When Egos Go Before Brains

I can't help noticing how extremely angry scientific materialists get when anyone dares to question the standard mechanistic theory of evolution. It's even worse when the skeptic is obviously not uneducated or unscientific.

What are you so afraid of? Never mind, I know. Instead of dying out slowly, religion will stubbornly continue to exist and continue destroying the world. Or, just as bad, everyone will start believing in new-agey pseudoscience.

Just the idea makes you want to throw up.

Now it seems to me that whenever an idea elicits such strong emotional reactions, something very important is at stake. We don't become violently nauseated just because an idea seems wrong. That only happens if the idea threatens something we value. More is going on here than just a scientific quest for truth.

I can't help noticing how extremely angry scientific materialists get when anyone dares to question the standard mechanistic theory of evolution.

When one hears blatant lies told about one's work; when one hears a scientific theory blamed -- with no evidence or cause-and-effect link -- for some of the most vile atrocities in human history; when one hears of -- or is a victim of -- outright bullying by hateful idiots (speaking of anger) for supporting honest education or questioning an established religious doctrine; then anger is a very appropriate response. If your fellow creationists have a problem with that, perhaps they should stop doing, and encouraging, the things that make us rightly angry.

And speaking of anger, where's the justification for the anger and hatred directed at parents, teachers, scientists, and even innocent children, who happen not to accept the majority religion of their community? What did they do to deserve it?

And who elected you the emotion-police anyway? Given your dogged ignorance of the subjects of which you speak here, and your mindless repetition of already-discredited creationist talking-points, what right can you possibly have to tell us whether our emotions are justified?

I can't help noticing how extremely angry scientific materialists get when anyone dares to question the standard mechanistic theory of evolution. It's even worse when the skeptic is obviously not uneducated or unscientific. What are you so afraid of?

— realpc whinnied

I can't help noticing how extremely angry scientific materialists get when anyone dares to question the standard mechanistic theory of evolution.

It's even worse when the skeptic is obviously not uneducated or unscientific.

What are you so afraid of?

Never mind, I know. Instead of dying out slowly, religion will stubbornly continue to exist and continue destroying the world.

Or, just as bad, everyone will start believing in new-agey pseudoscience.

Just the idea makes you want to throw up.

Now it seems to me that whenever an idea elicits such strong emotional reactions, something very important is at stake.

We don't become violently nauseated just because an idea seems wrong.

That only happens if the idea threatens something we value. More is going on here than just a scientific quest for truth.

Exactly -- you, Vyoma, are on the side of reason and enlightenment. You and your crowd can bring peace on earth and justice for all, and a cure for all diseases. But the raving ignoramouses, who still live in the dark ages, threaten to undo everything you have done and block further progress.

It's a clear question of good vs evil. No wonder you're angry.

we're fighting to maintain civilization against the know-nothings

Yes, and it must feel good to know you are a know-something!!

Exactly --- you, Vyoma, are on the side of reason and enlightenment. You and your crowd can bring peace on earth and justice for all, and a cure for all diseases. But the raving ignoramouses, who still live in the dark ages, threaten to undo everything you have done and block further progress. It's a clear question of good vs evil. No wonder you're angry.

— realpc

Yes, and it must feel good to know you are a know-something!!

RealPC:
"You and your crowd can bring peace on earth and justice for all, and a cure for all diseases. But the raving ignoramouses, who still live in the dark ages, threaten to undo everything you have done and block further progress."

Anybody in your family die of smallpox lately?

While we may be coming to understanding a bit too late to help, we *might* be able to prevent a catastrophe like the influenza outbreak of 1918. This will be thanks to Tara and her cohorts, *not* religious leaders.

Have you read "Good Omens" by Gaiman and Pratchett? Pestilence is no longer one of the four horseman (well, bikers) of the apocalypse. He is replaced by Pollution.

You're very fond of making assertions and then vanishing when you're called upon to provide evidence instead of personal opinion. Do it or be decent enough to admit you're just a troll making appeals to emotion.

Like Larry, he's too dumb to realize that failure to respond to accusations of being a sockpuppet is very strong evidence that you are one.

