religion arguments and attacks on. Then why did he accept invitation to debate Dawkins? If Dawkins’ arguments were based on sources written in Hungarian then surely Pell should have chosen somebody, who could read Hungarian (and could somehow match Dawkins’ undeniable debating skills) to represent his side of the argument. Replace here “read Hungarian” by “was a scientist” or better, philosopher of science.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, thought you might like this from William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature - Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion, Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-1902.

"Yet, I repeat once more, the existence of mystical states absolutely overthrows the pretension of non-mystical states to be the sole and ultimate dictators of what we may believe. As a rule, mystical states merely add a supersensuous meaning to the ordinary outward data of consciousness.

They are excitements like the emotions of love or ambition, gifts to our spirit by means of which facts already objectively before us fall into a new expressiveness and make a new connection with our active life. They do not contradict these facts as such or deny anything that our senses have immediately seized.

It is the rationalistic critic rather who plays the part of denier in the controversy, and his denials have no strength, for there never can be a state of facts to which new meaning may not truthfully be added, provided the mind ascend to a more enveloping point of view.

It must always remain an open question whether mystical states may not possibly be such superior points of view, windows through which the mind looks out upon a more extensive and inclusive world."
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 8:51:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For anyone who's interested the link I provided was not what I thought it was. This is the essay I had in mind: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/jameson_postmodernism_consumer.htm
though of course it's already dated, but it's much more readable.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:50:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers asks (my parentheses):

"Do you really think all those great thinkers and mystics, whom Ditchkins (...Dawkins/Hitchkins?...) has never read, whose learning you would struggle to fathom (...because of transmission or receiving problems?..), devoted their lives and conceived their absolute convictions based on nothing more than flagrant conceit? An embarrassingly obvious hoax?"

Those great thinkers and mystics of the past did not have any real physical or metaphysical challenge to their convictions. They had not read Ditchkens. They focused, as many still do, on experiential aspects of religion, which agreed is a fine thing if it helps one through life. They wrote or preached on this basis, which was nothing to be embarrassed about given the state of scientific knowledge then. Would they disavow Hitchkin's and Dawkin's logical and scientific notions given their belief in religious experience? Probably, just as do many modern thinkers and mystics.

Mystics can not be helped, I've met enough to know, but thinkers can be brought to consider scientific evidence challenging their beliefs if they are willing to look past "god of the gaps". The god hypothesis is non-falsifiable so there will always be gaps leaving us only with probabistic arguments leading away from the picture of god they envisaged. Even the definition of what "nothing" means in the context of Krauss' Universe from Nothing" has had to be redefined by theists once science started to close the "gaps" too uncomfortably for them.

I can't let your phrase "...intelligible progression from superstition to reason..." slip by. There is no continuum that any atheist would acknowledge. A blend of scientific reasoning and experiental religion is something you countenance, but why are you so irked that most fellow atheists won't follow you down this path? It doesn't help that you denigrate them with the implication they are incapable of establishing proper societal norms unless they countenance religious experience in their lives. I can do that for others, not for me, but I'm not sure that spares me from your fire.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:57:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,
>>Even the definition of what "nothing" means in the context of Krauss' Universe from Nothing" has had to be redefined by theists<<
Could you please enlighten me about how did theists (who in particular?) redefine Krauss’ definition of “nothing”?

As far as I know, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the author of the (original?) philosophical question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (The Principles of Nature and Grace, Based on Reason, 1714) did not offer any definition of such basic terms as something or nothing - but would probably not have accepted quantum vacuum as an equivalent of his nothing. I suspect that your theists were referring to this. So the “redefinition of nothing” seems to be going in the opposite direction.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 6:58:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
Given the durability and adaptability of living creatures I don't see a huge problem in the possibility of certain fish being able to survive a flood. It's no big deal. But for a slightly more detailed answer concerning the Flood of Noah you can look here:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf

After google searching Dawkins (as you suggested), the most common page appearing was asking why it is that Dawkins refuses to debate with Creationists. However I did find one formal debate between Dawkins and one of his colleagues at Oxford. This featured  Dr John Lennox, who is a philosopher of science and seemingly a very solid Christian believer. At least it's getting closer to matching like with like.

So thanks for putting me on to that. I'll try and get hold of a copy of that debate. I'm sure it will be more enlightening than the Pell/Dawkins discussion. But I can understand Q&A wanting a big well known name to front up to Dawkins the other night, even if he's not the most lucid, or (as Runner suggests) the most consistent of believers.

Tony,
A theory finds consensus and that's why it is taught in schools, or maybe it's taught in schools and that's why it finds consensus. I wonder about the causal connection. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 7:31:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*As though the whole human race and all it's generations of geniuses were the dupes of nothing more than a perennial delusion and wishful thinking--and Dawkins, without a clue, sees through all.*

The thing is Squeers, billions are clearly wrong. A billion Christians,
a billion Muslims, a billion Hindus, can't all be right.

Dawkins is about biology and our understanding of biology has
undergone such amazing breakthroughs in the last century or so,
that all the navel gazing by your geniuses, is little more then
that, much as that might offend you.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 7:33:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WmTrevor,

Thank you for the passage from William James. I've always meant to read more of his work. (I'm quite a fan of his brother)
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 8:24:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George,

To begin an investigation of the biblical origins of something from nothing I would start here http://www.theopedia.com/Creation_out_of_nothing and links therefrom.

Regarding who, in particular, has redefined nothing I go to Krauss's detractors, not specifically the official Church. For example, please see a precis of David Albert's critique from the New York Times (referred to by Pell) at http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/columbia-university-professor-challenges-krauss-book-a-universe-from-nothing-reason-rally-rhetoric-9005/

Regarding quantum fields, how they got there, and the definition of "nothing" theists will never accept pre-existence of physical laws. Even if quantum fields were shown to be even more fundamental drilling ever down, the "beginning" is one gap theists will forever fill with god. Each time a scientific step is made, however, to the mind strange people like me, the likelihood of an almighty creator diminishes further. On Dawkin's certainty scale of 1 to 7, I'm at 6 point 9 recurring.

I'd like to correct something in my previous post where I loosely said: "...They wrote or preached on this basis, which was nothing to be embarrassed about given the state of scientific knowledge then..." which sounded unintentionally dismissive. What I simply meant was that biblical accounts of the origins of the cosmos and of life on earth were all they had to go by, so why would they (mystics, great thinkers) be expected to pause for thought about their convictions. Krauss and Darwin changed that, so how people talk of a special relationship with a god, when that god is appearing less and less a sky-god and unknowable as a being leaves me quizzical. If "being at one with god" means being at one with life and the cosmos, I can understand, but an almighty that loves us, guides us, and judges our actions? Sorry, I can't commit myself to a religious experience on that basis.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 9:53:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan, your URL is amusing, in that it tries to use natural selection
and the fossil record to make its case. Of course there are diadromous
species of fish. There are also species which are extremely particular
about salinity. So are you suggesting that they recently evolved
that way? Most creationists are in complete denial of species
evolving at all.

Next with the Noah story we have all sorts of questions. There
are literally millions of species, how did they all fit on the boat
along with their food? Did Noah do a special trip to drop off the
koalas, kangaroos etc to Australia?

BTW, I suggest that you google some photos of an alligator gar fish
and explain to me what that is all about.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 12:40:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry guys,
I'll have to forego further discussion here or elsewhere for the foreseeable. Much as I'd love to defend my position--and I'm absolutely confident I can--I can no longer spare the time. The subject matter, however, is central to my research and hopefully I can air some of it on OLO at a later date.
All the best.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 2:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Luciferase,

Thanks for the quotes. Nobody doubts that Krauss and Dawkins have many critics, theist or not, philosophically sophisticated or not. That was not my point. I was just curious about defining and redefining “nothing”. I have to admit I did not read Krauss’s book, so I have to rely on what David Albert (your second link) wrote:

[Krauss] complains that "some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine 'nothing' as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe," and that "now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as 'nothing,' but rather as a 'quantum vacuum,' to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's idealized ‘nothing’…”

It is not clear that in his “define and redefine” he means - as you have claimed - that philosophers and theologians redefined HIS (Krauss’) definition. However, whether these philosophers and theologians referred to the theological “creatio ex nihilo” or to the philosophical “Why is there something rather than nothing” (Leibniz) they were referring to sources preceding Krauss by centuries. If you wish you can read about ‘nothing’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/) that also precedes Krauss’ book. If Krauss “defines” nothing as quantum vacuum or empty space, that is his prerogative, but it is he who is redefining it.
ctd
Posted by George, Thursday, 12 April 2012 6:43:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ctd
Nobody will criticise Krauss for saying that “Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence” (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing). John A. Wheeler - known for his geometrodynamics and pregeometry when looking for a mathematical model to explain how matter could have arisen out of space-time only - said something similar: “No point is more central than this, that empty space is not empty.  It is the seat of the most violent physics.". These are statements by specialists in physics and not naive excursions into philosophy.

In my opinion, both Krauss and Dawkins would have been on a safer ground if they simply claimed that both “creatio ex nihilo” and the question “why there is something rather than nothing” do not make sense. They certainly do not within science. Instead, they seem to be philosophically (and theologically) as naive as those (fundamental?) theists who saw in the widely accepted theory of Big Bang evidence for Somebody (God) creating the Universe.

As to “God of the gaps”, this belongs to the past, the same as e.g. Laplacian determinism: not as nonsense but as something that has been superseded (in theology/metaphysics and physics respectively) by new insights.
Posted by George, Thursday, 12 April 2012 6:47:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day George,
some interesting research happening at Caltech recently, according to this article:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/04/does-the-early-universe-harbor-evidence-of-a-time-before-the-big-bang-todays-most-popular.html

This kind of research, and the implications of the second law of thermodynamics offers considerable wriggle room for speculation in metaphysics; platonian universes perhaps? An endless progression of Universes displaying moral or spiritual entropy?
Religions have been based on less, I think. Until our knowledge is complete, there will always be room for a God of the Gaps... particularly for those whose knowledge is most incomplete.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 12 April 2012 8:08:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George,

Krauss has not jumped with glee and cried "gotcha!" but has been circumspect in his book about the meaning of "nothing". I think we should give him credit for that, not compare him to rabid fundamentalists.

By his excursion into nothingness Krauss flushes out the unbending position that irregardless of however deeply physics is able explain things, the existence of its laws is "proof" of the existence of a creator.

Given that there is no such thing as proof in science, only support or falsification of hypotheses (the god hypothesis being unfalsifiable), there will forever be a gap that science will not breach to be filled with god by those that choose it, regardless of whether you say that is outmoded or not.

I think it's clear I accept defeat in the scientific quest to undermine religion. As "proof" and probability are a mathematical notions, I'll stick with my 6.9 recurring out of 7 and do what I can to bring the religious to question belief and, more so, what is done wrongly in the name of "God"
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 12 April 2012 12:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Luciferase,

I'm not sure that there is much point for one side to argue with the other - each is operating on a paradigm which is totally exclusive of the other.

On the whole, atheists' arguments seem to be based on scepticism, rationality, evidence, reason and empirical hypothesising, testing and tentative validation.

Theists of all shades seem to rely merely on faith, an antagonism and an almost explicit antithesis to rationality, as if to have faith is a test of one's willingness to spurn rationality and devalue evidence. Hence Pell's Neanderthals.

There is a word for this in Islam, the willingness to spurn the evident and rational, to supposedly look behind the evident and rational for the noumenal, as proof of one's genuine faith in a god. As a friend put it to me, it requires the willingness to see something black as not-black, as having a hidden 'white-ness', so to speak, and revealed only to those with genuine faith.

To rationalists, this is crazy of course, but I guess theists would counter that since scientists don't know everything (and admit that they can't ever know everything), this is not much different.

To which atheists, and scientists, would respond, yes, but we are finding out more and more that we can rely on and work with, vastly more every generation, and in the process, painting any putative work of gods further and further into a corner.

But this cuts absolutely no ice with theists, since faith is all. I even get the idea (viz. Mother Teresa and her doubts) that a 'true' theist would embrace their faith in a god ever more tightly, the less evidence there was for one - as proof of their deservedness to be with god, I suppose.

Utterly evidence-less faith on the one side, and utterly sceptical rationality and a demand for empirical evidence on the other. The only way to go from one to the other is with a mighty leap, not in increments, to abandon one paradigm and adopt the other, all in one go.

Live in hope :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 12 April 2012 3:10:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

Your post brought to mind the following:

http://www.eloquentatheist.com/?p=234

Of all his words and writings, Tertullian is most renown[ed] for Credo quia absurdum, “I believe because it is absurd.” In fact it is a slight misquote. “The Son of God was born,” he wrote: “there is no shame, because it is shameful. And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is ridiculous. And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.” The idea was that the first Christians would not have believed such palpable nonsense unless it had happened. This was not unreasonable, as lawyers’ arguments go; but the phrase lives in the simpler form, and will live, as it seems to distill and embody a Christian mystery, a rubric without sense that speaks in a place where we are alone with our name. So it will continue to speak, and haunt and inspire believers, and annoy freethinkers. That is a quality of faith. The mystery can endure, the paradox live, even when history becomes leaves and dust, and blows away.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 April 2012 4:04:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boy, how I wish that Tertullian guy was around today.

>>Tertullian is most renown[ed] for Credo quia absurdum, “I believe because it is absurd.”<<

By an absurd stroke of good fortune, I happen to have this very fine bridge for sale. Only eighty years old. Looks really great on postcards. And I'm doing a very special deal for any Carthaginian Latin scholars...

Sheesh. It would have been his lucky day.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 12 April 2012 5:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The only way to go from one to the other is with a mighty leap, not in increments, to abandon one paradigm and adopt the other, all in one go."

Yes, a point I raised with our erstwhile thread companion, Squeers, that there is no continuum between the positions.

I have attempted faith, to put aside all logic and reason, to lay myself open to experience living amongst the faithful and following their ways. Alas, I'm just not built that way, damned to acceptance of finite existence, which I find exhilarating, actually.

When I think I'm off to join the cosmos only to find myself unexpectedly before a judge, my defense will be "god made me that way."
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 12 April 2012 5:45:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly, Luciferase, I think Bertrand Russell's already used that argument. 'If we weren't supposed to check out the tree of knowledge, why make us inquisitive?'
I mean seriously. "Please brer fox, doan thow me inta that briar patch".
You'd really expect a God to have more sense.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 12 April 2012 7:07:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think Bertrand Russell's already used that argument."
Really? How did it go down with the Judge?
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 12 April 2012 7:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
6.9 recurring is the same as 7 in any real sense as you can't place a number between them on a number line.

Cosmological joke doing the rounds at the moment:
What's so unique about our universe? ... It's the only one string theory can't explain.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 12 April 2012 9:47:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Subtract 6.9 recurring from 7 and you'll get the likelihood of god the creator.

Nice joke.

Here's half a joke for others to provide a punchline:

What did one creation scientist say to the other?
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:44:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q:What did one creation scientist say to the other?

A:Isn't it stupid how the evolutionists always change their interpretations when new evidence comes along?

I know it isn't funny, but it isn't funny on so many levels.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 13 April 2012 12:53:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G’day Grim,

Thanks for the link. The article is obviously a popularisation of some experimental results confirming some conclusions of some new theory/model of the Big Bang. Since they speak about “time before the Big Bang” it looks like Roger Penrose’s recent model:

The word singularity is borrowed from mathematics and means a place in physical reality where (and beyond which) the accepted mathematical model offers no information; Penrose was apparently suggesting a different model, where this singularity could be avoided, and hence extend the meaning of our time beyond that what used to be just a singularity. This is how I understood his lectures of 2005 (http://www.cosmolearning.com/courses/roger-penrose-lecture-before-the-big-bang/) . See also http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/19/penrose-claims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang.

Whatever the implications of Penrose’s model are, I think they can concern only our knowledge of the material world, which, of course, cannot stop - it did not in the past - some people make “spiritual” or other esoteric speculations based on new scientific theories and findings.

There will always be room for a God of the gaps, for those who wish to have a naive attitude to religion (either to embrace it or to disparage it), however for serious theologians, and I think also educated contemporary Christians, the God of the gaps argument is not something they like to subscribe to any more.
Posted by George, Friday, 13 April 2012 7:41:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Luciferase,

Sorry to have to repeat myself: I have not objected to what Krauss wrote (since I have not read the book) only to the claim that Leibniz (and those who referred to him) redefined Krauss. Of course, had you instead stated from the beginning that
>> Krauss … has been circumspect in his book about the meaning of “nothing”<<
I would not have seen a reason to object.

There are religious people who see “proof” of the existence of a Creator in various things - e.g. the laws of physics or explanatory gaps in contemporary science - where a contemporary professional philosopher/theologian would not use this word (only perhaps the highly subjective term “argument”), as there are people who see “energy” in various psychedelic situations where a professional physicist would not use the term.

Loudmoth,
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, although the apologetic listing of a number of positive attributes of one’s world-view, followed by a list of negative attributes of the other world-view, reflects a rigid (even intolerant) attitude, irrespective of whether one starts from embracing some religion (runner?) or from rejecting some or all religions.

david f,
Sorry but I could not resist thinking of a person to whom all the talk about Hilbert spaces doesn’t make any sense because by “space” he could understand only the thing he was looking for when trying to park his car.
Posted by George, Friday, 13 April 2012 7:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Of course stating positive attributes of one's beliefs and negative attributes of the other person's beliefs is a common way of arguing that I have been guilty of.

However, I really cannot argue against your relgious beliefs as they appear to be derived from mature reflection and do not deny the flaws of your side. It would be good if others on both sides of the divide were as rational.

