This week's top stories ...

https://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed

The first thing to be said about the judgement by the European Court on Human
Rights is that it was not unanimous. The second is that although no evidence was brought before the Court to prove that the crucifix might have an influence on children, this does not mean that no such evidence exists. Perhaps a case may be brought before the Court at a later date on behalf of a child greatly troubled or traumatised by the image of a man nailed to a cross.

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/go/blogs/ni/2011/03/this_weeks_top_stories_2.html/ext/_auto/-/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8408061/US-Jesuits-agree-103-million-abuse-payout.html

Victims of clerical abuse in Europe get offered trivial sums to settle. I think the figure of £5,000 was recently offered to scores of victims in Germany, and some victims in Ireland had their feet washed by some priest or other. Many victims of paedophile priests will never recover from their horrific experiences, but an average payout of £200,000 does seem more appropriate than a foot bath.

Gosh these grapes are sour.

Yeah, Newlach. Don't you know that clergy child abuse cases are -sooooo- last year and you should just forget they ever happened?

Especially as the catholic church has whole-heartedly apologised, offered sensisble compensation terms to the victims and fully cooperated with all the relevent law-enforcement bodies and given the abusive priests up for prosecution.... I mean, what's the point in going on about it if the church has done all that?

[/sarcasm]

MCC

Try one of these grapes instead.

https://momentanaufnahme.deviantart.com/art/Take-a-Grape-against-Fascism-181717184

I posted my comment before Newlach's second comment appeared. I was referring to the whinging over losing before the European Court of Human Rights - not unanimously you understand.

Can't access the take a grape site - care to describe it.

MCC

If it was a site "telling lies" about the Pope, you'd find it. Use your initiative, man.

Having read some comments by mccamleyc on other threads I am encouraged by the fact that he did not specify the colour of the grapes. I suppose there exists a passage from the Bible that some interpret as showing the inherent superiority of one colour over the other!

Well I'd say black grapes are superior but apparently I'm supposed to remain within my own limited racial sphere and confine myself to green ones.

RJB, can't access it because of firewall restrictions - I'll have a look later.

Now if only there was a firewall that blocked out lies about the Pope - supposed I'd never be able to access this site again.

newlach (@ 1) -

You wrote: "Perhaps a case may be brought before the Court at a later date on behalf of a child greatly troubled or traumatised by the image of a man nailed to a cross."

Yes, I suppose you're right. It must be very toubling for a child to see an image of a man nailed to a cross.

I mean, why can't children be comforted with the really 'inspiring' philosophy that says to them: "Children, please listen up. You are all just animals. You have no more intrinsic worth and value than a colony of ants or a smack of jellyfish. In fact, you only exist as a sheer fluke and you are all nothing more than bundles of little things called molecules. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose to your lives, and pay no attention to those evil and silly people who tell you that there is (even if they're your Mummy and Daddy). Mummy and Daddy are lying to you when they say that God loves you, and it's for your wonderful atheist teacher to break this news to you ... Johnny now, stop crying ... there there... I know it's upsetting for you all, but you all need to know these proven and indisputable facts of life. .... oh, Polly, don't get upset now..."

(/ sarcasm, revulsion and condemnation)

I certainly wouldn't like to be in the shoes of those who would attempt to convey this utter garbage to children, especially in the light of Mark 9:42 (yes, a very upsetting verse, don't you think? Not nice at all in our cosy Teletubby world of happy atheism!).

There was a book published a couple of years ago by a man, I think his name was Lobel, called " losing my religion" He was a believer and a journalist who covered religious stories for a US journal. Over time the stories he covered led him to first question his beliefs and then to lose them. One of the stories he covered was the abuse of Alaskan natives by the religious orders. He soon discovered that they had used Alaska as a dumping ground for abusive priests and that they regarded the natives as inferior and sexually promiscuous, so fair game for the abuse.Hundreds of lives were ruined and the church did everything it could to avoid taking responsibility.This contributed to his loss of belief.

@9:
Scuppernong grapes, definitely. A sort of bronze color.
And on the anonymous internet, how would anyone assume another's racial profile with certainty anyway?

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html

The book that Dawkin's is currently writing (The Magic of Reality) seems like something that will be of considerable benefit both to children and adults.

William

What???

Eating anti-Fascist grapes will stop you getting fat!

And another thing, its tame on here compared with another thread....

12."And on the anonymous internet, how would anyone assume another's racial profile with certainty anyway?" Yes you're right. Mccamely could be an African American woman for all we know, hey ho stranger things have happened lol We might even get an ex-communist Pope one day?

This was an interesting story & I think it accurately reflects Western culture, not just the United States. The rise of Secular Spiritualism. It's something I can certainly identify with
https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12839437

Re:"Why feminists are less religious?"

This is kind of odd. The article quotes Pat Robertson, then goes on to seemingly demonstrate that he's correct on at least two points.

mscracker;

Even funnier, the article demonstrates that he was right about the very two points that made it onto the wacky goof-ball t-shirts and fridge magnets;

"Sorry I missed church. I was busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian"

@19:
Three points if you count missing church. :)

On this April 1st, may I send greetings to all Atheists on their special day!
(Psalm 53v1)

pastorphillip,

You really don't get that quoting bible verses to an atheist is about as effective as quoting the koran to a hindu, do you?

It's not like an atheist is going to suddenly go 'oh my gosh! I thought god didn't exist, but here, in this bible, it says I'm a fool for not believing! I'm so wrong!'

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. — George Bernard Shaw

Singin' in the chain gang.

21. pastorphilip wrote:

"On this April 1st, may I send greetings to all Atheists on their special day!"

I note that in one of your previous comments on this blog (Feb 2011) you wrote: 'A little mutual respect would go a long way'.

