Richard Dawkins to guest-edit the New Statesman Christmas issue

Sat, 2011-12-10 18:24 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@go tell the marines - creationism and intelligent design do not belong in the field of science as they do not involve a testable hypothesis. People who attempt to put them there are doing their beliefs and science a gross disservice.

But it is for the exact same reason metaphysics and spirituality do not belong in the field of science, and when someone tries to maintain the lack of god (or indeed the presence of one) using science they are doing the same thing.

As for me being a Christian, that puzzles me.

Look gentlemen, let me spell this out for you. A while ago this magazine played host to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The man didn't use this opportunity to tell us all we need to save our souls, to get into church and start praying, or to even to put his case as to why he personally believes there is a god. He used it to lambast the Conservative governments austerity program and the destruction of welfare in particular.

Now, Dawkins is here. This is good. If Dawkins similarly uses this opportunity to put his political views on things as they are in this left-leaning political magazine that would be great. If he uses it to have another go at religion, religious people, god, and whatever else while leaving the economy, society, etc all unspoken about that will tell you all you need to know about him.

I am an atheist. And when this whole thing started I used to sneer at religious people as much as anyone. But when as the new atheists became more and more obsessed, start to speak about nothing but religion, start to indorse torture and nuclear attacks and even bankroll DVDs of known racists like Pat Condell, well that was it. I decided to get off the Pequod before Captain Ahab actually catches up with that whale.

@Jankaas - that struck me as a huge problem with the God Delusion. He went to great lengths to explain why atheism could not be accountable for the actions of Stalin, Mao et all. However if a religious person so much as farts at the dinner table they were doing it while screaming "Jihad!". The belief that the rules only apply in one direction is inherently unscientific.

Fri, 2011-12-09 17:23 — Ian5

Jo-Jo if you need to see the other side, try obtaining a copy of The Bible, the Torah or the Koran , though I'm be surprised if you had not already had the content of one of these rammed down your throat as a child. also coming to a church near you...midnight mass 24 Dec.

Mon, 2011-12-12 04:08 — Colin Sloss (not verified)

Dawkins has a problem with uncertainty, this is all that needs to be said.

Thu, 2011-12-08 22:00 — Jesus (not verified)

@ohNoUdidn't bless you my son

Thu, 2011-12-08 22:02 — jankaas (not verified)

@bob holmes

"Can atheist prove there is no god?"

no. but that is not the point.

"takes an act of Belief."

which is fine. however it is the influence many believers wish to foist on others that is the real problem.

Fri, 2011-12-09 17:41 — Nathan Doyle (not verified)

bob holmes, as an atheist myself im tired of hearing other people say that "can atheists prove that there is no god" if you read up on the topic you wouldnt state this!!. 1. Atheists never say there is no god. They say that there is no evidence for a god therefore lack a belief. Let me ask you a question bob. DO YOU BELIEVE IN UNICORNS BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY DONT EXIST? There is not one piece of evidence to say that unicorns dont exist but because there is no evidence to say that they do, we therefore dont believe in them.

Sat, 2011-12-10 18:53 — Ian5

Rubbish,Sir Michael.Why must people search for a "reason" for life..Metaphysics basically looks for an excuse for religion. If however you accept that no life has purpose then the metaphysical or spiritual world becomes as big a non entity as religion. Oh I don't believe in god but there has to be something there, some purpose, hence metaphysical thought. That's bullshit. Life has no purpose, but many cannot/will not grasp what that means...Evolution answers the question of why we are here and how we got here. Can you not accept you and I are the result of countless errors over time. I know it can be frightening,,no God as a crutch.

Sat, 2011-12-10 18:53 — Sir Michael (not verified)

No Ian, you can not test religion with science, the reason being that religion makes no testable claims. Not one.

Religion is a social construct, and as such any claims made are not made by religion, but by the adherents to that religion. Those claims can be tested, but what do you do when the claims made are not testable? You've brought up Genesis, Africa, whatever. What of the majority of Christians who do not believe the Bible is to be taken literally?

