大象传媒

The same thing happened to Robert Graves, the poet. He was serving as a soldier and was concussed by a bomb blast. When he came round he was lying among those pronounced dead and on his way to the graveyard. He put it down to his naturally slow pulse rate - which he had always thought a lucky bonus until this time.

No doubt mistakes like that explain many of the ancient tales of corpses coming back to life and the undead roaming the earth, etc. However, we can excuse those ancient story-tellers because their medical knowledge was so limited. It is a poor reflection on the RoI health service, however, that such an elementary mistake should happen today.

Mr. Reid writes:

No doubt mistakes like that explain many of the ancient tales of corpses coming back to life and the undead roaming the earth, etc.

To John Wright and Michael Hull:

I see Mr. Reid has taken up refuge from our questions in the earlier threads and is now hiding in a Dublin morgue from where he attempts to take further side swipes at Christianity.

Quite fitting!

Peace,
Maureen

What do you suppose his first words were when he regained consciousness?

Didn't I see this story on an episode of The Twilight Zone?

If you want to see miracles, come around my office at around a quarter to five in the evening when the dead come back to life.

Maureen- Indeed. It's subtle, but always there, just beneath the surface, bitter and unsatisfied.

Maureen and John
Why else do you think Will posted this thread other than to elicit some piss-taking of the many religious resurrection myths?
Are they all gods?
Will does present a RELIGION and ethics prog after all!!

Re #5:

Ah, Mr. Watson has arrived at the morgue!

Alan: Good of you to pop in. I was watching for your reply to Michael Hull which I have copied for your convenience below. Now that I have both you and Reid in this dismal place shall we continue the discussion that neither of you have responded to on the previous threads (Robert Winston and the Science Delusion and Has Belfast Embraced Darwin)? I refer to the following post from Hull to which I still see no response from the Humanists.

Peace,
鈥楴emesis鈥�(Hull's word) McNeill

Michael Hull said:

Begin quote: In post # 6 Alan Watson wrote: BTW Michael, Your 'Yawn' used to be post 1 but has now gone!! Now my comment looks like an orphan.

Hi Alan: I saw that 鈥� must be embarrassing for you 鈥� looks like you are reacting to imaginary threads. But before it disappeared I did indicate that the whole thread could disappear as far as I am concerned ;-)

Seriously, I think secular humanism can put forward a lot better advocate than Dawkins. He is killing your case and sounding like the other ranting fundamentalist 鈥榖elievers鈥�.

By the way while we await further 鈥榥ew thinking鈥� on matters Dawkins to appear in this thread, on which I shall not be commenting as per my promise to you, would you like to continue the discussion that your fellow traveller, Les Reid, abandoned on the 鈥淏elfast Embraces Darwin鈥� thread?

His worldview dead ended as does Dawkins鈥� with Darwinism and I鈥檓 afraid I could not induce him to venture into the world of parallel universes. Hawking got stuck with his own worldview when he was forced to confront that his 鈥榗one鈥� of the universe started from a singularity i.e. the universe had a beginning. He then used imaginary numbers (a legitimate mathematical tool) to get rid of the singularity and make the end of the 鈥榗one鈥� rounded but seems unable to describe the reality to which his use of imaginary numbers led him. Those of us who deal with 鈥榤odels鈥� in the sciences and with 鈥榤etaphors鈥� in philosophy are quite happy with the use of imaginary numbers in the sciences (models) and imaginary constructs (God) in metaphysics.

I was discussing these points with Reid and trying to get him to tell us what world view physics and cosmology offers that has a higher probability than that of a Creator world view. He provided Dawkinsesque ad hominem comments in support of secular humanism鈥檚 position.

Maybe you have some training in the sciences and would like to finish the discussion?

My nemesis, Maureen McNeill, summed the thread up quite neatly from my point of view with a comment which I quote in part below ....

Begin quote: Post # 61. 鈥淗as Belfast Embraced Darwin鈥� thread At 12:57 PM on 12 Apr 2007, Maureen McNeill wrote: Mr Reid: In following this very interesting thread as a mathematician, physicist, and theologian I was very interested in seeing you respond to 2 questions from Mr Hull which you have studiously avoided. Mr Hull asked if you would accept that it was a reasonable position to adopt probabality theory in choosing which belief to follow. He asked if you would accept that such a worldview was "rational and reasonable".

Simple question! In my view the only possible answer you should give is 'Yes that is a rational and reasonable position'. I suspect you refuse to accept that anyone who places a high probability on a worldview that is not humanist is "rational OR reasonable". That is arrogant thinking which leads eventually to fundamentalist thinking.

Mr Hull also asked that if he can get his mind around the existence of imaginary concepts in science (imaginary numbers, parallel universes etc) why you would not, as a matter of logic, permit a similar "non-physical construct" as he put it to be employed in a study of metaphysics. Again you avoided the question. That was very revealing!

You asked him a series of scientific questions on his views concerning evolution which I noted that he answered directly and succintly. He put probablities on his beliefs about evolution which make it transparent what his views are. Hull then followed up with a similar set of very interesting questions for you about parallel universes, string theory etc which you avoided with demeaning personal attacks (drowning man clutching at straws etc). That is the response that I have seen from many secular humanists when forced off their attack on religion and into a defence of scientific evidence that is raising questions about determinism, certainity, purpose etc.

All of this is evident to the readers of this blog especially those of us who are trained in both the philosophical and scientific fields. I have been watching Hull's attempts to engage you and there was some early support from Wright on the general philosophical ground I saw him staking out around you. You ran for every exit that could be found. Hull commented at one point that your response about 'straws and drowning men' was 'sad'. I think it was beyond 'sad' it was pathetic from a person who represents the Belfast Humanists and who is invited to appear as an 'expert' on the airwaves. End quote

The religious apologists seem to be quite jittery now and over-react to the most innocent of statements. I wrote:"No doubt mistakes like that explain many of the ancient tales of corpses coming back to life and the undead roaming the earth, etc." I made no reference to Christianity. I was thinking of Roman beliefs in Hades and the later stories about Dracula rising from the dead.

