501. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54948 by Rtambree on July 9, 2007 at 12:08 pm

>she'd cut my b---s off if I strayed

Perhaps you have no choice then, your subconscious is too terrified of the consequences of thoughtcrime. Either way, she's a lucky woman and you're a lucky man.

502. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54944 by Rtambree on July 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm

36. Comment #54941 by gordon

>Even with the wide possibilities that dreams allow, she still turns up. Why?

Are you newly wed? Are you married to a model? Is she a divorce lawyer?

503. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54942 by Rtambree on July 9, 2007 at 11:57 am

35. Comment #54940 by gordon

>Rothko isn't deep

Fair enough. It's just that some of the praise heaped on Rothko suggests there's some transcendent quasi-religious experience going on.

Perhaps it's simply that some people resonate to different influences.

I find the Cavatina in the Beethoven Op130 string quartet gives me the same response that Rothko fans describe from his paintings and vice versa. I accept that.

504. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54938 by Rtambree on July 9, 2007 at 11:46 am

To all the evolutionary psychology skeptics out there, are you doubting both the interpretations and the statistics or just the interpretations?

I think evolutionary psychology is better than astrology, philosophy or wild speculation (as suggested on this forum), as the article's claims are testable and falsifiable. Some of the above claims may be wrong, speculative, half-right, or just describe one of several contributing factors, but they're more scientific than the navel-gazing introspection and semantic contortions of philosophy.

To the skeptics, are there any evolutionary psychology claims you do accept? Some claims e.g. such as men prefer youthful women and women prefer high status men, are fairly universal and backed up by reams of evidence.

Here's a question where humans seem unique - why do women compete with each other to get men, whereas in most other species the female just sits back and chooses from a host of suitors? Is it the variability in male resources (both their Y chomosones and bank accounts) and the exceptionally long investment to ensure offspring reach maturity?

Ben Kington mentioned that preference for low weight is culturally, not biologically programmed. I think the evidence confirms innateness more than the other way around (yes there are exceptions, just like the dowry system can make parents kill their offspring, or charismatic cult leaders can drive people to suicide, but nevertheless these are abnormal situations).

Another reason for preferring slim waists may stem from concealed ovulation - a man doesn't want to be spending his resources raising another man's offspring, so a slim waisted woman would more likely not be pregnant, whereas it is more difficult to tell with a fat woman. So it may not just be about health.

Rothko - I don't get it, although I've given him a good go. I see people sitting in the Seagrams Murals room at the Tate Modern stroking their chins. Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.

505. The Panel

Comment #54156 by Rtambree on July 5, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Yes, Iron, etc and a few other heavier trace elements have N>P so DQ>UP, but since we have so much more water in us, I would assume UQ>DQ overall. Although I wouldn't bet my house on it - all sorts of weird counter-intuitive statistical effects can come in effect. For example, the fact that we're breathing in the same O atoms that Napoleon breathed in... all the time. That's weird.

Yes, you're right about p=e, so there must be 2UQ for every e. Thanks for that.

As for the neutrino v anti-neutrino, that explanation is as clear as mud. Every textbook definition of antimatter always gives the electron - positron as examples (opposite charge), but that doesn't work for neutrinos.

How about 10 more pop science questions...

1. What's the next closest relative to us beside the chimp, gorilla and orangutan?

2. Approximately what percentage of the variation in our genomes is race-related?

3. What's the greater contributor to Earth's core heat? Radioactive decay or residual heat from its formation?

4. What's the closest star to our Sun? (careful)

5. What's the largest satellite in the solar system?

6. What planets don't have satellites? (careful)

7. If Einstein had his Annus mirabulis in 1905, when was Newton's?

8. Who is considered the father of the scientific method?

9. If you're an observer falling into a black hole, how do you perceive the outside universe as you cross the event horizon?

10. What is by far the most oxidising element and why?

And a bonus question...

Why does the standard model need gravitons as gravity's force carrier when General Relativity explains gravity as simply the geometric curvature of space?

506. The Panel

Comment #54072 by Rtambree on July 5, 2007 at 7:36 am

Good one Mushroom - I think you can now do Robert Winston's or Susan Greenfield's job as public science communicator.

1. Matt Ridley quotes 24,000, same as all other mammals.
2. Bromine and Mercury
3,4,5 Yep.
6. I don't think this is something that one knows, but it can be worked out. The answer is neutrinos, not because they're "yours" but because gazillions pass through your body every second. I'd say electrons would be the next most common fundamental particle, and then up-quarks (because there are more protons in your body than neutrons) as we have a lot of light elements.
7, 8 & 9. Yep.
10. Yes, there's supposed to have a tiny mass because they change type. As to what the difference is - there's supposed to be a set of properties other than charge, that can be the opposite or anti e.g. isospin, etc. I'm not really clear on this - I was hoping a particle physicist on this site could clarify this, although each time I ask one, I get a different answer.