Now here you are arbitrarily calling atheists 'fools'. Highly typical of a particularly unpleasant religious mindset, I'm afraid. Demand respect for your beliefs but offer none to others in return.

The word 'mutual' has a specific meaning that you should consult pastor.

Natman -

You wrote: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. — George Bernard Shaw"

Oh dear. This puts me in a rather confusing position, considering that I am both a believer and a sceptic.

A believer in God.

Sceptical about the claims of the philosophy of naturalism.

Or does scepticism fall under the 'Henry Ford formula'? : you can be as sceptical as you like about anything you like as long as you never question the philosophy of naturalism.

Welcome to the world of secular religion.

25. logica_sine_vanitate:

Scientific or 'methodological' naturalism does not claim that there is no God.

The teaching of Humanism is a good idea. Schools should teach awareness of all belief systems

newdwr54 -

You wrote: "Scientific or 'methodological' naturalism does not claim that there is no God."

Exactly. Hence the fact that I was very careful to use the phrase "philosophical naturalism".

"Methodological naturalism" is fine, as I have affirmed numerous times. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, and nothing to do with the confident declaration that the need for a source of information (i.e. an intelligence) is 'unscientific'; after all, the physical study of the material properties of this post would never lead any rational person to conclude that the information in it arose without the need for someone to write it!

But try getting this ultra- hyper- "in yer face"- "clear as the noonday sun"- obvious insight through to certain people, most notoriously, a certain Peter Klaver!

Like flogging a dead horse...

27. _Ryan_ wrote:

"Schools should teach awareness of all belief systems."

There would be a lot to teach though.

Ideas like Humanism that specifically reject supernaturalism, including ideas about God, shouldn't be conflated with ideas about scientific naturalism in my view. They are two different things, I think.

Scientific naturalism does not reject a priori the idea that the supernatural exists; just that, since it can't be tested in any way, there can be no objective standard for it. The 'supernatural' is necessarily inaccessible to scientific naturalism (otherwise it would no longer be 'super' natural).

So LSV calling scientific naturalism a 'religion' isn't really appropriate in my view. It is not a belief system, it is a method of establishing a common benchmark only for that which can be tested.

A religion makes claims about things that cannot be 'known' or tested. Humanism, by specifically rejecting the idea that the supernatural exists, would classify as a religion in this broad sense in my view, but not scientific naturalism.

This is a pretty funny April Fools quiz
https://www.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,5961,1449501,00.html

"There would be a lot to teach though."

Yes lol , that's true, though I think schooling should be universal until at least the age of 20- perhaps diverting into a technical or knowledge based education , but not so separate that you can't combine the two if you wanted. Almost like an American university degree where you gain a certain amount of credits to graduate...anyway im off on a tangeant lol

newdwr54 -

You wrote: "So LSV calling scientific naturalism a 'religion' isn't really appropriate in my view."

Except I did no such thing.

I called the PHILOSOPHY of naturalism a 'secular religion'. That is not the same as 'methodological' naturalism, which is what you call 'scientific naturalism'. There is a universe of difference between a 'philosophy' (an attempt at a complete explanation of reality) and a 'methodology', which is limited, and only deals with aspects of truth.

So please don't twist what I am saying.

I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, as you haven't been involved on this blog for long (as far as I can see), but if some of the others (you know who you are!) had come out with that comment, I think my response would have been rather less restrained!

Ryan (@ 30) -

Here's my score:

"You scored 8 out of a possible 9
You're no fool. April 1 holds no fears for someone with your ability to separate fact from fiction."

That's made my day! The wretched Burger King question fooled me though.

lol, 'tis pretty good :p

28. logica_sine_vanitate:

It's fair enough to draw the distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism (my post 29. was sent before your 28. was pre modified, so don't hold it against me too much). It's easy to get muddled up between the two terms.

But I don't see how it necessarily follows that complexity or 'information' requires intelligence. I have a belomnite fossil beside me on the windowsill here that neatly comes apart to reveal the fossil body itself and its perfect trace. The trace is 'information' that the fossil body was there, but no intelligence was required to create this information, just to interpret it.

And a climate system is complex for instance. Although it appears to be chaotic, it still follows basic physical 'rules'. These blind physical forces can result in the natural formation of something that has the appearance of complex design, such as a snowflake.

I appreciate that a snowflake is many times less complex even the most basic modern life form, and that the passing on of inherited information is many times more complex than a fossil leaving its trace on some ancient limestone. But then ancient prockaryote cells were many times less complex than the later eukaryotes.

The point is that the application of methodological naturalism has suggested that there is a tendency towards increased complexity in life forms over time. This in turn suggests that the further back in time you go, the less complex 'life' was, and with less information to be replicated.

It's not so much of a stretch for me to visualise an organism/object that we would barely recognise as a life form; one that contained primitive proteins that blindly made copies of themselves using some kind of prebiotic chemistry.

I'm not suggesting there's any evidence for this, just that we have no firm basis on which to rule it out. In fact methodological naturalism has thrown up several hypotheses for how this very thing might have occurred. We know that amino acids form naturally for instance, even in space, and that these are the building blocks of proteins.

So I think it is going too far to say that intelligence is an 'obvious' requirement for complexity. As to whether intelligence was required to put in place all the conditions necessary for life to arise and evolve... that's for another thread!

"So please don't twist what I am saying."

I had to double-check the identity of the author of this comment, and then the date, and then the time.

Sorry LSV, if you're doing an April Fools with that, you were over 2 hours too late.

M 35 - that should be 'pre-moderated', not 'pre modified'. Ahem.

Natman (@ 36) -

OK. Then let's say it was an overdue April Fool joke. Shall I rephrase it then:

"Please do twist what I am saying."

