301. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93862 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 10:52 am

I can thoroughly recommend the works of Greg Bear, especially Blood Music (the novel, not the short story) and Eon.

302. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93861 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 10:48 am

There might be something after all to the worries others have expressed about a "cult of Dawkins."

The controversy this article has caused on this site should surely indicate that fears of a 'cult' are absurd.

303. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93841 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 9:44 am

Go here to find out what your daemon is :)

My partner has an interesting criticism of the Pullman works. They are set in a world which is almost like ours, with much of the same institutions. However, if people had daemons following around, this would have changed just about every aspect of culture, so a world which is close to ours is absurd.

304. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93825 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 9:14 am

I also like epic sweep. I loved the Dune series by Frank Herbert. But if you fancy some truly terrible writing that is painful to read, try the prequels to Dune by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. It is the worst writing I have experienced since the E E 'doc' Smith Lensman series.

305. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93801 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 8:25 am

Oh REALLY? Well I'm not sure that I shall put up with lectures from someone with your ... "lifestyle". At least Harry Potter liked GIRLS. Hah! Take that.

Hahahah.... that had me chuckling :)

Excellent contribution!

306. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93791 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 8:16 am

I think we should have a really viscious argument about this, full of ad hominems and straw men, and heavy flaming... what do you say, shall we have a go?

Let me make a contribution:

Brian... how CAN you like the Harry Potter books - the writing and characterisation was terrible!!! Shame on you.

(Personally I am a Pratchett fan, but my partner can't stand his books)

307. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93785 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 8:05 am

Ah well. Just don't say you weren't warned, steve99. Any chance you can borrow a copy from someone? It seems such a shame to pay real money for one.

My partner has all three books in the trilogy. He really liked them :)

308. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93776 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 7:51 am

Northern Bright: Just look what you have started! I am going to have to read it now, just to know which side I am on....

309. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93690 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 11:31 pm

ADH:

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.

All I can say is 'welcome to the internet'!

However I really can't understand though why you say dissent is not welcome. There have been major issues of dissent here in recent times - intense debates about libertarianism, the role of activism (such as the RSS).

The problem with religion is that it is not used to being debated. So what can seem like normal conversation on another topic can appear like fierce criticism when applied to religion. This is why people like Dawkins are sometimes labelled as 'militant' in terms of religion, when the equivalent level of discussion in another area would be considered mild.

Religion needs to grow up and accept that it has to deal with the same level of robust discussion as any other aspect of life.

310. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93565 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Bonzai:

I have to disagree with you about these. This is not a matter about parsimony in terms of data, its about parsimony in terms of ideas and principles. Fermi's ideas were indeed parsimonious. The idea of the neutrino maintained a simple idea - the conservation of momentum.

And Einstein's idea of general symmetry was also parsimonious... take a simple rule and assume it applies universally, without odd exceptions. Assume there are no additional laws for those accelerating as for those at constant velocity.

In both these situations, the scientists were trying to look for an increased generality and simplicity.

I am not suggesting that parsimony is a universal rule. What I am saying is that when someone actively rejects it as a general principle, as D'Souza does, then one really does have to question their motives and intellect.

Edit:

but in that case "parsimony" would become too flexible to be very useful as a practical guide line.

You read my mind! No, on the contrary, this is an illustration, I feel, of how parsimony is a useful guide, not how it has become too flexible. A single principle is more parsimonious that a patchwork.

311. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93538 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 12:26 pm

One would think. Still, narcissists, who enjoy a rather flexible relationship with reality, rise to high office.

Well, OK.. you got me there! It may not always be that disadvantageous to the individual. But they still "suffer" from narcissism. It is a recognised mental disorder. If D'Souza seriously rejects parsimony, and he understands what it means, then this does suggest that either he is lying, or that he talk to his doctor at the earliest opportunity. "We can all believe whatever we want and act on it" is not a sane viewpoint.

312. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93531 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 11:57 am

Dr Benway.

I think it is far more important than that. A lack of a parsimonius approach would be disastrous even for an isolated individual.