507. The Panel

Comment #53864 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Some more pop science questions:

1. How many genes do humans have?
2. Name the elements that are liquid at room temperature?
3. Which planet is the largest solid body in the solar system?
4. How long has the sun got before it expires?
5. What gas do we breath in more than any other?
6. What fundamental, irreducible (as far we know) particles do we have more of in our bodies: up quarks or down quarks or electrons or neutrinos?
7. Which has more mass, a proton or a neutron?
8. Name three revolutionary ideas Einstein discovered in 1905?
9. Which planet's orbit didn't reconcile with Newtonian physics?
10. What's the difference between a neutrino and an anti-neutrino?

(ok, that last one is hard, even many scientists have trouble with it)

Red Foot Oakie, very brave of you.

508. The Panel

Comment #53839 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Red Foot Oakie

1. The answer to just about every chemistry question is "charge". The biosphere is just a bunch of jiggling charges and largely empty space.

2. 4.56gy +/- a few hundred million.

3. Yep - depends on how exact and detailed an answer one wants.

4. Semantics. Depends on your definitions.

5. Actually it's the shorter wavelengths that get preferentially scattered. The photons hit the electrons of the atmospheric gases, the electrons jump up an energy level, and then jump back down, releasing the photon again in a random direction.

6. Yes, entropy always increases. Its discovery was the death of the clockwork universe metaphor, popular after Newton.

Here's some more to have a go at, just off the top of your head...

1. Approximate age of the universe?
2. Approximate age of (anatomically modern) homo sapiens?
3. Closest relatives to humans? When did they split?
4. What are four basic states of matter? What's the most common? For bonus points, name two more states of matter?
5. What's the difference between leptons and fermions?

Here are some trick questions:

1. Who was the naturalist on board the Beagle when it set off in 1831?

2. The Moon orbits the centre of the Earth. True or false?

3. Watson & Crick discovered DNA. True or false?

4. Darwin discovered evolution. True or false?

509. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53836 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Gordon...

RE: Breeding opportunities.

You picked a superstar of science. If you compare average with average of each field, then you'd get a different result.

In any case, in modern society, you need to distinguish between proximate and primary motivations for breeding. Most men, even low status ones, can breed with someone, but why do men compete to get the more desirable partners? Male income seems inversely proportional to female dress size. Humans are an unusual species in that females also compete with each other to get better males, rather than just sitting back and choosing from a host of suitors, like most other animals. It's probably something to do with the large investment needed to raise a human from birth to independence.

If science literacy got you desirability points (income, status, etc) I think our brains/culture are sufficiently plastic so that the impediments of de-anthropocentrism and intellectual difficulty inherent to science would be overcome. We'd all jump through whatever hoops we had to. The desire for status trumps everything else and can manifest itself in many different ways (strength, bloodline, fame, wealth, beauty, intelligence, power, hunting prowess, generosity, humour, health, etc).

510. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #53822 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 11:43 am

A Jonathan Miller talk on religion is on at the British Library in London on 3rd September 2007...

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/sacred/events.html#multi

511. The Panel

Comment #53799 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 8:30 am

Robert s

>I was disappointed that none of the responses - not even the 'right' one - attempted to address what happens in the light bulb to convert the electricity into light. There's some important physics there, particularly when you compare GLS and fluorescent lamps.

Yes, I noticed this too - if I was put on the spot with that question I would have been focussing on the filament, discrete quanta and blackbody radiation curves, rather than merely the closure of a circuit.

The physics you mention are very indeed very important. Perhaps if the panel included a physicist.

I wonder if some science disciplines require a broader knowledge than others e.g. an astrobiologist would know some geology, astronomy, biology, atmospherics and fluid dynamics, cosmology, etc.

I would expect an astrobiologist to get more of these pop science quiz questions correct, than say a mathematical physicist would.

I would also expect scientists as a whole would get more art questions correct than artists get science questions correct.

512. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53765 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 4:29 am

No argument - asking questions is fine - anyone can and should ask questions. Bertrand Russsell famously reduced philosophy to speculation about what we don't know. I've no problem with artists, writers, philosophers, asking questions, so long as they don't pretend to get answers from their art or philosophy, because the history of ideas suggests that they'll just about always be wrong, without "having a look empiricially" - which is science. Even Copernicus was wrong - the planets don't travel in circular orbits in uniform motion. He didn't do experiments.

>the cultural visibility of the arts as oppose to science. Scientists need to raise their game in terms of presentation.

Yes, this is an interesting debate - is it a presentation problem, a medium problem, or do humans have to lift their game in coming up to meet the facts rather than have the latest research nestled in a text-box between Paris Hilton's legs.