Other people do, so newdwr may as well carry on. (And don't mind me...)

But he must remember this before he starts his contortions: this post was not written by anyone. It just 'happened'. We know that, because it's made up of pixels, and only the pixels created the information. After all, those clever people who can't tell the difference between methodological and philosophical materialism inform us that this is the case - and we mustn't dare to question those geniuses, must we?

35 "As to whether intelligence was required to put in place all the conditions necessary for life to arise and evolve... that's for another thread!"

An important link in the chain between LSV & nat's viewpoints I think

"I think schooling should be universal until at least the age of 20- perhaps diverting into a technical or knowledge based education"

Ryan. I promise not to make a habit of this, but what would you have been "educating" people in up until the age of 20 when they finally start getting the "knowledge based" stuff?

And LSV takes on the indefatigably patient Newdwr. Well New *purses lips, draws breath* you really, really, really have your work cut out with this one. You're going to need those fresh nettles that are up. :)

You've noticed the nettles too AF? I've been very tempted....

LSV can't be as frustrating as Beece, can he??

Well, I could stomach a week of it, but nullius in verba. More obnixious, "thrand" and pretentious. You'll be wishing for Beece.

I've been into the nettles but only for cooking. Nettles, wild garlic (that's up too) and spinach with asparagus and cream as an accompaniment to beef.

The season of treats! Hope you're well!

What would you have them educated in About Face?. Our personalities might clash badly, but we might actually hold some similar views on external things. Id just love for you to say what you think would be important and actually agree with you. You'd hate that lol

About Face, funny that you think LSV is a head wreck, cos that's how I feel about you. Shows where some people put their priorities. At least LSV has a good heart. Even Nat acknowledges that and respects him for his tenacity at least. Maybe through that respect some headway might actually be made

newdwr -

"LSV can't be as frustrating as Beece, can he??"

Well, I had a little foray into what Beecefromsuff has been contributing fairly recently. From the five or six posts that I read, I would say that Beece is the one who is extremely patient given the complete inanity of some of the contributions he / she was responding to.

Here's one little gem that was thrown at poor Beece: "No, Beece, it is not possible for the most intelligent person on earth to rationally conclude that god exists. Some things are actually impossible. You don't have to be very clever at all to rationally conclude that he doesn't. His non-appearance takes you halfway there. It's a very good start and more conducive to disbelief than belief." That 'insight' was from an epistemologically challenged contributor called Babushka Lovski.

It is hard to keep oneself sane when faced with such drivel. I try, but it's not that easy. It seems Beece is far more adept at it than I am, and for that I cannot help but admire him (her).

Here is one news report in the category of religious stories this week. A very gruesome one.

Around 9/11 a pastor of some small church in the US wanted to burn copies of the Koran. He was persuaded not to, but recently a copy was burned at his church anyway. In a somewhat simplified summary of the practical outcome of Abrahamic religions you could say that

islam = christianity - enlightenment

so bloodshed was a very real possibility. And indeed

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12940014

LSV,with alot of these blogs it goes beyond debate and into the realms of primal territorialism. In the case of About Face it's marking his scent all over the blog without having anything useful to say-Just scoffing at others and ridiculing.
So using this blog as a discussion ground for something as important and meaningful to you as spirituality/religion is highly dangerous and certain to lead to pain in my opinion.There will be something in life making people want to come onto a site like this & say anything without any care because they don't have to see the consequences

In the light of the vile reaction to the vile burning of the Koran (and the insinuation that this is the fault of 'theistic belief' per se)...

Let's assume that the atheists finally get their wish and all 'religious' belief has been totally eradicated from the face of the earth, and no human being ever harbours even the smallest twinge of a thought that there could be some ultimate meaning and purpose to life.

OK. So let's do a John Lennon and 'imagine' that the atheists have won.

So having established this scenario, are we seriously to believe that no one in this 'paradise' will ever be offended by anything? They will be no feelings of outrage, revenge or hatred? Are we seriously to believe that once the whole world comes to realise that life is ultimately meaningless, that everyone will live in peace, since it is only a belief in meaning and purpose that makes people hate each other?

I suppose there will be those atheists who will suggest that this is what the world would look like (although I can't imagine why people would want to act so peacefully towards one another on the basis of a totally nihilistic and amoral philosophy).

Allow me to suggest that in such a world evil feelings will be just as evident as in a theistic world. In fact, I think that is pretty obvious (especially considering that we have historical examples of atheistic nations, such as the USSR and China under Mao, which were not exactly havens of peace and forgiveness! And, of course, North Korea today.)

Therefore, when we see 'religious' people committing atrocities, are we to conclude that they are acting like this because they believe in God, or are they acting like that because they are selfish human beings, who happen to have been brought up in a religious culture?

Until such time as someone can prove the causal connection between a belief in God, on the one hand, and murderous hatred, on the other (and also prove that atheism always infallibly produces peace and tolerance), I will have to subscribe to the 'human nature' rather than the 'theistic belief' hypothesis of the cause of evil.

For those interested in the Rev. Kenneth Stewart, he has applied to be a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland. A cappella exclusive Psalmody is more or less the sine qua non of the Reformed Presbyerian churches.

How would I have them educated? That's a biggy I wouldn't even attempt except from reflection on my own so-called education and the experience my 12-year-old nephew is having at the minute, and my cursory delves into education and reading about it. Bertrand Russell (home schooled) has written a book which sets out policies that should be achievable by the state, but the mess is probably too great now to begin as he advised in the 1940s.

I was more interested in what you would educate people in until the age of 20 before they get to the "knowledge based" stuff you mentioned. Forgive me, but that sounds dubious to me.

But: For literature, it would be unsanitised and uncensored. Education should be no place for adults to attempt to indulge their comforting fantasies about themselves. As it stands it is riven with that.