We are not going to agree, but I appreciate our disagreements.

In a half an hour I shall be leaving for the Global Atheist Convention and will enjoy some of the company of the other attendees.
Posted by david f, Friday, 13 April 2012 8:06:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
I thought it necessary to clear up a misconception from your last post. ("Most creationists are in complete denial of species evolving at all".) 

Scientists make observations and take measurements. Natural selection is an observable phenomenon. As a process it was measured and recorded by creationists even before the time of Darwin. We have all seen and noted variation and diversification amongst living things, and their ability to adapt to environments.

We see variation amongst people, finches, salmon, etc. When creationists say they don't see evolution occurring, what they're saying is that we don't see (observe or measure) evidence of people evolving from non-people, finches evolving from non finches, salmon evolving from non-salmon, etc. Each reproduces after their kind, as is spoken about in the first pages of Genesis.

A lot of the confusion arises from a loose definition of the word 'evolution', with people using different meanings of that word interchangeably in different contexts.

You won't find in any literature a creationist denying natural selection, for it is an observed process, observable by anyone. However, we are right to question evolution (in the sense of people evolving from non-people or all species evolving from single cell organisms) as that has not been observed by anyone.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 13 April 2012 9:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please try to be consistent, Dan…

Regarding creationists: "However, we are right to question evolution (in the sense of people evolving from non-people or all species evolving from single cell organisms) as that has not been observed by anyone."

Do you mean in exactly the same ways that we are right to question everything claimed by creationists that happened before 'Adam'?

Or, if your contention is that God observed creation – I would a opine that God observed people evolving from non-people and all species evolving from single cell organisms.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 13 April 2012 9:31:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan,

" .... we are right to question evolution .... as that has not been observed by anyone."

So that your criterion, that we should not believe something if nobody observed it ? A bit infantile, but let's run with it.

Has any person seen god, or any of the multitude of gods invented around the world ? Was there a human observer there in the Garden of Eden, and when Noah stepped ashore at Mt Ararat, or when Abraham was about to slit his son's throat to prove he loved god ? Or when Moses received the Ten Commandments ? Or so many other myths ?

Why should we believe these myths any more than we believe the myth of Zeus turning into a bull or swan, or whatever ?

Charming stories, invented by people with extremely limited technology of knowledge, but struggling to understand their world. Some very beautiful stories too: for some reason, I'm always struck by the story of Judah and Tamar. But still they are just stories, not really worth trying to pick to pieces, any more than one might try to find fault with the story of Hansel and Gretel.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 13 April 2012 9:52:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Your take of challenging rational thought regarding evolutionary theory by employing a counter rationality is intriguing. And yet, you would have us believe that Noah was able to gather together and transport two of every land/fresh water species during the flood...on an Ark...in the rain.....

Why do you employ a rational defence on some aspects, and yet float off into irrational fancifulness on others?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 13 April 2012 10:09:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m seduced again.
Luciferese:
<Yes, a point I raised with our erstwhile thread companion, Squeers, that there is no continuum between the positions>
This is ridiculous, of course it’s a continuum; reason came out of theology and the enlightenment—that’s why there’s contention; their fighting for ascendency. Newton, for one, was a devout Christian and since then the rational hubris has been a progressive narrative about reason asserting its autonomy and dispelling the darkness of superstition.
The New Atheists fail to see that empiricism—reason based on “data points”—does not penetrate the surface of things, thus it took centuries for Newton’s mechanistic universe to attain the quantum subtlety theorised by Niels Bohr—though Hegel critiqued Newton’s mechanics and anticipated Niels Bohr’s work by a century using what he called dialectics. Pure empiricism (a misnomer) fails to get to the heart of the matter at hand—as science now knows but rarely considers the implications of. As Marx (who used Hegel’s dialectics) says, “all science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence”. It’s impossible to learn anything merely from empiricism, that is without the via-media of (irrational) a priori reason.
Much more importantly to what I’ve been saying, faith in empiricism is tantamount to a denial of the social-historical-political-ideological-subjective contaminants that “select” the technological direction, method, and at the very least condition the findings.

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 13 April 2012 10:42:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

Ditchkins’ dispute with theists is based on a “common sense” technocracy that’s evolved out of religion, yet both remain extant. This is what gives them “both” the running—what each side says is intuitively right! Hence the conviction, exasperation and swaggering from both sides.
But theistic orthodoxy, liberal-rationalist “common sense” is a socio-political order naively seeking to be institutionalised as the “natural order”—a “construction of reality” nonetheless, ostensibly based on a “neutral” set of ideas that are taken as givens.
This is not to deny the achievements of modern science, but because it takes its evidence (and cue) from the prevailing order of things, it’s prone to accept as realities things that are merely evidence of underlying biases and ideological pressures, thus empiricism will always confirm the status quo.
Philosophers of science know this! And this is why so many of Ditchkins’ colleagues condemn their crusade. Dawkins looks like an arrogant fool to thinking people on both sides “because” he’s so credulously passionate. Yet rather than objective, he and his crew are clearly motivated, probably unconsciously, by deep-seated ideological devotions.
If they want to address the cronyism and irrationality of our society, for instance, why don’t they come out against capitalism? They object to tax breaks, influence and funding for the church but they’re silent on the raft of disparities, cronyism, conditioning of our kids, unfair advantage and distribution that proceed from the wealth-disparities capitalism is predicated on. Are these gross disparities rational? Is capitalist exploitation (mainly off-shore these days, but also unsustainable environmental practices) rational?
Yes they are! These are an unquestioned ideological underpinnings of our “common sense”!
I’m an atheist, yet because I dare to question New Atheist dogma, and demand reflexivity, consideration and political disclosure, I’m treated as an outsider—not that I want to be an insider; I have intellectual standards!
Nevertheless, going by this article: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/13/3476271.htm
The New Atheists can’t afford to alienate anyone.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 13 April 2012 10:43:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*If they want to address the cronyism and irrationality of our society, for instance, why don’t they come out against capitalism?*

Oh come on Squeers. Dawkins just happens to be a tall poppy, so you
little poppies who are largely ignored, might just have your noses
out of joint a little, because you rate as little but wannabees.

Lets face it, people like Dawkins, Hitchins and Bill Maher, who
openly question religion, have every reason for doing so.

The topic just happens to be religion. If you wander off and want
to discuss Capitalism, by all means do so, but don't hold it against
Dawkins because he's focussing on the issue up for discussion.
That tells us more about your own frustrations of being ignored.

If you want to relax, just watch Bill Maher's "Religulous" and take
a look at some of the kooky people praising their god/gods.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 13 April 2012 11:55:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Oh come on Squeers. Dawkins just happens to be a tall poppy, so you
little poppies who are largely ignored, might just have your noses
out of joint a little, because you rate as little but wannabees.>

So, don’t consider what I say, just dismiss it as sour grapes, Yabby? Ok mate, whatever you say. Don’t you see though how you’re precisely parroting the “common sense” of our competitive system?
I’ll concede the point though, rhetorically, since it’s true that a competitive ideology based on punishment and reward—or at least non-reward and lavish-reward—is inevitably reified socially, unless you’re a Ghandi or a Buddha (or a Squeers : )
< Lets face it, people like Dawkins, Hitchins and Bill Maher, who
openly question religion, have every reason for doing so>
Yes, absolutely, indeed such is implicit in my post—that institutional religion is equally predicated on a “common-sensual” ideology. I’m not defending “religion”, I’m criticising the New Atheism for the holier than thou rhetoric they employ while they’re simultaneously oblivious of their own beliefs and irrationalities. That is a) belief in their rationalism as something pure and worthy, and b) their implicit devotion to a profoundly irrational materialism and its sustaining ideology.
I could be just as scathing of institutionalised religion, for instance the way it’s popularly used by detestably-naïve adherents to ignore, deny and rationalise both the horrors and disparities that are so commonplace in God’s creation, and their own comparative ease.
However there are two points in favour of the religious impulse, “at its best” and outside its corrupted ideological institutions. A) it’s based on humility, compassion and genuine aspiration; and b) the religious impulse is arguably a mysterious part of the human condition (ideological/material nexus) that’s indulged in faith as intrinsic, rather than pseudo-objectified and haughtily denied as irrational.
This last bit is a rumination written in haste, but I have to run—not to speak at the conference, and no kudos attached : )
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 13 April 2012 1:32:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George,

By redefinition of "nothing" I referred to a swing from metaphysical meaning(such as discussed at your link and is found at http://www.friesian.com/nothing.htm)to the physical(quantum vacuum). Krauss preempted criticism with the circumspection that metaphysics' claim to ground broken by physics maintains it impregnability to science (my interpretation).

If you wish to angle down the path that metaphysics subsumes physics, I am not your man for that discussion.

Squeers, your shining light analogy where superstition gradually gives way to scientific understanding misses the point I am making above. If physical laws are were taken as "proof" of a creator by us both, your analogy works. However, that is no less a matter of faith to me than believing god must be angry when a volcano erupts.

I return to probability. Subtracting 6.9 recurring from 7 gives an asymptotically diminishing likelihood of a creator, not zero, leaving me dangerously close to being labelled a cowardly agnostic atheist. My only reservation to committing to 7-out-of-7 is not a belief that god may exist but that his existence can't be proven.

Therein lies the problem with your continuum, Squeers. At one extreme it must proven god exists while at the other it must be proven god does not. An inevitable discontinuity ensues and I'm with Joe Loudmouth on this.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 13 April 2012 7:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... I erred sorry, end of the second last paragraph, that "..his non-existence can't be proven."
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 13 April 2012 8:03:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Luciferase,

>>If you wish to angle down the path that metaphysics subsumes physics, I am not your man for that discussion. <<

No, let me repeat for the third time: “the path I wanted to angle down” was that Leibniz (1646 – 1716) lived 300 years before Krauss, hence he could not have “redefined” whatever Krauss wrote. And Leibniz’s question - that Krauss quotes in the title of his book - is about metaphysics, not quantum physics. Of course, you can call the question meaningless, many do, but that is not what I objected to.

“Materialism is the most popular metaphysical theory among those who don't believe in metaphysics, don't think they are ever doing it, and would be indignant if they were accused of making metaphysical assertions, just because of their naive and uncritical materialist views.” (from the link you provided, a source I did not know about, and for which I am thankful).
Posted by George, Saturday, 14 April 2012 7:02:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13417612/doctor-barred-for-doing-male-snip/

The above story is a great reason why we do in fact need a group of
atheists to combine to ensure the rights of non believers.

The Catholics build another hospital, no doubt with some Govt funding
thrown in. Next they ban all medical procedures, such as the snip,
from being performed there.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 14 April 2012 7:37:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

you've again evaded the more important criticism of New Atheism in my posts. The minor point you've responded to is of little interest to me. I'm not concerned with the question of the existence or non-existence of God, but was merely asserting the surely obvious fact that no knowledge is original or spontaneous; it's all derivative and proceeded out of mysticism. Epistemology in general is another matter and so-called materialism "is" based on metaphysics, as well as a dogmatic denial of other possibilities.

Yabby,
we already have discrimination in the hospital system, between private and public. Scandalously, those with money (however it was got) get more and better services than those without!
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 14 April 2012 8:32:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, I've since done some homework on that story. It seems that
its Govt money which will build that hospital, the Catholics will
simply be the operators. So now its using Govt money to enforce
Catholic dogma on the public. To me that is a frigging scandal.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 14 April 2012 9:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferace,
You're a fan of probability, and are probably aware of Fred Hoyle, who calculated the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell. He calculated it as one in 10 to the power of 40,000 (one followed by 40,000 zeroes.) Though ridiculously small, it is an example of a real number.

Davidf,
Faced with odds of 1 to ten to the power of 40000, we could abandon all skepticism, join with the evolutionist crowd and say, "Why need the event have been probable? We can just shrug, and note with thanks how lucky we are." 

David, I hope you are enjoying your conference, and I'm sure that at times there will be a lot a sensible and rational words being spoken. Yet you can't claim the high ground in not believing in the absurd.

Christians well understand that in speaking of the resurrection we proclaim that which is beyond unlikely, unheard of and unprecedented. But in so many ways it is not dissimilar to your beliefs.

WM Trevor,
I think I am being consistent in pointing out the limitations and difficulties within the scientific method for both creationists and evolutionists in investigating past unrepeatable events. The scientific approach is useful but limited. It is dependent on observation, and not all things can be observed; not all experiences are repeatable.

There are different avenues to knowledge. Scientific thinking is one. Hereafter we get into theories of epistemology. In short, if we only relied strictly on scientific methodology, then we are bound to forever fall far short of complete knowledge.

Yabby says that Dawkins has a right to question religion. Don't the religious have a right to question the absurd when proclaimed by others? Of course we all have a right to question anything we want.   

Poirot,
I think I am being quite rational. But to make sure that we are following the correct sequence of events in the story, Noah got into the boat before it started raining, not after.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 14 April 2012 10:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

"...Noah got into the boat before it started raining, not after."

Well that makes all the difference!

Where on the planet was he situated when he felt the first tell-tale drops? And from the standpoint of him and his boat occupying a certain position in space, how did he martial the organisms of the entire earth to join him on the Ark?

I can comprehend the use of a certain mysticism when dealing with theology, but I have difficulty when someone attempts to defend irrational propositions using rational argument.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 14 April 2012 11:09:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan is aware of "Hoyle's Howler" but seems unaware of the many valid objections.

It seems that Dan would much rather sway by misinformation than genuine insight.

Regardless of the seeming simplicity of Hoyle's first-principles estimation, experimental results show that the situatiuon is nowhere near as dire.

In the early nineties, Jack Szostak assembled libraries of randomly polymerised sequences of nucleotides. The number of ramdom sequences in a typical run might number 10exp15.

For the catalytic properties that interested Szostak, a given batch might contain from dozens to several hundred examples that displayed whatever catalytic property specified.

Similar experiments have been performed using protein sequences translated from random nucleotide sequences, providing a richer source of chemical diversity and with corresponding results. Kits were available for research groups who wanted to discover new or alternative catalytic molecules, including the option of mutating and selecting successive rounds of superior catalysts.

Hoyle's mistake was that biologists at the time were captivated by the specificity or high activity of highly evolved and selected molecules and neglected the fact that a less active catalyst is nonetheless useful. Dan's mistake is to wilfully ignore these well known advances.

Hope this clarifies things.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Saturday, 14 April 2012 4:00:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Noah got into the boat before it started raining, not after.<<

Wouldn't have helped:

Genesis 7:19-20

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Quote from Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos:

>>Taken literally, this seems to indicate that there were 10 000 to 20 000 feet of water on the surface of the earth, equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid! Since, according to biblical accounts, it rained for forty days and forty nights, or for only 960 hours, the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least fifteen feet per hour, certainly enough to sink any aircraft carrier, much less an ark with thousands of animals on board.<<

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 14 April 2012 4:53:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Tony,

Yes, and all that water came from .... well, not from the oceans, otherwise they would have been emptied, while the mountains were being covered with water - otherwise, what would have been the point of gathering all those pairs of animals, if there was going to be any dry land anywhere ?

And afterwards, the water flowed away to ..... to the oceans ?

I guess God giveth and God taketh away. Maybe Heaven is actually made up of half a billion cubic miles of water, and more, and God used that. Or perhaps matter cannot be created or destroyed except by God ?

And if it rained for forty-odd days non-stop, how long would it take all that water to evaporate away, from 29,000-foot mountains, at, say, a foot a day ? Well, I suppose 29,000 days, or about eighty years, not counting winters when evaporation might have slowed down. Lucky that Noah and all those old guys lived for two and three hundred years, don't you think ?

Speaking of old guys, where was Mathuselah by this time ? Yes, he lived for 960 years or so, but was he knocked off by the Flood ? I'll have to check back all the begats and life-spans.

So how much food would Noah need to keep his multitude of pairs of animals, no doubt breeding at their usual rates, for a few days PLUS forty days PLUS eighty years ? Did he cull the numbers so that he always had just the two of each ? Did he chuck the rest over the side ? The multitude of mosquitoes and blow-flies included ?

A charming fairy story, the point of which was more important than the details, i.e. that people should be faithful to their gods, otherwise they will be stuck in a stinking boat for eighty years or more, constantly feeding filthy and complaining animals.

It's all great fun !

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 14 April 2012 6:48:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"....Similarly, postmodernism has administered the kybosh to philosophy! Do you really think all those great thinkers and mystics, whom Ditchkins has never read, whose learning you would struggle to fathom, devoted their lives and conceived their absolute convictions based on nothing more than flagrant conceit?..."

Quite so, Squeers, and I reprise your passage above after reading D.C. Shindler's essay on the French Catholic poet, Paul Claudel....This passage on the human paradox:

"Claudel....sets into relief the fascinating human paradox: man infinitely surpasses himself. There is something beyond the human 'in' the human, and man thus exists as open in his core to the supernatural. This radical duality is the source of both the wretchedness and grandeur, the ridiculous pretension and the sublime humility that make equal claim on human life. But Claudel approaches this rich paradox specifically in connection with the poetic act, the moment of inspiration. The essential point to note in the way he characterises this moment is in the fact that the most genuine creativity arises not from the deliberate concentration of [merely] human effort but in the quiet, almost incidental attunement to what is greater in man. The voice of God is manifest in a hushed whisper, glory appears in the vulnerability of a baby."
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 14 April 2012 7:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, you’ve pre-empted me and I like the quote, though according to modern lights I’m meant to despise it.