Exactly --- you, Vyoma, are on the side of reason and enlightenment. You and your crowd can bring peace on earth and justice for all, and a cure for all diseases...

So, realpc, what has YOUR "crowd" contributed to any of these causes?

what has YOUR "crowd" contributed to any of these causes?

I don't belong to a crowd, I just try to understand things I consider important, such as evolution.

Since I don't need crowd membership to justify my existence, I don't vomit all over everything or explode in sputtering rages every time someone disagrees with me.

Science is great, and I believe in the scientific method. I happen to disagree with scientific materialism, which is an ideology, not a method, and which is unrelated to the scientific method.

I believe in evolution, but I don't like the ideological dogmatism of certain aspects of the currently accepted theory.

My worldview is holistic, or systemic, instead of mechanistic/reductionist. I realize that tends to irritate scientific materialists. I don't care, as long as they can't throw up on me over the internet.

When one hears blatant lies told about one's work; when one hears a scientific theory blamed --- with no evidence or cause-and-effect link --- for some of the most vile atrocities in human history; when one hears of --- or is a victim of --- outright bullying by hateful idiots (speaking of anger) for supporting honest education or questioning an established religious doctrine; then anger is a very appropriate response.

— Raging Bee

You mean aside from the efforts of a group of people to supplant reason with a bunch of unproven, unevidenced assertions pulled out of their collective rectums and/or favorite holy books?

— Vyoma

Actually, we're angry about lies and the attempt to use law to change science in order for it to accept religiously-based metaphysics as science.

— Glen

Since I don't need crowd membership to justify my existence, I don't vomit all over everything or explode in sputtering rages every time someone disagrees with me.

Um, I'd hate to be the one to tell Egnore but only one language has been invented by intelligent design of humans, and that's Esperanto. Few people regard Esperanto as more than a historical footnote and it was never widely adopted. Some even feel it lacks appeal because it lacks the "accidents" and idiosyncrasies that naturally evolved human languages possess. Language, like DNA, evolves. How sad that Egnor's whole conversion to ID should be based on an untruth. How odd that a supposedly accomplished neurosurgeon needs to place his error and conjecture on display.

I don't belong to a crowd...

Really? Your talking points are exactly the same as those of the creationist crowd, with no modification of your own, or any indication that you've done anything other than repeat what that crowd have already said thousands of times, with no input from any other source.

Not only that, but you refused even to acknoledge a single one of the injustices cited here, by several respondents, as cause for that anger you so self-righteously condemn. Since you condemn our anger, but not the injustices that caused it, I therefore conclude that you do, in fact, condone said injustices. Just like the creationist crowd.

Science is great, and I believe in the scientific method. I happen to disagree with scientific materialism, which is an ideology, not a method, and which is unrelated to the scientific method.

This paragraph is self-contradictory: you say you believe in something, then misrepresent it into something you say you don't believe in -- and again, your behavior is exactly like that of the creationists.

I believe in evolution, but I don't like the ideological dogmatism of certain aspects of the currently accepted theory.

First, "ideological dogmatism" is completely separate from the actual science. Second, the "aspects" you've questioned here, have nothing whatsoever to do with any "ideology;" it's all been the same ignorant misrepresentation of the basic underlying science. Just like the creationist crowd.

My worldview is holistic, or systemic, instead of mechanistic/reductionist...

Your worldview is muddled and uninformed, probably because you consider learning things in detail too "mechanistic/reductionist" for your taste.

Ok, so the value of NOT booting this RPC troll is?

what exactly?

Ok, so the value of NOT booting this RPC troll is? what exactly?

What are you so afraid of?

We're afraid that misunderstandings, misinterpretations, out-of-context-quotations, and outright lies will be taught to children as if they were true. And we are afraid that those sadly mis-educated children will grow up, and vote for morons who will lead our country into needless wars, push policies that degrade the Earth and its resources, and cause an overall decline in civilization.

We are not afraid of honest discussion of the science of evolution. But that's not what Egnor and his ilk are engaged in.

