Had a magical dinner with Richard Dawkins, visiting from Oxford, and some bright execs from Silicon Valley. Topics included:
Should religious institutions get tax subsidies?
Should religion be a choice of adulthood, like one’s political views?
What is to be gained by coming out? See the OUT Campaign.
I’ve been extremely poor, and a millionaire; my opinion is there should be a flat tax without exception, including religious institutions. It’s only fair. Taxes and tax breaks are tools to control but those can be eliminated with careful strategies.
Religion is a choice of adulthood isn’t it. Mine is. I was baptized into several religions as a child but chose none in the end. The brainwashing starts as a baby but I can’t imagine trying to make it illegal to imprint the parents’ religion or beliefs on their offspring.
I have no idea what could be gained or lost by coming out or staying in. I suspect it has everything to do with the area and environment.
One of life’s little ironies that the guy who’s routinely toting around $5K worth of camera gear on his shoulder gets his portrait with Dawkins taken by a Walgreens disposable. *sigh*
I’d also like to know how you had time to get from this dinner to launch that rocket from Catalina Island last evening, Steve.
Steve
On an unrelated note…..
Saw this on MSN. My first thought was, " I wonder what Steve was up to?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40087187/ns/us_news-security
heh….. the Proton launch was a couple days earlier to the South a bit….
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/heet_myser] I always have a pocket camera with me. The SD4000 does OK in very dim light, no flash, impatient server doing the shooting.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/luminance/] the coming out is somewhat analogous to the gay movement. In the U.S., there are more atheists than people realize, but they are unorganized and have no political voice. For the dinner, I just invited people who I thought were intellectual in some way, and with one exception I had no knowledge whatsoever of their religious beliefs. Turns out everyone I asked was atheist. And then I tried to think of anyone from my generation or younger here that I know to be religious, and I’m still trying to think of one (just like I have been trying for years to find a devout person who chose their religion without childhood inculcation). Now, there are all kinds of sample selection biases here, and I’m sure they are quietly among us, but it reminded me of a realization I had a few years back that I don’t know anyone who smokes. Perhaps Silicon Valley is the bellwether state. One can hope… =)
And a cost-benefit analysis of religion can easily be sidetracked by the extremists. Sure, much harm is done there, but think for a moment about mainstream religion, globally. The public battles are the tip of the iceberg. So many people are hurt by religion — the total effect is mind numbing. Women in burkas and others quietly abused around the world. Lovers forbidden to marry. Discrimination in many contexts (ponder religion as "cognitive racism" – on a spectrum from subtle separation of peoples to legal institutions). The list goes on. The only reason society tolerates all this is because the average person is conditioned not to speak up (what a great way to propagate a set of beliefs – socialize the norm that criticizing religion is rude). People exclude this one area of life from rational criticism. This is most peculiar among scientists who have to compartmentalize their cognition. So all that is left is people who can be easily dismissed as extremists on both sides… and the problem perpetuates intergenerationally.
Another religion-induced vicious and inchoate conditioning — especially in the US — is that a few million people of a certain class have some God-given right to immigrate, settle and claim as their own a certain portion of the Middle East, transforming it, in effect, into an imperial, militarist, racist and totally anachronistic colony of white people.
A consequence is the utter disregard — especially by some blinkered US politicians — for the strong resentment, feelings of injustice and desperation that it might cause in the hundreds of thousands of original inhabitants Untermensch who were expelled at gunpoint by the newcomers.
Let me show you a really really stupid snippet
written by Penn Jillette:
"Believing there’s no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate."
Right. Nothing opens up doors to you in large parts of the world like honestly telling your hosts how they are sadly mistaken in their beliefs; but how your open minded atheist creed can allow you to really communicate with their savage tribal mentality. Not just Islamic culture either. Same for Hindu, Christian, …etc..
I suppose that all these cultures and humans have nothing to offer an individual like Penn Jillette but that is another problem. His atheist beliefs make him closed minded to their beliefs, he is certain they are false after all, no room for debate, which is the opposite of what he is saying.
…..
They [Islamic Cultures] are also really fond of being told how their beliefs poison everything and make a point of showing these people [outspoken atheists if they are honest] the greatest hospitality. Even the simple honest Jew and Christian alike can have a pretty good time rocking the old Kasbah, as long as they keep their mouths shut about how much they admire the collected works of Richard Dawkins for example.
Of course I can substitute in [Hindu, Buddhist, Native American,…] in this statement.
Link to the full content….
http://www.google.com/buzz/111369611361644609343/LXPmez6mFXz/How...