I am going to make a big claim right now, at this second, (and I do sincerely believe this claim). Here it is, this is one of the greatest song ever made....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVoXQWFNKWI

Prove, scientifically, that it isn't. When you work out why you can't do that, you'll understand why most of what religion is lies beyond the boundaries of science.

Fri, 2011-12-16 21:48 — Michael (not verified)

Please,Let a piece of paper, reveal the Bottom Line, be it Political, Religious, Scientific or other worldly?

Litmus Test, simply fold and cut a piece of paper to reveal with words without writing and images?, to explain only what can be shown!

Answer?

Who will be the First Claim Jumper, for planet earth and beyond?

Hint the Answer Delivered in a Paper Airplane, the Global Message!

Tue, 2011-12-13 18:50 — James Forsyth (not verified)

What is the point and value of the Eveolutionary theory if it all ends in oblivion ?

Fri, 2011-12-16 21:55 — Michael (not verified)

X for Xpistos looks like another letter is needed to Keep Xpist Out, of the Celebrations for His Birth.

Mankind by deception wants to play Russian Roulette with a Load Revolver! by the Rejection of Truth, as we know it?

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:08 — jankaas (not verified)

@ Ian

"Jankaas, Is there a testable theory in religion. "

sorry, but you are just a bit wide of the point i was trying to make. this is not about a Young Earth, Creationism, Virgin birth, Ascension. no, those are all readily dismissed since they are either wrong or supernatural (which does not allow testing by default).

the problem with Dawkins is that he makes huge claims about what religion causes (war, racism, sexism, abuse etc etc) and how much better things would be without religion, without so much as an experiment or data set that would pass peer review.

yes he makes a compelling argument about the evils of religion, one that had me going for at least a year or so. but then the scales fell from my eyes when i realised just how his whole edifice is essentially rhetorical.

i realise i am not able to fully express myself, but then i am not a word smith. i will yet again have to resort to the words of an atheist who put Harris and Dawkins etc in their rightful place with the following simple statement of fact;

"I find it fascinating that brilliant scientists and philosophers have no clue how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist."

Scott Atran. Beyond Belief conference 2007

i can't recommend Scott's work highly enough if you are genuinely interested in this hugely complex issue of humans/religion/science/etc. just Google and have a look.....

Fri, 2011-12-09 17:53 — Sir Michael (not verified)

That was indeed a good point Jankaas, but I thought your earlier point was even better...

"which is fine. however it is the influence many believers wish to foist on others that is the real problem."

Very well said. I think this counts as much for what I shall call "hard atheism" as it does for religion. I don't care about religion or atheism. I strongly object to prosetylization and the idea that the value of a human being depends on were they stand on the question of god.

I think the New Statesman should understand that by doing this they may well alienate a chunk of the left who, while being secularists, atheists, and academics, see Dawkins as an extremist at best and a kook at worst.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/06/bernard-beckett-con...

The man arguably is the worst thing for atheism since the French Revolution.

Thu, 2011-12-08 22:45 — Jason (not verified)

See the Four Horsemen reunited for real at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention (google it)

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:13 — jankaas (not verified)

"Here it is, this is one of the greatest song ever made...."

just out of idle curiosity, why that song Sir M?

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:16 — Ian5

Sir Michael, what parts do the Christians you talk of believe?

You use these people to excuse the ID loons that do take the word literally, that do take political action in support of their delusions.

One lot does not excuse the other.

If ALL Christians and for that matter Jews and Muslims were of moderate disposition, and it must be assumed also questioning I do not think this world would be such a trying place to live. but the extremists or fundamentalists must be stood against.

If your chosen song is one of the greatest in your opinion then to you it is, a proof its not..then sales. the term greatest has been historically used in the sense of most succesful. So empirically the song is dire. (PS Prefer Kraftwerk)

Thu, 2011-12-08 22:51 — TheAikenHead (not verified)

@bob holmes

"It takes an act of belief".