I can't help noticing how extremely angry scientific materialists get when anyone dares to question the standard mechanistic theory of evolution.

Added entertainment value?

If it really is Charlie Wagner, and some of the quotes above strongly indicate that it is, then yeah, it's fruitless to waste any more time on him. Time and again he's shown that he will not budge a single inch over his cherished beliefs, and will weasel out of every single attempt to challenge them.

It's pointless and you can't even say it's "for the benefit of the lurkers" because he only ever speaks in generalities, offering little to no opportunity to offer concrete information in rebuttal.

Ok here's some psyc for you.

IDists refuse to acknowledge defects in their approach and therefore cannot make improvements. Then, in 10 years from now when its clear that ID has been thouroughly rejected they'll sit there and blame everyone but themselves. Sure after failing so miserably they might make a few adjustments but abandon a failed approach? Not a chance because that would involve valuing truth to much, and of course they could never do that.

And a few basics too.

Look at the EF. It's just a flow chart and that's it!

Look at their coveted information theory. It has nothing to do with meaningful content and is absolutely useless to their cause.

Look at forensic science and archeology etc. These try to identify HUMAN causation because we have an idea of what humans are capable of. That's it, no application to biological structures.

Look At SETI. If ET's exist they would still be physical and at least observable in principle same as humans in the past. Again, no application to biological structures and a category error when they try.

So yes, naseau towards ID is justified irrespective of one's philosophical position.

We're afraid that misunderstandings, misinterpretations, out-of-context-quotations, and outright lies will be taught to children as if they were true.

In the five hours since I challenged "realpc" to cite examples, he has not done so. On the other hand, he has posted several other replies. I feel safe in concluding, therefore, that he cannot cite any examples as was asked. Thus, he is, indeed a troll, whether or not he is someone using an alternate screen name.

In reading his last reply on this thread, and taking him at his word, I also conclude that realpc's position can best be described as nothing more than solipsism. As a solipsist, it would, indeed, be useless to communicate with him, since he's ultimately interested only in talking to himself in order to maintain his redefinition of every single word he uses. He isn't part of a "crowd" because, as far as he knows, he's the only person who makes the points he makes... mainly because he never pays attention to what anyone else says. It doesn't matter that he hasn't been able to support any part of any of his arguments; he believes what he believes solely on the basis of his believing it, and that is the only criterion he would ever accept.

I think he's telling the truth when he states that he's not part of a "crowd," exactly because he has no interaction with anyone other than himself on these subjects. He's a lot like the client of a person who defends himself in court that way.

Ok, so the value of NOT booting this RPC troll is?

because the genetic code functions like a human language and because human language is created only by the "intelligent design" of humans, then the genetic code must have been intelligently designed

We have no experience in nature whatsoever with representational codes or languages except in biology, and the only experience we have in our lives is with such languages that are intelligently designed by people.

As a solipsist, it would, indeed, be useless to communicate with him, since he's ultimately interested only in talking to himself in order to maintain his redefinition of every single word he uses.

I already know that I can't reason with Marxists, Christian fundamentalists, or scientific atheists.

he calls it "reason".

bwahahahahaha.

If nature is smarter than we are, it is not likely we can "fix" it or bend it to our fit our needs.

If we are mere components of something infinitely greater than ourselves, our power to understand and control must be limited.

Sorta makes you miss ole Jon Davison, eh Sir T?

How do you like them kumquats?

I once tried to reason with a Marxist on a political blog and got that reaction. Terrified that the next generation might escape indoctrination. I already know that I can't reason with Marxists, Christian fundamentalists, or scientific atheists.

But there might be some readers of this blog who appreciate balance and like to consider more than one angle.

Scientific atheists sincerely believe in human intelligence and the ability of smart people to solve the important mysteries and problems.

This belief rests on the assumption that nature is not intelligent.

If nature is smarter than we are, it is not likely we can "fix" it or bend it to our fit our needs. If we are mere components of something infinitely greater than ourselves, our power to understand and control must be limited.

That's why scientific atheism is so attractive. It promises a future world designed by and for humans. Without disease or war, possibly without death. It's similar to the kingdom of heaven on earth promised by Christianity.