Luciferase,
I’ve just reviewed your post of Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:57:00 PM that I was unable to respond to at the time; I will now.
I said “whose learning you would struggle to fathom” because one thing I’ve realised is that the thinkers of yore were far more accomplished and rounded in their learning. Learning today is specialised and much less intensive, and we’re bombarded with distractions such that it’s nearly impossible to accumulate, let alone meditate, upon the vast “data” available in and across fields. Moreover nearly everything, it seems, has already been thought and commodified—this is Jameson’s conception of postmodernism in the link I cited.
So it wasn’t a put down, except in as much as it applies to all of us; nor was I suggesting it was, “because of transmission or receiving problems?”, as you wittily-sarcastically proffer. Dawkins is in fact a good instance of the kind of postmodern myopia I’m talking about—his philosophical/theological illiteracy, paradoxically, gives him the confidence he professes in his shallow materialism!
Thus when you say, “Mystics can not be helped, I've met enough to know”, you make the mistake of supposing today’s pot-smoking mystics are the template. Hegel is one of my heroes and he was inspired by the mystic, Jakob Bohme. I don’t say that Hegel was “right”—but then neither is modern science—but at least he didn’t rule on what was permissible and what wasn’t. One of the problems with modern science is precisely that it did come out of mysticism, ergo it’s hyperbolic aversion, such that it arbitrarily rules out a vast dimension of the human condition.
Your last paragraph of that post is pure tosh, and dishonest, for you cannot possibly infer your denunciations from anything I wrote, and you’re too intelligent (flattery has its uses) to be innocently-capable of such a distortion of my position.
I’m still very busy, but if you wish to thrash any of this out further I’ll find the time.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 14 April 2012 7:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
It is reasonable for Krauss to refer to the metaphysical nothing for his book title. He maintains "nothing" is unstable. A particle and its anti-particle spontaneously appear from nothing. At another instant a particle annihilates its anti-particle so there is nothing. What comes first, nothing, or a particle and its anti-particle? For the purpose of his argument, Krauss says the former while his detractors maintain the latter for the purpose of theirs.

Who is right? It's unknowable, so Krauss' has not won a great argument but has brought his detractors' to claim physics supports the status-quo, i.e. the existence of a creator has not been disproven, so they relax in the satisfaction their belief remains impregnable to science. Much ado about nothing, really, but when I introduced Krauss to this thread I was inviting posters to make of it what they will, not entering deep into the history of the metaphysics of nothing, although it has been interesting sideline. That's all I've got left to say.

Squeers,
To what "knowledge" do you refer when you say: "...the surely obvious fact that no knowledge is original or spontaneous; it's all derivative and proceeded out of mysticism..!".

It seems that over your last few posts since re-entering the fray you are setting empiricism at one end of a scale with mysticism at the other. I may be reading you incorrectly but you elucidation will be an interesting read when you can fully rejoin us.
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 14 April 2012 9:29:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

>> It is reasonable for Krauss to refer to the metaphysical nothing for his book title. <<

I agree with this, and more or less with the rest. I am not going to repeat myself for the fourth time but still: my original objection was not about your or Krauss’ use of the word “nothing” but about the use of “redefine”.
Posted by George, Saturday, 14 April 2012 10:02:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, George, George,
Love to share a red with you.

The metaphysical "nothing" we agree upon is as pure a nothing as nothing can be.

Krauss agrees but, he says, metaphysical nothing is "unstable".

"No" his detractors say, "the metaphysical nothing is a separate entity to the physical nothing." In making this distinction they redefine Krauss' "nothing" and make it their argument against him.

Detractors would say they "dispute" his nothing rather than "redefine" it, with the semantic argument that Krauss' "unstable nothing" is meaningless because "nothing" cannot be meaningfully joined with any adjective (red nothing, smooth nothing, sweet nothing).

I think I've covered it from all angles, George
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 15 April 2012 12:01:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>A charming fairy story, the point of which was more important than the details<<

Well duh :). I think I read somewhere that Aquinas wrote stuff about Biblical stories like Noah and the flood being charming fairy stories where the point was more important than the details. More than 700 years later: we still have fundamentalist wackos telling us that all the fossils were made during the flood. Makes you think, don't it?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 15 April 2012 12:08:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase (only once - take it easy),

>>Detractors would say they "dispute" his nothing rather than "redefine" it<<
Had you written this at the beginning we would not have this silly controversy. From what you wrote it indeed follows that these detractors (whoever they are) disputed Krauss’ metaphysical concept of “unstable nothing”, as meaningless. They might or might not be right - I am not a philosopher - but that was not the point.

So, for the fifth time: Krauss - who prominently quotes Leibniz’s question in the title of his book, and answers it by using a definition of “nothing” that Leibniz could not have had in mind - is the one who does the redefining, irrespective of whether he is an expert in physics (which he obviously is) or philosophy (which he apparently is not). And not those who - for whatever reasons - stick to the meaning of the word as it has been understood over centuries.

To me the Leibniz question, looked at from a 21st century perspective, does not make much sense, but, as said, I am not a philosopher. Krauss could have taken the same position, but then he would not have a metaphysical ax to grind.
Posted by George, Sunday, 15 April 2012 6:37:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

You define Krauss' concept as "metaphysical". All nothing is the same to him, for the purpose of his claim. He says there is only one kind of nothing (and it is unstable). His detractors (...whoever they are? Google the multitude) say there are two kinds.

Defining Krauss' nothing as metaphysical presumes to make it untouchable by physics, but not to Krauss' mind.

Read the book, George, as there's a lot of other interesting stuff in there too, and take your fight up with Krauss
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 15 April 2012 9:44:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I looked at the article too and it does seem bizarre that Catholic prohibitions are enforced in a publicly-funded hospital!
I think it's even more bizarre to have public/private apartheid in hospitals and schools; it's fascinating to me that we just accept this kind of thing as a given. As I've said before, one of my kids is a very promising musician, but we're finding that virtually all support for this falls away in public schools as she progresses in high school and instrumental music becomes more and more an elite and expensive vocation we can't afford to fund.

Luciferase,
surely it's obvious I'm not talking about specific "knowledge"? In latter Homo Sapiens there's putatively a "cultural" component to evolution. In our deconstructive age the self is "decentred" (has "no" centre in the individual) and draws its illusions of integrity, free-will, "knowledge" etc., from the host culture. Here's an example of empiricism pegged to the status quo; it continues to support the illusions of liberal individualism. If we accept these premises, how can knowledge be anything but derivative and a mere "construction on reality"? Indeed according to post-structuralism even our tactile/sensuous experience is preconditioned rather than spontaneous--which would be miraculous. In the "absurd" universe Ditchkins dis/ingenuously evokes, our foundation narratives are strictly meaningless, or at best necessarily thread-like in an infinite spectrum of narrative possibility--multiple universes if you like. By narrative I'm saying that according to Dawkins' evocation all knowledge is derivative and developmental, rather than meaningful, conclusive and teleological. Yet he's a Western progressive; a partisan liberal rationalist!
Unfortunately Dawkins doesn't get taken to task in-depth on his "book-launches", which seems really all he's about, and the public stage is not the place to do it anyway--where it's all too easy for him to respond to puerile questioning with his stock-standard "common sense". There are infinitely more rigorous challenges to his simplistic ideas in journals that he can simply ignore, since they have no popular currency anyway. Thus is the whole debate nothing more than an empty advertising/proselytising campaign aimed at the credulous masses.
tbc
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 15 April 2012 10:11:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

You have no such luxury here and yes, you are reading me incorrectly, I can't help but think wilfully, notwithstanding that my elucidations have been far more substantial than your evasions. You've said nothing in behalf of the New Atheism, or yourself, and my questions pertaining to it. You seem content to dismiss what I say as mystification, without, apparently, even considering it, yet I'm being far more rigorous and demanding in my scepticism and atheism than Ditchkins and the New Atheists put together. Doesn't this back-up my view that the New Atheists are kin to the very inflexible zealots they seek to demonise?
Ditchkins are patronising the popular "public sphere" just as shamelessly as televangelists do.
The "public sphere" is an invocation of Jurgen Habermas' (among others), wherein political/social norms and movements are critiqued. Unfortunately, the postmodern public sphere is a realm of pastiche, saturated in redundant and poorly understood knowledge, but worse, colonised and commodified by private interests so that it has no more integrity than neoliberalism's pathetic "individuals"--the ultimate dupes.
This is why it's such a shame to see the internet, a new hope, commercialised.
You can consider all this my puny effort to buck the trend of "popular reason" and "common sense" (it's also a mode of procrastination, alas ).

But clearly you don't want to respond to any of the material I've raised, and that's consistent with the other New Atheists I've tried to debate; the barriers of indignation are quickly thrown up.
It must be nice to live in such a rational world and universe, where one can be confident in one's Weltanschauung and look forward to the final few creases in reality being ironed out presently.
I'm afraid I remain benighted in ignorance.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 15 April 2012 10:15:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd have to disagree with you, Squeers. Govt funding is limited and so
it should be. Govt should provide basic health care and education,
that is all that can be expected. If people want deluxe health care or
education, they should be free to fund it themselves. If you want
your kids to have the best, only have as many as you can afford.
Music is a bit like religion or golf, its an extra. If your daughter
is musical, buy her the latest Korg Kronos, she'll have a ball.

I was fortunate enough, in my late teens, to spend a couple of years
living in Paris. Like others with a sense of curiostiy about what
makes the human animal tick, I spent endless hours listening to
philosphers, reading Freud, Jung etc and in endless discussions.
It all sounded impressive, the language used was impressive, but it
did not add up to what I saw in nature. So I focussed on improving
my understanding of biology and neuroscience instead and I've never
looked back. Understand a bit more about how the brain works and
there is not alot left to be puzzled about. Rational thought is only
one part of the brain, but in the end, the mind is what the brain does.

So philosophise all you want, feel good about it, but frankly I think
that I am years ahead of you:)
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 15 April 2012 1:47:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're so wrong, Yabby.
Education and health-care should be the same for all citizens in a "democratic society" based on cooperation. If there were only one of each (education and health) the rich would make sure both were world's best practice--though there shouldn't be any rich, it's anti-social. Even as things stand, don't you realise the rich leech off the public purse and the common weal? Medical innovations for instance are driven by consumerism; the medical marvels we have would not be available to those who can afford it if R&D wasn't driven by mass consumerism. It could never be funded by the selfish rich and they'd still, otherwise, be making their dentures out of ivory. If it was only the wealthy in the market place we'd still be in the veritable stone-age.
That aside, our society claims to be democratic but it's founded on and maintained by double standards, within, and rapaciousness, without. You just don't see it, can't see it, won't see it; you're not programmed to, anymore than Dawkins is.
In your last paragraph you're just acknowledging that you're intellectually (as well as ethically) retired, like Solomon; there's nothing new under the sun. Philosophy and religion are just a crock of sh!t that you've grown out of? Funny how this conveniently affirms lazy consumerism, and the status quo, and your position in life? God must surely have had a hand in that? Yes, except that your God is science.
As for the brain, the poststructural scenario I've sketched above agrees with neuro-science; all of consciousness is an elaborate self-deception. You should be saying "alleluia brother!", philosophy has arrived at similar conclusions.
You are ahead of me Yabby, for sure, but I'm not in any hurry.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 15 April 2012 4:09:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Squeers, what I really dread is a society as one that you are
implying, where Govt rules everything. What people earn, what people
do, how they spend it, why they spend it. Democracy can also involve
tyranny by the majority and I don't believe in that.

Anyone can take out health insurance if they wish. But people make
choices and should live with them. Some spend it on the pokeys, some
go on that overseas trip, some buy health insurance. Each to their
own. I have no problem with rich people. They pay lots of tax, it
benefits us all. Its those going down unground mines and those
driving trucks for 100 hours a week that keep the economy ticking,
why should I begrudge them their earnings? If some rip off the state
to get rich, it just shows how useless the state is at handling our
money. The most democratic thing in the world is the market economy.
Some are innovative enough to create things which people might want
or need, people vote with their wallets about the outcome.

*Philosophy and religion are just a crock of sh!t that you've grown out of?*

I see them a bit like golf or knitting. Great for those who are
inclined to invest their time in them, but personally I have other
preferances. For undestanding the world, I'll prefer to stick to
evidence, not pontificating. Its been far more enlightening in terms
of understanding the world and us humans
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 15 April 2012 6:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers, after reading your diatribe over several recent posts it's hardly surprising barriers of indignation are quickly thrown up against you.

If you go back over my posts you will see I try to respond to your questions, particularly, and in some part to your obscure and esoteric dissertations. What you get from me is my own personal stand-point on some aspects of your writings as I interpret them.

I refute your claim I represent "New Atheism" because it incorporates, at you insistence, post-modernistic adherence. Nothing in post-modernism convinces me truth is relative or that it is a convention. Truth and beauty await our discovery, not construction. Regarding my atheism, conclusions drawn from discursive metaphysical forays in search of truth don't wash with me the way they obviously do with you. I find myself confused at just what is at the basis of your supposed atheism, Squeers.

You suggest a kind of honor in relaxing into the humility of one's ignorance as opposed to clinging to confidence in rationality, which I do not because it's easy but because it's hard. Really, who is the lazy one (!?).

Just how do you propose Dawkins should conduct the atheistic attack? Must he humour believers of things that can't possibly be true or those claiming to know the mind of god. He announces the limitations of his position, which is not usually reciprocated by his opponents without applying a blow-torch. It's a tough gig taking on entrenched beliefs and interests.

You claim Dawkins is not objective, motivated unconsciously by "ideological devotions". Interestingly, You didn't expand on that but as you claim to mind-read let me try too. Sure, you see the tax breaks, influence and funding for the church as issues for fair-minded persons, agreeing with Yabby about the inappropriateness of the religious hand in publicly funded hospitals, etc, but that's where your atheism ends. You're just not sure whether god is or isn't, that's all. It's time for you to release your inner theist, Squeers. Fly and be happy
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 15 April 2012 10:10:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,
<“diatribe”, “obscure and esoteric dissertations”, “discursive metaphysical forays”, “you claim to mind-read”, “You're just not sure whether god is or isn't, that's all. It's time for you to release your inner theist, Squeers. Fly and be happy”>
This is what you get from what I’ve tried to communicate? Clearly you don’t get any of it.
But I like this: “Truth and beauty await our discovery, not construction”, which confirms what I accused the New Atheism of directly above: “belief in their rationalism as something pure and worthy”, that is as something untainted by or admixed with ideology. I tend toward the coherence theory of truth myself, and in that I’m a maverick! Though I temper coherence theory with acknowledgement—and one can hardly deny it—of the depth of constructivism that appoints our truths and aesthetics. Free thinking thus consists for me largely in deconstruction.
Marx said, “religion is a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind”. Science has always been a practical side to that struggle. And while it’s debatable as to whether it makes mere constructions on reality still (the history of science is replete with misguided and prejudiced constructions), you surely acknowledge scientific method and endeavour are directed and somewhat befuddled by prevailing ideologies? To whatever extend method and innovation are objective, science’s practitioners most certainly are not. It’s one thing, too, to despise the relativism of postmodern philosophy (usually those who don’t understand it), but that’s no justification to dismiss it out of hand—which is just as bad as creationists ignorantly dismissing evolution! All this cuts to the heart of what I’ve been complaining about. All I’m really asking for is reflexivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory) for Ditchkins and co to critique their “political/ideological allegiances” before they set-forth to make an institution of their manifestation in the world.
But I won’t task you anymore as it appears I’m wasting my breath (figuratively speaking), again.
Fascinating that those ostensibly devoted to reason can't be reasoned with!
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 16 April 2012 8:17:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
Have you ever read a book written by a creationist? If so, could you point out how it is that creationists are ignorant of evolution, or what facts they are ignoring. Or is that you just engage in name calling for the fun of it?

Tony,
Are you sure Aquinas said anything like that? Why would you now advocate Aquinas when, as an atheist, you hardly ascribe to anything he says anyway?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 16 April 2012 9:14:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

I really am trying to understand you, labeling you somehow as belonging to this or that philosophical school:

>>Free thinking thus consists for me largely in deconstruction. <<
Deconstruction, that is Derrida, hence postmodernist. Would you call yourself a postmodernist? I few years ago you did not, Would you call yourself at least a deconstructionist?

>>And while it’s debatable as to whether (science) makes mere constructions on reality still (the history of science is replete with misguided and prejudiced constructions) … scientific method and endeavour are directed and somewhat befuddled by prevailing ideologies<<

Indeed, it is debatable whether science makes MERE constructs. However, this sounds more like social constructivism of (natural) science, a favourite of litetrary critics whom C. P. Snow saw as the opponents (rather than partners) of scientists. I remember also that you called yourself a social constructivist, Are you still one? Would you see yourself as being on the literary critics’ side of the C.P. Snow barricade?

Social constructivists’ meddling with the philosophy of science - perhaps instigated by Thomas Kuhn - led to the Science Wars at the end of last century that we already had a dispute about here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82274 and the sequel.

You also wrote (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#154625):

>>Humans have an addiction for models ... Pure fantasy. I just don't believe it. <<

As you might remember, representations (scientific theories), models (notably mathematical) are a core concept in my understanding of how (epistemology of) science works. Recently Stephen Hawking, in his The Grand Design also used extensively the model approach to “knowing” material reality.

Is that approach still so much unacceptable to you?