Obviously, the cultural tautology of having arts graduates in the media will reinforce arts-related topics as ones you hear about. These arts issues will become "important" and the public will improve their social standing if they get plugged into who painted what, who composed what, who wrote what, etc.

Scientists spend all their time cocooned in their laboratries rather than writing for mainstream journals. On top of that, the research usually requires mathematical ability to comprehend, and it almost always dehumanises aspects that people cherish - e.g. heliocentrism, Darwinism having chimps 99% human, neurology undermining free will, etc.

So it's three things: 1. the disccomforting message of science (de-anthropocentrism), 2. the intellectual difficulty of science (maths and other counter-intuitive aspects), and the lack of being able to distribute the message (i.e. most media run by arts graduates).

In the end, being scientifically-literate as opposed to the arts-literate gets you less breeding opportunities - basic evolutionary psychology unfortunately. Look at what we pay our celebrities in the media, and what we pay our scientists.

513. The Panel

Comment #53764 by Rtambree on July 3, 2007 at 4:10 am

20. Comment #53714 by Krister Bratland

>I beg to differ.

From your own source that you quoted...

"Electric currents in solid matter are typically very slow flows. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm², carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second."

So you can see, it's not the flow of the actual physical electrons from the power station to the light bulb that causes it to shine when you switch it on, it's the flow of the charge.

The official answer given to the question in The Panel is correct, with the wording being charges, and not electrons. The point is merely that Susan Greenfield's answer was technically wrong.

514. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53705 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 6:21 pm

A good discussion, Gordon. Thank you.

>My point is that a seeking and rational world view is not exclusive to 'scientists'

No, it's not. But scientists are in the best position to do the breakthroughs in understanding, and then, and only then, can artists, etc join them in accepting the new knowledge. My point is that no artist ever discovered a genuine truth themselves through art.

> I also cannot distinguish between thinking as an artist to that of thinking as of a scientist or philosopher.

I can. An artist seeks to express his feelings - a response to the world. A scientist deliberate tries to negate his feelings (e.g. double blind).

>Where is the dividing line?

The dividing line is between emotional response (broad definition of beauty) and truth. In this sense, beauty is not necessarily truth.

The test of time:

On the surface, your criteria of the "test of time" as distinguishing between high quality and low quality art seems like a reasonable one. But there are still all sorts of arbitrary means by which a work can achieve LONG term fame - it can be stolen, or controverisal, or appear in a film, or fetch a record price, or the love life of the artist was controversial, or the artist was charismatic, or his earlier works were popular so his later trash survived beyond its merit, or the artwork was oft parodied, etc thus achieving a critical threshold where it has its own momentum in the meme-o-sphere. This can apply equally to "trashy" or "highbrow" art. There's no objective means to distinguish the difference.

Yes, I agree with your comments on postmodern rationalisations and descriptions for contemporary art. The obfuscation is proportional to how vacuous it is.

Understanding? I don't see how art (doing it or viewing it) can lead to any understanding about the universe? Solving dark energy? Relationships between species? Answering the great metaphysical questions?

Art is generated by intuition, which is an exceedingly poor tool in understanding the universe. If we guess, we will almost always be wrong. If we "feel" the answer is such and such, we will almost always be wrong.

515. The Panel

Comment #53702 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 5:57 pm

It's the charge that moves, not the electrons. Electrons' A to B drift velocity is far slower than walking pace.

>I defy anyone to know everything

No, of course not, but these were basic questions for scientists, especially public science communicators who have each done numerous BBC shows and written numerous books. They, especially, should know the answers to questions like the age of the species, age of the Earth, age of the Universe, etc, etc.

I would even argue that all educated people, not just scientists, should know the basic outline of humanity's relationship with each other, to the Earth, and with the cosmos. What are the accepted ages of the Earth and universe? How closely related is the closest species? When did they diverge? The spread of human migration around the Earth? How does energy get formed in the sun and then used in our bodies?

Issues like these should be every bit as compulsory in high school curricula as Shakespeare or Pythagoras' theorem.

516. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53671 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 1:13 pm

>Eye candy? Why does art have to be beautiful.

It doesn't. To continue the food analogy, not all desserts are sweet - some can be bitter or sour. Then again art critics can label the grotesque, tortured subjects in Francis Bacon's paintings as "beautiful", so it's all subjective. Artists are very good at stringing together words to spin art to a "higher, transcendent" plane.

My gripe with artists is their pretension of undercovering deep truths about the cosmos.

>Only an idiot will declare himself as an artist who sees the truth,

Then, we're of one mind, Gordon, and there is no dispute between us. CP Snow's point about the Bloomsbury Group and other elite artists were that they were the self-appointed intellectuals of the day and the only ones qualified to make pronouncement of the issues of the day, when we now see, so much of their elitism, eugenics, and advocating whatever psychology fads around at the time, was wrong.