Realpc bleated: I once tried to reason with a Marxist on a political blog and got that reaction. Terrified that the next generation might escape indoctrination.

Comparing scientists to Marxists?

I would never do that. I consider myself a scientist and I am certainly not a Marxist.

I used the term "scientific atheist," not "scientist," and they are hardly the same thing.

You really have no idea what science really is

I know that science != atheism. There is absolutely no requirement for scientists to be atheists. Atheism is a faith.

Science is supposed to be empirical, not ideological. Scientists are supposed to consider evidence and to listen to ideas different from their own. Skepticism does not mean automatically discarding idesa that conflict with atheism.

I consider myself a scientist

I would never do that. I consider myself a scientist and I am certainly not a Marxist. I used the term "scientific atheist," not "scientist," and they are hardly the same thing.

I know that science != atheism. There is absolutely no requirement for scientists to be atheists.

Atheism is a faith.

Science is supposed to be empirical, not ideological. Scientists are supposed to consider evidence and to listen to ideas different from their own. Skepticism does not mean automatically discarding idesa that conflict with atheism.

Charlie Wagner aka realpc is a hopeless case. Wouldn't be surprised if I learned that he was institutionalized and his posting was supposed to be part of his therapy...

Jason Rosenhouse writes that scientists have "discovered" that religion results from nothing but an evolutionary adaptation of the physical brain.

What scientific evidence do you think is provided to support the discovery? Right, none. It isn't necessary because the theory is friendly to atheism, and therefore needs no evidence.

That is what science is evolving into. Wild speculations can be presented as fact, as long as they support atheism. Theories that do not support atheism, on the other hand, are dismissed and despised, and the evidence is ignored.

Jason Rosenhouse writes that scientists have "discovered" that religion results from nothing but an evolutionary adaptation of the physical brain.

What scientific evidence do you think is provided to support the discovery? Right, none. It isn't necessary because the theory is friendly to atheism, and therefore needs no evidence. That is what science is evolving into. Wild speculations can be presented as fact, as long as they support atheism. Theories that do not support atheism, on the other hand, are dismissed and despised, and the evidence is ignored.

shit, I still go to Stony Brook...I can't have it losing credibility before I graduate.
...shit shit shit shit shit...
shit...

shit, I still go to Stony Brook...I can't have it losing credibility before I graduate....shit shit shit shit shit... shit...

heck, Futuyma himself is in that dept.

so is George Williams, for christ's sake.

where are these people, when they should be publically egging Egnor right along with the rest of us?

No, he doesn't, you lying sack of feces

I suggested on the pharyngula thread that people concerned about Stony's reputation should contact the wonderful evolutionary biology dept. they have there, and get those guys to publically "egg" Egnor.

— Sir Toejam

sounds like a great idea to me.

I personally contacted George Williams (emeritus), but received no response as of yet.

probably would be more productive to send letters directly to the head of the dept., and see what they have to say.

The other thing that is truly grating is that neither Luskin nor Egnor ever seems to use the word "evolution" much. They both use the term "Darwinism" and refer to "Darwin" again and again in such an obviously intentional way that it's truly jarring to hear it. (Really. Listen to the podcast to experience it. They practically spit out the term "Darwinism" as they use it as frequently as they can, rarely even mentioning the word evolution.) It's the typical creationist tactic of trying to denigrate evolutionary theory as ideology by attaching an eponym to it, like Marxism or Leninism. Perhaps we need to start referring to ID creationism as "Beheism" or "Dembskiism" whenever possible.

You are my hero.

Anyone detect a pattern here?

— Frank J

Wow. So not only does he know nothing about evolution, but also about language.

Ever heard of Noam Chomsky? Modern linguistics? Everything we've learned about language in the past 50 years tells us that language is not a human cultural activity, but a human ability (like breathing or seeing three-dimensionally) that is encoded in our genes and evolved over time. Language is MORE evidence for evolution, not evidence against it.

The rhetorical sleight-of-hand allows one to remove evolutionary biology from a scientific context and set it up as a competitor to theism. Having done this, true believers no longer need to consider evidence...