[Only for theists: I like to extend this to beyond science, where the role of mathematical models is taken by narrative, mythological, but also purely speculatively rational (Aquinas?) models of those aspects of reality that cannot be described by mathematical models entering scientific, notably physical, theories.These myths or mythological models - in distinction to scientific models - cannot be supported or falsified through experimentation based on a strict separation of the subject from the object.]
Posted by George, Monday, 16 April 2012 10:04:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Are you sure Aquinas said anything like that?<<

No. But there is so much we can never be truly sure of. Given the enormous volume of Aquinas's writings I'm not about to check. Be my guest.

>>Why would you now advocate Aquinas when, as an atheist, you hardly ascribe to anything he says anyway?<<

I'm not an atheist. I'm not a Christian either. Or an alchemist. Newton was both a devout Christian and an alchemist. Should I ignore his work in maths and physics? Disagreeing with Newton or Thomas on some points of theology is no reason to reject any good ideas they may have. Rejecting good ideas just because the person who had them doesn't share your faith is a logical fallacy not to mention silly.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 16 April 2012 3:43:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,
I’ve argued with many lay-creationists and not one, in my experience, had read or considered the arguments of evolution. I’ve read a few attempted defences of creationism, but nothing compelling.
George,
Thanks for the questions and I’d start by saying I’ve never pretended to be absolutely consistent; indeed I’ve quoted Emerson a couple of times on OLO to the effect that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”. I like to think I’m not wildly inconsistent either, though I don’t dogmatically defend any position or ideology as mine—this is precisely what I accuse too many people of doing; as though once having stated something in haste one is bound to it. Who is it who has such a command of any topic that s/he can be inflexible on one side or the other? I like to think I’m open to challenge and willing to reconsider. I’d even say that our convictions are probably most doubtful, and likely based on predisposition and ideology.

No I don’t consider myself a postmodernist, except in that I subscribe to the idea of the “postmodern condition” Jameson describes in the link I cited. Derrida is more a poststructuralist and deconstruction is its practical side, though deconstruction began earlier and was consummated by Heidegger, following Nietzsche, which ostensibly spelled the end of metaphysics—though I’m sceptical. If you’re interested, here’s an excellent short book on it by an excellent scholar: http://tiny.cc/hl9tcw
Derrida’s deconstruction is linguistic and subscribes to the idea that we’re, at least subjectively, utterly constructed and that all experience, and thus “truth”, is derived from the “symbolic order”, though he doesn’t discount the idea that there’s a “remainder”; Levinas too speculates about “creaturely being”.
I agree that we’re subjectively constructed, but I see consciousness as something more fundamental than subjectivity and possibly exceeding its cultural determinants. I see our subjective enthralment as consciousness’s suspension of disbelief. Despite the hype, science is nowhere near explaining consciousness, and indeed many experts concede it’s unlikely materialism can explain it. At the very least they concede we ought to consider non-material determinants,
tbc
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 16 April 2012 3:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
..cont.
including variations on the old theme of dualism, and even the possibility of something akin to a soul. This will provoke howls of derision, but these “analytic” philosophers argue that nothing should be arbitrarily discounted.
So yes I am a “limited” cultural (rather than social) constructivist, and as I’ve indicated above, I do believe science is at least partly, though substantially, conditioned/impeded/conflated by the host culture, and that research design and findings will almost certainly be coloured by unconscious biases; designing impartial scientific methods remains an enormous challenge.
Russell says that “numbers hold sway above the flux”; I can’t comment.
With the New Atheists I object a) to reductionist notions of philosophical/theological culture—as though these were nothing more than boneheaded theism—which they’ve never read; b) to their apoliticism, which is neoliberalism by default since, as I’ve argued, “empiricism will always confirm the status quo”; c) to their uncritical stance apropos the “macro” and destructive irrationalities the capitalist order is founded on. Simultaneously, they summarily condemn “micro-ideologies” (symptoms rather than the disease) they don’t understand; d) their refusal to consider their own ideological biases; e) the general problematic of making rationalism an institution, without having theorised an existential ethics, and without having considered that humans are inherently irrational/creative/idealistic creatures who are, nevertheless, to be converted and made rational; f) the overall dearth of thinking that’s gone into the crusade.
As I said above, I tend “toward the coherence theory of truth”, as opposed to the “correspondence theory” held by empiricists (and Aquinas), and I trust my comments in that other thread were coherent in their whole context. I’m not above using hyperbole, however, and let’s not forget that all signification, in any case, is highly rhetorical and open to distortion and idiosyncratic interpretation. Are we not all of us constantly misinterpreted?
At bottom I’m interested in how human life could be better; I’m open-minded about what constitutes the human condition, an idealist/materialist mix, but I’m more interested in criticising and addressing the mess we’ve made in the here and now—which science and religion are both complicit in
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 16 April 2012 3:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George says of Squeers, "I really am trying to understand you, labeling you somehow as belonging to this or that philosophical school:"

It's difficult, George. You ask him if he's a post-modernist, he says "no" (consistent with his blanket comment on a thread you cited), then goes on to hammer science as being socially constructed, showing where he stands in the Science War. His stance has shifted and it is simply because it is necessary to prosecute his case against rational scientific thought to attack atheism.

Science is self correcting. People claim all sorts of ideas based on rationalism (not to be confused with rationality) on matters not based in science without ever having them tested. Scientific ideas are jettisoned or amended as they fail. Ideas only hold currency while they are supported by experiments designed to test their predictive capacity. Empiricism is basic to this process, and for Squeers to assert/barely argue that "empiricism will always confirm the status quo" is complete bunk as many a failed scientific idea attests to. To say science is "prone to accept as realities things that are merely evidence of underlying biases and ideological pressures" is the same bs put up by some in the humanities who clearly didn't understand the built-in self-righting capacity built into science.

Science is corruptible, it's true, but in it's normal progress any bias brought to it is snuffed out simply by its process. Still, some dupes see claims on toothpaste commercials as exemplary of bias in real science.

Clearly I'm a realist in the war, so I need not go on. Squeer's attack on scientific truth, the matter he picks me up on, is a short reprise of the post-modernists' side of the Science Wars.

cont'd
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:21:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reason Squeer's "philosophical school" is hard to characterize after having read a lot of him, George thanks to your links, George, is that he borrows what he needs from each school to prosecute whatever the case at hand requires, consistent with his dis-belief in belief. He doesn't really have a strong position on anything, let alone his own supposed atheism. He makes a virtue of the inevitable inconsistency in his positions thus arising over time (e.g. post-modernism)with a fine line from Ralph Waldo.

Therefore, to a degree he's a devil's advocate, so justifying my questioning of his atheism in my last post.

He equates Dawkin's and Hitchin's public appeals with those of tele-evangelists'. They do/did not invite anybody to join in a belief. They appeal(ed) to rationality not insecurity. If Squeers truly thinks that rationale is flawed at it's foundation, and that there is the highest virtue in accepting the limitations of our intelligence, then why doesn't he take the next step and give over to the tele-evangelists who agree with him.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I'm loathe to get in the way of this fascinating debate between Luciferase, George and Squeers, I just wanted to add this piece by Umberto Eco on Thomas Aquinas on the 'concord' he introduced to religious thought.

"...Thomas did not aristotelianise Christianity, he christianised Aristotle. He never thought that with reason everything could be understood, but that everything is understood through faith; he wanted to say only that faith was not in conflict with reason, and that therefore it was possible to enjoy the luxury of reason, emerging from the universe of hallucination. And so it is clear why in the architecture of his works the main chapters speak of God, angels, the soul, virtues, eternal life, but, within these chapters, everything finds a place that is, more than rational, "reasonable." Within the theological architecture you understand why man knows things, why his body is made a certain way, why he has to examine facts and opinions to make a decision, and resolve contradictions without concealing them, trying to reconcile them openly....These are all solutions based on equilibrium and on the virtue he called "prudence," whose job was to "retain the memory of gained experience, to have an exact sense of ends, prompt attention to situations, rational and progressive investigation, circumspection of opportunities, precaution to complexities, and discernment of exceptional conditions."
It works, because this mystic who was so eager to lose himself in the beatific contemplation of God to whom the human soul aspires "by nature" was also alert, in a human way, to natural values and respected rational discourse."
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:55:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

Thanks for the long exposition. I take your answer to my questions to be that you still do not like to call yourself a postmodernist, but subscribe to the idea of the “postmodern condition”, although I did not find the term defined in http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/jameson.htm you gave before. (One probably would have to read the lot to understand what a postmodernist condition is, for which - if I may say so - my stomach has been spoiled by my marx-leninist teachers many years ago).

On the other hand, you seem to endorse Derrida who is usually considered one of the leading postmodernists. I agree that your - actually nobody’s - personal philosophy should not be reducible to only what this or that philosopher, however prominent, taught. Nevertheless, I was looking for philosophical schools for orientation, to help me to find my layman’s way through the labyrinth of words whose meanings is often obscure to an outsider (to postmodernism, constructionism or deconstructionism, literary criticism etc) that I am. So I take it that your approach to philosophy starts from criticism of text (e.g. Gadamer) rather than from science or metaphysics. Am I right?

Another question concerning labels. You call yourself an atheist. Would you call yourself a materialist? From your expressed views, or rather doubts, about consciousness, I would say no. If so, could you explain in what sense are you an atheist but not a materialist?

I also note that you did not comment on my preference for models (actually "representation" is probably to term philosophers use) as a tool in epistemology as related to philosophy of science. I presume this is because you do not see philosopphy of science (which one cannot say much about without knowing some mathematics and its role in forming physical theories) as that important. Which brings me to this:
ctd
Posted by George, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 9:10:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ctd
I am not a warrior on the side of science against literary critics (C.P. Snow’s terms; no postmodernism yet at his time). I think these are two (epistemological?) perspectives that can complement each other: both perspectives can offer insights enriching the other. What has let to “science wars” was a failure to communicate serious philosophical insights, that existed on both sides of the C.P. Snow divide. Where I am biased is only that I believe more nonsense has been written by philosophising “literary criticists” than by philosophising scientists.

However, Dawkins - whatever you might think of the quality of his philosophising, where I probably agree with you - and his apostles are not the only ones who testify to the fact that in our century science (and philosophy of science) is as predominant in the formation of comprehensive (as well as “unsophisticated”) world views, as was theology (and metaphysics, speculations about God etc), in the past. I think also preferences for a coherence or correspondence theory of truth should be influenced by considerations in the philosophy of science (and mathematics).

In the Middle Ages and later you could not be much of a philosopher without being knowledgeable about theology. Today the position that belonged to theology is taken by science, or rather physics, and I would stress, mathematics. It is ignorance in mathematics (and theoretical physics) that led some postmodernist authors make fools of themselves, see Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of Science, Picador 1998 that I have already mentioned elsewhere. I know, there are also public pronouncements by scientists and mathematicians that testify to the authors’ naiveté outside their field of expertise, but as mentioned above, I believe that these are fewer (or at least were, until Dawkins’ explicit scientistic reductionism)
Posted by George, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 9:15:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
The phrase “postmodern condition” is nominally lyotards, but I’m using it literally.
I’ll get back to you later.

Luciferase is increasingly shrill and now makes an impressive scene with his dudgeon, still without having considered my criticism. He knows his raving will secure him kudos, however, from those at least who are equally impressed by the right noises they’ve learned to mistake as argument. Apart from his small-minded howls that I’ve been somehow inconsistent in a way that’s definitive—which he doesn’t explain or demonstrate. He doesn’t need to; the mere charge, and the manner of its delivery, has more effect and costs less effort than a reasoned defence, assuming he could defend his position. He still hasn’t answered a single question or criticism I’ve made against “The New Atheism”. To reiterate, it’s been its institutionalising ambitions I’ve asked valid questions of and criticised from the start, and not atheism or science per se—and now he stoops to the exaggerations, bombast and denunciations of the hack barrister and the indignant preacher. I’ve taken the trouble to lay out my position as clearly as possible, given the constraints of time and space, why can’t he do the same? There’s no content in all his posts together and now, at the whiff of an innuendo, he rails impressively and feigns vindication.
But to the substance of my supposed sins.

<goes on to hammer science as being socially constructed, showing where he stands in the Science War>
I’ve only said what’s perfectly correct, that subjectivity is culturally constructed, not science, and thus that science carried out by a culture’s practitioners is prone to bias and to following its dictates. Science is the cat’s paw. Far from hammering it, I said, “This is not to deny the achievements of modern science”, but then the offending passage:
“but because it takes its evidence (and cue) from the prevailing order of things, it’s prone to accept as realities things that are merely evidence of underlying biases and ideological pressures, thus empiricism will always confirm the status quo”.

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 9:23:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...I wonder if anyone’s bothered to think about this? I know Luciferase hasn’t. It’s actually a paraphrase from a recent essay by John Lancaster, himself paraphrasing Marx—this will only further discredit the proposition in the conditioned minds of some, I realise. The logic, however, derives from Hegel and Lancaster goes on:
“He [Marx] would have particularly disliked the modern tendency to argue from ‘facts’, as if those facts were neutral chunks of reality, free of the watermarks of history and interpretation and ideological bias and of the circumstances of their own production”.
This surely bears thinking about? Or we could just demonise Marx as a “postmodernist” too, to go with his litany of sins.
< Science is self correcting>
This is true to a point. But in that case it had to be ‘wrong’ in the first place, and it’s only self-correcting in its object—which is culturally designated—and not in its context. It took decades to develop the atomic bomb.
Luciferase goes on to make a parody of what I’ve said above, as if I’ve denied the usefulness of scientific method, or that “Scientific ideas are jettisoned or amended as they fail”—this the very mode by which I try to proceed intellectually, which he condemns as “inconsistent”. Science is a mode of postmodernism too apparently! He criticises me for not having “a strong position on anything”, yet the success of science is due “entirely” to its perennial scepticism and unbelief!
<His stance has shifted and it is simply because it is necessary to prosecute his case against rational scientific thought to attack atheism>
I’m not making a case against scientific thought or atheism. Empiricism is a necessarily laborious process, pedantically carried out specifically to try overcome the prejudices and passions that confound human reason. Read Hume! This august personage failed, however, to consider that empirical evidence is both limited to that garnered by the human senses—requiring ever-more sophisticated tools and means of penetrating its surface/sensual appearance—and that the interpreter (scientist) remains prey to the prejudices and passions his pseudo-objective stance is designed to overcome.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 9:24:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
..Cont
I have nothing but respect and admiration for the painstaking efforts of scientists, and for science “in itself”. I only say that its studied-objectivity does not work independently of reason; they work together, and while the latter is often rash, as well as compromised in itself, the former is myopic and indifferent. Science is the tool of reason, and a damn good one, but it doesn’t make a good tradesman. And like all tools, it’s adapted to and does the bidding, conscious and unconscious, of its manipulator—this is one reason why it’s so difficult to construct objective experiments.
The phrase “scientific reason” is oxymoronic—The New Atheist phrase, “Scientific Truth”, is idiotic—(you have to know something about the history of modern philosophy to get this) and Dawkins’s reasoning on religion and society is based entirely on his prejudices and passions. He’s myopic, like a scientist, but makes no empirical analysis whatsoever. He’s slave both to scientific conceit and ideological manipulation. He should stick to biology, about which he knows something and is obliged to be rigorous.
Thus too I’m not making a case against atheism, which is merely a non-subscription I subscribe to, but against the “New Atheism”, which seeks to sterilise society without realising what it is it wishes to purge—or instantiate! It castigates “religion” indiscriminately, as though there’s no qualitative difference among the host. Evidence is ruled inadmissible if it can’t be dissected and the collective miscreant is sent into exile (underground) for being “irrational”. This is the best bit; the empiricist forgets his essentially poor judgement and conflates rationalism with scientific method, as if the reason:empiricism nexus has been spontaneously transcended and the self-appointed high priests of the new atheism are now independently rational—alleluia!
Religion is either, as Marx has it, “a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind”, or it’s “the projection of genuine human needs onto the fabric of the universe”, as Hegel had it; or perhaps it’s a dialectical synthesis. The material point is its symptomatic of human society, or the human condition, and it can’t be rationalised away.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 3:51:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The material point is its symptomatic of human society, or the human condition, and it can’t be rationalised away.*

I think it can be quite logically explained, why religions exist
in the first place, by understanding how brains function.

As people evolved to have large brains, we also evolved to be anxious.
If Squeers had been walking through the woods with his tribe and
lightning struck 8ft ahead of him and killed his best mate, Squeers
would have been highly traumatised. Not able to understand lightning,
Squeers would have been terrified that he might be next. If I had
convincingly explained to Squeers that it was just the sky god and
that if he slaughtered a goat for the sky god, he would be fine,
Squeers would have felt much better believing me and would have
hurried off to perform his ritual.

The brain works by various feedback loops and people are much more
content and less anxious with perceived certainty then uncertainty.
Some read horoscopes, some palms, some tarot cards, some like runner
have their certainty in heaven.

All quite rational and explainable really.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 4:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I'm wondering if we'd never experienced the idea of "the spiritual", if we'd have constructed all the monuments to that side of our perception - art, architecture, prose and poetry which moves us, often in ways we find difficult to fathom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_architecture
I'm mindful of the fact that utilitarian architecture in these days of "rationality" is becoming increasingly brutal and featureless in its aesthetic communication - as if it mirrors man's lost spiritual source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

What a deprived and barren cultural world we would have inhabited if we'd forever been accorded only a rational mind.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:33:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Poirot, we don't just have a rational mind. We think and we feel.
They can often conflict and contradict each other. Just different
parts of the brain in competition with one another as it were.

I can appreciate beauty, as a matter of fact, I love playing around
with sounds, its about rythms and patterns and associations of one
sound to the other. Call it whatever you will call it, but it does
not need to have anything to do with religion.