We can have a dicussion about shock art, schlock art, celebrity-driven art, highbrow versus middlebrow versus lowbrow art, modernism versus classicism, representational versus abstract, dissonant versus tonality, etc, and in the end it'll be your subjective preference (filtered through your genome, neurons, and culture/upbringing) versus mine (ditto).

I put it to you there is no independent verfication about what constitutes a good work of art versus a bad work of art - indeed, there is no objective reference about what constitutes ANY work of art in the first place. It's all so subjective. One can argue all one likes - lots of clever literary phrases with big words and "-isms" and quoting all the great art critics and theorists, but it's all rhetoric. One person's late Beethoven string quartet is another person's Kylie Minogue. Yes, it's pluralism at best, and relativism at worst.

517. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53657 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 12:21 pm

14. Comment #53651 by gordon

PS, I also paint Altar pieces

Yes, you mentioned that in your previous post.

Why the separation? I think CP Snow's Two Cultures reaction stems largely from the Bloomsbury Group that appointed themselves as intellectuals. The Victorian novel was the medium of public discourse in ideas.

We need to separate out the idea of art-as-truth from art-as-beauty. There's nothing from with the latter. Good art is a trigger mechanism for dopamine, oxytocin or whatever neurotransmitters are responsible for giving you the nice aesthetic experience when viewing/listening to/or reading. It's what desserts are for the taste buds - there are fine desserts and cheap desserts, but the sugars and fats have give the pleasurable sensations are understood.

The problem comes when artists, and art proponents see art as truth. The only understanding of the universe one can extract from art is the understanding of cognitive biases in the brain: e.g. anthropocentrism, over-attribution of agency, the recounting and embellishing of narratives... all governed by aesthetic rules, both innate and cultural. No artist ever discovered any deep universal truths - they are always wrong, just like most scientists throughout history have been wrong... such as the Ptolemaic or orthodox Copernican models, Freudian psychoanalysis, Newtonian physics in relation to the orbit of Mercury, Lamarck, etc.

If most scientists get things wrong, what chance do artists have?

Let the artists stick to the production of eye and ear candy, and let the scientists continue understanding the universe, but one activity shouldn't be confused with the other.

518. The Panel

Comment #53598 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 7:11 am

It's astonishing that Robert Winston and Susan Greenfield, two prominent face-of-science public intellectuals didn't get the answers to some basic questions.

Everyone expects the poet and journalists to be clueless, but well-known science celebrities? Winston & Greenfield should tender their resignations.

The artsy-humanities types will respond "but you don't need to know how old the Earth is". Which is correct, but you don't need to know which poet/painter/composer, etc completed what work of art either.

In the end it's about status - it's currently considered geek-ish or boffinish (negative characteristics) to know things about the real world, whereas you are "cultured" and "sophisticated" (postiive characteristics) if you can quote the fashionable playwrights.

Since humanities-types with arts degrees are the gatekeepers to the media that sets the agenda for what is "cool" and what is "uncool", naturally attributes which make them look good are elevated and vice versa.

It's entirely arbitrary if science is interesting to people - it depends on what the prevailing culture is and what gets you status. Some cultures (the Victorian gentleman) played a high value on learning about the world. Life under Soviet Russia made mathematics and chess-playing desirable.

At the moment, it's the anti-intellectual mainstream American media that dominates western culture, and naturally you get the corresponding decline in interest in science (i.e. your status, income, ability to "score" is reduced).

It doesn't have to be like this. Sure, the maths of advanced theorectical physics is beyond many people, but basic concepts such as humans' relation to the cosmos, age of the Earth, anthropology, genes, etc is within the ability of every normal human.

And it doesn't have to be either science, or arts. I'm sure a lot more scientists such as Dawkins, Sagan, Weinberg, etc know about literature, music, theatre, classics, etc than the other way around.

519. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53582 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 5:44 am

16. Comment #53598 by Rtambree on July 2, 2007 at 7:11 am

It's astonishing that Robert Winston and Susan Greenfield, two prominent face-of-science public intellectuals didn't get the answers to some basic questions.

Everyone expects the poet and journalists to be clueless, but well-known science celebrities? Winston & Greenfield should tender their resignations.

The artsy-humanities types will respond "but you don't need to know how old the Earth is". Which is correct, but you don't need to know which poet/painter/composer, etc completed what work of art either.

In the end it's about status - it's currently considered geek-ish or boffinish (negative characteristics) to know things about the real world, whereas you are "cultured" and "sophisticated" (postiive characteristics) if you can quote the fashionable playwrights.

Since humanities-types with arts degrees are the gatekeepers to the media that sets the agenda for what is "cool" and what is "uncool", naturally attributes which make them look good are elevated and vice versa.