— Vyoma

Language is MORE evidence for evolution, not evidence against it.

While true believers gravitate to such language, the particular strategic us of it, coupled with well-orchestrated quote-mining, Gish-galloping, and careful avoidance of letting on what they think the designer did, or when, strongly suggests that they are not necessarily true believers themselves...

— Frank J

shit, I still go to Stony Brook...I can't have it losing credibility before I graduate....shit shit shit shit shit... shit...

Absolutely not. It's a promising field, evolutionary linguistics, but it's really difficult to prove anything. Also there are conflicting theories.

Jason Rosenhouse writes that scientists have "discovered" that religion results from nothing but an evolutionary adaptation of the physical brain. No, he doesn't, you lying sack of feces:

[scientists studying the evolution of religion] tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history.

I think BMH was referring to the development of the capacity for language (which Pinker, Chomsky et al. present as an evolutionary adaptation), as opposed to evolutionary linguistics, which supposedly studies how languages develop and change.

Why do they agree? Where is the evidence for this? Not in the article or Jason's post. It's accepted as a matter of atheist faith.

And how much actual study of the matter did you do before coming to that "conclusion?" From what superior expertise do you judge the work of others in this very complex and longstanding inquiry?

Realpc ranted -

"Why do they agree? Where is the evidence for this? Not in the article or Jason's post. It's accepted as a matter of atheist faith."

This was in response to

"[scientists studying the evolution of religion] tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history."

Actually, he's wrong on both counts. One hardly needs to be an atheist to 'tend to agree' with this rather uncontroversial point. In humans, this point can clearly be defended (not 'proven' but defended) with the evidence that self-identified religious experiences, like other human cognitive and emotional states, are related to observable brain activity.

I am inclined to bet that plants and microbes don't feel religious belief. Among animals, it's conceivable that a few other highly cephalized species might feel something related to what we call 'religious belief'. But of course, we can't definitively tell whether other species have religious belief. Indeed, we have to take humans at their word when we study the relationship of human religious belief to the brain.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence to support the connection.

All conscious human perception (accurate, hallucinatory, or idealized) relies on the brain. Why would anyone, of any religious tradition, argue that what people directly experience as religious isn't a product of the brain, from a physical point of view? It obviously is. This doesn't tell you anything about its value or validity, it just tells you something you could have already guessed with ease. Human behavior is related to the human brain, and the human brain evolved.

Realpc ranted -

"Why do they agree? Where is the evidence for this? Not in the article or Jason's post. It's accepted as a matter of atheist faith."

This was in response to

"[scientists studying the evolution of religion] tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history."

Actually, he's wrong on both counts. One hardly needs to be an atheist to 'tend to agree' with this rather uncontroversial point. In humans, this point can clearly be defended (not 'proven' but defended) with the evidence that self-identified religious experiences, like other human cognitive and emotional states, are related to observable brain activity.

I am inclined to bet that plants and microbes don't feel religious belief. Among animals, it's conceivable that a few other highly cephalized species might feel something related to what we call 'religious belief'. But of course, we can't definitively tell whether other species have religious belief. Indeed, we have to take humans at their word when we study the relationship of human religious belief to the brain.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence to support the connection.

All conscious human perception (accurate, hallucinatory, or idealized) relies on the brain. Why would anyone, of any religious tradition, argue that what people directly experience as religious isn't a product of the brain, from a physical point of view? It obviously is. This doesn't tell you anything about its value or validity, it just tells you something you could have already guessed with ease. Human behavior is related to the human brain, and the human brain evolved.

Sorry for the double post. I thought that the mechanism for preventing multiple posts in a short period of time would have prevented that.

I know what he meant. The hypothesis is that linguistic ability and linguistic complexity developed gradually and in parallel as the result of natural selection. The crux of it is that each new linguistic construct confers a survival advantage to those hominids who* are capable of forming it.

Usage issue: when referring to hominids, do we say "who" or "which"? Like, "The hominids which were able to speak had a survival advantage over those that couldn't." Or, is it "which"?

Hmm, wonder where my response to Guye went...harold, did your double-post eat my single-post??

Among animals, it's conceivable that a few other highly cephalized species might feel something related to what we call 'religious belief'

It doesn't know who it is calling to, it is simply calling to anything out there that might come to its aid, even if this assistance occurs only because the second predator wants to harrass and kill the cat or the panther.

Or it could be that the animals that didn't call out were not able to inform their relatives/offspring that a predator was nearby, making it easier for the predator to catch them unawares.

Maybe some predators would be bigger if they could count on having more than one meal easily available at a time, rather than having everything within earshot run away. Maybe "food chains" would be shorter if bigger predators couldn't hear small predators "preying."

*Shrug* just speculating here, as I have no particular knowledge of the subject. I realize you were, too, I'm just positing what I think might be more empirically-testable explanations.

Re "Hmm, wonder where my response to Guye went...harold, did your double-post eat my single-post??"

It's a post eat post world out there...

Jason said: [scientists studying the evolution of religion] tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history.

Why do they agree? Where is the evidence for this? Not in the article or Jason's post. It's accepted as a matter of atheist faith.

Ever heard of Noam Chomsky? Modern linguistics? Everything we've learned about language in the past 50 years tells us that language is not a human cultural activity, but a human ability (like breathing or seeing three-dimensionally) that is encoded in our genes and evolved over time.

My understanding is that there is considerable empirical support for the hypothesis that the capacity for language is hard-wired into our brains.

The evo-bio explanation infers that language capability likely confers a survival advantage - in contrast to alternative "explanations," like the idea that language was "given" to humans by God (Wallace et al.).

I suppose what you describe would be a possible (but perhaps not mandatory?) corollary to the above, but I can see how it would be hard to produce evidence for it.

Of course, words aren't magic. Neither are sextants, compasses, maps, slide rules and all the other paraphenelia which have accreted around the basic biological brains of homo sapiens. In the case of these other tools and props, however, it is transparently clear that they function so as to either carry out or to facilitate computational operations important to various human projects. The slide rule transforms complex mathematical problems (ones that would baffle or tax the unaided subject) into simple tasks of perceptual recognition. The map provides geographical information in a format well-suited to aid complex planning and strategic military operations. The compass gathers and displays a kind of information that (most) unaided human subjects do not seem to command. These various tools and props thus act to generate information, or to store it, or to transform it, or some combination of the three. In so doing, they impact our individual and collective problem-solving capacities in much the same dramatic ways as various software packages impact the performance of a simple pc. Public language, I shall argue, is just such a tool -- it is a species of external artifact whose current adaptive value is partially constituted by its role in re-shaping the kinds of computational space that our biological brains must negotiate in order to solve certain types of problems, or to carry out certain complex projects.

Also, consider the wikipedia article on universal grammar. It's not hard to understand that the possession of a universal grammar, which purportedly evolved, is not at all the same as the activity of constructing sentences based on that grammar -- a human cultural activity. And, the very universal nature of the grammar implies that we possessed the same universal grammar in Chaucer's time. The evolution of natural language is primarily memetic, not genetic -- it is a matter of human culture (which evolves, in the general sense).

Andy Clark (who, according to Wikepedia, said that language is the ultimate human artifact)

The evo-bio explanation infers that language capability likely confers a survival advantage

in contrast to alternative "explanations," like the idea that language was "given" to humans by God (Wallace et al.).

But unless it's a weasel in a henhouse, the predator is almost always occupied with just one kill (there are exceptions, nests and the like, but those didn't constitute the scenario).

How much of a parrallel might we draw between language and money? There would seem to be many similarities, representation of an abstraction (meaning vs value), arbitrariness (a dollar only has value because we agree it does), and they are certainly human constructs. I do note the demonstration (to my satisfction anyway) of a potential instinct of reciprocity in other species, but I see that as a strengthening of the evolutionary hypothesis. It seems also noteworthy thay while both are human constructs, they are not under conscious human control, a la a free market. We don't decide what inflation is going to be.

Sorry if that is off topic, but I thought it was interesting.

In answer to realpc's Comment #164528 I present:

I can't help noticing how extremely angry religious spiritualists get when anyone dares to question their pet religious beliefs. It's even worse when the skeptic is obviously educated or scientific("We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture", Pastor Ray Mummert).

What are you so afraid of? Never mind, I know. Instead of sticking to measuring the strength of stone arches, rolling balls down inclined planes, watching apples fall from trees, or creating such useful items as clocks, science had to stubbornly continue to open up the entire world to discoveries such as the fact that evil spirits and demons do not cause diseases, the earth is not the center of the universe, the sun is not a lump of flaming coal, and mankind was not the special creation of a xenophobic, genocidal, imaginary sky daddy. Or, just as bad, everyone will stop believing in ancient, long since discredited fairy tales, and by doing so, destroy the world("If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we're headed for an internal destruction of this society", Ray Mummert as well).

Just the idea makes you want to throw up.

Now it seems to me that whenever an idea elicits such strong emotional reactions, something very important is at stake. We don't become violently nauseated just because an idea seems wrong. That only happens if the idea threatens something we value. More is going on here than just a religious quest to dominate minds. Well, maybe that really is all that is going on here after all.

Realpc, you really ought to see a psychiatrist about that projection.
Sincerely,
Paul Flocken

Paul Flocken,

I have stated in various comments that I can't reason with either atheists OR religous extremists.

And your identifying science with atheism is very clever, but I didn't fall for it.

I have stated several times that I am in no way against science. I believe in science as a method, not as a utopian cult.

Science is a way of discovering facts, not a way of creating a perfect world. Every scientific discovery or invention creates as many problems as it solves. Still, I would never oppose scientific progress, because it is human nature to wonder.

Scientific atheism is not science. It is a utopian quasi-religion, and some of its followers can be just as fanatical and close-minded as any Christian or Muslim extremist.

Dawkins is not rational when it comes to the subject of religion. He is a crusader against all forms of religion, which he sees as the root of most evil. When he argues agsinst religion he is waging war, not seeking truth.

I can't reason

Dawkins is not rational when it comes to the subject of religion. He is a crusader against all forms of religion, which he sees as the root of most evil.

When he argues agsinst religion he is waging war, not seeking truth.

So is your misuse of the word "infer" due to a genetic defect?

That's a nice false dichotomy, but the usual alternative explanation is that language use is dependent upon general, rather than specific, brain structures.

BMH said something wrong and silly, and some people seem to want to rescue it based apparently on the notion that their enemy's enemy must be their friend.

Whales v. plankton, ant-eaters, most herbivores.

Dawkins' arguments against the existence of god would only seem rational to atheists. He is not going to convince anyone with his anti-religion diatribes.

And it's very hard to understand how anyone can blame religion for most of the world's troubles. Yes, the world has a lot of problems and yes reigion is involved in some of those problems. But it is not logical to conclude that relgion causes the problems.

Religion had nothing to do with the mass murders committed under communism, for example. And some of our very worst problems were caused by science and technology -- nuclear weapons are an obvous example. If everyone became an atheist tomorrow, we would still have nuclear weapons and political, national, and ethnic conflict.

And science and technology have provided many other dangers besides nuclear weapons. I am NOT against science or technology, and technology is my career. I am against scape-goating, and simple-minded good vs evil thinking.

Religion is not the cause of our problems. Our human nature is the cause of our problems, and religion is one part of human nature. Religion is just one of many excuses for us versus them thinking and scape-goating.

And atheists are just as intolerant as religious believers. You blame religion for the world's problems in the same way that radical Muslims blame the infidels.

We are all to blame, we are all ignorant. That's the hard reality you do not want to see.

Religion had nothing to do with the mass murders committed under communism, for example.

If everyone became an atheist tomorrow, we would still have nuclear weapons and political, national, and ethnic conflict.

"The evo-bio explanation [draws the conclusion] that language likely confers a survival advantage" - not sure I see the misuse there.

Dawkins' arguments against the existence of god would only seem rational to atheists.

We are all to blame, we are all ignorant. That's the hard reality you do not want to see.

Religion had nothing to do with the mass murders committed under communism, for example. Neither did atheism. Nor did religion do anything to prevent the mass murders committed under communism, Nazism, etc., or the proliferation of nukes (cf. Iran), so spare us the "we need religion to keep us from doing these things" talk.

And it's very hard to understand how anyone can blame religion for most of the world's troubles.

The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion. The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45 minute episodes (excluding advertisement breaks), on Channel 4 in the UK. Dawkins has said that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.[1] His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.[2]

When atheists rail against the evils of religion, the implication is that they are virtuous.

Dawkins feels virtuous as he fights valiantly against the forces of ignorance and intolerance. I'm sure many of you feel the same way.

You cannot see that although self-righteous fanatics can be religious, they can also be non-religious. The communists were not religious, but that didn't save them from being evil. Any self-righteous group can become evil.

We are all to blame, we are all ignorant.

Anyone who really believed this would shut the fuck up already and no longer bore us with what even he understands to be ignorance.

As a resident of former communistic country, I just wanted to point out that while it WAS atheistic and anti-religious in theory, it had also its own ideology which actually wasn't far from religion.

Lenin, and others, were considered faultless - nothing in their writings could be ever wrong. Christmas were transformed in accordance with the new belief, just like Christians did two thousand or so years before. New holidays were introduced, with mandatory celebrating - I remember the celebration of Russian Revolution, or the mandatory parades on 1st May.

And of course, we were all taught about Soviet Union, the eternal friend who was better than us in all things, and who had to be revered for all the things they did to us (like selflessly giving up large amount of soldiers just so they could go over here and keep us under occupation).

Most people didn't actually BELIEVE all this, but if they wanted no trouble, they had to go through their lives behaving as if they did. As for whether the higher-ups believed it... I'm not sure. Probably not, as they knew better. Who HAD to believe it, were the people in the middle, the ones who did all the unpleasant tasks of the lower classes without the reward of the higher classes.

I think that the evils of communism stemmed not from atheism. It stemmed from dogmatic belief that "my way" is the right way, the only way, the true way.
I think that people become atheists because they are anti-dogmatism. They see (at least I do) absolute belief as form of arrogance, as belief in flawlessness and perfectness of our own opinions.
But when you mix atheism and dogmatism, you can get as bad results as when mixing religion and dogmatism. Maybe the difference is that religion had lots of experience with dogmatism of its type, while atheism as philosophical position is still relatively new?

In other words, maybe ANY ideology can lead to great evils, once it's universally adopted by a government?

But when you mix atheism and dogmatism, you can get as bad results as when mixing religion and dogmatism. In other words, maybe ANY ideology can lead to great evils, once it's universally adopted by a government?

In fighting intolerance he becomes exactly what he hates.

Marek said: I think that the evils of communism stemmed not from atheism. It stemmed from dogmatic belief that "my way" is the right way, the only way, the true way. I think that people become atheists because they are anti-dogmatism. They see (at least I do) absolute belief as form of arrogance, as belief in flawlessness and perfectness of our own opinions. But when you mix atheism and dogmatism, you can get as bad results as when mixing religion and dogmatism.

Marek said: Maybe the difference is that religion had lots of experience with dogmatism of its type, while atheism as philosophical position is still relatively new?

if the Radin and Sheldrake declarations were really true and properly derived, then they would stand as good evidence for the reality of parapsychology, and would incidentally make the writers eligible for the JREF million-dollar prize. As we know, Sheldrake has directly refused to apply for that prize, and Radin has made the same decision by choosing to ignore it.

... the so-called prizes offered by skeptics are open-ended. They amount to "show me a miracle," but without specifying in advance what would constitute the miracle. This means the prize can always be revised to make it impossible to win. Such open-ended prizes are simply moving goal-posts and publicity stunts. They are not genuine prizes for scientific achievement.

Realpc trolled: When you whole-heartedly believe in a dogma, it is your Truth, and you can't see that it is a dogma.

I'm closing this post to comments, since there is new Egnor post.