Perhaps, Maureen, you had better explain to us what exactly it was that made you think those ancient tales had anything to do with Christianity? Do they all belong together in your estimation?

Peas - mushy,

Les

Post #2 ...

Maureen/John: The Dublin morgue - last refuge of a scoundrel? ;-)

Maureen: Maybe you should quit? Mark is a far superior target for your wit and intelligence!

Regards,
Michael

ps: Mark: That was a compliment, I think ;-)

Having failed to answer the arguments against life after death which I presented in a thread on Darwin and Evolution, M McNeill and M Hull are now resorting to the pathetic ploy of pretending that I did not answer their arguments. The truth of the matter is easily seen if one looks at the thread in question, "Has Belfast Embraced Darwin?" /blogs/ni/2007/04/has_belfast_embraced_darwin.html

In brief, all the evidence (including Evolution) points to mortality and makes tales of immortality appear to be mere fantasy. Messrs McNeill and Hull did not rebut one piece of that evidence. Instead they tried desperately to change the subject, in order to avoid defeat. The last comment on the thread (no 62) provides a summary.

Peas - mushy,
Les

Re #7

John/Maureen:

Incredible!

The Humanists intellectual response has now been extended to "peas - mushy"

Michael

Les
I made no direct reference to Christianity either but if the cap fits the guilty react!!

Maureen
Some of us do have a life away from W&T

For Christian Apologists -

This thread is not about Dawkins ... but ...
This is a letter for the parties at Stormont

The political institutions which will reassemble on 8th May face a gargantuan task in setting Northern Ireland on the road to a shared future. Bread-and-butter issues such as water charges, class inequalities, working class educational underachievement and health service closures are obviously important matters which have been largely squeezed out for years by the constitutional question.
Yet, over and above all these individual concerns, there is also a fundamental issue about the kind of society that we want in this province. The most successful countries are those with diverse cultures, utilising all their varied talents for the common good. They are societies which recognise the right to be different, while at the same time cherishing the universal values we all share as part of our common humanity.
Northern Ireland, whether we like it or not, is itself becoming increasingly diverse. Growing ethnic minorities, increasing female assertiveness, gays and lesbians emerging from the shadows, and secularists sticking their head above the parapet, are all contributing to the new and exciting mix.
All these divergences deserve to be welcomed because they widen the bounds of life. At the same they render tolerance not only a virtue but also a requirement for survival. If we cannot tolerate people who are in some ways different from us, then how can we expect others to do the same with us?
Unfortunately, our political culture has not adapted to this new pluralism. Orange and Green still dominate; indeed, in the last election their extreme wings triumphed over the more compromising moderates. So we remain a polarised and largely segregated society, with little or no space for 鈥榯he others鈥�. This is hardly a recipe for progress.
A key question is whether a party linked to a church which preached hatred of the Catholic faith and a party linked to a terrorist organisation that tried to bomb and kill a million Protestants into a united Ireland can transcend their own narrow tribalisms and act in the wider general interest. And that means addressing the concerns not just of the old 鈥榚nemy鈥� but also of all those diverse groups who have felt excluded for so long.
Consider three areas. First, Northern Ireland is still a highly patriarchal society in which only 18 out of 108 MLAs are female. For too long politics has been dominated by mean, petty and stubborn old men lacking magnanimity and a vision to take the people forward to a better, more inclusive and tolerant era. A shared future therefore implies a much greater representation of women in our political life.
Secondly, it implies that our children learn about diverse faiths and world views in an environment which reflects this variety. Educating children together from all faiths and none is an essential building block of a shared future. This implies a commitment from our MLAs to the development of integrated schools as a top priority.
Finally, there is a large and growing secular constituency, 14% of the population according to the 2001 census, and their voice needs to be heard. Secularisats have a right to equality of treatment. in which the state itself acts as a kind of neutral referee, so that religious and non-religious people are treated in a fair and equal manner.
For this reason on 8th May the Humanist Association of Northern Ireland plans to present a copy of The God Delusion and its own publication on the Humanist Alternative beyond Orange and Green to representatives of all the parties. In this way we aim to highlight our demand for equality and our commitment to reason and compassion as the key to solving problems.
How will the parties react? Will they continue to marginalise and ignore us, or will they welcome us as symbolic of the new and more enlightened Northern Ireland?

RE Post 9 from 鈥淢ushy Peas Reid鈥�

John: Help me out here.

I don鈥檛 want to ask Mushy Peas Reid again what the answers are to the two questions that I am tracking since I am apparently one of the 鈥渏ittery Christian apologists鈥� who is 鈥渄esperately trying to change the subject, in order to avoid defeat鈥�.

1) Reid was asked if he would accept that it was a reasonable position to adopt probabality theory in choosing which belief to follow. He was asked if he would accept that such an approach in choosing a worldview was "rational and reasonable".

2) He was asked if a scientist could get his mind around the existence of imaginary concepts in science (imaginary numbers, parallel universes etc) why would Reid, as a matter of logic, not permit a similar "non-physical construct" to be employed in a study of metaphysics.

Reid has apparently provided the answers but in the gloom of this intellectual morgue I confess I have not been able to find them.

Peace,
Maureen

Ps: If you feel too 鈥榡ittery鈥� to comment I will understand but then you may be accused of 鈥渄esperately trying to avoid defeat鈥�.

Maureen
Try the link in post 9!!
just click!

Maureen/Michael/John:

Be careful guys! Although Dawkins is Darwins Rottwieler, Les is Darwins Poodle ;)

SG

Maureen #11 2) The use of the term "imaginary" as it relates to the mathematical concept of the square root of minus one is merely a convention, a term of convenience as good as any other which seems appropriate because it does not have a basis in counting, the way so called real numbers have. As pure mathematics is a closed system of abstract logic, within that system the term is as real as any other. For instance, mathematics can be used to describe an infinite number of dimensions having any relationship to each other even if they don't have any basis for analogy in the real world. In a sense, a mathematical model is a metaphor for the real world and so far it is as close as we can get to describing the real world in a convention whose definitions we can agree on. By comparison, verbal analogies and metaphors are very crude and ambiguous. Are mathematical models 100% accurate or can they ever be made 100% accurate as models? I don't know? But if I had to guess, I'd say "probably not" :-)

BTW, Les Reid, 37, I think Hades was Greek, not Roman. Didn't Odysseus visit hades and wasn't Charon the boatsman who took him across the river Styx to visit it?