It's entirely arbitrary if science is interesting to people - it depends on what the prevailing culture is and what gets you status. Some cultures (the Victorian gentleman) played a high value on learning about the world. Life under Soviet Russia made mathematics and chess-playing desirable.

At the moment, it's the anti-intellectual mainstream American media that dominates western culture, and naturally you get the corresponding decline in interest in science (i.e. your status, income, ability to "score" is reduced).

It doesn't have to be like this. Sure, the maths of advanced theorectical physics is beyond many people, but basic concepts such as humans' relation to the cosmos, age of the Earth, anthropology, genes, etc is within the ability of every normal human.

And it doesn't have to be either science / or arts. I'm sure a lot more scientists such as Dawkins, Sagan, Weinberg, etc know about literature, music, theatre, classics, etc than the other way around.

520. Sally on Sunday with Alister McGrath

Comment #53057 by Rtambree on June 29, 2007 at 6:44 am

On one hand I want to listen to it to legitimately trash the charlatan's vacuous pseudo-intellectual arguments, and on the other hand, I've got better things to do with my time.

521. 4 page German spread on The God Delusion

Comment #52575 by Rtambree on June 27, 2007 at 10:19 am

12. Comment #52462 by doodinthemood

>why's everything in German, then "imagine no religion" the title?

Adverts in Germany often have a lot of English words in them - it shows that the product is "hip and modern". Most of the German youth know basic English, and English-language movies are often screened in English, and English-language pop songs are played on the radio. It won't be too many decades before Germany and the Netherlands are bilingual.

522. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52571 by Rtambree on June 27, 2007 at 10:06 am

Rather than a fictitious defence of witchcraft and other extinct superstitions, there must be actual arguments some in the historical record that some scholars/academics have access to: actual contemporary defences of the Greek or Roman pantheons, etc. These would make amusing reading today, as does the defences of slavery, racism, colonialism, etc often given by the chief "intellectuals" of the day.

523. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52187 by Rtambree on June 26, 2007 at 12:50 pm

"...explain the incredible geological reality"?

Huh?

300 years ago, most Americans believed slavery was fine. Does majority opinion ensure the validity of propositions?

524. UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins

Comment #52164 by Rtambree on June 26, 2007 at 11:45 am

Not so much a step in the right direction, but preventing a step in the wrong direction.

One "success" all this ID nonsense has achieved is wasting a whole lot of scientists' time.

It's annoying that battles won in the Enlightenment have to constantly be refought.

525. 4 page German spread on The God Delusion

Comment #52159 by Rtambree on June 26, 2007 at 11:35 am

Great publicity!

Would like to see similar publicity in Tehran, Texas, Jerusalem, and Mumbai, nailed onto the door of every Mosque, Church, Synagogue and Temple.

526. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #51309 by Rtambree on June 22, 2007 at 8:54 am

Wonderful to see John Logie Baird's invention being put to such good use..... not.

527. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50962 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 5:42 pm

84. Comment #50935 by Benjamin Michael

>I think proportional force is appropriate. If the bandits are in fact soldiers who have missile launchers that can wipe out hundreds then perhaps a more aggressive strategy is warranted then simply engaging in ground combat.

I think the example you give is fair enough if it's a one-off situation. But in the case of Israel-Palestine, this has been going on and on and on and on and on, decade after decade, as the bodycount piles up. Just giving the same old excuse "we don't intend civilian deaths" or "Israel as the right to defend itself" or "they shoot from civilian buildings" is being very short-sighted.

Obviously the current strategy of "proportionate force" or even disproportionate force isn't working. Examining underlying causes, and not symptom is the way forward if one truly wants to solve this problem.

528. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50923 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 1:06 pm

3. Comment #50918 by ThomasB

Yes, there are some profound issues raised by that exchange and your comments.

Does the same underlying insecurity in some people predispose them to religion and/or violence depending on the circumstances?

So it's not that religious causes violence directly, it's that people who have a certain personality (genes, environment) that makes them more intolerant of uncertainty, also causes them to strike out at things that are different. Just as people vary according to their height or weight, they also vary according to their ability to tolerate uncertainty. And to someone who can't deal with it, uncertainty will seem threatening.

It's almost as if there's a self-loathing there - e.g. Ted Haggart or the homophobe father in American Beauty.

529. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #50907 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 11:40 am

Harris might (understandably) feel slighted at the presenter calling TDG the origin of the species of anti-God books.

530. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #50895 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 10:44 am

I wholeheartedly endorse Dawkins' comments against the elitists who declare "religion is for the unwashed".

All humans are more than 99% similar with a recent common ancestor. There's no genetical reason that explains why Iran and USA are >90% religious and Sweden and Norway are <50% religious.