Why does any kind of supernatural phenomena have to be involved,
for me to appreciate beauty? The emotional centres of the mind
are quite complex, the rational is only one part of what the brain
does.

Large cathedrals were commonly built to impress the punters of the
amazing powers of the church, as it took peoples money and sold
indulgences to the rich.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:52:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers talks his way further into a wet paper bag.

Whatever, to his objections/spurious assertions (a)-(f) regarding New Atheists (posted Monday, 16 April 2012 3:46:19 PM), if my responses are not already obvious or predictable:-

a) to reductionist notions of culture—as though these were nothing more than boneheaded theism—which they’ve never read;

The philosophical/theological dialectic approach to truth-seeking has its sphere of applicability while the rational scientific approach has its own. The problem comes when their conclusions clash or people try to blend them (creation science, intelligent design). That's when the insults fly, from both sides.


b) to their apoliticism, which is neoliberalism by default since, as I’ve argued, “empiricism will always confirm the status quo”;

Empiricism provides the only observation set admissible in support or falsification of scientific hypotheses. Rationalism, by comparison, permits people to "see" what they "want" to see, which may be socially conditioned, so rationalist "observations" are non-admissible. Science comes to conclusions free of such bias, notwithstanding Squeer's all encompassing post-modernist critique. Hence the status-quo is always under challenge and the remainder of (b), including the labels, has no validity in relation to those who come to atheism via empiricism (New Atheists).

c) to their uncritical stance apropos the “macro” and destructive irrationalities the capitalist order is founded on. Simultaneously, they summarily condemn “micro-ideologies” (symptoms rather than the disease) they don’t understand;

As long as democracy exists, expect political parties, comprising both theists and atheists, to pick up on such matters. These are not tied specifically to belief or non-belief (I do not see fundamentalist churches trying to tear down republican capitalism
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:54:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
d) their refusal to consider their own ideological biases;

I'm a scientific realist and Squeeres is a post-modernist critic. I have said enough on that in several posts. See also (b) above.



e) the general problematic of making rationalism an institution, without having theorised an existential ethics, and without having considered that humans are inherently irrational/creative/idealistic creatures who are, nevertheless, to be converted and made rational;

Atheism brings with it no more or less responsibility towards forming civil-societal norms than theism. Enough has been written here about atheism, morals and ethics supporting this view.

Rationality can only be appealed to. Irrational people cannot be converted by rational appeal to become rational. Creativity and idealism are not diminished by atheism and Squeers has not demonstrated, nor can he, otherwise as these are subjectively measured.


f) the overall dearth of thinking that’s gone into the crusade.

"Crusade" (?!!), there must be a more appropriate word :) The objective is to counter, criticize and expose religion by rational argument. Without a worldwide organizational structure or benefit of the pulpit society affords churches, The Four Horsemen (now three) have establishing a strong beachhead, judging from the reaction. Whether more ground is gained remains to be seen.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 8:55:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
>>“but because it (modern science) takes its evidence (and cue) from the prevailing order of things, it’s prone to accept as realities things that are merely evidence of underlying biases and ideological pressures, thus empiricism will always confirm the status quo” I wonder if anyone’s bothered to think about this? <<

What do you mean by “prevailing order of things” when e.g. a theoretical physicist tries to find “evidence” for this or that theory? It is a complicated matter of how and in what sense are such abstract theories or representations (of an a priori assumed physical reality or just of phenomena) found adequate, and many factors enter this process. However, empiricism or “underlying biases” (except you call knowledge acquired through centuries bias) and “ideological pressures” do not enter here. They might be influencing the physicist’s a priori world-view (e.g. theist or atheist, or some more subtle distinction) and thus enter his/her interpretation of these findings.

That is an important distinction. I do not know if Marx or Lancaster made this distinction but from what I know Marx was not an expert on philosophy of science; he used Engels to do that for him. Maybe you wanted to refer to Thomas Kuhn, his paradigm shifts, however his original formulations are much more restrained.

>>Religion is either, as Marx has it, “a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind”, or it’s “the projection of genuine human needs onto the fabric of the universe”, as Hegel had it; or perhaps it’s a dialectical synthesis. <<

There are hundreds of definitions of religion, and they usually reveal something not only about the complicated concept, but also - perhaps mainly - about the author of the definition. Unlike definitions in mathematics, which are usually subject only to mutual agreement.

Yabby,
>>I think it can be quite logically explained, why religions exist in the first place, by understanding how brains function. <<

You can also “logically explain” why this exchange of opinions exists by understanding how computers and internet function. Would it say anything about the contents of this or that post?
Posted by George, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 9:37:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

So, in your estimation, purpose, meaning and inspiration have little to do with religious architecture? If these buildings were only erected to "impress the punters" why was so much care taken to incorporate ancient symbols and religious narrative within the geometric form? Surely, the punters would have been duped by any old nonsense as long as the building looked impressive.

(from the book "Harmony")using Chartres Cathedral as an example:

"...the geometry of the entire building is derived from a circle. Its floor plan is contained within the proportions of a vesica....the centre point of the vesica sits at the very centre of the building...The great Belle Verriere window which depicts the Madonna and child sits perfectly within a vesica and thus perfectly within the floor plan of the cathedral, with every significant point in the design of the window corresponding to key positions in the geometry of the rest of the building. Christ's head sits over the Madonna's heart...the infant Christ's throat, from which the entire Christian tradition was eventually spoken, falls at the very centre of the vesica and therefore at the very heart of the building....the eight stars that circle the Madonna's head fall precisely on the eight pillars that surround the altar....this unifying process is even built into the way the pilgrim was expected to journey around the cathedral...They would enter the building....passing from the world of time to the timeless, and then progress along the left wall, reading the story of Christianity in the windows of the North side of the cathedral. There are in fact three great rose windows in the body of the cathedral and they were also intended to be read in sequence, along with all the other layers of symbolism built into the fabric of the architecture.
Quite clearly not an inch of this entire building is left to chance. Every angle and position conveys symbolic meaning. The medieval Christian architects who designed such a breathtaking structure were following the teachings of the mystics of their age and created what seems to amount to a profound prayer to all of creation."
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 11:53:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.dubai-architecture.info/DUB-GAL1.htm

So Poirot, is religion behind the architecture being built in
Dubai?

Sometimes people, organisations, countries do things because they
can, like when they have far more money than they know what to do
with.

George, brains and computers function a little differently, so
you are comparing apples and oranges.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 3:33:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The trouble with the discussion here, from my point of view, is it's got bogged down in metaphysics verses rationalism, and these are the terms the new atheists want to contest and as I've said, have the running in. But fascinating as all this is, as I've also repeatedly said, I'm much more interested in the hear and now and I'm critical of the New Atheism because it has no vision or larger agenda--which it should have if it wants to organise, but it's just populist, a fad. I'm critical of our "whole" system and not just ideologies within it. Thus I want "macro" reform, not "micro" reform. In fact micro reforms are like pro-biotics, they make the organism stronger. So here's where I part company with both sides, which despite their ideologies are essentially conservative.

I'm away today but will try to respond to other stuff later.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:52:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

>>brains and computers function a little differently<<
So you did not get what I wanted to say. Fair enough. One cannot explain a metapohor. Maybe some people here understood.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:11:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did… But that might just be my superego talking.

If you ever feel so motivated please feel free to explain the Poincaré conjecture (wasn't covered in year 11 general maths), because I definitely don't understand that – nor Perelman's proof.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:41:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There you go Squeers. We differ again. No surprise there.

>>...I'm critical of the New Atheism because it has no vision or larger agenda--which it should have if it wants to organise<<

And I'm critical of it, for wanting to "organize" in the first place.

Organizing around a non-belief is like trying to prove a negative. You can dance around, pointing at circumstantial evidence all you like, but in the end you come up empty. The only possible outcome is a noisy lobby that stands against the privileges that religion arrogates.

Superficially, this is a valid stance. But ultimately it has nothing to do with a belief in a deity, and everything to do with social inequity. So while conventions such as this leave their participants with the warm glow of self-righteousness, their activities have absolutely no connection with atheism.

Witness the keynote speech from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which was basically an anti-Islam diatribe, that took the opportunity to wag a finger at "secular liberals" for being less active in this field than Christians. But what was crystal clear from her complaint was that being atheist has no bearing whatsoever on being anti-Islamic. She would, I'm sure, have been equally anti-Islam in front of an audience of Southern Baptists.

The New Atheist (the caps are significant) movement is well on the way to establishing itself as an alternate religion. Which in my view is the single biggest mistake that it could possibly dream up.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 8:48:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Of course buildings are erected for all sorts of reasons. Their styles change with tastes and advances in technology.
Yet, you don't seem to grasp that buildings enclosing [what is deemed] "sacred space" were/are sanctuaries from the world. They provided a conduit from the corporeality of life to a place of repose and mental and spiritual succour. They were meant to be "read" - to convey a message - not only intellectually, but also spiritually. They provided a material entity that matched the cathedrals in our minds.
Sacred architecture is more than the sum of its parts.

Pericles,

It seems to me that yours and Squeers' views aren't too far removed. He seems to be saying the same thing - that the New Atheism is forming itself into a movement, and if that is the case, does it stand for any objective other than the obliteration of religion as a potent force in society?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 9:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Yet, you don't seem to grasp that buildings enclosing [what is deemed] "sacred space" were/are sanctuaries from the world.*

Poirot, each to their own. I can sit down and look at some of the
beauty in the natural world, far more amazing then any church
which pushes your spiritual buttons.

Buildings are built for quite different reasons. Those with
limited resources, who build functional buildings to serve a
purpose at a price, do so for quite different reasons than
those with near unlimited resources.

Versailles, the pyramids, Burj Dubai, huge mosques and cathedrals,
all represent huge power and wealth. They have little to do with
Jesus or Mohammed, both who led relatively simple lives
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 10:29:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

"They have little to do with Jesus or Mohammed, both who led relatively simple lives"

I agree with you on that one.

Yet the connecting strand is that sacred architecture took the geometry of nature and fashioned it to represent appropriate vessels to contain and nurture the message and hope that the great religious sages espoused. It is all about meaning and message. The grandeur of the monuments is man's rendering of the sublimity of the meaning and message.

As you know, I'm not a "believer", but, like you, I try to understand from whence these things spring.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 10:59:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot on Squeers and Pericles : "New Atheism is forming itself into a movement, and if that is the case, does it stand for any objective other than the obliteration of religion as a potent force in society?"

New Atheism, if it is a movement (to early to tell, IMO), is a defensive one with its purpose being to blunt religious influence. Nothing will "obliterate" religious force or try to stop religion from wielding its influence. As I said previously, the objective is to counter, criticize and expose religion, by the highest possible exposure to rational argument. How can that ever result in obliteration? Pericles and Squeers are making certain demands upon New Atheism based on something which it is not.

The best thing organized religion can do to counter is avoid rational scientific debate, as it has done successfully for centuries, so removing the oxygen from the fire.

Pericles: "The New Atheist (the caps are significant) movement is well on the way to establishing itself as an alternate religion. Which in my view is the single biggest mistake that it could possibly dream up."

So what would be its rituals, sacraments and places of non-worship? All it's got is a convention, bringing this thread back to its beginning, which happens with all sorts of interest groups. Aren't we over-imagining somewhat?
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 2:04:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A "Jamboree" of atheists?!

http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/2012/04/16/the-atheist-jamboree-national-times/#more-1451
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 2:32:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
I certainly agree the world can be explained, or at least rationalised, in naturalistic terms, but for me the court's still out.

Poirot's right, Pericles, I agree entirely with your comment (and I usually agree with you). Please note I always use the capitals to indicate the target of my criticism, an "entity" rather than atheists. It's not that I think atheists should organise, it's that if they're going to organise then they have to stand for something besides atheism--a mere negation--and in fact they do. They're ostensibly micro reformers, but they, or I should say "it", patently stand for liberal rationalism cum libertarianism. And there's no doubt the high priests are drawing up lines between Islam and the West. I had a look at Ayaan Hirsi Ali online and she began by lauding "Western Liberalism" compared to Islamic States. Whatever the faults of such states I don't think the New Atheists should be fomenting Islamiphobia, but more importantly I resent the implicit claim that Western (neo)liberalism is the best of all possible worlds!
Marxists are the archetypal atheists, the whole doctrine is based on materialsim, thus I said early I wouldn't mind if it was a communist plot, but imo this is a right-wing movement that could become more than a fad if it taps into the nationalist ferver that's building up all over the West in the wake of the GFC.
If all this isn't so, it can be put to rest with a little transparency, or better still a manifesto.

Luciferase fails to understand my point above that rationalism remains irrational as a mode of pontification. Calling yourself a rationalist doesn't make you one. I'm sure we all think we're rational!

Sorry George, will get back to you but I'm glad the conversation has taken this turn.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 3:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now I'm completely confused as to who is agreeing with whom.

>>Poirot's right, Pericles, I agree entirely with your comment<<

So maybe I should start again.

There should, in my humble opinion as an ordinary, everyday atheist, be no such movement as "New Atheism". It should not have a leader, it should not hold conferences, and it should not use the term "atheist" in its headlines

Because these people do not represent me. They do not speak for me, and I resent the fact that I am now lumped in with a bunch of self-promoting blatherers who want to eliminate religion from society.

I suspect that in the UK, back in the days when Tony Blair was waffling on about "New Labour", there were a bunch of Labour voters who said words to the effect of "whatever that wally thinks he is doing, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I have voted for in the past".

History now tells us that New Labour was nothing more than a noisy, aggrandising exercise in anti-Tory propaganda. Successful in achieving the downfall of their opponents, but also in destroying whatever-it-was that identified the previous Labour Party.

"New Atheism" will undoubtedly morph into something else, less drama-queen and more sober, just as New Labour has done. Sadly, by that time, it will have created a whole new raft of unnecessary divisions in society, as if we didn't have enough of those already.

Meanwhile, the ill-will caused by their antics will have rubbed off on the rest of us atheists, and we'll be lumped in with them and their knee-jerk intolerance to religion whether we like it or not.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 4:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A jamboree of atheists, Luciferase? Yuk! I'm glad you didn't think it up…

Here is a collective noun that might work, hope it's not too obtuse – it even encompasses Pericles' comments:

'A ration of atheists'.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 4:54:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm still cross. So here's a bit more of the same.

Prior to "New Atheism", I was perfectly content with my ability to respond to enquiries from my Christian friends, about my lack of belief in their God. Or any other God, for that matter. It was simple, straightforward, and left both sides amicable.

Now I am expected to defend the views of Richard Dawkins. Whose books, I have to say, hold absolutely no appeal for me whatsoever, in the same way that books with titles like "Can Man Live without God", given to me by religious friends in an effort to get me to see life their way, sit unopened on my shelf.

I am now supposed to know the names of all these "New Atheist" spokespeople, and to be conversant with their views on taxation, education, Islam and a whole raft of other stuff.

Their views, whatever they may be, might be identical to, or diametrically opposed to mine, on any number of topics. They may also change from time to time, who knows. So how come their are the voices that now define atheism?

Who gave them the right to speak on behalf of atheists? The answer of course is "no-one", they simply decided one day that they would co-opt a perfectly straightforward stance that says "there is no God", and turn it into a commercial bestseller.

There is a word for people who do that sort of thing. History is full of them.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 5:04:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*and fashioned it to represent appropriate vessels to contain and nurture the message and hope that the great religious sages espoused. It is all about meaning and message.*

Well its all about symbols, Poirot. The human mind works by association.
Runner no doubt feels good, when he drives past his
church and sees that cross on top. If you take a look in many Muslim
homes, you will see a picture of the Hajj, where millions gather
in Mecca and hundreds of thousands throng around the black stone.
Now the black stone already had relgious meaning before Mohammed
invented Islam and people worshipped various stone gods in that part
of the world.

So those huge structures, along with the throngs of people, give
comfort to believers and display the power of their various
religions. People are awestruck and it gives them confidence in their
belief.

Squeers, the problem here is not really atheists, it is you and your
pet fetishes. Because people use reason to disagree with religion,
you'd prefer them to use reason to rave on against capitalism and
the cushy lifestyle which we lead.