What about the death rattle, I have seen hospital staff run a mile and become sick to the point of being incapacitated when hearing the gurgling death rattle of a dead body.

M McNeill and M Hull- It appears that I've escaped Mr Reid's critique, so I'll leave this unsubstantial morgue meeting to you guys to hash out! Maureen more than adequately hits the ball into Les' court in #11; I await the return with bated breath!

Stephen- Poodles don't belong in morgues.

im amazed that no one has yet suggested that jesus wasnt really dead in the tomb.

Re #14 鈥� Hades and Imaginary Numbers

Welcome to the morgue, Mark!

I would offer you a seat but all the metal surfaces are pretty cold in here. Les and Alan are over there shivering in the corner. Maureen is cold too 鈥� Les thinks it is due to the 鈥榡itters鈥� but I think it鈥檚 the people in here giving her the creeps.

For once I think I am right about you! You do make a much better target for Maureen鈥檚 鈥渨it and intelligence鈥�.

Re your insightful comment on imaginary numbers .......

The use of the term "imaginary" as it relates to the mathematical concept of the square root of minus one is merely a convention, a term of convenience as good as any other which seems appropriate because it does not have a basis in counting, the way so called real numbers have ....... For instance, mathematics can be used to describe an infinite number of dimensions having any relationship to each other even if they don't have any basis for analogy in the real world. In a sense, a mathematical model is a metaphor for the real world and so far it is as close as we can get to describing the real world in a convention whose definitions we can agree on.

Quite right! I like your comment that the use of imaginary numbers is a 鈥榤etaphor鈥� for the real world. Hmmm, are we making progress? (That鈥檚 a rhetorical question not a metaphorical one).

Your comment leads neatly to Hawking鈥檚 mathematical model for the universe. His cone model has a singularity 鈥� meaning the universe has a beginning and if it has a beginning then what (or who) was before the beginning becomes his problem. To avoid this 鈥榩roblem鈥� Hawking resorts to the use of imaginary numbers and his cone then loses the undesireable singularity (the pointed end of the cone which is the 鈥榖eginning鈥�) - his cone becomes rounded instead of pointed. But unfortunately the model can no longer be converted into any 鈥榬eality鈥� or as you put it so succintly it doesn鈥檛 鈥渉ave any basis for analogy in the real world.鈥� It has indeed become a 鈥榤etaphor鈥�.

Now that we have established this point question 2 remains for 鈥淒arwin鈥檚 Poodle鈥�.

BTW, Les Reid, 37, I think Hades was Greek, not Roman. Didn't Odysseus visit hades and wasn't Charon the boatsman who took him across the river Styx to visit it?

Mark: I鈥檓 beginning to doubt he cares about the difference. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, there are three sides to every triangle and Les has four of them. I am hoping that he will give me a sine that he is intent on protracting Maureen from a math-dog like you who is willing to disintegrate us with calculus disregard of an imaginary reality. Darwin鈥檚 Poodle loves to inflict plane on every sphere of influence. Under the circumferences, we must differentiate his root, make our point, and draw a line.

Regards,
Michael

Ps: Care to continue the discussion in Billy Graham鈥檚 Cow Patch where it might be a bit warmer? I think Maureen may have gone there for a breath of fresh air.

Umm, strange place for Michael and Mark to have become best buddies, a morgue. Is it prophetic about this relationship?

Michael, for your crimes you may be sentenced to serve some delta T in the state punnatentiary.

Insofar as your comments about Hartwig, I think you are reading far more into my comments than I intended. I don't agree with Hartwig because I don't see his evidence. I don't disagree with him either. So far we can only physically sense three dimensions but we can infer a fourth with great confidence because it is the only way to explain observed phenomena of the three we can sense which would otherwise be inconsistant unexplainable anomolies. When I read Ayn Rand in my youth, I became aware of the crucial distinction between the unknown and the unknowable. Right now, I'd put Hartwig in the second category and keep him there unless and until his theories can be tested or at least until a test can be devised. My own best guess consistant with the facts I do know is that the universe consists of our three dimensional objects on a closed sphere of four or more dimensions exploding in all 3 directions until it comes together on the opposite side to implode and then begin the cycle over again by exploding. In this model, the concept of a beginning and end of time has no meaning. How did it come to be, what happened before it existed, and what lies beyond? That is unknowable. One question physicists have to address is how to account for the 95% of all matter they know exists but can't find. One possibility according to this theory is that it is already over the horizon but I have others I'm not prepared to even mention let alone discuss. Anyway go on with your hyperbola, sorry I intersected you.

Re #20

Mark: I am mostly in agreement with your analysis of "Hartwig".

Where is our physicist friend Peter Klaver when one needs him? Someone get him down here quick and give him a blanket!

Peter: 3, 4, 12, or multiple dimensions? Off you go!

To the rest of you: As an Agnostic Christian AND an Agnostic Scientist I have two proposals in front of me about how I came into being.

Science gives me a "model" (infinite dimensions) with imaginary elements that can not be understood with certainity within the reality in which I exist.

Philosophy gives me a "metaphor" (infinite consciousness) with imaginary elements that can not be understood with certainity within the reality in which I exist.

I examine the evidence for both proposals, read the available literature (including the poodle bible - Dawkin's "The God Delusion") and conclude that I place a probabality of 40% on the 'science model' being correct and 60% on the 'philosophical metaphor'.

Which brings me back to question #1 for Darwin's Poodle.

Is it a rational and reasonable position to adopt probabality theory in choosing which belief to follow in one's own personal life?

The poodle and his pup are apparently unable to comment. How about the rest of you - John, Peter, PB, Mark?

Maureen: you have already replied in the earlier threads - thank you.

Simple question!