I would suggest that anyone who questions parsimony as a good approach to understanding reality needs to consult the following, in the order listed:

1. A dictionary
2. A therapist

313. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #93530 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 11:42 am

Bonzai:

Your recent posts have been some of the most intelligent and thought-provoking I have seen on this site. As someone who was raised religious, and remained religious for a significant fraction of his adult life, I find your description of how religious people cope with the actual text of the bible to be very accurate.

314. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93527 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 11:31 am

Rules like parsimony rest upon mutual agreement before the debate begins

I usually agree with you about everything, but I am not sure about this.

This may require some thought, but my first attempt at describing why I disagree is as follows.

I think parsimony is about more than mutual agreement regarding a debate. I think it is fundamental to human reasoning in any sphere. Sane people always tend to start simple and work up in terms of explaining our experiences. I think it is in our nature. Imagine a cro-magnon man walking under a tree, and branch falls close to him. The sane response, if this is the first time, is "stuff happens". The un-parsimonious response from the less sane is "there is a conspiracy to kill me. I can no longer trust any of my friends or family."

When someone is attempting to dismiss parsimony in a debate, it is a sure sign of an emotional attachment to an idea that bypasses rationality, and anyone questioning parsimony should, it seems to me, be watched for signs of a less than sane approach to life.

315. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93466 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 7:37 am

I'd think that I wouldn't trust a man who covered his eyes with his hat, and if it fell a bit lower it would maybe explain why the words seem to be coming from it. God knows what the little green men would think of that.

OK. There is a Muslim tradition of infallibility too. The problem is that that particular infallibility results in different statements that those of the Pope.

So, tell me. Do you have some kind of measuring device that detects 'true' infallibility?

316. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93455 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 7:14 am

Come on Steve, you're an intelligent man. Clearly self-proclaimed means, well, self-proclaimed and clearly papal infallibility is based on the words of Jesus (not a pope) to Peter, a pope. Surely your literacy isn't confined to science.

Who says when what the pope says is infallible?

Who reported supposed words of Jesus that described this infallibility?

Supposed I came up to you and said "I can tell you the truth sometimes. Who says when I am telling the truth? Well, me of course. Why should you trust me on this? Well, we have a family tradition of believing this." What would you think?

Honestly, if Martians ever visited, we should be ashamed of such twaddle. They would die laughing.

317. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93435 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 6:40 am

No, self-proclaimed is when you proclaim about your self.

And that is what the pope does. He says "now I am right" and "now, I am a bit dodgy".

Also, whose word to we have that Peter said that? The Catholic Church! Clever, isn't it?

You can't tell me about this - I am an ex Catholic.

318. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93417 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 5:51 am

Thank you, steve99, I do agree that the way you put it is a better expression of the underlying issue than were my words. Ditto evidence for the effectiveness of intercessionary prayer.

No criticism intended; it is just that if we make too much of the 'natural/supernatural' distinction, the religious can attack us as 'closed minded'. I think a better strategy is just to say 'yeah, whatever, but evidence please' :)

319. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93413 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 5:34 am

OK. So we know that we believe in a natural world with natural explanations. We don't believe in supernatural beings, causes or effects.

Personally, I find this a bit restrictive. My view is that stuff seems to happen and the principles of science seem to be the best way to investigate. If someone came up with evidence of telepathy or fairies, I would want it investigated. Scientifically.

320. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93405 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 5:13 am

Unlikely though, in the self-proclaimed 'oasis'

"Self-proclaimed"? You mean like the Holy Father, who is able to declare when his own words are the truth direct from God?

321. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #93304 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Are all the people who write books discussing or criticising the works of any scientist, philsopher, social theorist, novellist etc. a 'flea'?

Of course not. The parasitic nature comes from attempting to make use of the success of the original.

Non-parasitic: "Why Christianity is a jolly good thing"
Parasitic: "Why I think best-selling author RICHARD DAWKINS is wrong about Christianity"

322. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93297 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:49 pm

ADH:

Fundamentalist secularism is every bit as aggressive as fundamentalist religion ever was.

I am sure you will see even after a small amount of reflection that this is just a bit silly, isn't it. As someone posted on another thread, Dawkins has not wanted the death sentence for someone who called their teddy bear Darwin.

Is it not an imposition to require Christians to shut up about their faith outside the confines of their own home.

Of course it would be. Unless they have a public role which is conflict with preaching doctrine.

The moment they enter the public square in whatever capacity of public life they are (increasingly) required to refrain from proclaiming or even confessing their faith as being of relevance to their public role. Is that not an imposition?

It might be if it were true. I know of no examples of it.

And Dennett among others would also have the state, if he could, intervene in how Christian parents bring up their children!

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. All he wants is that schools should include teaching of the facts of all world religions, in addition to any promotion of a particular religion as 'the right way'. This is a very mild suggestion indeed. He has specifically stated that he has no interest in interfering with how parents of any religion bring up their religion. He was talking about schools, and he was not wanting to stop anything, simply increase education.

And don't come back at me with the notion that Christian parents, by being Christians and bringing up their kids in accordance with their convictions are guilty of unwarranted imposition.

I don't know why you would claim anyone would come back at you about this. The only issue people like Dawkins has is when kids are labelled with the beliefs of their parents, nothing more.

You really do seem to have built up a considerable set of straw men about what atheists like Dennett and Dawkins believe!

As he said, (please take note - just in case!) "an atheist who wants to remain an atheist cnnot be too careful about what he reads".

What a silly statement. Do you consider Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens to be somehow avoiding books in case they get 'converted'?

Rationalists seek knowledge, they don't avoid it, like so many religious.

Reason has moved many a rationalist towards faith!

Not really; not since Darwin showed that complexity could arise without a Creator.

323. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93291 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Excellent comment, Atticus.

I could hardly believe what I was reading in that article. I mean, honestly: Daniel Dennett - bellicose? I know Hitchens has a reputation, and Dawkins can occasionally show his teeth, but I just can't picture Dennett as ranting and angry.

324. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93286 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Even if we are not 100% sure that the fetus is a person or at what stage, the fact that there is a possibility of this being so should galvinise us into action in defence of the unborn.

This depends what you mean by not 100% sure. I can see no reason at all to consider an early embryo - just a ball of cells - a person. I suspect that person-hood comes on slowly, along with development.

As for 'defending unborn children', well again, that depends on what you call a 'child'. My personal view is that there is a stage before birth where the fetus becomes enough of a 'child' that destroying it is wrong. But I don't think that is a clear point. And before that, I believe it is not unreasonable to destroy the fetus if it is unwanted, or diseased. But these things are a matter of degree.

The thing is Steve that I seem to be the only one here required to make concessions. If concessions are what we need, does this only apply to me and my fellow-believers?

Well, generally speaking, I think so. Having two sides to an argument does not mean both sides have equal validity. I would suggest that the concession you are making is to your benefit. It moves you away from dogma and false religious certainty and helps you to find out more about complex issues. Having rationalists move towards dogma and faith seems to be an odd suggestion. Free thinking is too addictive anyway!

325. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93278 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:02 pm

ADH.

Good. Concession what we need in these matters. The problem is when we explore these issues of self, of identity and so on, things get so complicated.

326. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93269 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 2:49 pm

What do YOU mean by a person Steve?

I am happy to admit I am not sure, but as you are using that term to describe a fetus of a certain age, then it is reasonable for me to ask what you mean by it.

327. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93266 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Certainly after 12 to 18 weeks of gestation (please note that I would say before, but for the sake of argument ...)we are talking about the destruction of a person.

What do you mean by 'a person'?

328. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93251 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 2:04 pm

This is a way one could rebuke: think of the greek number pi (=3.14......). If this number would have been set differently even by less than 1 millionths then it would be impossible to draw a circle! No circles, no stars, no planets, no universum, no life!

Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but no.

Pi is not a physical constant, like the speed of light, or the charge on an electron. Pi is a mathematical constant, and its value is fixed by our definitions of geometrical shapes and mathematics.

329. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #93233 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 1:13 pm

I think Mr Dawkins's belief that an absence of religion means an absence of cruelty is naive to say the least.

Professor Dawkins has, as far as I know, no such belief. He is simply stating that religion is one of several systems of belief that enable cruelty.

330. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93230 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I blieve that the unborn human child is the object of God's love, and that makes him or her inviolable, just as every human being after birth remains unique and inviolable. It's a continuum starting from conception.

Why conception? At what point? When the sperm first enters the egg? When the sperm nucleus fuses with the egg nucleus?

What I am pointing out here is that there is no magic instant when a new human starts, so concentrating on conception is arbitrary.

331. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93219 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:45 pm

It carries within it the foundations of invividuation, the identity of the person.

It is either a person, or it isn't. If you want to reduce things to the level of 'start of the beginning of the origin of the foundations of individuation', then there is so little meaning left that discussion is pointless.

I really don't see what you aren't getting here. As you know that zero, part, one or two people can result from that cell or ball of cells, you must see it is meaningless to call that state some unique 'beginning of a person'. It is part of the process that can lead to a person, but then so is a guy phoning up a girl for a hot date, and forgetting the condoms.

332. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93204 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:29 pm

It is the substance of the person.

It clearly isn't. There is no 'person' there yet. That bundle of cells can split, eventually leading to more than one person, or it is even possible for two non-identical twins to merge, forming a chimera person at some later stage. There is the potential to form people, but that is all.

333. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93198 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I was talking about DNA - the genetic material - not the hardware.

Actually, what is important is the patterns in our brain. That is what produces our "self".

334. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93191 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:01 pm

It is not made up of the materials out of which the house itself will be built.

You aren't made up of the same material as the fertilised egg. Not a single atom is the same.

335. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93162 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 10:50 am

Does anyone ever argue that twins are split selves? No, they are fully autonomous selves

Well, exactly. Which is why it makes no sense to claim that conception is a useful point to consider a self starting. If you do, then you would indeed have to consider identical twins as "split selves". It is clear that there is no self yet to split.

If we were nothing but our DNA there would be no distiction between identical twins or clones.

But that makes my point for me even better. There IS no distinction between identical twins or clones at the time of separation. The distinction comes later, with differing experience.

336. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93152 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 10:31 am

Let's pretend ...

Well, OK, but I just don't see how it is relevant. Conception is just one stage in the process of forming a self. But it is not the definitive stage, and it is not a unique stage. The formation of identical twins shows that new individuals can branch off after that process. If cloning is a possibility in future, it is even concievable [sic] that in some distance time, many people will come from processes other than conception. But when is there a new "self"? In terms of conception, you might say when sperm meets egg - when there are the right number of chromosomes. However, for a clone (or identical twin) the cell the start from already has the full compliment of DNA. When you really start to look at it, there is no 'magic moment' when a "self" starts to form.

337. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93146 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 10:16 am

The fertilisation of the egg is the beginning of the process of human life coming into being.

Ah, but we aren't talking about initiating a human life. We are talking about a "self". The two things can be quite different, as we discussed with the formation of identical twins.

It's like the Big Bang. It was triggered by an external event which was not itself part of the process.

We don't know if that is true.

338. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93136 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 9:49 am

That is not to deny that the fertilised egg might split and form two selves, or having split re-merge (I wasn't aware that this was possible, but it makes no difference to my argument).

I believe it does. We are here talking about personhood and individuality. This shows that there is nothing distinct that can be considered to be a "self" at this stage. The labelling of this as a "self" is entirely arbitrary, as is the point of conception.

When does autonomous selfhood begin, after all?

Just because this is hard to decide, it does not follow that it is pretty easy to know when selfhood is absent. And it certainly is not there in an undifferentiated ball of cells, any more that it is in a fertilized egg, or the original sperm and egg cells. It is all part of a process... by your definition the "self in the making" could be extended back indefinitely, through the line of ancestors.

339. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93127 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 9:13 am

What Dennett wants is to teach religion as a function of natural selection.

Not in the talks I have listened to (I have not listened to this one). I last heard him mention this in a TED talk (www.ted.com). All he wants is for children to learn about all major world religions without these religions being preached at them. If that is done, he has no objection even to faith schools.

340. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93122 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 9:00 am

Add to that that I'm now also a bit more open to the possibility that we may actually be more than the sum of our parts.

Well, there are plenty of atheists who believe that. They are called Buddhists!

341. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93117 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 8:39 am

This is not because I think religious propositions are any less false than I did before but rather because I try not to caricature religion as often, try to listen more intently to what theists are saying and be a bit more forgiving toward their ignorance.

Well, I can see nothing unreasonable in that. I think your position illustrates the point that Sam Harris makes about problems with use of the term "atheist". It has much baggage.

342. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93116 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 8:38 am

ADH: The problem is that I can't really accept that a ball of a few cells without any kind of differentiation is in any way a "self". It obviously is not, as it can be split, and will form identical twins. Taking selfhood back to conception makes no sense, philosophically or biologically.

343. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93110 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 8:10 am

This is true because I find atheism and theism (even at their best) to be wanting.

I don't see how that relates to the truth value of religions.

344. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93108 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 8:07 am

ADH:

I think the best place to start a reply is with the assumption that you can have a person without a brain. Well, I think that contradicts the earlier statement that a person is something that has properties such as the capacity to reason. And if a brain transplant ever took place, there would be little doubt that person-hood followed the brain.

Another thing I believe is false is the claim that conception is a non-abitrary point for defining the start of a new human organism. It certainly isn't. The results of conception can split, giving identical twins, and sometimes these can even re-fuse.

The problem is the asumption that there is a non-arbitrary point at which a person appears. That is looking for certainty where there is none.

As you really can't have a person without some sort of brain (at least not until we have got AI working!) then I would suggest that a person is present when a certain level of neural development is achieved, although I could not say which level.

345. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93102 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 7:50 am

The mutual respect I'm talking about comes not from looking at the worst examples of religion but the best; and not at the worst of atheism, but the best.

But you were suggesting you were moving towards agnosticism. That implies more than just respect - it implies a change of belief.

346. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93099 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 7:42 am

There really isn't much substance to our position and I still find myself wondering sometimes about why things are the way they are. I know, there need not be a purpose to existence (human or otherwise) but I can't shut my mind off to such things because it's what a scientist is "supposed to do" in that situation.

Religion tends to shut down wondering about why things are the way they are.

Our growing immaturity (as someone in the audience even pointed out to Dennett) toward religion, even among the vanguards of modern atheism, betrays an insecurity I thought we didn't suffer from.

You get some noisy people saying crude things in any situation where people in general are being given more freedom to talk and think. This is not insecurity, it is human nature. If you want to see insecurity, look at the recent statement by the Pope condemning atheism.

I don't think religion, any religion, is better than atheism but I can't argue that they're any worse either.

Well I can! They lead to oppression and stifling of imagination and intellect.

I think I now opt for mutual respect between atheism and theism. It just seems right. It seems like the mature thing to do.

I find it rather astonishing to think we should respect religion when we have the stories of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who have suffered the consequences of religious belief.

No idea deserves respect until it has to fight for respect with evidence of its truth and utility. Maturity is to apply the criterion to all ideas equally, and not give special status to those labelled 'sacred'.

Doctor: I was a little started by your response :)

347. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93091 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 7:12 am

In D'Souza's defense, I think what he's basically trying to say is that there is probably something greater than ourselves out there and science doesn't provide sufficient answers to the really big questions.

No, I don't think so. You see, he is labelling that Big Unknown "God", which is claiming that he has special knowledge about the supposedly unknown.

Doctor Benway... is this a known troll?

348. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93087 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 6:56 am

It may not be untenable, but surely to move from atheism to agnosticism you would need some evidence to change your mind. I am curious to know what that is.

349. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #93072 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 5:56 am

Russell. Not that I am disagreeing with you about this case, but is there an age below which you think medical treatment could be forced on a child?

350. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93059 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 4:43 am

The newer idea of "multiverse"

For the general reader....

There are other ways that multiverses can exist that are perhaps less controversial than the multiplicities that some think are implied by quantum mechanics. For example, it is thought that our universe probably went through a period of exponentially fast expansion called inflation. obviously inflation stopped for the part of the universe we can see, but it may well have continued elsewhere, with other universes 'freezing out'. One idea is that the fundamental state of things is inflation, and an infinite number of universes have resulted.

Here is a good general article on multiverses from Acientific American:
http://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Scientific%20American%20Parallel%20Universes%20-%20Tegmark%202003.htm