I have new found respect for you Steve. I thought I was all alone 🙂
My enlightenment came later in life. I took up trading futures and discovered the pitfalls of beliefs that cause one to ignore facts that don’t support those beliefs (I believed the market was going up, I stayed in the position when I shouldn’t have, finding in hindsight I had ignored every indication to the contrary).
To survive, I developed the habit of asking myself, "am I acting on belief, or fact" and it changed my whole view of the world.
I understand that beliefs can be useful to get people through tough situations, so I don’t belittle them (I believe this company will be successful, therefore I will sacrifice in the short term for the success I believe I will achieve in the future). But I think there is value in understanding when a belief is an empowering mechanism, and when it strips one of the ability to recognize fact or reason.
Bhamicombo, possibly delusions can truly "get people through" tough situations. I am more inclined to imagine that they enable people, rather, to sidestep those experiences, bury them, deny them, edit them to nullity. How little acknowledgment of one’s actual situation is just right for "getting through?" Shouldn’t there come a time to retrospect and actually come to terms with one’s life without the fairy tale overlay?
Belittling self-deluded folk is merely cruel, but I don’t worry that I think less of them.
Well put. A bolus of easy answers to tough questions.
jgury: Penn professes to be evil… =)
but it’s hard to find fault with the quote you chose. (Of course, you managed to twist the logic)
Penn is not saying that delusional people will like him, but that he can learn with an open mind.
He is not saying there is no room for debate, but everyone has an equal status, from astrologer to ghost whisperer, and if anyone could provide evidence for their beliefs, we’d be all ears. What’s more, if anyone could prove anything supernatural, there’s $1M reward. But no one can…
Ahh, the $1M Mr. Randi contest award. Call the guys who control the title of the Dalai Lama and see if they want $1M to share how they prove reincarnation for the succession of their leader. Reincarnation of souls is supernatural after all. I like 14 year old Hindus like Shankara the Great who have encyclopedic knowledge of Sanskrit and Vedic texts along with all kinds of super Hindu guru powers which they seem to know alot about over there; all due respect to their lack of interest in Mr. Randi. I also like the way Richard Dawkins reads his hate mail. "I rather pity these people…." Yes he RELISHES the abuse. Such savages, absolutely bestial grammar and spelling!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYsREU906fw&feature=related
great vennettaj – and here is my prove that there is some sort of mental connection between people who are likeminded (it is not supernatural but very natural) … i have just finished typing my comment when i saw yours: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/420374715
those things are very subtle, quite natural and cannot be sold for money:)
yet, among American adults:
• 39% believe astrology is scientific (astrology… not astronomy).
• 33% believe in ghosts and communication with the dead.
Jgury – funny non-response, as always. =) If you can prove reincarnation, go grab the million bucks.
Also, I stumbled across a couple magazine articles last night that relate to the Penn Jillette thread…. Can he learn more by opening his mind?
"Have a question about religion? You ought to ask someone who has completely rejected it.
According to a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, atheists and agnostics tend to know more about religion than members of most faiths, the Los Angeles Times reports. For example, most Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the founder of the Protestant movement" (TIME "Atheists Know More About Religion Than Believers", Pew source)
And from the Economist book review:
"the Enlightenment is incomplete, betrayed by its self-appointed guardians. Despite all the scientific advances of the past two centuries, magical thinking and the cultural inheritance of Christianity remain endemic."
Vennetaj- have you seen some ? I have never seen a ghost… don’t mind talking to one, if he or she is not grumpy…:)
also thought about something else… Americans seem to have a lot more fascination with ghost stories… i went to a ghost tour in Charleston, NC and have not seen a single ghost and was truly surprised by people’s perceptions… it is a lot less history in the US vs. Russia… so anything remotely old is supposed to have some ghost in it… Moscow is full of old buildings, dead people under the rocks and almost no ghost stories… kinda cute how Charleston turned out to be some sort of ghost capital of the world:) making up these stories is a fun exercise for kids during Halloween… kids do love them:)
Since my dad was a scientist (quantum physicist), I have a strong rational analytical chess …etc. side… but going back to Einstein’s quote – it gets too lame…trying to embrace the world with all the mysteries… not to box oneself in one geographic conceptual scientific or any other paradigm… explore by playing… there are enough people in the world who can sell or prove… being alive (with the light) is a quest in its own right:) Vennetaj – please tell me your ghost story off line….
True, true… Reminds me of Pinker: "In almost every case, people model themselves after their peers, not their parents."
While I wish all parents could be role models, it’s probably equally important not to have TV at home.
I haven’t missed TV one day for the past 25 years without it.