Regards,
Michael

Michael, you know I believe that probability is a human invented mathematical abstraction which does not apply to the real world (assuming Camus was wrong of course) because as what is called a humanist, I believe strictly in cause and effect. Either something is true or it isn't. Thinking about the definition of words which as I say are very imprecise and open to interpretation, I'm not quite sure I know the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic. As I understand it, an atheist is someone who does not believe in god and that is what it literally means from Latin as I learned it, "without god." An agnostic is someone who does not know if god exists or not. As I have no evidence for the existance of god (I gave am a chance but unfortunately am chose not to prostelytize me, go ahead the rest of you, I invite you all to give it your best shot) I do not believe god exists. But I can't prove god doesn't exist either. Therefore not only must I admit I don't know, unless god finds a way to show himself that gives me a clue he's really there, I'd have to say that the truth of god's existance is beyond knowing, that is unknowable. Hey, if god does exist and that's OK with him, it's just fine and dandy with me too.

Re 22

Thank you, Mark.

Anyone else care to comment?

Regards,
Michael

Michael- Although I'm inclined to agree, I'm not certain on what you mean by some of these terms. Probability of the scientific versus the philosophical (the model versus the metaphor) makes it sound as though they're diametrically opposite, and assigning separate values to each assumes not only (a) that it is dealing with a dichotomy, but also (b) that both are equally capable of understanding the world. To play devil's advocate for a second, which "metaphor" is being pitched against the "model"? The Genesis story? Or a Babylonian creation myth? Sumerian? Persian? Why? Are all myths or stories, including the one I make up in my mind, equally capable of explaining origins? And do you attempt to resolve contradictions or conflicts between the two explanations?

Funny how after well over a hundred years of having a model for the second law of thermodynamics, over 100 years of Darwin's of the theory of evolution and 50 years of knowledge of the structure of DNA, it took Andy McIntosh to find the inconsistency between spontaneous creation of DNA from nature and the second law of thermodynamics. Now where do you suppose all those other chemists, biochemists, and chemical engineers were all those years. BTW, does anyone know if McIntosh is being considered for a Nobel prize in chemistry for his "revelation?" There's a case for doctors to drop pharmacological models and go back to metaphors. Anyone got some leeches?

Re 24 John Wright wrote: Michael- Although I'm inclined to agree, I'm not certain on what you mean by some of these terms.....To play devil's advocate for a second, which "metaphor" is being pitched against the "model"?

John: Let's say for arguments sake that I have only two hypotheses available to me. I wish to pick one or the other as a worldview that answers my question 鈥淗ow did I come to exist?鈥�

One explanation involves an 鈥榠nfinite degree of intelligence鈥� and the other involves an 鈥榠nfinite number of dimensions鈥�. How does one choose between the two hypotheses in a reasonable and rational fashion?

I would look at the arguments presented on both sides as best I am able and assign some personal 鈥榗onfidence estimate鈥� that one side might answer my question.

Assume "I" hold that the "Intelligence" explanation has a 75% "confidence" of being 'true' compared with the "Dimensions" explanation. That would mean I should adopt as my worldview this explanation and work on my remaining lack of confidence (25%) in it as my preferred explanation. The classical problem of suffering in the world might be something I would direct my attention to. If I could not resolve the problem of suffering to my own satisfaction I might be forced to decrease my confidence estimate of the "Intelligence" explanation being 'true'. As I study, research, think etc. I may eventually drop this explanation altogether and then turn to the other explanation and attempt to raise my previously lesser confidence level in it.

This is what happens when theists become atheists (and vice versa).

Looking at the 鈥淒imensions鈥� model 鈥� say string theory 鈥� my confidence that it will offer me a satisfactory worldview is quite low and my trend line is pointing down for the reasons I have given in earlier comments. Thus, I intend to spend no more time on it myself believing it may prove to be a dead end.

Having said that, however, I do not despise, reject, discourage or castigate anyone who wishes to continue to accept the 鈥淒imensions鈥� model as the focus of their own personal worldview and intellectual pursuit.

As an agnostic I understand that I might be wrong.

John: Sorry to hobble this all together in such a jumbled fashion but I am in a rush - I think you get the gist of what I am trying to say.

Regards,
Michael

Michael- As you've described it in #27, I believe it's an entirely rational and reasonable position to take with regard to origins. Thanks for the explanation; I can't fault it.

All concepts are essentially contested and so there is no objective definition of 'atheist', 'agnostic', probability, 'model', 'metaphor' or even 'Christian' or 'humanist'. Take Mark's problem (22) with 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. They are only labels and it is what we mean by them that is important. Too much of this and other threads is hung up on interpretations of labels. One possible distinction is that an agnostic is less certain than an atheist, but less certain about what? I am pretty certain in my own mind that the Christian, Moslem and Jewish gods are fictions. In other words, there is a very low probability that they exist (Dawkins puts this at point 6 of a 7-point spectrum in which 7 is 'strong atheist'). But as for force(s) which may have created the universe, I am agnostic: I have no idea and neither has anyone else because there is insufficient evidence. What inaugurated the big bang? Or was the big bang just an event in one part of an infinite universe?

An important point about the label 'humanist' is that it embraces atheists, agnostics, sceptics etc, and also people who think criticising religion is negative and seek a positive lifestance without belief in the Judaeo-Christian gods.

On the other hand, some humanists like discussing religion because it poses the essential questions. Why are we here? Is there any reason? What is the meaning of life? What happens to us when we die?. Any teenager with a curious intellect asks these questions and loves to discuss them. But, of course, for us Humanists traditional religion give the wrong answers to them. So we criticise religion because it is untruthful about the fundamental questions of life (as well as being often harmful).

Humanism therefore is a 'broad church', and if we value tolerance and freethought than we should hope that it remains so. But most Humanists would reject the notion that religion is all bad. There are good bits in there too, and we want to build on them: "love your enemies, 'first be reconciled to thy brother', "Of those who answered the call of Allah and the messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward." (Koran).

We all want to see a better world. I would contend that if we were less hung up on dogma and more concerned about ethics, then we would make better progress to that end.

Re 28

An important point about the label 'humanist' is that it embraces atheists, agnostics, sceptics etc,

Brian, John, Alan, Les:

If Hull says he is an agnostic Christian, holding a world view with respect to his origins that to his degree of confidence is say 95% spiritual, should he be accepted by the Secular Humanist societies if he applied for membership in their organizations and stated his position as above?