For history: It should be broad brush and narrative from the start, instead of dislocated chunks fed for the purpose of learning "practice" far too prematurely. It's purpose, as with literature, should be to engage and involve, and to demonstrate where one figures in one's time and place in the world as it is. Specialisation can come later.

In science: It should be honest about what we know, how we know it, what we hope to do with that knowledge and what more knowledge we need to get there. From the outset it should not simply be practical and Bunsen burners, but taught as far as possible with reference to the impact it has had on our daily lives, our technology, and in harmony with the teaching of literature and history, on our consciousness and culture.

The danger in providing narrative history, warts-and-all literature, and science in this manner from an early age should be offset by compulsory study of philosophy in order to train children in critical thinking when their minds are ripe for it.

The teaching of religion should take place even handedly and in the mode of the philosophy of religion, NOT by religious people. There should be stringent tests to ensure that the teaching of religion is NOT infiltrated by people who would introduce religious bias. This could be fairly well assured by a furhter suggestion I'll make below.

Honesty and gentleness should be the overriding principles, so that an individual can fully flourish according to his strengths, but also emerge as well rounded as possible.

Discipline should be encouraged as far as possible by positive reinforcement of the good intrinsic to the human being and not by the punishment of the bad. At the same time the educational environment should be such (unknowable to anyone who has not had a very expensive education in the UK, and unknowable to anyone who underwent formative education in Ireland - and before you start - Eton is the last place on my mind) that any child undergoing it can not help but want to get on well in it, unless they have some emotional hindrance arising from circumstances outside their power. In such cases the school should be able to help.

And finally, anyone let loose on children and youth should be extremely well educated and paid at least as well as a GP can expect. "Teacher training" colleges, which seem to specialise in nothing but teaching "teachers" how to get kids to pass exams should be abolished. Anyone who wants to teach children under 10 should be educated to degree level and paid accordinly. Anyone teaching after that level should be specialised to post-graduate level and in such schools the stipulations by the state on curriculum would be rudimentary and there would be much more autonomy at board and staff level.

But that's a pipe dream. I know it only too well. It would take a radical reassessment of state priorities. It would risk the danger of producing too many thoughtful, conscientious people with too much self-knowledge and not easy enough to exploit.

It would be the slow-cooked, succulent feast of a rib roast done on the bone to the blasted in an hour, dried out silverside with bisto (if you're lucky) that we have at the minute.

I've got time off work just now and am cooking a lot. Can you tell?

What was it you would do Ryan?

And as to the "scoffing" and "ridiculing" that you perceive of me and seem so sensitive to - I doubt that I've been doing that much but in any case there's little not to scoff at. Really! There are three or four people with knowledge of science who actually seem to be working in the field - Klaver, Nat and now New, who I really don't mind cheerleading for, and I'm not given to it, but I've watched this guy at work for a long time now - and as a rule I will not get involved in debates about science because I am modest enough to know I don't know enough about it.

But would you have a look for a second. If I am addressed directly I will respond in kind. My short record here should show that. If someone tosses around theories which are basically offensive, then I pipe up. For that, read my early exchanges with Psoriasis or whatever he/she called itself. If someone wants to argue (as in debate) a la Eunice, but then drag the debate off onto meaningless gounds and language that means anything to anyone, when there is a principle at stake, then don't come calling me a bastard because I point out that their language - all important here - is meaningless, no matter how "nice" they're being. Because their language is meaningless, all it takes is a nasty person to take it up as a cudgel.

If someone of a day claims to have been raped, then describes me as the "most evil" person they have "ever come across", then forgive me for doubting that either one or the other part of that statement isn't true, and perhaps that individual might just be having a tough time and I'm upsetting a person so fragile that even their anonymous online persona matters to them.

And as for LSV (I realise I've digressed but I'm addressing your own points here), I think I said in my first three or four postings that this person is a pretender. An absolute bluffer. The guy Beece who was mentioned at least gave the impression when he argued that he really believed what he was saying, and over the course of a long period he actually moved - he really did stand down and look from a different angle. LSV seems to be carrying on an exercise in keeping his own cognitive dissonance at bay.

And Ryan, I'm sure you're a fine chap, but you are projecting onto me. And if you see me as the enemy there's not much I can do about that.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Apparently I was being offensive by asking AboutFace to 'call my bluff', if I am indeed a bluffer (I probably overdid the poker analogy, admittedly).

I'll say no more.

No About Face I don't like you. I think your personality sums you up pretty well
Your education ideas were good though- shame your personality gets in the way
And I said more than I should of that night- but yes I think you're evil- to manipulate a moment where I should have kept my mouth shut on something, but hey you can do what you want with it. You know what, it wasn't the worst thing Ive dealt with & I certainly wouldnt be prepared to go into a convo with you because I find it physically painful interacting with you- Don't think I don't notice your subtle jibes. But hey I'll certianly keep you company on here ;)

Hope you're well !!!

..."Methodological naturalism" is fine, as I have affirmed numerous times...

Which makes it doubly interesting that you use Discovery Institute arguments all the time here and link to them. And lest we forget, that'd be the Institute, which has one stated aim to:

"... reverse the materialistic worldview and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and Theistic convictions."

Is that the science you'll take the trouble to understand before you attempt to discuss it?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Is that you William? Can I just point out that I have again been described as more evil than a rapist? My response is not fair? I thought it as mild. But there you go. The Christian mod must be on tonight.

grokesx -

You wrote: "Which makes it doubly interesting that you use Discovery Institute arguments all the time here and link to them."

That's an interesting phrase: "all the time". I wonder what you mean by it? Please elaborate.

Do I agree with the stated aim of the Discovery Institute? Do I have to, in order to agree with anything they say?

Certainly I agree with that organisation as far as 'reversing the materialistic worldview' is concerned, since 'materialistic worldview' is the product of 'philosophical materialism' and not merely 'methodological materialism'. So I plead guilty to that! Happy now?

But I can't really see what your point is. Methodological materialism is a means of studying the material aspect of reality. So what? I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the idea that everything should be reducible to matter. That is an example of attempting to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. So typical of the dogma of 'philosophical materialism'. Methodological materialism stops at the 'is', whereas philosophical materialism trespasses into the territory of an epistemic fallacy.

So I don't really know what you're making an issue about here. Perhaps you would like to explain?

So you allow 59, which said nothing more than 56? You disallow 57 in which I suggest LSV isn't worth taking seriously. You disallow 58 in which I get annoyed because I spent time I can't ever get back on the previous two, and you allow 59 to make it look like you're being reasonable?

Ananuthathing. To Ryan, 54: I didn't ask you if you like me. I don't care if you like me. I didn't bring liking me or liking you into it. This is not real life.

Bless you Christian moderator.

@LSV

You should know what the issue is as we have discussed it before. You say the words,"I have no issue with methodological naturalism" but all your arguments on science suggest otherwise. Whenever the methods of science are turned towards areas that have implications for your religious views, you claim that the scientists involved in such work are engaged in a philosophical battle to foist philosophical naturalism on an unsuspecting world. On another thread you have gone so far as to revel in your ignorance of the theory of evolution, so uninterested are you in how the method of naturalism is applied in that field.

You are right in one regard - not all your arguments derive from Luskin and chums, some of them come from old fashioned creationist sources, who are similarly not enamoured of the methods of science, except for,"real", or "true" science, defined in their own eccentric fashion.

"...Methodological materialism stops at the 'is'..."

Which is where the theories of evolution and abiogenesis stop. The arguments you put up against them boil down to, "It's all too improbable to me, so an intelligence did it." And given your self confessed wallowing in ignorance of at least one of the theories, you are in no position to tell where methodological naturalism ends and metaphysical naturalism starts. You're not alone in this - physics blurs into metaphysics somewhere way beyond my ken. But biology? Biochemistry? Evolution? Do us a favour. Read a book and then get back to us.

I find the Guardian article on Transgender issues in faith interesting, and am mildly surprised nobody has thought to comment on it yet.

The thought that there has been a general acceptance of transgender clergy might at first appear tremendously out of place given the prevaling furore over homosexuals in similar positions. If the Church thinks it appropriate to condemn one's sexual preferences, why is transsexualism (specifically), where one identifies with an alternative sexual role, any less amenable to criticism than one's partnership with someone of the same?

On the other hand, thinking about it, it actually makes perfect sense. If you really are biologically disposed to be attracted to males, and God made men and women for each other, then you must really be a woman. It just so happens that you've been born into a man's body for some greater recognition of what that means.

I find that a disturbing trend of thought. I also find it quite similar to a notion in naive transgenderism that has bothered me for some time - that is, that disphoria between biological sex and social gender is somehow wrong, but in a correctable way. It's an incompleteness that can eventually be satisfied through a process of coming to fulfilment.

The idea that there are two discrete gender roles and that your body must match the role you adopt seems utterly in sync with a traditional theological picture. It just so happens that the conservatives would generally rather you adjust the gender role to match the body - it's a fairly minor conceding to allow some individuals to take one side of the link over the other.

I personally feel more skeptical about the naive view that society's constraints on gender are appropriate for everyday living. Back when what we needed from people was muscle for labour and nurture for growth, the family model may have been the right way to go, but is that what we look for in an increasingly automated world? As our dependence on our basic biology diminishes, I think we will be looking in much greater depth at the way we divide our society into two, and whether the structures of our religious forebearers are quite as important as they might have been led to believe.

"If you really are biologically disposed to be attracted to males, and God made men and women for each other, then you must really be a woman."

Gotta love these jewels.

Re post #63 -

If the contributor of this post had any evidence against my views, he would not hesitate to reveal it. That's the normal way to refute someone's claims: just produce the evidence. Simple.

The fact that he goes to great lengths and resorts to numerous rhetorical devices to attempt to discredit his intellectual opponents by means of the 'ad hominem' attack ("hey, everyone, this bloke's ignorant, he really is, ya know, he is, he is, he is, pleeease believe me...") and fails to present any evidence, tells us ALL we need to know about his intellectual position, his motives, his level of knowledge and understanding and his integrity.

Nuff said.

Why don't you take a short flight and visit the Natural History Museum in London? And if you interest is genuine, you could take that basic, undergraduate level course from Yale University that's free and available on the internet. I pointed you to it before it became plain that you're not serious. Not even remotely.

Who says he's not interested. Maybe from someone less antagonistic he would be. Perhaps someone with more patience & compassion than a suicide bomber on meth

I am not quite sure who AboutFace is talking to in post #67, but if it happens to be me, then I can only thank him for his concern for my education.

Let me say that I am indeed very interested in psychology, i.e. seeing how people's minds work. If some people feel the need to explain reality according to a particular philosophy, then that is a truly fascinating insight into human nature. Some people go for the Karma thing, others Yin and Yang, and others even the reptilian ramblings of a former TV sports presenter. In the same way, there are those of a different philosophical cult (following in the footsteps of Democritus and Epicurus) who have managed to set up a large museum in London to 'explain' reality according to their particular materialistic mythology.

This is all great stuff. It's good to see people exercising their imaginations. Whatever would we do without art, imagination, fiction, mythology, narratives etc?

Of course, we all understand (well, at least those of us freethinkers who are sceptical enough to investigate outlandish claims) that these speculations have nothing to do with what is actually true.

(Not sure about the 'short flight' to London though. 50 miles up from the south coast really isn't a particularly viable journey by air!!)

(Not sure about the 'short flight' to London though. 50 miles up from the south coast really isn't a particularly viable journey by air!!

Don't lol you'll make Princess jealous, she's dying to get back over to England

What is it that's *actually* true then "Logica"? I'm sorry but I simply have to use scare quotes when I address you by your chosen misnomer.

What is it? Please explain and feel free to go on at length. I'm all, erm, eyes.

And London - and its Natural History Museum - if the flight bothers you, carbon footprint possibly speeding on the apocalypse quicker than god can get here or something, then get on a bus. Walk. Which of us was it that was wilfully ignorant?

AboutFace -

You wrote: "What is it that's *actually* true then "Logica"? I'm sorry but I simply have to use scare quotes when I address you by your chosen misnomer."

Well, what do you want me to say?

Judging by the attitudes of certain people on this blog, it is clear that only one answer to your question is deemed to be acceptable. These people - yourself, Natman, PK, grokesx, Heliopolitan et al - insist that only one explanation for reality can conceivably be true, and complete derision is reserved for the humble serf who is audacious enough to dare to contradict these higher beings.

So, I ask again, what do you want me to say? Do you want me to simply toe the party line, or am I allowed to be a freethinker?

OK, I'll decide to be a freethinker, and I'll ignore the pressure from the self-appointed 'komitet' for public education (of which Uncle Joe would be proud). At the risk of being packed off to the intellectual Gulag, I'll begin by stating what I consider not to be true:

What is NOT true is a philosophy that cannot account for 'reason' itself.

What is NOT true is a philosophy in which 'mind' is reducible to 'brain', and therefore thought is reducible to materialistic determinism.

What is NOT true is a philosophy in which all thoughts and ideas - including that of 'truth' itself - are merely human constructs, and are therefore entirely subjective.

What kind of philosophy fulfils these criteria?

You guessed it: materialism.

I may share more in due course, but I suspect that I have already earned your disapprobation. So is it worth going any further? (You've already lost a couple of minutes of your life reading this, and I wouldn't want to deprive you of any more never-to-be retrieved grains of sand slipping through the hourglass.)

(By the way... no need to apologise for putting Logica in inverted commas. I am fully aware that the idea of logic is difficult for you, given your 'logic-free' worldview.)

What is it that is *actually* true? There is a straightforward question. I WANT TO KNOW.

#73 -

Answer: God is.

"Answer: God is."*



*(citation required)

@LSV

Huh?

Evidence? You are immune to evidence. I have recommended you read some pop science books by Neil Shubin, Dawkins, Coyne etc so that at least we could have meaningful discussions. I have pointed out that it has never been easier to become informed about stuff and that there is not much excuse to make arguments that have been addressed many, many times before. If you decline to take advantage of all this, well that's your business, but it does put you at a disadvantage when you express your arguments from incredulity and attempt to critique evolution, especially in the light of:

...If I have indeed misunderstood 'the evolutionary process', I can't say that it bothers me too much, in much the same way that I don't lose sleep over a failure to understand the logic of an episode of Dr Who. That's how fiction often works (particularly science fiction) - the plot doesn't always hold together. So don't expect anyone to understand it...

Anyway, I've put lots of arguments your way that have been ignored. Like PK, I responded to your specified complexity stuff - no reply. In defence of your curious probability argument, you put forward a bunch of examples of threats to life which I addressed one by one - no reply. Ditto the point of the effect of the exponential nature of binary fission might have on any probability calculations (meaningless as they are). Ditto the points about sample space and simultaneous trials and the problems with Hoyles argument. On at least two occasions I have put forward how it is possible to come to an atheist belief (not necessarily an a-deist belief) without committing to philosophical naturalism, but still you insist on telling other people what their fundamental views are.

On several occasions I have vainly tried to make clear to you how cumulative selection is demonstrated in Dawkins's weasel program and that it only attempts to trivially show how evolutionary theory does not depend on single step change as per the Hoyle misunderstanding. You completely ignored over and over again the observation that in order to get a clear overall picture, you need to get to grips with the details of natural selection. Well, the quote above at least explains that one.

That's just a flavour of the arguments I have put to you recently in the sciency area.

In your area of expertise I have asked you how your presuppositions, such as that mind cannot be reduced to matter or that an objective moral sense exists, can be used as evidence for god. Just to clarify, presuppositions are implicit assumptions that are not justified. So how can they be evidence for anything?

In so much as you ever give an inkling about the epistemology you subscribe to, rather than highlighting other people's, you assert that "logic affirms its own validity". If that is the case, a formal, sound, valid argument could be made to prove it, presumably. I asked you to give it a bash. No dice as yet. In our discussions about Russell, Godel, metamaths etc, I asked how you get from "Cannot be known to be true" to "Is false." No reply. And on about four occasions I have said something on the lines of, "Ok, so empiricism is self refuting and is limited. What else have you got?" Still waiting for an answer to that one, too.

Sorry to anyone else who reads this, I'm boring myself. But well, cheap rhetoric is alive and well on both sides of the fence, and needs must.

LSV, I am honored by the attention you bestow on me, like the mention I got in post 46 when I hadn't even posted in this thread yet, or the response to my post 47 that wasn't addressed specifically to you.

Yet I'm still a bit disappointed about the 95% of issues that you remain quiet on after so many reminders. Irreducible complexity of self-replicating systems, dark matter, chances of events taking place reducing with time, Specified Complexity being ill-defined creationist jargon (you like arguments from blog posts , don't you), the overwhelmingly negative correlation between belief and scientific achivement. All issues you brought up and made grand claims on. Yet you run away from again and again when I raise questions about them that you seem unable to answer.