SJ, your note about TV struck a chord with me. I was raised with extremely limited access to TV and thrived. Now, as someone involved in the "content creation" process, I’m conflicted about the entire media ecosystem, TV in particular. There are some great programs on TV, but one must be ever vigilant.
While we have television in the home, it’s extremely rationed (PBS basically, but even there the adverts have taken root!), with an emphasis on the computer as the "go to" device. It’s long been known that the brain is basically in a sleep-like state when watching TV, and you can really see this with children.
What if the atheist family kid wants to sing something like The Symphony No. 9 in D minor with feeling:
Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Brüder, über’m Sternenzelt
Muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.
Seid umschlungen,
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Freude, schöner Götterfunken
Tochter aus Elysium,
Freude, schöner Götterfunken
Götterfunken!
Do you explain to them they have to be aware that Beethoven’s Joy in feeling the beautiful spark of divinity is a sadly mistaken concept of a less scientifically enlightened era? Worse, God forbid they want to take part in Handel or Bach oratorios for the Holiday season. In fact, if I were an atheist kid I think I would do just that just to really bother my parents.
It’s just like Santa, silly – you let them enjoy it.
But if they ask a serious question, you don’t lie to your kids to protect someone else’s delusions.
Have you offered even one rational, coherent argument anywhere on my flickr blog that actually refutes something? I enjoy the entertainment, but something I think you actually believe what you say… and that at times, you think you are making a convincing argument about something.
I believe exactly the same thing as Beethoven is saying in these Freude motif statements. Nice that he put such a catchy tune to go along with it. A credo that really sings out, written by a world historic genius. A good example of something beyond rational argumentation too.
I do think that the artist in this case is quite coherent in his communication of values and joy without the need of rational argumentation. I think you will find that is a fairly common thing with really first rate art in general. E.g. "I do not understand this performance!!? Mozart simply has too many notes sire."
If you guys want entertainment you should invite an old classmate of mine like Kurt Wise to a coming out party for a really good time. Richard Dawkins loves getting into it with him. Unfrortunately he does not have much talent for libelling and satyr like some of his higher ranked alums.
Did anyone actually read some of this OUT Dawkins statement?
"Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous ‘herding cats’ problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board."
Yes, it is those JEW professors and international bankers. And they actually know how to correctly punctuate.
A good diddy is fine and dandy but Atheists need to think bigger. Mr. Randi $1M is chump change too. What you need is a good game show like Deal or no Deal where you can test all manner of faiths, beliefs, ESP, powers of darkness, whatever. Give them lifeline calls and appeals to Father Damien Karras, Sybil the Soothsayer, Uri Geller, whoever.
Or a call to Chris Hedges…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdl_xNMTYvs&feature=related
Better yet would be an Atheist Jerry Lewis charity telethon where you could taunt, mock and otherwise use basic Saul Alinsky tactics to shame your Religion of choice. Of course we have gone beyond all that now but I have a sentimental weakness for the old school polemic ways of things like Blacksploitation rhetoric. I grew up with "Jew vs. Negro, white honky hate monger vs. everyone in the neighborhood with the only law a salt and pepper dynamic duo." A refreshing outlet would be "Guilty Rich Atheists and Liberals vs. the Fundie Right and Catholics in a test of who can raise the most tax free money!" This of course easily allows a pro wrestling style PC introduction of evil foreign rich characters like Iman El Slob, Sheik Habib or Ben Dover, each being well funded; with anti American messages countered by matching challenges to face the magic of Penn or the mindfreak guy to expose their true evil. Indeed, an Atheist circus of the stars with tax free benefits.
Hey now, since there is such a big hunger for Atheist entertainments I can easily see a Penn in a big Wild Buffalo Bill big man coat in center ring wild west show circus/Billy-Sunday Tent crusade (50% of all proceeds go to matching charity) if you are man enough to face the Temple of Penn Atheist dooms. I myself would rather trust a real Dr. Hannibal Lecter than Penn at this point for any amount of money.
Of course the larger problem is basic human nature and not Religion. Certainly Religion amplifies these aspects of humanity in both the positive and negative domains much in the same way the computer can be understood as a mind amplification device. This leads to some very interesting new serious misanthropic side trips like the Ted Kaczynski shack and Pentti Linkola’s cabin; destinations where both Atheist and the devoutly religious should fear to seriously spend any time at. I see Linkola as the much more serious and radical of the two and with a solid foundation in well established upper Baltic Finn misanthropic doom philosophy, a national treasure. Human nature IS the problem and it scales on multiple anti humanist levels with increasing population, along with technological and economic advancements. Unfortunately these problems are very much subject to the scale of human numbers and the advancement of science and technology.