Yes, we know. That's why they call it belief, and not knowledge.

Fri, 2011-12-09 17:54 — Ian5

Bob, I'll go a slight step further than Nathan. I find on the balance of probability and the observable world, , it is highly unlikely that God in any form exists, has existed and is even less likely to exist in the future. sigma 1. However I can see evidence now for evolution, evidence that it has operated for millions of years, and is unlikely to cease until our sun explodes. sigma 5

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:19 — jankaas (not verified)

@Ian

"Life has no purpose"

i disagree.

on the subjective level, it has the purpose we assign to it.

on the objective level, it is all physics.

Mon, 2011-12-12 21:33 — jankaas (not verified)

@Militant atheist ftw

"I could also say the burden of proof is on you"

nope. because i don't adhere to either a natural nor a supernatural ontology i don't feel i need prove anything.

"The metaphysical semantics that theists hold can also be refuted by stating that we have enough evidence that disapproves their intervening gods/goddesses."

sort of yes, but that does not by default prove that your preferred natural ontology is correct. it just doesn't, you still have all the hard work ahead of you.

"We are defending science based on evidence"

as do i, and i must repeat that the science we work with is the result of methodological naturalism. this however does not prove your preferred natural ontology is correct. this is unfortunately the error you keep repeating imho.

and i speak from personal experience as i used to be a raging anti-theist drawing the same flawed conclusions. now i am a non-theist. it's much better that way.

"If we are defending ourselfes or guarding knowledge we are doing it with debates, keeping them out of politics and education."

on the political level that is completely undemocratic. you can't force your natural ontology onto others, but clearly supernatural ontologies have almost no place in the class room except to illustrate just how weird, flawed and wonderful human minds are.

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:26 — Ian5

Jankaas, I thought we had agreed that our language holds us back, you do a bloody good job of getting your point across.
I cannot go along with the ethos behind Scott Atran. He misses a major point, there are rational and evidence based explanations for "this irrationality" nature plus nurture. we cannot escape our physical and evolutionary constraints (though we are trying:- geneticists).

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:32 — Ian5

Oh jankaas, you have just burst the bubble. YOU can not assign purpose to life, only in a limited way to your own existence.

Then do you give a physics a concious existence?

I'm serious, I'm here today because as Dawkins puts it "random mutations and non random selection"

No purpose there no matter where you look.

Fri, 2011-12-09 18:06 — Ian5

sir Micheal, fail big time to see the point of your link, a non biologist takes a paid sabbatical to write a children's sci fi novel.....Dawkins fights the anti evolution brigade, its a secondary point that they happen to be religious...Those who want ID taught as science without it being subjected to the same levels of scrutiny that scientific theories must pass to be accepted.

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:54 — jankaas (not verified)

@Ian

"I cannot go along with the ethos behind Scott Atran. He misses a major point, there are rational and evidence based explanations for "this irrationality" nature plus nurture. we cannot escape our physical and evolutionary constraints (though we are trying:- geneticists)."

not sure i follow? Atran's POV is that there is an evolutionary basis for our irrationality. there is a scientific grounding from where we can review human religiosity.

but i am not able to expand that more fully. to provide you with greater insight i can;t recommend his book "In Gods We Trust" highly enough. it is a bit more involved and academic than Dawkins' approach, which is why i prefer it. and if i can get the gist, then i'm sure you'll be fine.

what do you have to lose?

Thu, 2011-12-08 23:30 — John Fleming (not verified)

With reference to my previous post; there is a great irony about the timing of this. Around Christmas time or, perhaps better put, at the time The Christ was born another "Agent Provocateur" was born. He became known as John the Baptist. One can only assume Prof. Dawkins thinks of himself as John the Baptist of the Athiest community. "Would you like immersed in my philosphy or gently ducked in my truth."

Sat, 2011-12-10 19:58 — jankaas (not verified)

"Oh jankaas, you have just burst the bubble."

sounds painful... ;o)

"Then do you give a physics a concious existence?"

again i think my lack of linguistic dexterity meant you missed my point.

'purpose' it either what we think it is, which i quite like since it invokes free will etc. but at the very most basic materialistic/utilitarian level, 'purpose' is just the result of matter interacting.

so this following statement of yours/Dawkins is just physics; "random mutations and non random selection"

is that clearer? (pls note that i don't pretend to know which is more true of those 2 options)

Sat, 2011-12-10 20:06 — Ian5

I dislike the second use you have for purpose, just as I dislike the term selish gene.

Purpose implies intent and may be more importantly that it has options, and that the outcome was chosen rather than inevitable, no physics has no choice. The speed of sound does not choose to be one thing or another, it is predetermined by the nature of the material it is passing though. To quote wiki rather than type "The speed of an elastic wave in any medium is determined by the medium's compressibility and density. The speed of shear waves, which can occur only in solids, is determined by the solid material's stiffness, compressibility and density."

Sat, 2011-12-10 20:07 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@Ian - "You use these people to excuse the ID loons that do take the word literally, that do take political action in support of their delusions.

One lot does not excuse the other. "

I'd absolutely love you to go and quote the part where I "excused" that.

I didn't say it excused anything. What I saying is the fact there are fundamentalists in one particular group does not give YOU the excuse to be beligerant and intolerant towards anyone who might hold similar beliefs. That kind of guilt by association is morally reprehensible, particularly when we are talking a small number of people within a given group.

Are you going to accept YOUR responsiblity for the punitive psychiatry used on religious people in the former USSR? The attempts under Stalin to force people to be atheist, when are you going to apologize for that?

Oh, it wasn't you? You actually had nothing at all to do with it, it was a group of people who had similar views to you on god but you certainly wouldn't have dreamed of putting them in Slovoki and working them to death?

Do you see what I mean?

Secondly; "Then do you give a physics a concious existence?

I'm serious, I'm here today because as Dawkins puts it "random mutations and non random selection"

No purpose there no matter where you look."

Well then, religious people feel how they feel because of evolutionary factors influencing their brain chemistry. That's what caused it, and so there is no point, by your own standards, of getting bent out of shape about it. There is no free will, no free choice. Indeed your own illusory decision to hound the religious is based upon chemicals in your own brain.

This isn't so much the spectre of nihilism as it is waving the flag of nihilism. Not everything in life is science and physics and whatever else - there are many many other ways of looking at the world different questions to ask of life.

If some finds meaning in, for example, looking after injured ducks, then they have purpose in life. They exist for a reason. If your response to that is to demand they establish it in double bind trials at a scientific research institute then you are missing the entire point of being alive.

@Jankaas, that song is just awesome. Project Pitchfork are the ultimate in auditory artistry.

Sat, 2011-12-10 20:21 — Ian5

Ah, sorry Sir Micheal, I'll take you to task on the evolutionary element of Christianity, thats nurture. Full blown indoctrination. Otherwise why did the Egyptians not believe in the same God as the Hebrews? Same evolutionary root.

I agree that people can give themselves purpose, but not that LIFE is self has purpose or a pre ordained direction.
But no there is no reason for their individual existence other than their parents procreated and possibly modern medicine allowed their continued existence. So please explain the reason for the existence of my dog, or the worms in my compost bin, or better yet, a single plasmodium.

The reason any of them exist is they evolved and survived natural selection.

Perhaps you can give another reason?

Thu, 2011-12-15 13:37 — Sir Michael (not verified)

@Wholly Smoke - I was with you up until this...

"You seem to be like a person who goes to a Metallica concert but leaves disappointed because they didn't play any of the The Carpenters greatest hits!"

This is my point. The NS is supposed to be a religious magazine, not a religious one. This month, with all the crap that's happening (jobless figures are up again), that has been put aside in the name of a festival of atheism.

I am a man who has gone to a Metallica concert and is disappointed that Barry Manilow is on stage.