All through history, the unwashed weren't good enough to be educated, or to vote, or to be free. Blind them and blame them for being blind.

531. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50882 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 9:45 am

73. Comment #50877 by Sargeist

>Let's attack it more.

By all means, if it's verbal. But if you mean attack through military means, that just supports them in the end by giving them propaganda for their recruitment.

Supporting secular forces in the Middle East is the way to to counter it. But so often in the last 40 years, what secular forces there were, were UNDERMINED by the west. Stable dictatorships like the House of Saud are supported to keep the oil flowing.

Combating religion has always been secondary to economic exploitation for western governments. Why would anything change?

532. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50878 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 9:35 am

19. Comment #50873 by Benjamin Michael

>Rtambree, in fact yes I would!

Good on you - that shows a strength of character. I'd like to debate him too, on the reasons WHY there is such variation in Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world, and to what extent (none, a little, a lot?) western intervention is correlated with Islamic violence.

I'd ask him whether current US policy that he supports could be counter-productive i.e. instead of defeating terrorists, they're (inadvertently) facilitating the conditions by which terrorists recuit and radicalise the population.

Obviously I'd get an earful from him and expect nothing less, but I'd stress that to be serious about defeating them, you need to understand why some regions take the Koran very literally, and some don't.

533. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50875 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 9:26 am

18. Comment #50871 by USA_Limey

To my knowledge, there has been an atheist Presidential Candidate... Ralph Nader. He wanted to reign in the Pentagon budget, corporate power, and the religious nuts. He wanted to bring in universal health care.

And only three men and a dog voted for him.

Why do people vote against their self-interest?

534. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50866 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 8:47 am

14. Comment #50861 by Benjamin Michael

Ben, are you sure you'd like to hang out with Hitchens if he started aggressively attacking Israel's occupation of the West Bank?

There's hardly anyone here (or anywhere) that agrees with ALL of Hitchens views, and given his disposition for giving disproportionate time to points of contention, it'd be a roller-coaster ride.

I agree someone who can coherently debate is more interesting than a "yes" man, and in that sense a night spent with Hitchens wouldn't be dull.

While I agree with his stance on religion, some of his political views can lack nuance - it's either ALL this or ALL that.

535. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50853 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 7:56 am

25. Comment #50852 by Benjamin Michael

Good point. I've often wondered why so many Christians also believe in astrology, which is theologically incompatiable (undermines free will) and also believe in a whole host of other non-Christian superstition.

It just goes to show that most religious people don't even know the doctrines and theogolical foundation that comprise their faith. Many Catholics thinkt the Immaculate Conception has something to do with Jesus' virgin birth.

Belief is just "gut". The same susceptibility to one load of rubbish means you're just as vulnerable to any other rubbish floating around the meme-o-sphere, even if it's mutually exclusive.

The human brain is a curious organ - its ability to effortlessly hold two incompatible beliefs simultaneously is astonishing.

536. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50839 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 7:08 am

The BBC Focus interview with Dawkins was a bit lite. Did a first-day intern come up with the questions?

But the BBC Mayo interview with Hitchens was much better - good to see a journalist do some research and address issues raised in other interviews, so it's an ongoing conversation rather than a copy-and-paste.

I agree with Xenocratic's comments above. Whether Hitchen's abrasive style is a net asset or net liability in terms of obtaining converts remains to be seen. On one hand, Hitchens is saying things in the mainstream media that no one else says, and his book is selling well, on the other hand, I hope fence-sitters flirting with atheism are not turned off, dismissing atheists as arrogant. Hitchens almost makes Dawkins looks like McGrath by comparison.

Last night at the Garrick Theatre in London, Hitchens asked eveyone present to thank the 82nd Airborne Division for protecting civilisation from the forces of evil. It could have been a line from "300".

537. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50623 by Rtambree on June 19, 2007 at 6:03 am

This debate was essentially a political one, not a religious one.

The single question was "To what extent can western interventions in the Middle East explain the variation in extremism among Muslims"

Does a map of Mulsim extremism correlate with an overlayed map of western intervention?

Sam Harris seems to discount it - perhaps only 10% correlation, while Hedges seems to favour a 90% correlation. Another way to look at it is the Sam reverses cause and effect.

Sam never succesfully answered the question as to why some regions are highly violent and some were not. The Koran is just as equally pervasive throughout the Muslim world, but some Muslims take it more literally than others. What drives the variation in literalness?

I think the answer is that Islam amplifies any existing political, economic and social grievances and distorts them out of all proportion. It's like a lens. This multivariate analysis defies easy dissection. The different positions are along a spectrum, while debates encourage the either/or dichotomy.

Sam's archilles heel in this political debate seems to be advocating more western military intervetion which history has shown, only perpetuates the cycle of violence.

btw, I'm glad Sam has recanted (or clarified) his alleged soft spot for Buddhist mysticism. That was "illogical" Captain.

29. Comment #50600 by Atticus_of_Amber

That's not an Australian debating style - it originated in Oxford. The Aussies copied it just like the Westminster parliamentary system. In any case, such a three-per-side debate HAS been done a few months ago - An Intelligence Square debate from London - there was Dawkins, Hitchens and Grayling on one side with some wishy-washy religious apologists on the other side. The topic was "We'd be better off without religion". The atheists won. It was linked to on this site.

538. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50558 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 6:32 pm

>15. Comment #50553 by Atticus_of_Amber

Some good points. That western inventions in the MIddle East have undermined secular forces and bolstered religious forces is a hot topic charged with controversy.

Hitchens rightly rails against the "Parties of God", but seems to ignore any context- as if it all happened in a vacuum. That's not to say it's ENTIRELY one side's fault. Too often, these political debates become polarised into either/or camps. There are genuine grievances, compounded by Abrahamic factions, and apportioning blame to all parties and disentangling legitimate from illegitimate, proportionate from disproportionate, resistance from terrorism, economics from politics from nationalism from religion, is fraught with difficulty.

But yes, you reinforce a good point - religion is always there in the background and will resurface if economic, social or political upheaval occurs. Even in the secular countries of Scandinavia - if they had some environmental catastrophe or economic meltdown, religion would gain traction again.

539. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50556 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 6:20 pm

16. Comment #50555 by Sancus

>Hedges opens with the claim that Christianity was responsible for the rise of individualism in the West and giving us our concept of self.

I scoffed at this too - it was the exact opposite. When Christianity was at its strongest, about 1,000 years ago, Europe was in its most regressive primitive state, and only when the power of the Christian Church started to fragment and wane, and with the onset of the Renaissance and the Enlightment, that's when individualism and other progressive ideas began to take hold. The church resisted these for hundreds of years. Enlightenment ideas arose IN SPITE of Christianity, not because of it.

540. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50486 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 12:13 pm

This will be fun.

Sam Harris uses a good phrase here - "This mass grave [of deities] called mythology".

That should get some mileage.

541. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50463 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 9:59 am

19. Comment #50461 by ignored_ethos2

>that many of these intelligent, educated theist are not being honest either with themselves or with others.

Yes, there are TWO delusions. The God Delusion, and a second delusion, whereby people think they've reached their conclusion through rational means, whereas in fact, the motivation is emotional. There's the well known God of the Epistemological Gaps and a less well known God of the Emotional Gaps.

>I also know that it could be true that there are atheists that are uneducated people of only average (or lower) intelligence

I've noticed that in Australia, it seems to be class-related. The very lower classes and upper classes are both equally irreligious - but for different reasons. The welfare and working classes just couldn't care - they never went to private religious schools, and anaesthetise themselves with alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs. The upper classes are too intelligent and sophisticated for all that nonsense, and anaesthetise themselves with decadent, opulent lifestyles.

Religion seems to peak in the *middle* classes - it's their drug to counter the nihilism of mindless materialism. Obviously there are different cultural forces driving religiosity in Australia than in other countries.

Has anyone else noted a class correlation of religiosity in their country?

The evidence seems to suggest that atheism is correlated with (1) science literacy, (2) standard of living, and (3) economic security. The less you need God, the less you believe in Him.

542. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50454 by Rtambree on June 18, 2007 at 8:14 am

14. Comment #50435 by konquererz

>So what makes a person shed the chains he was born into and become free?

This is perhaps an even more fascinating question that "why do we believe" which seems increasingly clear that religiosity per country is simply a factor of insecurity.

100% about-face conversions are rare - perhaps you should submit your brain for scanning and other tests. In any case, congratulations to you - your conversion strengthens the notion that we have at least some free will, and are not just flotsam on an ocean of genetic and environmental determinism.

Have you changed some/all political views with your conversion to atheism?

Abortion?
"Just" war and Defense spending?
Gun control?
Capital Punishment?
Gay marriage and adoption?
Environmental concerns?
Science funding and education?
Foreign aid?
Multilateral versus unilateral?
Inheritance and welfare?
Universal Health insurance?

Judging by your stated views on Bush, I trust you've become more christian since renouncing Christianity, if you know what I mean.

543. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49937 by Rtambree on June 14, 2007 at 7:16 am

Hitchens in London - June 19th at Garrick Theatre (part of Hay Festival).

If any Londoners on this site are going to see the God is not Great book launch and Hitchens conversation with Ian McEwan next week, and want to meet up first, send me a PM. It commences at 6pm.

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

Comment #49577 by Rtambree on June 12, 2007 at 12:40 pm

156. Comment #49573 by darwin2

Sentences beginning with "I believe..." are evidence of intellectual lameness.

545. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49563 by Rtambree on June 12, 2007 at 11:44 am

Who's neutered?

546. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49561 by Rtambree on June 12, 2007 at 11:41 am

It runs both ways doesn't it...

Losing our Gods (father figures, big brother, afterlife, etc), while sad for many, also puts us in charge of our destiny. No more scraping and bowing. No more mindless praising. No more attributing good things to Him, but bad things to you. No more wasting time praying to invisible deities who never answer. No more contemplating how many angels could dance on Alister McGrath's head.

Losing one's religion should also be a liberating experience. The fog lifts... the candle gets brighter...

547. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49551 by Rtambree on June 12, 2007 at 11:15 am

Good interviewer - this could have been much longer.

I'd love to see the interview from an atheist's perspective (rather than a neutral one) - in other words, it's already assumed God doesn't exist before the interview begins. What would be explored are issues within atheism: what style of confrontation is most effective, the causes of religious belief, self-delusion versus deliberate fraud in clergy and theologians, how far science and truth should encroach upon other fields (e.g. soft humanities-type academic disciplines, art, love, etc).

Iran - Hitchen's views on Iran seem a little extreme. It's almost as if he's advocating another pre-emptive war without any evidence that Iran has actually got nukes (elsewhere he's stated he wants war).

I'm not sure how helpful this ultra-aggressive stance is to the atheist cause, who are currently engaged in a PR campaign to distance themselves from the great secular totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

Why not generalise it and say no country, especially religious countries with idiotic religious leaders, should have nuclear weapons? Pakistan and Israel already have nukes. Neigbouring countries will want them too - basic human psychology. Have we learnt nothing in the last 100 years?

548. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49549 by Rtambree on June 12, 2007 at 11:04 am

It's funny that the Guardian calls it an "EXCLUSIVE" interview, when it's almost identical to just about every other one. How do the world's journalists all manage to ask the same questions? Is this evidence for human 'Nature'? The alternative explanation, that they look up what Richard Dawkins has been asked 1,000 times before, and ask it 1,001th time, doesn't make sense, unless journalists are actually zombies. In that world, it's critical to be THE FIRST journalist, so your questions are the ones repeated ad infinitum for the world tour of the hardcover, and the repeat world tour of the paperback.

RE: Native beliefs. These "cultural beliefs" are unfortunately often tied up with land claims. The concern from liberals might be that if the cultural beliefs tying them to the land are proved wrong by science, then corporations may have a stronger legal case to extract resources from their lands, etc.

Personally I don't see why the truth (however it comes out) should infringe on native title claims.

The same happens in the south Pacific where some of the Polynesian natives only arrived at their islands a few hundred years before Europeans, although they claim a lot longer in their myths. I don't see why it should make a difference - if they've been there 10 years before White Man or 1,000,000 years before, they should still have the same rights.

Morality - It's OBVIOUS that it can't be from reliigon, as when Europe was MOST religious (1,000 years ago), morality was very different to what is acceptable today. Secular countries have better ethical standards than the religious ones.

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

Comment #49128 by Rtambree on June 10, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Darwin2

"An important issue that comes up here is this. If God exists what is behind God? The answer is there is nothing behind God. God is the ultimate reducible answer. God always was, is and always will be."

Some possible responses:

1. Every time in the past that we assumed a God (or Gods) was operating, it turned out not be so. So one should use extreme caution when using this answer. See The Principle of Mediocrity.

2. What's wrong with simply saying that "universe/multiverse always was - infinite in time and space, and therefore not needing a Prime Mover. This is a much simpler answer that just some conscious entity existing out there twiddling his thumbs and then say "I'm bored - I'll know - I'll create some humans to entertain me".

3. What's wrong with saying "we just don't know" to what happened "before" T=0 and leave it at that. As Feynman said, it's more interesting not knowing than clutching at an answer that might be wrong.

4. How do you get from "God as Prime Mover" to whatever subset of Abrahamic theology you adhere to. It requires lots of leaps of faith.

5. If you can't accept that there's no life after death, where were you before you were conceived?

6. Beware of using explanations that make you feel better. The universe is counter-intuitive enough as it is, and when humans guess, they almost always get it wrong. This problem is compounded when they impose their own wishes and insecurities onto the universe. As Woody Allen said, "the universe is indifferent, at best".

550. We of little faith

Comment #49030 by Rtambree on June 10, 2007 at 3:38 am

50. Comment #49026 by the great teapot

Buddhism seems very popular among contributors here. In fact it seems to be the only subject people can be divided on on this site. I can't help but notice there is a"party line" on various questions such as abortion, the Iraq war and homosexuality amongst otherthings, all of which have nothing to do with Religion