Atheists really do not go far enough to narrowly fixate on Religion.
"I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that charge — and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist — is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We’re content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don’t kill them. "
I see. Scientists never engage in things like nuclear weapons research, V rocket programs, fatal medical experimentation on unwilling subjects,,,. Scientists are part of a virtuous priesthood for Dawkins. He is one of them after all. Preposterous.
Can you fathom an argument and respond to it? Scientists don’t kill other scientists that disagree about the science. They look for evidence and run experiments. The technologies that we use to build things can be applied for all kinds of good and nasty purposes — military, political and religious. But not for scientific debate. That’s not how the scientific method works. The rocket scientists in the lab do not kill other scientists in the lab who disagree about how gravity works!
jgury: for once can you please signal that you understand this now, and that you originally misunderstood the claim in your quoted passage? ("we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We’re content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don’t kill them")
That is correct as a generality about scientists, yes? In other words, exceptions are quite rare. A biologist killing a fellow biologist over science “ideology” (not jealousy or insanity or interpersonal conflict) is rare.
Or does logic bounce off your back, and you will just move on to a non-sequitur or a new nonsensical claim? If so, conversation with you is a fruitless exercise, and you should stop, or move on to only talk with people who enjoy the absurd humor of reading you. I have enjoyed it so far, as you can tell, laughing at most of what you say. But it’s got to stop. Refute an argument for once. Please. Otherwise, you are just wasting a lot of readers’ time.
Dawkins has a problem with Religious zealots and bigots in particular. Why be so narrow?
I do think I have enough of an understanding of the scientific method and how it fits into epistemology, along with religion and spirituality, to identify flaws in the argumentation of Richard Dawkins. He is rather biased I think is fair to say. I find the thoughts of a scientist like Robert Oppenheimer vis-a-vis religion, science and problems of evil much more challenging than anything Dawkins or a Sam Harris will ever come up with. Scientists do kill those who disagree with them using the scientific method and now on a very very large potential scale. Much more potentially lethal and earth shattering than anything religious zealotry could ever come up with. That is one of the key Oppenheimer personal conflict points and goes as far back as Francis Bacon’s observation about the impact of technology and science. To fixate on religion is to completely miss the point. For example, the basic hypothetical case is that the religious beliefs of Nazis is not at all important compared to them getting nuclear bombs and advanced rockets. If it were the case that the Catholic Church ever felt the need to have modern WMDs (maybe they do for all I know) that would lend a bit more credence to Dawkins. They would be much more dangerous than an individual Islamic state after all.
He swings…. He misses. =)
"Scientists do kill those who disagree with them using the scientific method"
An example please.
(and again, to be on topic, you would provide an example of a scientist targeting another scientist that disagrees about the science. Saying that Edison, Ford or Oppenheimer developed technologies that other people used to kill people is completely off topic and silly)
The Manhattan project is a good example of scientists using all the resources of science with the intent -and big success-of killing those who disagree with them. I think warfare does indeed count as a clear and harsh example of disagreement if I am not mistaken. Worse perhaps, given the complete amorality of it, are examples of scientists doing things like STD experimentation, human testing of radioactive materials, etc. Cases where scientists kill people with whom they have no particular disagreements but for the sake of Science, the nation, whatever twisted reason people who do this come up with to justify their criminality.
Also lets not forget Science in the service of good old greed and economic exploitation. Doing it for money regardless of the consequences to humanity and the planet. Indeed, since it is more powerful now than Religion by far, Science is much more dangerous.
Strike two. I don’t think I can be any more clear. I would suggest you have a friend read this month’s comments on this thread and explain to you how you are missing the point.
You are making a different argument, back on old topic that science can empower or amplify the effects of evil, but I will not engage in repeating why that is a red herring. The topic you started here, and fail to coherently address, is a distinction between science and religion… and more specifically, the claim, which you quoted, that scientists don’t kill other scientists over disagreements about the science. Whereas religious people do, quite often, throughout history. The science does not poison their minds. Religion, egomania, greed or insanity often do. They are different. Pursuing the scientific method does not cause a crusade or fatwa.
The disconnect in these conversations rests in the cause of evil versus the tools of evildoers.
Sure, as a group scientists are undoubtedly less violent and not prone to homicidal rancor.
That is true of just about any educated group. However, I have no doubt that if Science and scientists got big political and nation state powers then we would certainly see violent confrontation over scientific methods; the equivalent of crusades and fatwas. An interesting SciFi concept at least as a benefit of continuing this discussion.