Pericles is correct. Atheism is one thing. Trying to use it for
all these other pet peeves which people have, makes no sense at
all.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 5:36:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<What do you mean by “prevailing order of things”?>
I mean the political/ideological order, but the implications are more profound than that and I’ve pre-empted the question to a large extent above. Reality is not just “out there”. It might be if we were lions or polar bears, but we’re ideological creatures and reality is not simply something we bump up against. This is not to say we don’t bump up against it, but that these days when we do it comes as a bit of a shock, like if we have a near collision while driving—we’re suddenly appraised of the reality behind the contrivance. This is an exaggeration but the point is that our whole world and everything we encounter is both real and ideological. We don’t individually grow up and go through a laborious process of naming things and thinking up philosophies, we inherit them. Reality is not merely that which is garnered by the senses, it’s that least of all—and they only sense surfaces, though somehow the brain/mind makes “sense” of it all. Reality is what we’ve been taught it is, not directly but by consensus, and our consensus is language, the most mutable of non-things. The physicist is not dealing with reality, though via empiricism she’s attempting to cut through the cultural/symbolic flab to analyse reality direct—though her perspective is still formed by language! True empiricism is extraordinarily difficult, at best, because it’s “not” empirical; empirical evidence is a “translation” of reality into linguistic/conceptual form, and the findings are necessarily rendered in the same terms. Study etymology and note the evolution of language. Why does language evolve? Because it’s not a stable thing apropos reality; it relates, rather, to the symbolic order, to the current take on reality—and of course random mutation.

tbc
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:05:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

The prevailing order of things is the lens through which we “think” we view reality, but it’s only representation, vetted and embellished by the prevailing cultural/social/political order. A full moon is never just the moon; it inspires us, makes us “irrational”. True empiricism is the impossible task of screening all that out until all that’s left is subject-object relations, but what are these without language? Lions and polar bears, who couldn’t give a stuff? What is the subject who cares? Is it merely carrying out the prevailing obsession with the object—like academia, researching for the sake of it, or like bees gathering nectar? Or is it “intelligent”? Wherefore then this intelligence if it isn’t a collective attribute of the hive? The subject is subject to the symbolic order and the object barely exists in itself; this ought to be the rationale of the atheist—and so it is with Marx—how else does he explain human prescience? The object is always second-hand, and so is the subject, thus the atheist is a collectivist. The liberal-rationalist cheats—he’s an ego-maniac after all—and “rationalises” the problem as pure “correspondence” between subject and object. But why then the need for empiricism? The theist, with some justification, calls it God-given. Reality is either available to us individually, which suggests something essential, like a soul, or it’s culturally “processed”, and “this” is what we’re scrutinising—processed reality. This might seem verbose, but I can’t be more succinct.
Yabby’s a master at reducing things; perhaps he can find suitably dismissive terms.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 7:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wrote: “Rationality can only be appealed to. Irrational people cannot be converted by rational appeal to become rational.”

Squeers follows: “ Luciferase fails to understand my point above that rationalism remains irrational as a mode of pontification. Calling yourself a rationalist doesn't make you one. I'm sure we all think we're rational!”

We’d better get down some definitions:
*Through empiricism knowledge comes from sensory experience
*Through rationalism knowledge comes from reasoned deduction.
*A rationalist arrives at knowledge through rationalism.
*Rationale is the deductive pathway followed by a rationalist
*Rationality is the exercise of reason.

Someone irrational (lacking rationality) is unable to properly reason, hence engage in rationalism.

For example, despite being patently obvious, after thoroughly convergent reasoning (some described on this thread), that the Noah story of the bible can’t possibly be true, people still swear it’s entirely true. I hope Squeers would agree such people are irrational. If, instead, he’s saying we’re floating about mad in some Lewis Carroll universe and all rationale is equally absurd, he is again parading his post-modernistic dogma.

In real science, empiricism is the arbiter of whether knowledge arrived at through rationalism should be kept or jettisoned. Beyond science, such knowledge, whether true or false, is valid regardless. (It’s worth explaining here, for Squeers’ sake especially, that if empiricism supports a proposed hypothesis, it does'nt simultaneously prove the rationale underlying the hypothesis).

It’s clear he doesn’t really understanding how science works (experimental design, validity, models), which gentleman George is too polite to say plainly. Hence he remains lazily committed to post-modernist critique of science while simultaneously denying it!

Whatever, it’s all irrelevant as in his last two posts he reduces all argument to a stream of consciousness. A cue for my exit, so thanks all for the great thread and discussion
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 10:16:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Yes it is all about symbols. How else to transmit message and meaning? And you can reduce it to the cold bare boards of neuroscience as much as you will, but you'd miss the sublime essence of human experience.

Einstein said:
"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:45:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, symbols depend on the eye of the beholder. Now take modern
art. A true story, from when I was living in Europe. Picasso
was an the unveiling of one of his paintings and a woman in the
crowd went up to him and asked him what the painting meant to him.
"One million francs, Madame", he replied.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 19 April 2012 3:37:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
>>Calling yourself a rationalist doesn't make you one. I'm sure we all think we're rational.<<
How right you are! One cannot define “being rational” - only appropriate it - because the attempted chain of definitions sooner or later becomes circular.

Of course, one can similarly say that “calling yourself a moral person doesn't make you one. I'm sure we all think we're moral!”

Indeed, calling your opponent in a debate irrational (as some atheists do) or immoral (as some theists do) is just name-calling and does not lead to mutual understanding.

Coming to your exposition, I think I can understand it better than your previous essays. Thanks.

You can look at reality studied by social scientists and/or represented in arts (or religion) through a (natural) scientist’s “epistemological prism” useful when investigating physical reality. And you can go about it the other way around, i.e. look at physical reality investigated by (natural) scientists - notably physicists - through a social scientists’s “epistemological prism” useful when looking at reality studied by social scientists and/or represented in arts.

I think e.g. Dawkins and co are “guilty” of the first one-sidedness, you of the second. None of this is wrong, only gives you a distorted image of what you are trying to understand. Your approach offers only a limited extension of what I have known about philosophy of science, however, it offers a good insight into how the world is being seen by those on the other side of the C. P. Snow divide, or the “Science Wars”.

So I shall not comment on what you wrote sentence by sentence. Let me just pick on
>>our whole world and everything we encounter is both real and ideological.<<

As mentiioned, ideology - unless you suitably redefine it - does not enter a serious (as seen by his/her peers) scientist’s investigation. I don’t think the metaphysical/religious concept of “absolute truth” makes sense in a scientific context, however there is something called “pursuit of truth”, which is a very important principle guiding a scientist’s work.
Posted by George, Thursday, 19 April 2012 7:46:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
When you cite me thus:
>>Humans have an addiction for models ... Pure fantasy. I just don't believe it. <<
You then seem to infer that I’m making a statement about mathematic models, when the full quote is this:
>Humans have an addiction for models and patterns, to which we are all expected, ultimately, to conform. Pure fantasy. I just don't believe it. Life's a complete adventure for every individual--each one of us is a "host" of random and innate variables, and life's an inspired use of what's at hand.<
The preceding context of this little riff was my thinking on the validity of a universal ethics, whether religious or secular. My point was that both were bankrupt because neither Christian nor constitutional ethics were observed by church or government hierarchy; indeed they’re like snakes coiled round each other. My point was/is that that the individual citizen’s ethics should be drawn not from authority, whether God’s or Man’s, but directly from the example of State polity. The administrators of the State should, ergo, exemplify State ethics. Incumbency would then be tantamount to debasement and ethical responsibility, rather than privilege, advantage, celebrity and hypocrisy, as now. Isn’t this Jesus’ message? Yet we have the wealth and corruption of the Vatican and governments that no ritual washing of feet or hammy debasement at election times can mitigate. But that was another topic.
The point here is that I wasn’t talking about mathematical models, then or now. I’ve frankly admitted in the past that I have no higher maths. I thought answered your question and reiterated my mathematical debasement in this thread when I said: >Russell says that “numbers hold sway above the flux”; I can’t comment.<
Beyond this, you seem to want to extract some kind of confession from me that I’m a disciple of one school or another, that I’m the product of some kind of institutional thinking, when I’ve said before that I left school at 14 and am in all honesty self-taught, through reading, and aspire to be a genuine free-thinker.
Not sure if that’s any help?
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 19 April 2012 7:58:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

From Charles Darwin's autobiography:

"Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds...gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took immense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry. I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also lost almost any taste for music....My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of fact,, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive....The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature."

Squeers,

Einstein reckoned that once the mathematicians "invaded" the theory of relativity, he no longer understood it himself. He said also: "To the extent maths refers to reality, we are not certain; to the extent we are certain, maths does not refer to reality."
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 19 April 2012 8:58:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, from my list of quotable quotes:

Science is the poetry of the real world. Richard Dawkins.

Then another, seemingly written just for Squeers:

Knowledge is the process of piling up facts, wisdom lies in
their simplification.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 19 April 2012 9:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Science is the "poetry" of a world devoid of emotional landscape.

http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/

..."The lone and level sands stretch far away".....
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 19 April 2012 9:59:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Loren Eiseley was one of the most distinguished American science writers. In "The Last Neanderthal", and on his way to expounding on the sheer organisation of animal and plant metabolism as one of the most remarkable tendencies in nature, he tells the story of his encounter with a dead dog.

"...On the edge of the littered beach beyond the port I had come upon a dead dog wrapped in burlap, obviously buried at sea and drifted in by the waves. The dog was little more than a skeleton but still articulated, one delicate paw bony paw laid gracefully--as though its owner merely slept, and would presently awaken--across a stone at the water's edge. Around his throat was a waterlogged black strap that showed that he had once belonged to someone. This dog was a mongrel whose life had been spent among the island fishermen....He had romped briefly on shores like this of which he had been returned by an indifferent sea.
I stepped back a little hesitantly from the smell of death, but still I paused reluctantly. Why, in this cove littered with tin cans, bottles and cast of garments, did I find it difficult to turn away? Because, the thought finally came to me, this particular tattered garment had once lived. Scenes of the living sea that would never in all eternity recur again had streamed through the sockets of those vanished eyes. The dog was young...it was of that type of loving creature who had gamboled happily about the legs of men and striven to partake of their endeavours.
Someone had seen crudely to his sea burial, but not well enough to prevent his lying now where came everything abandoned. Nevertheless, vast natural forces had intervened to clothe him with a pathetic dignity. The tide had brought him quietly at night and placed what remained of him asleep on the stones..."

How different would be this tale if Eiseley only had recourse to scientific rhetoric. Science is only "poetic" when translated emotively to human perception.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:27:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Poirot, but I think you are mistaken.

Science is poetic in the sense that you can read it or listen to and it can evoke emotion, especially of the revelatory kind.

It forces you to think about things differently, and this can happen in art or science.

Truth does that sometimes.

It does not need to be 'translated emotively to human perception', whatever that really means, to be poetic. Unless you mean that only humans perceive poetry.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is all just wonderful!

I loved your quote Yabs...

'Knowledge is the process of piling up facts, wisdom lies in
their simplification.'

Personally I love a simple solution to a complex problem;-)

I find it interesting all this deep thought and quoting geniuses and such and there seems to be an agonising here but no real meeting of minds. Now is the exercise in itself really enjoyable, as I don't perceive that, I perceive more frustration, and slight anxiety here.

So, say, in a weeks time, how will you all feel about this intellectual exercise? If you will bare it no more thought, what have you really taken away from it all? I dunno, are you lot thinking about all this stuff all the time, or only on here. Don't you want to think about more personal or I dunno immediate pragmatic self reflection or something?

I sympathise with Yabbs, is all this pontificating going to lead anywhere?

I seriously think you'd all get more out of a good walk in the park.

It's reminiscant of what my mind goes through when I have a high fever, all this talking and theorising in circles.

'A ration of atheists'

LMFAO Trev!

'*Philosophy and religion are just a crock of sh!t that you've grown out of?*

I see them a bit like golf or knitting. Great for those who are
inclined to invest their time in them, but personally I have other
preferances'

Yabs you're in fine form!

Personally, I like other people talking about all this. I find it entertaining watching them twist away. There's something I like about the Rhythm and Energy in it all. I sometimes imagine them all just going Bahahahha. We're talking sh1t. Aren't we? Bahahaha.

Generally I cant communicate or adequately express the themes that come into my brain. Maybe I'm transferring this onto them. It's against my spirit to try to work the world out too, as I'm scared I would succeed, and then it would all be boring, and scared I wouldn't succeed, and feel silly I wasted my time.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 19 April 2012 1:28:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Who gave them the right to speak on behalf of atheists? The answer of course is "no-one", they simply decided one day that they would co-opt a perfectly straightforward stance that says "there is no God", and turn it into a commercial bestseller."

That's not a problem caused by the atheists, but by the religious that can't think of anything outside a flock of sheep and straw man positions. Welcome to the issue of understanding. It's not all other atheists that should shut up so that you don't have to explain your disbelief.

Outspoken atheists don't speak for everyone anymore than a homosexual speaks for all homosexuals, a christian speaks for every christian, an author speaks for all authors, a philosopher for all philosophers, a TV presenter speaks for all TV presenters ... or you speak for anyone but yourself. Dawkins doesn't speak for me, I have disagreed with him on many points and issues (and yes I have met him) and I don't sit there resenting the fact he is outspoken over his thoughts.

The problem seems to me to come down to the fact they are projecting what they think better than you are, and you don't like it.

I would also point out many of those you term 'new atheists' don't take the stance there is no god, but that there is no sufficient evidence for a god, and XXXX is why they don't believe, and/or XXXX is the problems they have with religion.

Many of these positions are held by many atheists, many are not. One only has to have gone to an event like the GAC to see diversity of opinions and ideas from different atheists.

Maybe you should look at the issue of how atheism is perceived by believers and not just do the same thing. Those that are outspoken are simply putting forward their views, they shouldn't have to refer to the fact you hold differing opinions every time they are asked for yours.
Posted by woot, Thursday, 19 April 2012 1:56:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, if you can find a copy of Daniel Goleman's "Emotional
Intelligence", it was a global best seller, it would pay you to
read Chapter 1 once again, ie What are Emotions for?"

Let me quote:

"All emotions are, in essence, impulses to act, the instant plans
for handling life that evolution has instilled in us".

It goes on in quite some detail and would certainly be worth it for
you to read, as the topic seemingly interests you.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 19 April 2012 1:59:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Once again, I agree with your comments; I said myself above that the New Atheists were just another mode of identity politics, only incongruously conservative. They don’t speak for me either and I think their larger ideology (though not necessarily all their unsuspecting members) is neoliberalism.
George,
<Coming to your exposition, I think I can understand it better than your previous essays.>
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not; certainly I essayed to answer the question, but couldn’t have been in briefer.
< I think e.g. Dawkins and co are “guilty” of the first one-sidedness, you of the second.>
I refute this completely, unless you care to elaborate what looks like your own binary reductionism—what you accused me of above when I said:
< Religion is either, as Marx has it, “a register of the theoretical struggles of mankind”, or it’s “the projection of genuine human needs onto the fabric of the universe”, as Hegel had it; or perhaps it’s a dialectical synthesis.>
I thought it was clear from the context that I was referring a) to the “religious impulse” and b) in the context of Hegel’s and Marx’s thought—idealism verses materialism. I wasn’t attempting to reduce the “hundreds of definitions of religion” to two.
This though a shrewd question:
< could you explain in what sense are you an atheist but not a materialist?>
and the very problematic I’m working on, though in the sense of being both an idealist and a materialist, rather than either or. I don’t have an answer as yet but I can say I don’t subscribe to the meaningless universe school of thought.

Poirot,
I like your quotes : )
Houellebecq:
The “Bahahahha. We're talking sh1t. Aren't we? Bahahaha.” Is Sponge Bob and Patrick, right? I’d know that laugh anywhere!
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 19 April 2012 3:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is precisely what I have been trying to get across to you, woot.

>>Maybe you should look at the issue of how atheism is perceived by believers and not just do the same thing.<<

You have painted a big red target on the back of atheism, first by calling it Atheism, then by having a conference for Atheists. This is how "believers" are now able to categorize atheists, by giving them all the attributes of Atheists.

>>Dawkins doesn't speak for me, I have disagreed with him on many points and issues<<

You obviously have no concept of public relations. Perceptions are everything. It may well be true that you disagree with Dawkins (I'd be intrigued to hear where you differed, by the way. Care to share?), but that is not what an outside, biased observer will see. They will simply grab the opportunity to lump you all together, and assume that because I am an atheist, I subscribe to the self-promotion of Atheism, and its rather unsavoury side-effects.

>>The problem seems to me to come down to the fact they are projecting what they think better than you are, and you don't like it.<<

"Better"? That is moot, woot.

Is it the size of the audience that determines "better"? Is it the number of books they write that determines "better"? How can the projection by one person of the concept "I do not believe in the existence of a deity" be in any way different from mine? Ten words, that's all it takes. How are those words "better" when articulated in front of 4,000 people?

>>I would also point out many of those you term 'new atheists' don't take the stance there is no god<<

Then what does the word "atheist" mean, in this new construction?

>>One only has to have gone to an event like the GAC<<

You have just underlined my point, very effectively. If the "A" in GAC now does not mean "atheist" in the sense that an atheist "takes the stance that there is no god", you have now drained it of all meaning.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 19 April 2012 3:54:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The battle lines have clearly been drawn between 2 vehemently opposed parties. This inevitably means thinking people must look for a third alternative:
I strongly avoid calling no thinking people to not join the New Agnostics. You must not swear to not believe or disbelieve in the existence or non existence of any God or Gods, but even more importantly;
DON'T TELL ANYONE;
as it has been clearly established (by Dawkins &co) that it isn't religion or religions or anti religions which cause war and conflict, but rather
Proselytisers;
as the New Atheists become the Jehovah's Witnesses (and 7th day Adventists, and Mormons) of Atheists even to other atheists.
Now we find out who's really the most anal in sorting out double negatives.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 19 April 2012 8:28:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq,
>> Now (Nor?) s the exercise in itself really enjoyable, as I don't perceive that … I seriously think you'd all get more out of a good walk in the park. It’s reminiscent of what my mind goes through when I have a high fever…<<
Then why do you read these discussions, even throw in the spanner if you feel like that? There are many topics/threads on this OLO that I cannot follow, don't understand, lack sufficient information, find futile etc. However, I don’t feel the need to react like this - I simply don’t read them and if I do, I don't parade my disinterest or ignorance.

Poirot,
>> Einstein reckoned that once the mathematicians "invaded" the theory of relativity, he no longer understood it himself.<<
That is understandable. Newton would probably not have understood what Lagrange, Hamilton etc made of his original insights into mechanics, and we used to joke that neither Newton nor Leibniz would pass our first year exams on calculus.

I appreciate your second Einstein quote. The exact wording is “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (Geometry and Experience, 1921). I used to have it displayed on the door of my room at the University, since I saw it as a kind of raison d’être for the need to distinguish between pure and applied mathematics.