Peace,
Maureen

We value tolerance and free thought ..... there are good bits in there too, and we want to build on them: "love your enemies, 'first be reconciled to thy brother',

Good points - that's why "I" think Dawkins ought to be an embarassment for humanists the way some of the right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the USA are an embarrassment to the majority of Christians here.

Regards,
Michael

I really find humanitarianism a disgusting atheistic religion. When I first looked at the word "humanism" I was concerned that the two words meant one and the same thing and I was afraid of being lumped in with them but I see that while some humanists may be humanitarians, not all of them are. It is this religion of humanitarianism which leads down the fatal roads to the social welfare state, socialism, communism, fascism, and other insane dogmas. Christianity without Christ or god. RobinHoodism. I'm not interested in making a better world, I'm happy with the one we've got. I've noticed there are two kinds of people in the world, those who want to change it "for the better" and try to enlist armies of others in whatever cause they have decided is the way to go about it and those who accept the world the way it is and try to make the best life they can in it. I am in the second category because I have found that those are by far the happier and more productive group. The first are often dangerous and eternally frustrated. Their clarion cry "comes the revolution" inevitably leads to their own destruction and sometimes the destruction of a lot of other people. That is why my credo in life is "neither a follower nor a leader be." I march to the beat of my own drum. It means I have to think for myself and that is a lot of work, much harder than letting someone else do it for you especially if you have the intellect of a mental couch potato.

All concepts are essentially contested if you are an existentialist. Then the very concept of reality is questioned. I've said that I only accept reality tentatively until proven otherwise. It has so far served me as a useful model but if it ever fails such as if I learn that I cannot die, then my view of life would change radically and I would become much bolder to take actions I now view as entirely reckless. If you accept that the real world exists outside yourself, then the only concept which can be questioned is whether or not it is rational by being consistant. If you decide it is, all of the other dogmas or theories are mere details. If it isn't you are free to embrace whatever superstition you believe rules its capriciousness at any given moment.

For this humanist, the question of why we are here is purely rhetorical and absurd because it has no answer. Until and unless proven otherwise, there is no reason.

I have said elsewhere that the definition of words, verbal communications, words as symbols for thoughts cannot lead to logical arguments because they are too imprecise, too ephemeral, too vague to be agreed upon. Even scientific terms are often vague when expressed in words. For example there are at least three different scientific definitions for the word acid as used by chemists (which Michael Hull can confirm) and substances which meet the criteria of one definition may not meet the criteria of another. The word oxidation has at least two different scientific definitions and again, the process which meets the criteria of one definition may not meet the criteria of the other. When metaphors further cofuse the definitions by substituting one word or phrase to mean another, we get to an even higher order of imprecision and confused understanding. The ultimate metaphor is a parable, a story, a fairy tale really which tries to convey one thought or message by substituting a simplified version as a different thought. For Jesus, this was the only way to reach many he wished to follow him because he knew they did not have the intellectual capacity to grasp what he actually wanted to say.

Religion is to be condemned if for no other reason than it is intellectually dishonest. It only yields to demonstrable facts with the greatest of difficulty. The truths for which the Catholic Church threatened Galileo with torture and for which he was excommunicated, it now embraces without a second thought, its absurd notion that the earth is the center of the universe long abandoned only because it became proven laughably false. The anti science Creationists are not so laughable as they would return us to a pre science era where their substitue junk science which is twisted into conformance with their religions notions would be the only theory taught. This of course if carried to its extreme would lead to a collapse of our technological civilization but not all over the world, only here where proven facts can again be hidden and condemned as heresy.

Re 28

I am pretty certain in my own mind that the Christian, Moslem and Jewish gods are fictions.

Brian: Help me out here with the theology. Other than the god of Abraham, who are the others?

Peace,
Maureen

Hi Maureen,
You are a true ecumenist. I don't really want to go along this track because it was not related to my main points. I think it would be better if you addressed them.

As I am sure you know, many Moslems, Jews and Christians would dispute whether they all believe in the same god. I don't think they do, because there are crucial differences, many of which revolve around the claims for Jesus made by Christians. Neither Moslems nor Jews believe that he was a deity and therefore they deny that their god is the same god as that of Christians or Jews.

Remember, that we are on a thread about resurrection, and it is worth pointing out that for Jews and Moslems, this didn't happen to Jesus. Does this not make their god in some way different?

I could have added the gods of the Greeks and Romans in my list but didn't because most people don't believe in them anymore, though on the face of it, there is a certain logic in polytheism: a god to do this and a god to do that, inside of one god having to do everything (and transmogrify constantly into Jehovah or Allah to please different followers).

You think that the god of Islam, Christianity and Judaism is the same god because you believe that he exists. I don't and therefore I am only arguing about the conceptions, which are, in certain key ways, different. Whether or not the three religions believe in the same or different gods, as far as I am concerned, neither he nor they exist. okay?

Mark, I agree with your criticisms of religion. Perpetuating traditional fictions as if they are fact is indeed intellectually dishonest, as you say. However, the worst aspect of religion is obscured by the use of the singular term, "religion". There are many religions, plural, and it is the divisiveness of those tribal belief systems that represents their worst aspect. Sectarian bigots, Islamist fanatics, Zionist aggressors, Hindu caste oppression, etc - all of those social ills derive from tribal allegiance to 'the one true faith'.

But your response to the problem seems woefully inadequate. You will not join with any others of like mind to try and remedy the situation. You write: "Their clarion cry "comes the revolution" inevitably leads to their own destruction and sometimes the destruction of a lot of other people. That is why my credo in life is "neither a follower nor a leader be." I march to the beat of my own drum."

Given that the mistaken people who believe in religions are united in huge organisations and are exercising a great deal of power in every society in the world, your aloof individualism looks to me like dereliction of duty. Rational people who can see how obsolete beliefs are causing unnecessary division and conflict, ought to make common cause with others of like mind and try to advance the cause of rational belief.

To paraphrase Carlyle, "If sensible people do nothing, then irrational beliefs will dominate society and oppression will follow."

Brian- There are some interesting polytheistic passages through the bible. In the creation stories of Genesis the use of "Elohim" (literally "gods"), and Genesis 3:22: "the man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil", giving the impression of a conversation between gods regarding the latest news from their creation. "One of us" is an impossible statement for a single deity to make. Psalm 95:3, "For the Lord is a great God, a great king over all gods" would seem to directly contradict monotheism.

'Course, tell most Christians that they shouldn't be bothered by the idea that God may have contemporaries, and there's the distinct possibility of their having a coronary on the spot.

Hi Maureen (29)

If an 'agnostic Christian' wanted to join HUMANI, I for one could see no objection (or an agnostic Jew or Moslem, for that matter). Humanists can be spiritual too (see the article by Warren Smyth in the current issue of Humani magazine). HUMANI has no rigid rules of membership.

Hi Michael (30)

Michael, you wouldn't say that the Bible was an embarassment to 'the majority' of Christians here, would you? After all, it contains much violence, factual inaccuracy and irrationality. But then perhaps you would. Dawkins's book is a model or even, dare I say it, a metaphor of reason. It has no violent exhortations on any page. Are Christians so weak in their faith that they can't rational criticism?

Cheers,
Brian

Re 36 Michael, you wouldn't say that the Bible was an embarassment to 'the majority' of Christians here, would you? After all, it contains much violence, factual inaccuracy and irrationality.

When it is interpreted completely literally - yes I am embarrassed - not by the book itself but by the interpretation placed on it. Those who believe the bible literally do not of course see this as an embarrassment.

I am not in line with the fundamentalist brand of Christianity practiced either in NI or in the USA as I have stated frequently before.

I find Dawkins to be an embarrassment because his theological understanding seems to be locked into the literal mode.

Regards,
Michael

PS With regard to my admission to 'humanist' organizations suffice it to say that I do subscribe to several secular humanist publications and read them with interest. Several humanist websites and publications have direct links from my own blog.

Mark (31),
You agree with Thoreau: "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away". Or Frost's little poem about the two roads in the wood: you have taken the one less travelled by.

Highly commendable: you are a genuine freethinker.
But, and it is a big 'but', you haven't thought its implications through.

After all, aren't you lucky that you have been able to reach this rosy freethinking condition? Suppose the world didn't allow you to do this? Suppose it tried to impose a uniformity: through the state, or the family, or the classroom, or the media? Surely you would want to improve the situation? I must say your view comes across as rather selfish and complacent. It amounts to "I'm all right, Jack", does it not?

Your two kinds of people division is facile (are you against ALL change?!). There are lots of other more important divisions, e.g. the powerful and the powerless, the rich and the poor, the kind and the cruel etc. Where would women's rights be if they adopted your attitude? What rights would animals have if we didn't have campaigns against inhumane treatment? Or children? What rights would workers have if they campaigned purely on their own for better pay and conditions against more powerful bosses who could hire or fire them at will? What rights would writers or film directors have against powerful secular and religious censorship if others didn't take up the cudgels on their behalf?

Your view is positively Panglossian: "all is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds" (even when an earthquake hit Lisbon). Do you mean that you accept the world as it is now, or the world as it was 40 years ago, or 200 years ago, or 2,000 years ago? Or 1,000 years from now?

Wanting to make the world a better place is an acknowledgement that it is far from perfect and that many people are not as privileged as yourself. And wanting to fight for other people's rights is a realisation that if your rights or freedoms were under threat, you would hope that others would fight for you too.

Frankly, Mark, I don't really think you mean what you are saying,

Cheers,
Brian

Les Reid; dereliction of duty? What duty? Duty to whom? Who is anyone to impose a duty on me? I did not ask to be born and as far as I know I have not brought anyone into this world I bear responsibility for. I have no duty to anybody, I owe no one (except my mortgage company but that's another story) anything. Duty? What a laugh.

Brian Mcclinton? Me selfish? hah. You don't know the half of it. If Ayn Rand hadn't written "The Virtue of Selfishness" I would have. I was not born to be sacrificed to anyone for any reason. I am not only a free thinker, I am a free person and free of any guilt for being free. By your standards, I am without doubt the worst person you have ever met in the world whether in real life or on the internet. I not only embody what you hate most, I'm proud of it. Everybody has a cause. They all want something from me, donations of money , time, effort, or to march in their army which is going to make the world better. I'll fight and die for myself and those nearest and dearest to me but that is all, I'm not interested in anyone else's causes. I do not love everyone in the world. If you love everyone, your love is worthless. I don't know what a perfect world means. Perfect by whose criteria? I am not out to change the world, I'm out to survive in it as best I can. I accept it on its own terms as I find it. If I were in a country which was a dangerous dictatorship run by criminals, I'd do my best to get out. I will not try to hold back the tide, I'd prefer to get out of the water.

I don't care if you belive that I am what I say I am or not. It couldn't matter less to me but I think you just don't want to believe it. I am your worst nightmare. I reject everything you prize most. I've known a lot of people like you. My father was one of them. He was a very generous man. If he liked you, five minutes later he'd give you the shirt off my back. Bah, humbug. My hero was Scrooge....before he went bad ("good.") He was right all along, his dream was an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato and that's all. The rest was superstitious nonsense.

Mark- Rand did not "accept" the world on its own terms without seeking to change it as you suggest you do. Rand knew that her philosophy of Objectivism (including the virtue of selfishness, capitalism as the only moral political philosophy and egoism) was the means by which to change the world for the better, and, moreover, the only means by which that is possible.

Maureen:

Kudos for taking a 5 word thread and leading turning into a major intellectual discussion!

I note that you never got the answers to your original questions but at least it was fun.

Regards,
Michael

ps: Never liked peas anyway!

You can be an objectivist without being a revolutionary. Objectivism merely means that you assert your right to your own life without any obligation to altruism or belief in the supernatural. You live your life exclusively for your own betterment and not for someone elses, certainly not in superstitious fear of some supernatural god who will punish you if you don't obey a priest who says he alone knows what that god wants to keep him from getting angry. I live in a largely capitalist society already. I'm free of altruism and of religion. I'm also free of the expectation that I will change the world through some political cause. I have come to have an instinctive mistrust of politicians no matter what their philosophy. I have yet to see one whose ultimate objective wasn't to steal money or power for himself and his friends.

Mark,
You seem to have reached the state which Nikos Kazantzakis (Zorba the Greek, The Last Temptation) in his epitaph described as death: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free". in other words, it is state of non-being.

In the real world, however, we are mutually interdependent. Who teaches us when we are young? Who looks after us when we are ill? Who rescues us when there is a fire or when we are lost up a mountain or in danger at sea? In turn, others depend on us. Does nobody depend on you?

The definition of objectivity given here is peculiar. It is indeed a definition of its opposite: your own alleged subjective indifference and hostility to anything outside your own little world.

We are of course in one way or another all hypocriites. 'Civilisation' is based upon it. I would say 'bah humbug' to your own self-confident and misguided individualism.

Making the world better doesn't mean making it perfect. It means leaving a legacy to future generations which we can feel reasonably proud of or at least not totally ashamed of. For example, it should concern you that the USA is one of the worst polluters of the planet and its government and most of its people need to take the issue more seriously.

In any case, politics exists wherever groups exist. And why are you complaining about politicians for doing what you seem to advocate for yourself?

Cheers,
Brian

re 41

Thanks, Michael.

Darwinism and Dawkinsism appears to be the outer limits of this discussion.

I guess therefore I should not pursue the question of the 'explanatory gap' involved in understanding subjectivism from a materialism perspective?

;-)
Peace,
Maureen

Mark- I concur with your mistrust of politicians. Rand would too, and my simple point is that she did not accept society for what it was; she loved America for being the closest to her objectivist philosophy, but she saw the means by which it needed to change and called America a "mixed economy", meaning that it wasn't capitalist, rather a mix of capitalism and socialism, freedoms and controls. It's still the closest thing we have in reality to a libertarian society, but it's got a long way to go. Read Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for more.

brian mcclinton; I reject both your conclusions and your facts. I do not owe the world a legacy. If I were in a state of non being, I wouldn't be typing this. AFAIK, I am not about to die anytime soon, I expect a lot of life ahead of me. While people do depend on each other, I do not depend on anyone in some far off country. My depdencies are all local. Not only don't I feel any obligation, I feel no need to improve the lot of people beyond my borders. As for polluting the earth, America is far from the worst and has cleaned up its act enormously in the last 30 years or so. When I lived in France and toured Europe, you could smell the stench of the rivers, they were like open sewers. You couldn't sit in an outdoor cafe for choking on fumes from cars and buses. When Americans bought cars for export to the US they had entirely different engines built to meet American air pollution standards. How is it now, any better where you are? I know eastern Europe is among the most polluted places in the world. 大象传媒 had a whole program about polution in Roumania. I hear Hungary and the Czech Republic are also very bad. Socialists felt pollution was a capitalist problem, not something for them to worry about. In America, drinking bottled water is a fad, in Europe it was a necessity. Some of the worst polluted places on earth are in China, India, and Russia.

Jim Wright; I have come to the conclusion that one important difference between the American mind and the European mind is that Europeans (even if they become Americans) are slaves to dogmas whether religious, social, economic or something else while Americans are not. They are flexible to altering and compromising their views not out of mere expediency but as a necessity for survival. That is the legacy of a civilization which had to exist in a hostile wilderness among sometimes hostile barbaric aboriginal tribes. The key is to be practical, to find what works and use it. Ayn Rand was a European mind. America had pure capitalism in the 19th century. It led to terrible excesses which were curbed through government regulations one after another whose purpose was to save society and capitalism with it to the greatest extent possible. This started with anti trust legislation, child labor laws, laws governing the meatpacking and drug industries and evolved through the New Deal. This tinkering with Capitalism by creating a somewhat welfare state (much less so than Europe's) is why America never had many Socialists or Communists. In a nation as wealthy as America, people could not be allowed to starve to death, live out on the street, go without medical care or education. Racial integration is an expression of America's basic notion of fairness and recognition of the importance of human capital which cannot be allowed to be squandered. What little support there was for Socialism and Communism existed right after the great depression in the 1930s and 1040s. By the 1950s when I grew up, socialist was a pejorative word applied to miscreants. If you want to see pure capitalism, look at China where private capital is having a field day. Growth is enormous but look at the price their society is paying for it. Every gain Americans made to rein capitalism in for over a hundred years doesn't exist in China. That is why capital investment in manufacturing is drawn to it like a magnet. Read accounts the conditions in the steel towns of Pennsylvania in the 1880s or the coal mines of West Virgina of that era and it reads just like China today. As an alternative to starving to death in some rural backwater there, living in the big cities may be the lesser of two evils but it is hardly desirable. BTW, there are consequences even for us in the US. Are you aware of the recent scare about the Chinese company which used melamine to boost the aparant protein content of pet food causing kidney failure and even death in some American dogs and cats? Now there is fear that it may have entered the human food chain through some animal feed. You have to wonder if the perpetrators will ever be prosecuted of if it is even considered a crime in China.

Hi Mark,

Gosh, you really have imbibed American nationalism, even though you say that it is Europeans who are slaves to dogma. America with 250 million people emits 1,433 million tons of carbon per year that leads to the greenhouse effect; India with 950 million people emits only 250 million tons.Don鈥檛 you know that America contributes 24.3% of the world鈥檚 CO2 emissions? (France's per capita carbon emissions are the lowest among the major Western European countries and are on the decline). Indeed, America is not only the worst polluter, it is also the worst consumer. Its less than 5% of the world鈥檚 population consumes 40 percent of the world's energy resources. This is extravagance of the highest order. Other countries also pollute the planet and use up its resources, but not to the extent that America does.

You say that your dependencies are all local and that you feel no need to improve the lot of people beyond your borders. Which borders? In an interdependent world, this is a parochial abdication of responsibility. The world is bigger than the USA, believe it or not.
Wake up and smell the cheap coffee you get by ripping off the rest of the American continent. not to mention all the bilateral trade deals which enrich US corporations to the detriment of small farmers, businesses and the environment in Third World countries (read the Oxfam report, 'Signing Away the Future').

Your lesson on American capitalism actually proves that you are not as egotistical as you claim.
Unbridled capitalism was, of course, an example of the very thing you have been defending: look after number 1 and to hell with humanitarianism. Accepting that capitalism must be tamed and modified is an admission that there is indeed a public space which needs to be protected. Freedom needs to compromise with equality. In other words, pure capitalism and pure socialism are the extremes, whereas a mixed system is 鈥榖etter鈥� (a normative statement, of course).

Under Reagan and Thatcher those two countries moved too far away from the mixture in favour of a 鈥榝ree economy鈥� (though with a strengthened 鈥榮tate鈥�). Governments have a responsibility for a certain degree of Robin Hoodism, as you call it (free health care and education for the less well-off, for example). The debate is over the extent of it.

In the same way, the rules of the world trade game need to be changed because they benefit rich countries like the USA (and European countries too) at the expense of poor countries.

Remember Thomas Paine's words: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brothers, and to do good is my religion",
Cheers,
Brian

brian mcclinton; insofar as your explanation of global warming is concerned, your definitions are wrong, your numbers are wrong, your analysis is wrong, your conclusion is wrong, and you left out a lot of pertinent facts. Other than that, it's the ususal Euro-Green party line, way off the mark.

First of all, CO2 is not an atmospheric pollutant, it is a normal constituent of the atmosphere and always has been. While most scientists who are studying the problem believe increased levels of CO2 are in part responsible for global warming, there are many respected scientists who disagree and point out that it appears global warming leads rising CO2 and not the other way around but there is enough concern among scientists that it must be taken seriously. Another GHG which is a polutant is methane, about 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping reflected infrared radiation from being radiated into space.

The US does not emit 1,433 million tons, it emits 6,000 million tons of CO2 a year and has a population of 300 million. China will surpass the US as the number one producer of CO2 this year and has a population of around 1.3 billion people. Any rational analysis looks at both cost which in this case is CO2 output and benefit which in this case is wealth production. The US economy is about 5 times that of China's around 13T$ vs 2.5T$ which makes it 5 times as efficient at producing wealth per unit CO2 as China is and the average American is over 20 times as efficient at producing wealth per unit CO2 as the average Chinese is. But Kyoto, the environmentalists' darling would mandate severe cuts to the US CO2 output (and economy) while requiring nothing of China or India which is rapidly catching up in CO2 producton for that matter as well. A lot of environmentalists would like to blame the Bush administration for rejecting Kyoto but in a Sense of the Senate vote in the mid 1990s long before Bush became president, the US Senate turned thumbs down on Kyoto 95-0 because it is unfair and would do severe damage to the US economy. The US exists spread out over a vast continent with large distances between major population centers especially in the west. Anyone who has ever flown over it knows that yet despite this fact and its very harsh climate in both summer and winter, it is remarkably efficient. China says it is concerned about global warming but its priority is economic growth. India says that since the West created the problem during its own process of industrialization, it has the right to do the same now. Europe will miss its promised CO2 reduction targets under Kyoto by over 90% unless things change drastically soon. Top EU officials when asked recently why they drove large gas guzzling personal vehicles which produce high CO2 output told the press it was their own private affair and no one else's business. When American scientists pointied out that meeting CO2 reduction targets under Kyoto would only reduce global warming by about two thirds of a degree over sixty years, European environmentalists said that Kyoto was just the beginning.

Right now Europe is scrambling to secure as much fossil fuel, the burning of which is source of CO2 emissions as it can get its hands on to meet its projected needs. It is worried about competition from the US, China and others and reliability of one of its major suppliers, Russia. France produces very low CO2 output because it produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear power while the US produces only 20% of its electricity need from nuclear energy. That decision was made by the American people after the accident at Three Mile Island around 1979. No new nuclear plants have been ordered since and while a new proposed generation of nuclear reactors is being claimed to be a lot safer, nobody has figured out a satisfactory way to dispose of the vast quantities of dangerously radioactive spent fuel which these reactors produce and continues to pile up. Meanwhile the US is talking about increasing its output of nuclear energy while some nations in Europe including France are talking about lowering theirs. Nuclear power is the only large scale power technology other than hydroelectric which does not produce CO2.

I think any realistic analysis of the cost to make substantial cutbacks in CO2 output using our current technologies would show a major impact on most of the world's economies and reports in the press to the contrary are just pie in the sky. Should the US have to make major cutbacks, one requirement would be to sharply curtail its food production, the vast surplus of which feeds hundreds of millions of people around the world. They would starve to death not to mention the social upheaval such a cutback would cause. Any major impact to America's economy is likely to have a disasterous ripple effect on most others just as it always has because 2/3 of the US economy is driven by consumer demand and that is one of the major markets for exports of many countries and a big part of their income.

Since Kyoto began, Europe has squandered its vast technological resourses, money, and time on useless projects like the super jumbo A380, a passenger version of a plane similar in size to the US C5A and a comparable Russian military transport over 40 years in production, a useless space program which is struggling to catch up to 1960s US and Soviet era space achievements, and a super conducing super collider. It's talking about building its own GPS satellite system Galileo which the US has said it would shoot down because it would be a threat to its national security. Developments in alternative energy have been pathetic. For example, the recent solar powered steam generator in Spain which operates with a large number of mirrors 大象传媒 has been reporting on only puts out 11 megawatts. A single nuclear reactor is 100 time larger. Filling half the Sahara desert with them and transmitting billions of kilowatts to Europe is also pie in the sky.

Meanwhile, the polar ice caps are melting making earth darker which causes it to absorb more solar radiation and the permafrost layer in Siberia is also melting releasing vast quantities of trapped methane into the atmosphere. The meeting in Bangkok last week strikes me as just one more useless waste of time, nothing of real substance to alter the course of events appears to be on the horizon. Many scientists believe there will come a tipping point where runaway global warming will be unstoppable no matter what we do and our species may be doomed. That point may not be far off...if it hasn't happened already.