Yet you manage to criticise others for not producing evidence. I note you interest in psychology. Maybe you should read up on the concept of people projecting their own character flaws onto others.

Why don't you just answer the issues repeatedly put to you instead of hurling accusations at others?

Natman (@ 75) -

Oh dear, it seems that the pixels have been at it again, creating what looks like information in post #74.

We know, of course, that information cannot derive from a 'mind', because all information is simply the product of matter. Those very very clever people tell us that this is the case, and anyone who dares to contradict them is really 'beyond the pale'.

I hope the pixels will start behaving themselves, but we never know, do we? It's all in the lap of the 'gods of chance', innit?

So quite why a 'citation' is required, when I've already explained what the source of this information is, is a bit beyond me. But I suppose that's just the pixels again playing mind games with me!

(Or could it possibly be that you don't understand the logical implications of your own philosophy?!)

I'll leave you to work out what I am on about, since I have presented my case so many times already, that I don't feel in the mood to reinvent the wheel.

Peter Klaver -

Ooh, getting all sensitive about 'accusations' now! Pot, kettle, black, methinks!

What about the 'biggie': you accuse me in one of your comments you linked to that I am 'anti-science'. Please provide just ONE - I repeat JUST ONE - piece of evidence from anything I have ever written that proves that I am 'anti-science' (and by 'science', I do not mean 'the philosophy of materialism dressed up as science', which is not a definition of 'science' - never has been, and never will be).

Your other points:

1. Dark matter. I was making a point about the use of inference, showing that the method used to infer the existence of 'dark matter' can also be used to infer the existence of an intelligent designer. The method is exactly the same.

2. My probability argument is perfectly sound. An unbroken sequence of improbable events involves an exponentially increasing improbability. I made this point to refute the claims that "given enough time and resources anything can happen" (which is a complete fallacy, but is an idea on which the materialistic explanation for the origin and development of life depends.)

3. Creationist sources. It makes not a scrap of difference which organisation has put out a paper. Instead of obsessing about 'creationist organisations', why not actually address the issues? All abiogenesis experiments have been attempts to simulate the putative early earth conditions. They have all included in their simulation a source of intelligence. Therefore, these experiments cannot prove any position other than that of intelligent design. It is impossible for you to fault the logic of my argument, unless you wish to deny the use of intelligence in these experiments!

Any more points I missed?...

Oh yes...

4. I remember this from many months ago... the crystal (snowflake) argument for complexity. I have already answered that by pointing out that the information within the structure of a crystal is algorithmically compressible, unlike the information that governs life. Therefore you cannot compare the complexity of life with that of a crystal.

And I nearly forgot...

5. The correlation between adherence to the philosophy of materialism and levels of education. Well, it seems that the statistics are saying different things. So maybe we just have to accept that this argument is never going to prove anything - not that it is a particularly scientific argument anyway!

Now that I have responded to you, what about the penultimate paragraph of this post?

(And by the way, could I ask you why you keep chickening out of answering philosophical questions?)

I swear I heard doof-doofs after Groke's post. And hey, did you hear? God exists. Why bother with all this dancing on the head of a pin (oh that it were so tiny, oh that this debate could get there), when "Logica" can now be pulled on God. This is where we should be at. A positive statement from that man should not be passed up.

What God, "Logica"? I don't remember your confessing to any particular religion while I've been here.

I presume it's not Allah. Is is the three-in-one job? And what did he do to you that you're so certain he's there? Did he poke you? Is he a he?

LGV@74
Answer:42

In reply to AboutFace #80 (but grokesx can listen in) -

If I wrote 100,000 words answering grokesx's posts, he would still come back saying "no reply" blah blah blah. PK has also been infected by the same disease. (It's all a game of one-upmanship, innit?)

It really is ridiculous, when I have asked him a zillion times to show me the scientific experiment that proves the epistemological basis of the philosophy of materialism (i.e. that "all knowledge derives from sense perception"), and, guess what?

No reply. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nuffink.

Of course he has wriggled out of it by stating that he doesn't subscribe to 'strong empiricism', but that means, of course, that he doesn't subscribe to the philosophy of materialism either, since the latter depends on the former. Yet he still insists on pushing a philosophy he clearly doesn't believe in!

As for his 'logic' argument: well, if logic doesn't validate itself, then what does?? And on what basis do we validate the thing that validates logic?

And should I reply to him with a logical argument or an illogical one? Which would he prefer?

paul james (@ 81) -

"Answer: 42"

No, no, Paul. You've got it all wrong. Adams' "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" has now been superseded by Hawking's:

0+0=1

If we can have 'new atheism', then I don't see any reason why we can't have 'new mathematics' too!

Perhaps even 'new logic' is on the way...

I think newdwr's Post 35 is an important contribution, especially if you take into consideration the last paragraph. Why is mainstream science regularly claimed by Atheism. I can agree with grokesx but understand where LSV is coming from. I wonder if someone with grokesx's or PK's science background were Agnostic would this back & forth perhaps be slightly different. I have to admit I don't always pay full attention to what's written re all this, I kinda zone out at times, but I don't think it's as simple as saying what PK, Grokesx, Nat says (however good) then tacking Atheism on the end. And to just pre-empt an About Face onslaught- Im not arguing for "religion", before he starts on "ye Christians" "religionists". Im not baptised & I don't attend a Church , before he starts *projecting* again

Perhaps even 'new logic' is on the way...

*

The boffins have been hard at it working on a new law to replace non-contradiction. They said it would be out in May but they're having trouble making that stick since they sent ol'N-C out to pasture. Apparently the new law, dubbed 'then I saw her face now I'm a believer' has trouble distinguishing one month from the next. Unpeturbed, they now say it'll be out last year.