Of course Science is mentally liberating and beneficial for what it is. I’m not going to read from the Bible or a Religious text if I want to find liberation in learning the physical history of the earth for example. The freedom FROM Religion is the big valid complaint I see out there. The other one would be has freedom of religion gone a bit far? Yes. Just taxation alone is huge. In that case you are made a compulsory contributor to the enabling of religious practice. Way different than having a society with freedom to practice beliefs.
At least the church no longer has de jure taxation authority, judicial and war powers. I’m not sure how those would be implemented in Scientific method utopia.
boingboing.net/2010/09/15/tom-the-dancing-bug-20.html
It is not as if scientists and rationalists are immune from displays of the privileges of absurdity just like the rest of humanity, who do not feel compelled to fight against Harry Potter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-ca...
I really like this Dawkins quote right at the start of The God Delusion:
"Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God (and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so), inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own."
Hello. Einstein made multiple emphatic statements that he was not in any way atheist.
Then he goes on to put well known agnostic Carl Sagan in that same atheistic scientist context. The same Carl Sagan who said: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."
Clearly a case of Dawkins himself , inviting misunderstanding by atheists eager to misunderstand and claim so illustrious a thinker as their own. I assume Dawkins also invited Miss Understanding, standing in front of you, to this party. He forgot to invite her associates Ms. Behavior and Mrs. DaPoint..
wrong again, but at least you are remarkably consistent.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
–Albert Einstein, 1954, Albert Einstein: The Human Side
“I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.” – Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945
“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.”
-Albert Einstein, letter to Eric Gutkind (more quotes)
Dawkins’ God Delusion opens with a detailed analysis of Einstein’s beliefs and was aimed at the rational scientist in the closet, to try to hook them with a baby step away from their cluster of inconsistent beliefs. Dawkins shares that 60% of scientists and 90% of accomplished scientists do not believe in God, but most reveal this only in anonymous surveys.
He was spiritual in the sense of being open to the wonder and mystery and beauty of the universe. But he was not religious and spurned the sky god of institutional religion. These terms (religion and God) are so overloaded with associated meanings and have been semantically hijacked for millennia that it is not productive to try to define spirituality and wonder with reference to those loaded terms.
Einstein tried. His sense of spirituality was in the Spinoza sense, not the religious or God sense. And so he has been misunderstood ever since to his great frustration.
Oh, and I am persuaded when he says "I am, of course, and have always been an atheist” and the dispersions otherwise are "a lie".
Please. I know facts are stupid things but Einstein’s atheism is in the delusional category:
Einstein believed in an IMPERSONAL God which means he was not atheist or agnostic.
Here is a quote from his longtime secretary that I’m sure shows how he was really an atheist:
"What humanity owes to personalities like BUDDHA, MOSES, and JESUS ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy of living."-
—ALBERT EINSTEIN Statement dated September 1937, in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side" published (1981) p.70, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton
University Press ISBN 0691023689
There are plenty more of these direct statements from Einstein.
Impersonal God examples are not exactly difficult to find either such as the Brahman of Adi Shankara in his exposition of Advaita Vedanta or the Deism of Voltaire. Somehow rejection of the JC notions of personal God have become a proxy for atheism, and this shows either absurdly shallow understanding of world religions, philosophy and history or is just actively delusional and deceptive.
Yep, I feel like our religious texts belong to history museums (most of it seems very outdated), atheism as a word seems to be a part of our history together with communism, there got to be some other way to grow as multifaceted beings without all these words loaded with too much control, guilt, politics, not even mention human blood and sacrifices for ideas, religions, institutions and power hungry individuals. Personally I think more each individual can stay away, clear one’s mind and avoid these traps is better for him or her. Like going and breezing fresh air near the ocean can be better for one’s growth far from all these words, churches and systems all together. Ultimately, mystery and wonder is always with us and insight us and one does not have to go too far to discover it. Thinking is about generating brainwaves, not about words (this is our understanding backed by modern science). Thus tuning one’s mind towards something beautiful or positive is the only real and very essential function of any religion and can be accomplished without religion also (it is a matter of choice). The rest does not have any real meaning.
I find history museums can be very inspirational. The problem now is when the religious texts and beliefs get forced into the realms of jurisprudence, politics, economics and science. However, this is not a simple one way dynamic as the vice-versa of that is certainly no bed of roses. Like when the political powers decide to outlaw and attack religious practices and culture. China has great examples of that as far back as imperial wars against Buddhists up to the cultural revolution, Falun Dafa and Tibetan Buddhists. Those are not exactly Sam Harris radical Islamists who deserve pre-emptive violence either.
… 
Leave a Reply to solerena Cancel reply