It inspired not only my preference for the language of models to describe how mathematics and physics see (physical) reality, but also my formulation in another context: “As far as religious symbols (and norms) refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced) they are not certain; as far as they are certain they do not refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced)”.
Posted by George, Friday, 20 April 2012 7:27:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

I actually think you are right that science can give rise to wonder and, therefore, is poetic in its revelation.

I suppose I was thinking of its transmission between humans, and the kind of rhetoric used to convey scientific thought. In order to transmit the awe of discovery and realisation (or even to get to get to that point), intuition, imagination and emotion are necessary to complete "meaning".

Our humanity is the point from which everything else resonates.

Every part of Eiseley's passage about the dead dog led back to a human core - this is why it moves us.
If he had simply elaborated on the materiality of a decaying carcass on the shore, it would have been hollow of the ability to render "poetic meaning".
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 20 April 2012 7:29:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
Thanks for continuing in these discussions.
>>The preceding context of this little riff (addiction for models and patterns) was my thinking on the validity of a universal ethics <<
Apology, I apparently erroneously concluded that the context was science, or more precisely philosophy of science, where I (and apparently also Hawking) like to use the term “model”. Hence my curiosity. I did not know that the word was also used in the context of ethics, universal or not, which I don't want to go into not only because I do not feel sufficiently competent, but also because I don't want to open another can of worms.

>>when I’ve said before that I left school at 14 and am in all honesty self-taught, <<
Well, you certainly did not say that in a debate with me. Now I am completely surprised, since I sincerely thought you were a professional philosopher, or at least a PhD student of philosophy. If that requires that I apologise again, so be it, however I really mean this as a compliment.

>>Not sure if this is sarcasm or not<<
If you feel that I treat your expositions - that I wish to understand because I feel I cannot dismiss them offhand - with sarcasm then I really failed to communicate with you.
ctd
Posted by George, Friday, 20 April 2012 7:30:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ctd
>> I refute this completely, unless you care to elaborate what looks like your own binary reductionism<<
I am not sure what ”binary reductionism” you “refute completely”. The two possible perspectives related to the two ways natural scientists and literary critics or social scientists look at the world are well described in the original C.P. Snow’s “The Two Cultures” (1959), and in what constituted the “Science Wars”.

Snow calls those who see things differently than (natural) scientists literary critics, in the “Science Wars” they were the social scientists or social constructivists (of all reality including what the scientists investigate). A good collection of papers credibly representing both sides, both perspectives, is e.g. “The One Culture?” (Ed. J.A. Labinger, U of Chicago, 2001) or “The Sokal Hoax” (Ed. editors of Lingua Franca, Uni of Nebraska, 2000).

I could not summarize the variety of opinions expressed in e.g. these two collections, in 350 or so words, even if I understood them all. However, I feel you would find also your views well represented in one of the contributions. I was just warning against using the one perspective to make far reaching statements about the state of affairs that the other perspective sees better.

So no need to get piqued; these are just two mainstream perspectives, one making sure the other does not get ensnared in sweeping - scientistic or “postmodernistic” respectively - generalizations.

Also, by pointing out that there were hundreds of definitions (and that, in case of religion, they convey something about the authors) does not mean I was accusing you of attempting to reduce them all to only two.
Posted by George, Friday, 20 April 2012 7:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George I am a PhD student, in my final year, and am in English literature but my dissertation has ranged into continental philosophy and is a critique of the school of thought known as Cultural Materialism. But I came to university very late when my wife died and I had to quit work to bring up the kids. So yes I am the dreaded literary critical theorist, but I'm as appalled as anyone by some of the excesses and banalities the school (all schools!) is ocassionally guilty of, and I was up on the arguments before I went to university. Besides, as I say, my thesis is a critique of the impasse that theory has led us into, though it's impossible to not be influenced and impressed, at the same time, by the insights deconstruction, for instance, affords us. I've no doubt your own area expertise affords comparable, or even superior insights.
I recall out discussions on the topic, though not in detail, but I did get the Sokal book also--I haven't read much of it but have to say I wasn't particularly impressed. Can you recommend particular parts or arguments in it I should look at? That would save me the bother of trying to read the whole thing, which unfortunately I don't have time for.
I do disagree with the doctrine of constructivem, though there's no doubt in my mind, as I've said, that we are subjectively constructed.

I should have realised you weren't being sarcastic, sorry, it was just the use of the word "essay" which these days tends to be synonymous with prolixity, rather than an "attempt".
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 20 April 2012 7:56:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
Thanks for the kind words.
>>I recall our discussions on the topic, though not in detail, but I did get the Sokal book also--I haven't read much of it but have to say I wasn't particularly impressed. Can you recommend particular parts or arguments in it I should look at?<<

There are three things to be distinguished:

(i) The Sokal hoax itself - the parody “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” published in ‘Social Text’ in 1996, that triggered the Science Wars;

(ii) The book by the authors Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, “Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of Science”, Picador 1998 mentioned in our earlier discussions, c.f. e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82275;

(iii) The two books - collections of papers commneting on (i) mentioned in my previous post.

You can fully appreciate (ii) - the ridiculous nonsense written by some postmodernists - only if you know some higher years’ mathematics and theoretical physics. The associated world-view, the authors explain there, might indeed feel too one-sided in the sense of my previous posts.

I own both the books mentioned in (iii), and have annotated some of the papers. However, it is now ten years or so that I read them.

In “The One Culture?” (Ed. J.A. Labinger and Harry Collins, U of Chicago, 2001), the second editor - sorry, I omitted him before - is a a social scientist, so you might prefer to read his two articles. Anyhow, you can easily decide which contribution you want to read, by the affiliations of all authors listed at the end.

The second book in (iii) - called “The Social Hoax: the Sham that Shook the Academy - has a reprint of (i) as well as of Sokal’s paper in Lingua Franca where he explains why he wrote (i). Here the most “anti-science” paper seems to be that by S. Aronowitz, although I don’t think you will completely endorse it.

As for the scientists’ perspective, articles by Steve Weinberg (physicist and atheist) in both books are most illuminating, and in my opinion he is also philosophically not as shallow as Dawkins.
Posted by George, Friday, 20 April 2012 9:08:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
the book I have is "Beyond the Hoax" (Sokal 2008), a hefty tomb that covers the whole saga. It's been mostly gathering dust as some of it's over my head, but I'll have more of a dip. If you have a copy perhaps you can recommend sections, otherwise I'll look at passages connected to some of the names you mention in the index.

All the best.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 20 April 2012 9:30:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"This is how "believers" are now able to categorize atheists"

Atheists have always been atheists, the target has always been on disbelievers. It has just come to the point where many are not going to just sit silent and take it anymore.

"You obviously have no concept of public relations. Perceptions are everything."

Perception has had the religious claim rights above and beyond others, simply because they have a belief in an afterlife. It's not about 'selling' atheism to believers, it's about being recognised for the diversity we are and having believers deal with it. Why should we pander to religious sentiment?

"I'd be intrigued to hear where you differed, by the way."

I've had discussions with him in regard his scale of 1 to 7, with himself being 6. Putting forward this concept has reinforced the incorrect assumption that agnosticism is a middle ground of belief.

Agnostic/gnostic is in regard knowledge. Atheism/theism is in regard belief.

I am gnostic atheist in regard the abrahamic gods as I know they could not exist because the properties claimed present logical paradox, therefore impossible. I'm agnostic atheist to the concept of a wishy washy deistic god as I cannot know such a god does not exist.

I do not have a belief that a god exists, therefore atheist.

"Better?"

There are multitudes of concepts, yes, but I was referring to the ability to express to a large audience.

"Then what does the word "atheist" mean, in this new construction?"

It's not a new construction. Atheists simply lack a belief in the truth claim a god exists. Some atheists may say god does not exist, some atheists may say they do not know (agnostic).

Lacking a belief in the god claim however makes them atheist.

"If the "A" in GAC now does not mean "atheist" in the sense that an atheist "takes the stance that there is no god", you have now drained it of all meaning."

Atheism means godless. Lacking a belief in a god. It is not the claim that a god does not exist.
Posted by woot, Friday, 20 April 2012 10:47:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for explaining your position on theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic, woot.

>>I am gnostic atheist in regard the abrahamic gods as I know they could not exist because the properties claimed present logical paradox, therefore impossible. I'm agnostic atheist to the concept of a wishy washy deistic god as I cannot know such a god does not exist. I do not have a belief that a god exists, therefore atheist.<<

It certainly gives insight as to why you feel the need for a forum on the topic. I am still struggling with the concept "gnostic atheist", which sounds very much like someone who barracks for both Carlton and Collingwood.

But please, please don't try to explain it to me. I have enough trouble discerning any difference between Methodists and Baptists, and to get into a similarly angels-on-pinheads discussion does not interest me in the slightest.

But may I disagree with this, briefly.

>>Atheism means godless. Lacking a belief in a god. It is not the claim that a god does not exist.<<

In the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William Rowe presents the primary definition of atheism as "the position that affirms the nonexistence of God". He does allow a secondary position, "simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God", but I think he was maybe just pandering to the normal debasement of the language that occurs over time.

But it would appear that there are turning out to be as many brands of atheism (witness Dawkins' "scale" - what a cop-out!) as there are religions.

To me, it is a binary situation: God? yes or no?

Any position in between is most definitely of interest to philosophers, and is a gravy train of some significance for those who spend their lives pontificating about it. And in the abstract, your rank-and-file human can have many a fun hour musing over life, the universe and everything. Possibly even wondering whether they are a four, or maybe a five, on the Dawkins-meter.

But to otherwise allow it to impact one's life is to me nonsensical.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 20 April 2012 11:22:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good to meet you George!

'Then why do you read these discussions, even throw in the spanner if you feel like that?'

I explained that. Come on, read my post again George.

' I don’t feel the need to react like this - I simply don’t read them and if I do, I don't parade my disinterest or ignorance.'

Well, that's you. And this is me. I feel the need. mmm-m. I like a parade. A parade of disinterest and ignorance is even better. It warms the cockles of my heart to know you care though.

If you cut out religious topics lately there is precious little left on OlOlOlOloLo.

There's Arjay's crazy theories, Foxy's child like innocence on political matters and worshipping of New Matilda and there's Butcher hating workers, Belly defending them Shadow minister doing what he does and, yeah-na not much happening.

But, I do I find it amazing that people are still after hundreds of years discussing whether god exists. It interests me this question is so part of people's lives and that they care so much. I read OLO to watch the personalities. The topic is neither here nor there. I find the actions and reactions interesting.

Though I do like Poirots new everything is Poetry idea, though I say that's just a natural derivative of everything is art. It's wonderfully mawkishly spellbinding around here at the moment.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 20 April 2012 11:49:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot I actually think you are right that discussions on religion can give rise to wonder and, therefore, are poetic in their revelation.

I suppose I am thinking of the transmission between humans, and the kind of rhetoric used to convey philosophical thought. In order to transmit the awe of discovery and realisation (or even to get to get to that point), intuition, imagination and emotion are necessary to complete "meaning".

Which means I have stumbled on the truth that Athiests are believers really when you boil it down.

As The Offspring said 'The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care!'.

(You have no idea how much fun I get by quoting popular culture references in reply to quotes from the great minds of our time, especially on a serious theistic thread)

See, it's the energy here, the aura. The vibe! OUG would say I am attracted like a bee to a flower, not knowing that it's god's purpose!

'If he had simply elaborated on the materiality of a decaying carcass on the shore, it would have been hollow of the ability to render "poetic meaning".'

I disagree. Have you ever heard Roy Slaven talk about 'Bush-Junk'.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 20 April 2012 11:55:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellie,

Surely your bladder must be empty by now.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 20 April 2012 12:00:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It certainly gives insight as to why you feel the need for a forum on the topic."

Straw man much? as in ...

"But please, please don't try to explain it to me."

You asked for a reply, I explained.

"But it would appear that there are turning out to be as many brands of atheism"

Maybe you are slowly working it out?

Atheism has no brands. The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in a god, outside that differences and similarities run the full gamut. It's a problem you seem to be stuck on that all those at the convention didn't seem to have. We are diverse, always have been. We came together as atheists, to celebrate reason.

You seem to want to argue that 'we' should not be speaking up about our lack of belief because it rocks your atheist boat and that of the religious.

Many of us don't fit in your narrow definition of atheism, nor will. Our view of what atheism means, whether you like it or not, encompasses the diversity of atheists, yourself included.

The GAC had some speakers discussing the positions you seem to be putting forward now, and others discussing other positions, so I find it kinda funny you just projecting it one way because of your focus on specific speakers.

That's not a problem with the atheists that accept our diversity, it's a problem with folk that don't. Yet here you are in a public forum doing exactly the same thing we were doing in person. Except we were accepting and celebrating our diversity, our promotion of reason over faith, not stamping our foot and complaining about the other 'corrupting our atheism'.

"To me, it is a binary situation: God? yes or no? "

Do you believe in a god, or not? (no?)

Do you think you can know if a god someone claims exists or not, based on properties presented? (depends which god and what's claimed of it?)

Two different logical spheres, regardless of you seemingly not being able to discern the difference.
Posted by woot, Friday, 20 April 2012 12:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lmao Poirot!

If I believe I am god, does that make me an athiest? I believe in no higher power, as I am the highest power!

Whaaaat if gaaad was one of ussss....

There's one thing for sure, just by being so concerned about god, the atheists show they really care. That's close enough to respecting the idea of god enough to prove to me they're scared they're wrong at the very least. They protest too much man.

The only cool people in the house are the agnostics, who pay god no mind.

It all reminds me of The Fish called Wanda and that guy popping up saying 'Don't call me stupid'.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 20 April 2012 12:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love your riffs, Houellebecq, which are actually quite philosophically respectable--and you're funny!
Wodehouse is hilarious, but he's also actually quite deep, if you're deep enough to get it, which paradoxically takes humour, as well as a master of language. In fact we're the only one's capable of laughter, I think, which means we can laugh at ourselves. And what could be healthier!

Anyway, Houellebecq, I always enjoy you're two cents worth.

Bahahaha! Bahahaha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QRZMISgDJ0
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 20 April 2012 12:27:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, you might appreciate Houellebecq better by regarding him as the OLO version of pre-Socratic Democritus...
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 20 April 2012 1:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*In order to transmit the awe of discovery and realisation (or even to get to get to that point), intuition, imagination and emotion are necessary to complete "meaning".*

Poirot, the thing is, imagination, intuitition and emotion are part
of how the mind works. Just different parts to the rational centres.
People piss on as if there is something magical to being human.
Sorry, but there is not.

Squeers, Sokal was the bloke whose name I could not think of, who
showed that alot of what comes from French philosophical circles
is just noise set to impress. Clearly you have been sucked in.
Ah well
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 20 April 2012 2:47:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really, woot?

>>Atheism has no brands<<

You already gave me a couple - gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist. Dawkins seems to have seven, although he apparently gives them numbers, not names.

So it's a bit late for you to now try to claim that:

>>The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in a god<<

I was quite surprised to see this, given your earlier statement that...

>>I would also point out many of those you term 'new atheists' don't take the stance there is no god<<

Do I need to spell it out? These are entirely inconsistent positions, woot.

But if you are confused as to where you fit on the spectrum of non-belief (yet another contradiction in terms, for my money), go right ahead, get together and have a good old chin-wag about it. It makes sense to sit down and learn from atheists of other denominations...

>>...accepting and celebrating our diversity, our promotion of reason over faith, not stamping our foot and complaining about the other 'corrupting our atheism'<<

Eh? Who mentioned "corruption"? Oh, that's right. You did.

But in practical terms, the only unity you are able to paste onto the front of all these different branches of non-belief, is where you all agree to slag off religion[s]. Which leaves the door open for all sorts of people to point at you for being narrow-minded and vindictive. And which, it would seem, is a badge you also wear with pride.

>>The convention is simply a reflection of the huge amount of people that are sick of religious influence and privilege, ...sick of the arrogant, misinformed and bigoted approaches those that hold faith positions present<<

You are beginning to sound like the very people you despise for their arrogance and bigotry.

Incidentally:

>>Do you think you can know if a god someone claims exists or not, based on properties presented?<<

Absolutely I can. It doesn't.

Not a "different logical sphere" from "I do not believe in the existence of a deity" at all.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 20 April 2012 4:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"People piss on as if there is something magical about being human."

Good then, Yabby. You inhabit your world of cut and dried rationality - and I'll continue to glean a little inspiration and 'magic' whenever it comes my way.

I don't give a toss whether it's "how the mind works" or if it's God or whatever. Some things elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world - and they are worth pondering simply for the feelings they arouse.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 20 April 2012 4:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby:
<Squeers ... Clearly you have been sucked in.
Ah well>

How is your conclusion "clear", Yabby?
I've been dipping into Sokal, who calls himself an "old-fashioned Leftist" and spends a great many words qualifying his former position, with the benefit of hindsight. His main complaint seems to be about "sloppy thinking"--like the sample you've generously provided here, thanks. And he objects to the kind of politically correct thinking that insists dreamtime accounts of history, for instance (my for instance), are just as valid as history construed from documentary and artefactual evidence. I agree with him to a point--and this is an interesting one for Christians--but then what right do we have to deny say aboriginal mythology in favour of anthropology, when we still have so many creationists ourselves? I've read Clifford Geertz and Hayden White, as well as Dawkins and Gould and others, btw, have you?
Postmodernism correctly says that there are any number of discrete histories beside the official ones written by the victors. Indeed Herodotus was arguably the first postmodernist. Science has written a few crackpot histories itself, such as the history of Homo Sapiens (wise man) examined in Stephen J Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".
I have an inscribed first edition (full of pressed flowers as old as the book, I think, that still retain their colour, beautiful!) called "The Fairy Tales of Science: a book for youth" (1859) that follows science from "the four elements" and "The Life of the Atom" to "The Magic of the Sunbeam", "Modern Alchemy", "The Invisible World (microscopy)" and even "A Flight through Space". All discovering the magic of science, somewhat patronisingly, to the young, but strictly according to the lights of the day.
All wrong, albeit charming.
Sokal's hoax was certainly an embarrassment for the editors of "Social Text", but both he and C P Snow have been engaged with and I defy anyone to declare a winner based on a fair analysis of the evidence.
Every year we have the "ignoble prizes" handed out to a packed field of candidates for the lamest science.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 20 April 2012 5:40:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good stuff too Poirot!

As long as you feel the magic, real or not, that's all that matters. It goes to my earlier point about why it doesn't even matter, because regardless of god not existing, you may not either. You're in my reality though, you lucky thing.

'Some things elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world'

Just curious Poirot, but have you ever tried any mind altering drugs? They definitely elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world. I think I have learnt all sorts of things over the years, and the appreciation you get in simple things changes, I know it's an unpopular view, but I wager my mind is expanded. One state trades on the other, and the training of the mind under the influence has saved my life twice when I couldn't rely on my mind for reasons of Nitrogen Narcosis and also... well, that's private.

I think Yabbs enjoys his senses and seems to be enthralled with nature, even if he doesn't think it's magical. He just sits quietly watching the sheep while he does it, and grunts out of the side of his mouth. No flies get in, and if a flowery Hollywood director were to see the expression on his face, there would be a blockbuster in the making.

Even the artists of the world would queue up to paint Yabbs, 'Man gazing at Grazing'. There's a prestigious art prize in the making. Dare I say it would be poetic.

I think the two of you mesh well. Just like Yabby would kick the dust and spit at the airy fairyness of it all, and the producers would yell Bravo! We've got something very special here! The more kicking, the more applause.

Contempt and idolisation, in perfect harmony.

squeers I see you one sponge bob and raise you Rasta Mouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GwUV4GHLvA
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 20 April 2012 5:42:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You already gave me a couple - gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist. Dawkins seems to have seven, although he apparently gives them numbers, not names."

Oh Pericles, is that what you call a brand? lol, read up on it, it's a scale of belief he uses that includes theism. It's nothing to do with a brand of atheism.

Gnostic and agnostic have naught to do with belief. It's a descriptive term about knowledge, not atheism, which is lack of belief.

"Do I need to spell it out? These are entirely inconsistent positions, woot. "

No they aren't, read what I wrote. "The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of a belief in a god" then "I would also point out MANY of those you term 'new atheists'..."

Note MANY.

Please try and keep up.

"the only unity you are able to paste onto the front of all these different branches of non-belief, is where you all agree to slag off religion[s]"

See, someone else that has no idea what they are talking about.

There were speakers that EXPLICITLY confronted ridicule of faith at the convention. You just conveniently just box all attending into your assumptions, probably because you are fixated on a couple of speakers and assume everyone else is too.

Where you even there? Obviously not.

"Not a "different logical sphere" from "I do not believe in the existence of a deity" at all."

So if someone says they don't believe in a god, but say they cannot know that a god exists for sure, you reckon they are not atheist?

hurr durr
Posted by woot, Friday, 20 April 2012 6:31:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Some things elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world - and they are worth pondering simply for the feelings they arouse.*

That's fine by me, Poirot. Whatever floats your boat. Some people
thrive on "magic", personally my enhanced perception comes from
further understanding, as the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Which reminds me, I really should start an internet business selling
pixie dust, I betcha heaps would actually buy the stuff!

Houllie actually has a point. I do spend quite a bit of time
observing other species including the dogs and sheep. I even had a
pet lamb once called Lucky (cause she was frigging lucky alright)
and brought her up with the dogs, until she had to accept the reality
that she was a sheep and had to interact with other sheep. I learned
heaps. And for Squeers benefit, even some dogs have a sense of
humour.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 20 April 2012 6:39:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Here you go again, presuming to know "what floats my boat". I used the term "magic" to denote myriad perceptions that are common to human experience.
Never mind the Pixie Dust. You run a great line in flippant arrogance when it suits your agenda - and in keeping with the Spongebob motif, I vote you the "Squidward Tentacles" of OLO!

Squeers,

"....and this is an interesting one for Christians--but then what right do we have to deny say aboriginal mythology in favour of anthropology, when we still have so many creationists ourselves?"

Reminded me of a passage by Pascal Boyer in his book "Religion Explained" where he told the story of a dinner at a Cambridge college where the assembled guests had been discussing 'witches and other such exotica', when:

"...a prominent Cambridge theologian turned to me and said: 'This is what makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficult too. You have to explain how people can believe in such nonsense.' Which left me dumbfounded. The conversation had moved on before I could find a pertinent repartee--to do with kettles and pots..."

Houellie,

As to whether I've tried mind-altering substances. When I was a kid, I liked to put ice-cream in coca-cola. Does that count? : )
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:23:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, Poirot has given me an award. Why thank you, Poirot :)

Hey, there is no problem with all that magic floating your boat.
Whatever gets you through the night, its no concern of mine.

But if the boy would like some real pixie dust, just let me know,
I could sell you some.

If the Catholics can sell so many people a ticket to heaven, then
I should have no problem flogging the pixie dust online.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:46:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm disappointed Poirot... You haven't taken the opportunity to make the ironic observation that you've now lived to see -

Athiests preying.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:48:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,

>>the book I have is "Beyond the Hoax" (Sokal 2008)… If you have a copy perhaps you can recommend sections,<<
This is a different book to Fashonable Nonsense and Sokal was apparently encouraged to write it because of the success of the latter.

I read the book - most of it - some time ago, and reported about my impressions in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10189#167444 and the sequel. I was not terribly enthusiastic about what it says, nothing comparable to what I felt when reading Fashionable Nonsense.

So if you care about my advice - after rereading now what I wrote two years ago, and due to the fact that you own the book - I would suggest you read Part II, no need to read Part III (Part I is a kind of apology for things that happened between Sokal and the “post-modernists” about 15 yeras ago). You will get a comprehensive (apologetic?) explanation of a physicist’s view of things, though I find Steve Weinberg mentioned in the previous post still more philosophically sophisticated though not as systematic as Sokal in your book. And, of course you will find no discussion, no presentation of the social scientist’s position, as you would in the two collections mentioned before sub (iii).

Houellebecq,

I appreciate that you accept we two have very different approaches to discussions on this OLO, especially those where we might be tempted to feel some nonchalant superiority (e.g. finding the discussion “reminiscent of what my mind goes through when I have a high fever”) over those who take the discussion seriously.

WmTrevor,

>>George, you might appreciate Houellebecq better by regarding him as the OLO version of pre-Socratic Democritus...<<
Well, maybe. I objected to the quote, not to Houellebecq, whose other contributions on OLO I do not remember having seen. Now I have read more and agree I should have simply ignored that post. As for Democritus, as far as I know there is nothing that would indicate he used a language comparable in form to what I objected to.
Posted by George, Saturday, 21 April 2012 8:06:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

As I'm not up with the pros and cons of Pixie Dust, I googled, and came up with this:
http://www.fairies-secrets.com/pixie-dust.html

Apparently Pixie dust is standard Fairy Dust supercharged with Sparkle - a bit like rationality supercharged with smartartistry....both create effect over substance.

"Yabby, the Fairy King" - yep, I can go with that (might embarrass your dogs, though :)

WmTrevor,

Very good!
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 21 April 2012 8:20:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Poirot, this Pixie Dust is certified genuine and comes to
you for a mere 19.95 plus p&h. The magic coming your way will
elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world.

Given that pet rocks sold extremely well at the time, this thing
should zoom with online sales around the globe.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 21 April 2012 10:08:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferace may have disappeared from the scene, but I would like to respond to some of his later posts, for what it’s worth.

His fairly straight forward but not particularly robust definition of rational thinking concluded with ideocentricsm, meaning he thought could declare who was rational and who wasn’t. As others pointed out, we all think we’re being rational generally, or at least most of the time.

Luciferace, you claim to understand better than others how science works. You also claim that the story of Noah can’t possibly be true. I presume that implies that the Nohaic accounts have decidedly been proven false, although I’m not sure how anyone could arrange such an experiment to come to such a grand conclusion.

But here I offer a few facts: in the light of some saying there isn’t enough water for a global flood, mountain heights and ocean depths averaged out as a whole over the earth would make us all quite wet; fossilised sea creatures have been found at quite high altitudes; continental drift does suggest significant movements of the tectonic plates. This is not offering up any kind of proof, but just the opposite; it is to say that things are a long way from being proven.

So Luciferace, you talk about ‘insults flying from both sides’resulting from creationists holding certain views. Insults flying have nothing to do with deep philosophical positions. Insults arise from people lacking in certain civil niceties, such as grace, patience, and tolerance. Although I can understand when two parties are both making truth claims in similar domains when both cannot possibly be true at the same time, then certain egos and pride will naturally arise. Sparks may fly. And creationists clearly are making certain truth claims in the face of those who hold other positions. Yet this is not in itself reason enough for intemperance and intolerance.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 21 April 2012 10:52:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Dan .....

So God didn't raise the water level, he just dropped the land level ? Well, why bother getting it to rain in the first place, just level out all the land and bingo ! We're all under water.

And then, when everything except what was on the ark has drowned, lift the land again.

Brilliant ! That'll teach the b@stards to feck around with Me !

And those atheists know in their bones that it's all true.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 21 April 2012 1:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>continental drift does suggest significant movements of the tectonic plates.<<

Indeed it does. But that movement is not just significant: it is exceedingly slow. The figure that sticks in my mind is that continents drift about as fast your nails grow. Google could probably give you some actual numbers for plate tectonics.

Most Biblical literalists go with Bishop Usher's chronology and so they argue that the flood happened sometime in the last 6000 years. If it was the result of geological rather than meteorological engineering there is no way the world could have gone from its soggy averaged state to its current topological state in the time frame available: the tectonic plates don't move fast enough. If they did in the days yore and don't anymore we would have geological evidence of that: we don't.

Even if we ignore Bishop Usher because he was wrong Genesis 7 is quite explicit that the floodwaters rose for a mere forty days: for that to happen by geological mechanisms those tectonics plates must have been sliding around at a rate that would make Usain Bolt envious. There is no evidence that this ever happened and it isn't supported by any geological theory I'm cognizant of. Genesis 7 is also quite explicit that rain was the cause of the flood:

Genesis 7:12
KJV

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 7:17
KJV

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

TBC
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 21 April 2012 2:41:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>This is not offering up any kind of proof<<

Dude: it's not even offering up a plausible hypothesis. You're going to have to do better than that. To get an idea of what a plausible hypothesis should look like you should familiarise yourself with some hypotheses which are not just plausible but which have been tested scientifically: you can find them in any geology textbook.

>>So God didn't raise the water level, he just dropped the land level ? Well, why bother getting it to rain in the first place, just level out all the land and bingo ! We're all under water.

And then, when everything except what was on the ark has drowned, lift the land again.

Brilliant ! That'll teach the b@stards to feck around with Me !<<

Why didn't God just kill all the sinners? All this radical meterological and/or geological engineering seems like a lot of unnecessary stuffing around when He could have just worked a quick miracle and killed everyone He wanted to instantly and directly. The whole Ark thing was so overly complicated that it invited a cock-up: what if some of those sinners had stowed away? It wouldn't have been too hard. They could have dressed up as pantomime horses. Or hid behind the dinosaurs.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 21 April 2012 2:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks George,
in between acting as chauffeur over the last few days I've been reading the book fairly broadly, including part two, and I think I must have read it fairly substantially before because much of it's still familiar. And while I haven't read the earlier texts you mention, I'm familiar with the after-effects; indeed those working in the Humanities enjoy precious little respect from the lay or professional community since, and governments of all persuasion need very little encouragement to fire off yet another broadside at the Humanties. We've had the history wars and culture wars as well since and nobody who understands the arguments can possibly refute them; very few people do though (know the arguments) and they're too easily dismissed as "postmodernism", a wholly bad thing with nothing to recommend it, in the popular mind.
Looking at Sokal, I haven't said anything he'd object to. He only objects to extremes of relativism, constructivism and solipsism, in favour of a "modest realism". He's actually properly sceptical himself, and often qualifies his criticism with telling admissions, such as "we emphasise that we have no idea how widespread these positions are" and "I admit that we have no direct, unmediated access to external reality". He criticises Derrida for intruding on his turf, yet rationalises his own uneducated incursions into philosophy. He argues that scientists observe a "rough and ready realism", that we all adhere to for practical purposes, but acknowledges this shouldn't be taken for granted.
I think the problem is an old one; a prejudice that's all to eager to dismiss valid arguments along with the loose ones espoused by a few. Historians of science would recall when the shoe was on the other foot!
The New Atheist movement is case in point; a noisy cohort of Ditchkins-groupies eager to treat "religion" with the same contempt and ignorance that postmodernism is brushed off with. Religion is founded in nothing but irrationality too, it seems, while science is not to be gainsaid!
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 21 April 2012 6:03:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan,

Aren't some of us having fun ?!

Plate tectonics, continental drift - it all sounds so casual, fancy-free, bits of continents roaming around from place to place, bumping into each other, moving around a bit more, lifting up, dropping down, such fun.

Except that the process seems to be a bit more drastic and brutal that that: in the Indian Ocean earthquake on Boxing day, 2004, the plates moved a few feet, enough to cause a vast tsunami that killed a quarter a million people.

From the little I know, the process is incredibly slow, but when there IS movement, it can be catastrophic. Tectonic plates seem to take about two billion years to move from one pole to the other and back, i.e. to travel all the way around the world, i.e. they've done it maybe twice during the existence of the Earth. Not exactly ripping along: like Tony says, moving at about the pace that your fingernails grow - but also, not at a steady pace, more in jerks. Called Earthquakes.

The Gilgamesh story, that the Noah story is based on, is another charming story, the sort that people have been ingeniously dreaming up to explain mysteries for thousands of years. Sometimes these may be garbled versions of earlier oral accounts of something which people thought might/must have happened, with bits exaggerated, bits added, bits dropped out, the gist modified, more bits added, etc.

Keep it coming, Dan.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 21 April 2012 6:12:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony,
I’m quite aware that continental drift is today measured as slow to virtually non-existent. I know some of the standard theories. I still think there’s room to think differently. And as for a detailed hypothesis, I’ll leave that to those more qualified than myself. Others have done it elsewhere.

I see you entertaining hypothetical conjecture as to what God might have done differently or better or why he did what he did. Before such speculation, I would first like to consider what he allegedly did (what was written). For example, you say the flood waters rose for 40 days. But it also says that the flood remained high for five months. And in the verse just before the one which you quoted, there seems to be some indication of tectonic activity.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month–on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 21 April 2012 11:50:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George and all,
Above, I recommended a slim volume by Simon Critchley as an antidote to the kind of one-sided world-view favoured by the New Atheists and religious fundamentalists—you can get the book for under $10 here, including postage: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=critchley&sts=t&tn=continental+philosophy&x=0&y=0 –anyway I decided to take my own advice and have been re-reading it. It’s devoted really to the divides that separate our institutions and, as such, is bent on restoring some balance to the force—intellectual/spiritual (for want of a better word) forces that is—and all the issues debated in this thread are dealt with, including C P Snow, who was a novelist as well and was critically jilted by F R Leavis and, coincidentally, conceived his two cultures thesis after that.
It’s an accessible little book, and a thoroughgoing defence of continental philosophy in the science wars, that if read thoughtfully ought at least to give pause to both sides. Apropos empiricism, J S Mill was a rare individual who assimilated both sides, of what Critchley calls the Bentham/Coleridge divide—between utilitarianism and romanticism and “truth” and meaning—into his world-view. Once quizzed on his inconsistency he said, “I believe in spectacles”, then added “but I think eyes are necessary too”.
As I’ve said, I’m an atheist, in the sense that I don’t believe in any of the God’s we’ve invented, but I don’t want to throw the bathwater out with the baby, or rather the embryonic fluid-spirit in which the baby was nurtured. Whether the rationalists like it or not there’s an idealistic/spiritual/aesthetic aspect to human “being” that, imo, precedes the cultural watermark—BTW George, I think we were at cross purposes above with the term “constructivism”; I was referring to social constructivism of the subject, and not Sokal’s bugbear, the social-construction of science; though certainly, as I’ve argued, the major challenge for empiricism is filtering out social/historical corruption—also, like it or not, empiricism is mere instrumentalism without the animating and discriminating faculty of reason. Neither is reason empirically-derived or rational in itself; it’s an attitude, an affect that still must contend with its demons.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 28 April 2012 8:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers,
>>I recommended a slim volume by Simon Critchley as an antidote to the kind of one-sided world-view favoured by the New Atheists and religious fundamentalists—you can get the book for under $10 here, including postage<<

Thanks for the tip. I just downloaded the Kindle version from amazon.de for EUR 4.88, and hope I shall learn something new. In my times, "modern" continental philosophy (as opposed to British analytical or logical positivism) was usually Heidegger and the ensuing existentialism, but maybe here it is something else.
Posted by George, Monday, 30 April 2012 9:07:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 53
  7. 54
  8. 55
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy