Comments by 82abhilash

251. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86636 by 82abhilash on November 9, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Does this not violate the separation of church and state?

Comment #86270 by 82abhilash on November 8, 2007 at 10:07 pm

I like this idea. It is very close to Dan Dennet's notion of having a class on world religions in public schools. If kids are being taught Christianity, Judaism, aboriginal spirituality, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism inside the same school, it is higly unlikely that toxic forms of any one of them can talk hold.

It would be even better if every child is taught all of them. Them poor kids will see it all for the crap that it is.

253. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86268 by 82abhilash on November 8, 2007 at 9:59 pm

12. Comment #86251 by mr harry on November 8, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Why Giuliani? He is the most socially progressive republican candidate, and quite possibly the least religion-friendly republican candidate.

Guys and Gals,
This is not as funny as the article makes it look. Giuliani has promised Pat that he will appoint conservative judges in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Chances are they will be from Regent University.

Remember what Edward Tabash has been stressing on in all his speeches. In the end it will all boil down to who the judges are. And Pat Robertson knows that all too well. Why else would he even consider a pro-abortion candidate with an obviously screwed up personal life?

254. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85851 by 82abhilash on November 7, 2007 at 10:21 am

Fanusi, Chomsky never condoned the actions of Pol Pot, nor was fond of Stalinism. You may argue that he did not spend enough time criticizing the actions of such regimes and that will be correct. But there are enough people doing that already. His criticism is focused mainly towards the power systems in the US that uses its money power to manufacture consensus (by distorting truth and playing down important issues) and prevents discussions of real issues that affect the general public.

And if they indeed have succeeded, people like you will believe the lies and distortions propagated about him. I got a recommendation for you, listen to one of Chomsky's lengthy speeches or debates, and check whether you can verify what he said with what is in the public record. Then check how much of those facts where reported in the media. The results may interest and surprise you.

255. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #84840 by 82abhilash on November 3, 2007 at 10:16 pm

There has been lot of discussion going on here as to whether organized free-thought is actually free. The simple answer is - no it is not. But people who do not want anyone to think freely have to organize and forces us to organize as a consequence. When we do we sacrifice some of our freedoms, but far less than if we end up being manipulated by them and their organizations.

I found this scary video on Bill Moyer's journal.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch2.html

It is not yet time to go under the radar as Sam Harris suggests. It is important right now to stand up and be heard and be counted.

256. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82548 by 82abhilash on October 26, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Oh bother! How willing they are to twist what Dawkins says to their own selfish ends - exaggerate, distort and even lie.

Whatever this sense for the transcendence or mysticism is that Sam Harris talks about, religion is a lousy way to attain in.

257. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82172 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Atticus_of_Amber,

"Mysticism" and the "Supernatural" are terms that have been used for ages to con people into falling for the supernatural.

While I am sure there is a natural explanation to such phenomenon, experience suggests, it to be better to approach such concepts with loads and loads of skepticism.

258. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82168 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Comment #82163 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

I find it a bit worrying how so many people (even inside this RD's forum of all places) seem to have this strange need for a strong, flawless intellectual leader.

Totally agree. I bet a lot of them are new atheists, in the sense they are recent atheists or are recently adjusting to the idea of living as an atheist and still have the old tendency to look for truth from a single flawless source. Like Hitchen's Stalin example. That is damage inflicted by centuries of monotheism and realizing it is the first step to free oneself.

259. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82142 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 6:26 pm

I have a question. Why do you feel an obligation to label yourself? And conform to activities consistent with that label. None of us believe in any supernatural entity and we can get together under various banners, for various reasons, but why this urge to tattoo a label onto your brain, that would never come out wherever you are or whatever you do?

I think I know why. Some of you may scream, if I say, but here goes. It is the impact of the Abrahamic faiths on our civilization. Christians, Muslims and Jews are required to carry the label of their religion always under all circumstances, from birth to death to afterlife.

Most people here have a Judeo-Christian background. If the causes of our actions are determined by the sum total of all our previous experiences, this explanation would make perfect sense.

I have an idea. When in a general crowd, just be yourself and put the burden of labeling you to those people who are interested in it, especially when their objective is to use it against you. And always remind them it is their name for you. You do not have any obligation towards them, to be labeled.

260. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82034 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm

If by belief, you mean belief without evidence (faith), you are absolutely right. We take pride in the fact that we do not believe in things that cannot be proved rationally.

But like everybody else we share the hope to live in a world that is better than what it is today. We do not believe a super-natural entity has any role in it and that is all.

261. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81966 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I know we are going off on a tangent here. But fatcitymax's comment on all women carrying a gun, has a very American origin. Actually the founding fathers believed everyone should be able to carry a gun. So it is written into the US consititution. Why?

Here is the logic. Everybody can carry a gun. Everybody who carries a gun can use it. There are more good people in the world than there are bad people. So if everyone has a gun, it is most probable that more good people will have it than bad people. It is also more probable that more bad people will die in gun fights than good people.

These are Thomas Jefferson's words on the issue, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

So there. Modern day Americans are not as blood thirsty as their founding father hoped they would be.

262. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81334 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, guys and girls, comrades in arms, D'Souza did a little trick. In his blog there was just the poll, for a while. But now there is a whole article 'explaining' how he won the debate; to prime the voter to his point of view.

Maybe the initial disappointing results have something to do with it. We can wait and see how it goes. I wonder if he has any plans to close the polls.

263. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81248 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:39 pm

oxytocin,

I am sure of it. But now the xians has all heard Hitchen's arguments. They cannot be as sure of themselves as they once used to be. Some fence sitters who believe in belief will fall. Others will find their religion to be less magical and curse Hitchens force enforcing clarity.

Besides all that they also know that they must now live in a world where we exist and are watching their every move.

I say that is corrosive.

264. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81244 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:24 pm

It is not unusual to hear lot of clapping for D'Souza in a Christian University. It is his turf. What interested me was that a significant portion of crowd cheered for Hitchens as well.

That is change. Many people must have left that day considering things that they didnot reflect upon before and that will bring about more change.

265. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #81231 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm

koldito,

Catholic Sainthood cannot ever be revoked. Because as Pietro Siffi rightly pointed out, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.

So that would be admiting papal fallibility, they are better off supressing such evidence.

266. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81018 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 10:53 pm

thirdchimpanzee,

I have good reason to think that D'Souza is totally embarassed about his Indian origin. He has said that he is fortunate that the Catholics came to Goa and converted is ancestors to Christianity, under threat of death might I add.

There was an inquisition in the Indian state of Goa in established in 1560 and not abolished until 1812.

In India Christianity is a minority faith. And Christians are known for their arrogance, becuase in India being Christian is associated with being modern and western. That is how they brand Christianity in the East. They are known to mock Hindus associating them with being pagan and tribal.

So do not expect D'Souza to speak about the greatness of the Indus Valley Civilization anytime soon. He would rather pretend that a pre-Christian India lived in the dark ages.

267. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81005 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 10:11 pm

It is that courage to say bold faced lies with a great sense of conviction; that is what sets people like Dinesh D'Souza apart. What is sad is that many people will believe him and suffer because of it.

Maybe they will become the new generation of warriors in this fight against irrationality.

268. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80961 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 5:30 pm

133. Comment #80933 by dgr8test97 on October 23, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Homeboy is Indian, why the hell is his name D'Souza?

Dinesh D'Souza is from the Indian state of Goa which was a Portuguese colony (the rest of India was run by the British). The Portuguese did an inquisition there and converted his ancestors to Catholicism by forcing them to eat beef and then baptizing them. Of course he is thankful to them. Now you know Stockholm syndrome can transcend generations.

269. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80929 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm

We have expert in philosophy, a science, a journalist and Sam Harris on our side. A legal expert has an important role in this campaign.

270. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80722 by 82abhilash on October 22, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Dinesh D'Souza distorts facts and lies through his teeth. Michael Shermer is too polite and does not notice it. Besides he lets Dinesh impose his world view on him so completly.

Christopher Hitchens needs to put D'Souza in his place. Look at the intellectual gymnastics he is playing. Maybe Penn and Teller should do a show. Dinesh D'Souza is Bullshit.

271. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80713 by 82abhilash on October 22, 2007 at 6:41 pm

55. Comment #80527 by catinabox on October 22, 2007 at 4:08 am

This is nauseating. I had not heard of D'Souza before. He is the most dangerous sort of apologist, one who though totally ignorant and lacking understanding of key issues, is still a gifted speaker and skilled disseminator of nonsense.

This nausea originated in India. So I feel embarassed. Sometimes I wish I could take him back, India is famous for its mob justice.

272. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80193 by 82abhilash on October 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Comment #80074 by steveroot on October 19, 2007 at 9:08 pm
No offense, but do we have to study *Hindu* leprechology as well? ;-)
Stev

Well I guess you do not really need to, like Russell Blackford says in 56. Comment #80082 there are other prioritites. Besides there is no form of organized Hindu Movement worth mentioning that is threatening the free world.

But it is another bastion of irrationality, and if you want to enforce some calrity on them, you must understand where they come from.

Richard Dawkins can get by because his attack is mainly directed against scientific claims made in the name of religion . His understanding of Christianity is limited to what was exposed during his Anglican years, and Islam even less.

The other experts though do know more about the history and belief systems of particular religions. The eastern religions fall below everyone's radar mostly all of the time because they are not a pressing concern, not YET anyway.

273. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80072 by 82abhilash on October 19, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Comment #80058 by Russell Blackford on October 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm
82abhilash, that's a nice description of what we might hope religion could transform itself into. There's another barrier, though, which is just that the moral content is often pretty undesirable, even after you strip away the supernatural elements.

Yes there are I totally agree. But how do you know unless you read it first. I am using this opportunity to encourage a new audience to read Hindu scripture.

Westerns often fall for Indian charlatans in saffron, because Hinduism has never ever come to the intense rational scrutiny that has been afforded to the Bible and now the Quran.

274. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80032 by 82abhilash on October 19, 2007 at 3:12 pm

oh, it gets better, later in the story the leader of the monkeys, Hanuman, caries the entire Dronagiri mountain (instead of finding a single herb) to heal Ram's brother (magically) after being injured in battle by the 10 headed tyrant Ravana. Interestingly enough Ravana also had the ability to regenerate heads upon them being severed (no magic herbs needed).

However, plenty of magic herbs are necessary to believe any of this.

That would be a problem if modern day Hindus consider it to be literally true. Well it is highly unlikely that the Hindus you may meet actually think all this happened, many hope it is true, most would rather not confront the question. But the truth is it would not matter much if none of this ever happened.

Let us use the 'practical realism' vs 'factual realism' example that Dan Dennett used. If tomorrow it is found beyond the shadow of doubt that Ramayana is a work of fiction, there will be the initial shock and many people will be upset. But then, things will settle down almost exactly where they where.

Why? Because Hinduism is a brilliantly designed religion, by natural selection and by stewards. The practical realism of Hinduism does not depend on the story to be true, nor do we need to be taken in by the supernatural elements in these stories either. They are all just advertisements to get people interested in the story.

What the people who wrote it really focused upon was the 'content of character' of the characters. Each character in the story is a complex personality with their own set of characteristics. Their personality and that of the persons they interact with creates unique circumstances that we can study and relate to.

Depending on the content of our character we come to a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the players. Of course the stories themselves are written with more focus on specific characters, but despite their best attempts none of them are flawless.

So in a sense, it is like Aesop fables. We all know animals do not talk, but the story has its morals and we can relate to that. And thus they provide us important clues about how to live in the real world. So Hindu scriptures are primarily tools for character building. Because it is perceived that with the right character, you can play the different roles in life (as a parent, as a spouse, a professional, etc.) successfully. Some of it is outdated, some of it is not.

If you read with an open mind you may get infected by ar faith meme. But if you read it with a 'probing attitude' you may find some interesting ways to relate with your world, that you previously would not have considered.

275. God's honest truth?

Comment #79795 by 82abhilash on October 18, 2007 at 2:46 pm

The problem with this approach is that it has the potential to replace theological dogmas with nationalistic ones. The fact can end up being whatever the government says it is and then we are back to 1984 (the book). What if a radical right-wing party gets elected in Sweden, cashing in on the legitimate fears of Islamic fundamentalism?

The government does have the right to decide what gets taught in schools which are funded with tax payer's money, especially in a pluralistic democracy, but not otherwise. If a faith based school is a self-funded and teaching lie, who is the government to step in, unless they are encouraging and advocating their students to break laws? Telling lies by itself is not illegal, unless you are under oath. And when their students commit crimes, are they not dealt with properly under a secular constitution and law, all be it not always to our liking? Do their schools not come under more scrutiny? Are they not chastised at the very least? In short does their freedom not get compromised when they try to use it to spread fear? And more importantly, do we not use the freedom given by our laws to corrode their faith? We are already doing it now.

Dogmas are defeated in a society that encourages free discourse. When you defeat one dogma by creating a situation where another can exist, you have in effect not solved the fundamental issue, which is the tendency of people to fall for dogmas.

Let the faith-based schools continue to exist if they can pay for themselves. Let free discourse, argument and debate continue unhindered. The rational ideas will win out. The will become part of the way we do commerce, influence the way we build our industry, the way we practice medicine and further research. When society becomes dependent on facts, the faithful will be forced to shed their dogmas. The self-funded faith based will close, or they will change, because their system of education can no longer produce individuals who can become members of the society they live in.

276. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79258 by 82abhilash on October 16, 2007 at 3:30 pm

There is a 'land bridge' between India and Sri Lanka. It is old and according to legend created by monkeys. Whoever created it, it is an object of wonder.

Why not study it properly? Why not bring some transparency to the whole issue? Why the hurry to destroy it? What environmental impact can that create? Why is anyone not open about it? Even if it is not a monument, it still has historic significance in a religious sense.

If it is artificial, it has tremendous historic significance comparable to the Great Wall of China. If it is natural, it has environmental significance like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. In any case why does the Indian Government not see at as the National treasure that it is?

More interestingly in a country with a Hindu majority, why is a democratically elected Government jeopardizing its relationship with its majority voters by hurting their sentiments? Is it not political suicide? A sort of foolishness?

Furthermore it was never a base for religious extremism like the Madrassas in Pakistan, nor was it a magnet for violence or social unrest until the government threatened to destroy it?

Something stinks and this time, I think it is the current secular government of India that smells fishy.

277. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77615 by 82abhilash on October 9, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Ban it all, ban it all - laicite is the hope for the free french everywhere.

278. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76410 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 6:29 pm

I hate to burst the bubble here for a lot of people. But Andy's ideas have several shortcomings. And they came up again and again during the Q&A session. That is not to say all of what he said was trash. But it needs improvement.

One point I noticed markedly was his honesty. He didnot try to make things up. When asked a question related to his fieldand he didnot know the answer, he said "I do not know."

Maybe now he has new factors to consider when he fine tunes his ideas.

279. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76306 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I think gitmo is the product of a failed strategy on an incompetent administration. It might as well be that the people in gitmo are radicalized muslims standing on the edge of the proverbial cliff. So was Sayed Qutub.

But locking them only pushes them over the edge and when they fall, it is most likely that they will pull down a lot of innocent people with them. That is what Dennett meant by telling the prisons help create such people. It acts like a spark to ignite their gun powder.

But what can be done? Can we just let them freely preach their radical ideas? Indoctrinate millions with their poison? If they ever come out they are more likely than they where before they got in, to perform acts of terror. In fact those among them who where mistakenly put there may also get convinced that the US is some sort of satan.

I have an unsettling thought. What choice do they have except death? Die as a suicide bomber, or die in a futile raid, or get killed in gitmo itself. Do you think they will have any desire to try and live a normal life, after this? What are the chances?

280. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76075 by 82abhilash on October 4, 2007 at 3:35 pm

kaiserkriss, it will take even lesser time. Christianity cannot survive unless it is able to perpetuate itself, through its existing followers. The way things are, I think they are losing more followers than they are gaining. That is the model of a failed business.

281. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76071 by 82abhilash on October 4, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I got a beautiful quote that explains this phenomenon very well.

"It is very easy to wake someone who is asleep, but very difficult to wake someone who is pretending to sleep."

282. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75517 by 82abhilash on October 2, 2007 at 10:51 pm

You know people there are a lot of good ideas expressed here by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and the like. The arguments are themselves extremely sound, even though they may not give one the sense of transcendental bliss that most ordinary people seek. Although I must add that Richard Dawkins did well with his book 'Unweaving the rainbow' and Carl Sagan's documentary 'Cosmos' is brilliant.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, these are new arguments, plus some old arguments repackaged for a new generation. They are not going away, especially since religion is showing its ugly face too often these days. And while projects like the 'Blasphemy Challenge' can make important people take notice of the changing times, it is reason that makes the change endure regardless of any label or lack there of - atheist, new atheist, anti-theist, non-theist, skeptic, skepchick, agnostics, secular humanist, 'no label at all', naturalist, darwinian,, etc.,. So to that extent I agree with Sam Harris.

But I understand the need of the label in bringing people together. But as a member of the mainstream society, I prefer not to use my label, unless pressed upon. I would rather use reason at every turn whenever and wherever I confront irrationality.

It is something about the way the human brain works - forever handicapped by the sequence in which you feed in the information. If you bring forth a sound argument, people may listen to you, even accept your reasoning and most may not care too much if they later find you to be a 'new atheist'. However if they find that out first, then they will lock out of anything you have to say immediately.

283. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73824 by 82abhilash on September 26, 2007 at 9:26 am

13. Comment #73766 by Yorker on September 26, 2007 at 5:39 am

8. Comment #73740 by shaunfletcher

Your mention of incest made me think. I have two sisters both of whom are still very attractive and in my youth, on occasion wondered why I never had any sexual thoughts about them. This is not my field but it seems like there's an in-built mechanism against incest. Maybe in some people it doesn't exist or they're able to overcome it.

Does anyone have a professional opinion on it?

Yes Yorker the phenomenon has been studied and well documented. It was first observed by Edvard Alexander Westermarck - a Finnish philosopher and sociologist. "When two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction." This phenomenon was especially prevalent in the Israeli kibbutz system, where all children where made to sleep together in a huge communal bedroom. Hardly anyone of them married members within the kibbutz when they grew up, even when they where encouraged to do so by their parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect

But the Westermarck effect does not show any sensitivity to biological relatives. It works impartially on any group of children who shared very close proximity during childhood. But we all know that most of the time such children tend to be siblings. So that is our inaccurate but useful mechanism against incest, perhaps naturally selected by evolution. Why not? Before birth control such relationships could make babies too unhealthy to live normally.

This would imply of course that siblings that are not brought up together has the potential to be sexually attracted to one another. There is at least one case in the recent media to show that is possible. It has happened in Germany.

Patrick St�bing, an unemployed locksmith, and his sister Susan have had four children together since starting a sexual relationship in 2000. Three of the children are in foster care, and two have unspecified disabilities. The couple, who live near Leipzig, grew up separately and only met many years later.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2022008,00.html

8. Comment #73740 by shaunfletcher
does anyone genuinely care if an adult brother and sister sleep together?

No, but given that I do have a sister, who grew up with me; I feel disgusted, when someone makes such a suggestion. But that is my life and my choice right? What about other adults and their choice? Sure, if it suits them. But if someone I know is involved in such an act, I would have nothing to do with them from then on. Also given that such an act is illegal in most of the world anyway, I can comfortably say, such people can end up in trouble with the law. And if they do, I will neither feel any sympathy for them nor feel obligated in any way to defend them. Yes I am being open about my bias here.

284. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71865 by 82abhilash on September 19, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Looking at this I feel more and more convinced that humans and monkeys are related, at least women, we can be certain about that. Women and chimps are related. And since women give birth to people who grow up to be men (and women)....well you get the idea.

Theism is the best proof of our lowly origins.

Only one question - Are these women believers because they are stupid or are they stupid because they are believers?

I think, in this case, they are believers because they are stupid.

285. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71857 by 82abhilash on September 19, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I got a stupid question for all you guys, what would you prefer if you had just these two to pick from - American Christian fundamentalists or Iraqi Muslim extremists.

I will pick the former. They are less lethal. Correct me if I am wrong.

Let me speak metaphorically here. If the two groups where two different types of food, American Christian fundamentalists are like rotten vegetables while Iraqi Muslim extremists are like nuclear waste.

Which would you eat, if you have just these two to pick from?

286. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69178 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Quine,
I would love to email D.J. Grothe. What is his email address?

287. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69172 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 9:34 pm

dlitt,
Correct me if I am wrong here. The way I understand it, outside his field of expertise, Francis Colins is reading sense into non-sense. I other words he is seeing meaning that he wants to be there rather than actually is there. Do you agree with me here?

288. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69170 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Quine,
I agree with you. It is amazing Francis Colins could make such a statement. All the more reason not to blindly trust authority figures.

Here is a quote from my favorite mentor Richard Feynman, which I think to be more closer to the truth. Of course he was talking about physics -

"People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not... If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it � that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers... then that's the way it is."

289. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69161 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 8:21 pm

BAEOZ

I see how you may have got the idea that people somehow chose to be pacifist. Now I must say, the people I am talking about are not forever pacifist, but those who are pacifist until provoked. In other words, the tit for tat kind.

In a society where most people are like so, by nature, what would be the fate of someone who is aggressive, naturally. They will either be locked up or will choose to imitate the pacifist to remain socially relevant.

But imagine such a tit for tat person living a society full of aggressive ones. Their pacifist element will never get a chance to reveal itself and the creative endeavors that would materialize as a result of it will never come to be. So the notion of choice gets very complicated because what we choose to do, would depend not only on our nature, but also on our social context.

And people of certain nature, build societies where people who exhibit certain behaviors are more richly rewarded than others who do not. There is an old documentary that Richard Dawkins hosts called
"Nice guys finish first".

Bottom line. Some of us are nice, because we fear punishment. But most of us are nice because it is our nature to think that being nice is good for us. And we help develop and sustain liberal societies, where niceness prevails.

People of the world are nicer than they have ever been, believe it or not.

290. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69155 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Yorker

"I see the problem like this. The masses are simply not saavy enough to be swayed by beautiful, elegant, insightful, logical and well-presented arguments, in fact, the majority fear intellectual thought and often show open hostility towards it."

I almost agree with you, but I think the 'open hostility' part is a bit exaggerated, especially in the Western world. Traditionally intellects have not cared for Public Relations. But that is slowly changing. Traditionally the masses where not well educated and had no easy access to information. That is changing too.

People still have (maybe always will) a tendency to fall for what they like rather than what is true. And there will be politicians to take advantage of that. But I have hope that in the long run sensibility will prevail.

Israeli diplomat Abba Eban who once said, "When everything else has failed, man turns to Reason".

291. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69143 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 7:18 pm

BAEOZ asks

"Did people just "choose" to not murder and lie after they decided that they wanted to form a society and that murder etc would stop them from doing so? "

No, it is less remarkable. More like when people with pacifist tendencies began to concentrate in one area, civilizations began to emerge where such tendencies are valued and nurtured. Perhaps the most successful of them followed a tit for tat policy in their daily lives. Tipped their hat to every stranger, but when beaten, will beat them back harder than they ever expected.

292. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69138 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Henri Bergson,
If you are involved in the secularization of Europe, Europe may become a theocracy soon. Words like 'stupid' and 'fool' do not make part of an objective argument. You are arguing from emotion.

Christianity has had a massive impact on Europe, everyone knows that. One of its impact seems to be a largely secular europe who seems to think Christianity in its fundamentals is BS. Think about that.

293. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69125 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Yorker said
"You're right that we can affect each other, but unless a few of us are people in a position to influence the masses, we don't mean much. That's what I meant. "

Perhaps. But that is just the point there is a difference between, doing little and doing nothing. So what if what you are doing is but a drop in a bucket? A bucket is more full because of the drop is it not? Besides an influential figure already has done a good job of bringing several like minded people together.

If each of them contributes in their own way, whatever little they can, then the drops of water can fill up the bucket.

294. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69122 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Henri is a religious lurker all right. This is the insulting point he had made -
"You have a Christian mindset without realizing it. You seem to value Christian values like compassion, altruism, etc"

Underline the word, "Christian values". Compassion and altruism are not Christian monopolies. These aspects of humanity has been valued and enshrined in cultures and civilizations before they became aware of Christianity.

Then he asks "Tell me why murder is 'immoral'?" Well I can tell you why, because those who think murder is 'moral' are not allowed to hold influential positions in society. In fact we cannot advance if we make too much concessions for them. Indeed we as a society are trying to solve more and more problems by spilling less and less blood.

There need not be any absolute dictatorial decree for murder to be considered immoral. Humans who build cities and develop civilizations are those who think murder is immoral, under most circumstances. Those who think otherwise cannot advance as a culture. They are contained and disposed off, by the majority.

So why is murder considered wrong? Because we the descants of those who survived the wars and the genocides that plagued mankind in the past, have a natural disgust towards it. It is our consensus that is all.

Those who disagree are probably in prison for the murder they have committed.

295. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69071 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Yorker said,
'Best not to take it all too seriously I think, what we say here carries little if any weight.'

I tend to disagree with you on that point. There are others here who may have faced similar arguments with theists, in other circumstances and can use these counterpoints that people like Oxytocin are putting up here.

It can carry weight if it can lead us to make our peers (even one) re-examine their views on life based on new evidence and new ideas.

At the least someone might (at grass root level) be able to put a good defense against the so called 'people of faith' who try to propagate their nonsensical ideas, to a less informed public and part them of their money.

I once had a 'Hare Krishna' guy tell me about how wonderfully God made the tangerine, so easy to peel and chew, and I got him stumped by asking him about the pineapple.

296. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69046 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Francis Collins said and I quote, "Belief in God is more plausible than disbelief." Eventually he took a leap of faith or so I gather. I looked up what it meant and found what plausible means.

Plausible - describe that which has the appearance of truth but might be deceptive. Perhaps Collins was not being critical enough. Why should he? That faith is a danger is a new idea, till very recently the surrender of reason was regarded a virtue.

But alas, Collins is a scientist, he should have been more cautious. I read about what science meant to a great scientist, I had admired, the late Richard Feynman. He had said "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

And he goes on, "Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Now there was a man who believed in experimentation.

And he was not arrogant, but he was brave, "I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose � which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." He was not willing to let God fill the gaps in his knowledge.

I think we all need to be brave today. The universe without a purpose doesnot mean our lives are without purpose.

297. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69031 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I see Richard Dawkins as being a more intellectually honest scientist that Francis Colins. Dawkin's attack on religion is against the scientific claims made by the people of faith and the methods they use to arrive at their conclusions. Dennett, Hitchens and Harris's approach are a bit different ofcourse.

But the point is Richard Dawkins is a scientist talking on a scientififc subject. Francis Colins is a scientist talking out of his field of understanding, a scientist making a non-scientific claim, wanting to believe it because it is comforting rather than because it is true. When emotions are strong, we are liable to fool ourselves.

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

Comment #68334 by 82abhilash on September 6, 2007 at 10:06 pm

I have a feeling this will make all its way to the Supreme court if it could.

299. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68333 by 82abhilash on September 6, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Reminds me of Rudyard Kipling, and his poem IF

'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'

John Cornwell is being a knave, and he thinks people are foolish enough to believe him. He has laid his trap for fools. I wonder how many fools he will trap with this trap.

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

Comment #67689 by 82abhilash on September 4, 2007 at 11:13 am

India does have a law that infringes on people's rights to free speech and free expression, in the case of religion, even to the extent of banning books. The law was enacted to prevent all the riots that seem to spring up wherever Muslims begin to concentrate. It is to their advantage of course. This poor woman is being charged under that law.

Well in 1984, someone filed a case in Calcutta using this same law to claim that the Quran promoted religious disharmony and several interesting things happened. This story was made into a book, which is still banned in India. But you can read it online:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/

It is truly appalling the extent to which the democratically elected government of India is willing to bend for these thugs and their filthy religion, giving away their freedoms little at a time.