LSV,

How do you define 'information'? How do you then further define information as from an intelligent source?

A random string of letters is still information, there's no less information there than a string of letters that happens to form recognisable words. 'fyoreolaou' contains -exactly- the same information content as 'youareafool', the only difference is that you see words in the second.

You're fitting your own persepective on what counts as 'useful' information to try to prove a point, something, by the way, you've attempted to condem Dawkins as using in his weasel program (which he didn't, but there we go).

Look, if you don't really understand the theories involved here, that's fine, wallow in your ignorance. But don't start complaining when those who do understand it want to share that with others.

Natman -

Yeah, you're probably right. I'll just wallow in my ignorance and silly me for daring to challenge other people's views. I mean, I thought that was what a debate was supposed to be about, but clearly I was wrong. Will and Testament is obviously just a talking shop for atheists, and other visitors only get a look in if they are nice and polite and don't upset the residents. Obviously I need to learn the proper etiquette of a BBC blog - never contradict an atheist. He is, after all, a sensitive sort. Of course, he can say whatever he likes about views he disagrees with, but then he's allowed to, because different rules apply to different people in his privileged world.

Happy now?

(Well you shouldn't be, because I was being sarcastic again - naughty me).

Now... all the above waffle that I have written is called INFORMATION. I just thought I would let you know that, as it seems that you are not quite sure what 'information' is.

Do you think this 'information' was generated randomly? Yes or no?

If your answer is 'no', then what exactly is your problem?

tan man (that bit should be easy)

I suspect that the response I would like to make, which, as I'm sure you can guess, involves the jumbling of letters, won't pass moderation; that should be a lesson in itself. Perhaps I'll give it a go; but honestly, if we've reached the stage on this blog where we're expected to accept that random strings of letters and words contain "exactly the same information", then, frankly, I've better things to do.

By the way, the words I see in 'youareafool' are 'a', 'aye', 'of', 'lo', 'our'.

Maybe, however, words aren't real; that would explain a lot.

peterm2 -

You wrote: "...if we've reached the stage on this blog where we're expected to accept that random strings of letters and words contain "exactly the same information", then, frankly, I've better things to do."

Ah, but Peter, you don't understand. It's all sooooo *complicated*. We little people can't be expected to understand these arcane theories that only the super-elite understand. We have to just meekly and serenely sit at their feet and accept what they say without question.

That is, after all, what 'freethinking' is all about. Didn't you know?

(By the way, whatever happened to old Mr Occam and his sharp implement? He seems to have done a disappearing act recently. Or maybe he's defected to our side, and that's why he's now 'persona non grata' in the corridors of the Nullifidians...)

Peter2m,

Given you never defined what 'information' is, or that if it necessarily has to be a string of recognisable words, then yes, a random collection of letters can be considered information.

LSV,

I know my posts hit the mark when you twist them and try to make a new meaning.

Natman -

Yep, you're right. You've hit the mark. I now KNOW that information can only ever be randomly generated.

Ah, what a wonderful Damascene conversion this is!!

How could I have ever been so blind???!

Natman

Who are you misunderstanding, me or yourself?

Here's some information:

better do things to.

I'll leave you to figure out what is being conveyed - it'll need a bit more order though.

Honestly, this is impossible.

And I don't often get cross on this blog.

And there's a definition in there too.


LSV

Perhaps we've all fallen down a rabbit hole :-) Do you think the mods would accept random strings of letters posted on here? I've a notion that the random part might be a problem. What do you think?

35."...As to whether intelligence was required to put in place all the conditions necessary for life to arise and evolve...".

72."What is NOT true is a philosophy in which 'mind' is reducible to 'brain', and therefore thought is reducible to materialistic determinism"
"What is NOT true is a philosophy in which all thoughts and ideas - including that of 'truth' itself - are merely human constructs, and are therefore entirely subjective"

Is it possible to marry those ideas. That as intelligent life evolves, the physical brain is able to tap into, & access more energetic intelligence -& that energetic intelligence,which is an integral part of our mind, is also external to us- That each life develops an energetic signature which is distinct.A mix of inputs, with each input adding something- environmental, physical, emotional etc

Also liked the distinction Paulr made between wisdom & understanding in another thread

peterm2 -

Concerning information and randomness...

It may interest you to know that Natman and I have been down this road before, and, as far as I am concerned, I'm pretty chuffed with my analysis of this problem. You can find it

HERE

and

HERE

In the light of this, I am surprised that Natman is dragging this issue up again.

Natman said:

"I know my posts hit the mark when you twist them and try to make a new meaning."

How can posts hit marks? That's crazy talk.

Andrew

"How can posts hit marks? That's crazy talk."

Don't be ridiculous, Andrew, you can have toast in the park any time you want.


And I really want to try the random letter thing. Is there a mod out there who will give me the go ahead?

Andrew

I owe you an apology with all that toast in the park stuff, that clearly isn't what you said, sorry - I have no idea if there were spots on the ark or not?

I'll pay more attention next time and read more carefully.


Moderator? Random letters? What do you think?

Ah go on, ya will, ya will, ya will! :-)

peterm2 -

The mods let me do random letters - see the posts I linked to above in #94, and this was an earlier little 'experiment' I conducted.

LSV

It's just klicked with mee and I don't knough how I missed it - awll the letters evir written, indeed I should also add sounds spoken (letters represent sounds, don't they, or am I missing a trick their too?), all of them are random - that's it! I'm glad that won's cleared pu.

This latest work by A C Grayling will certainly ruffle a few feathers. When he was a guest on Desert Island Discs he accepted the Bible. Now he has written "The Good Book - A Secular Bible".

"How can you be a militant atheist? It's like sleeping furiously."

https://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy