Friday, September 19, 2008
“We found the comments hurtful..”
I know, I know.. they’ll just get ideas.. ANYhoo.. a bit of variety in our cultural exposé.. and it’s worth noting what Richard Dawkins had to say before that resignation. As Will Crawley notes here a Turkish court has ordered the state telecoms company to bar access to Richard Dawkins official website following a legal action taken by muslim creationist Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya. Oktar published a creationist text, Atlas of Creation, and then forwarded it, unsolicited, to many scientists, including Dawkins [Crooked Timber got hold of a copy - Ed], who responded on his website by saying “I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the breathtaking inanity of the content”. As several commenters on Dawkins website point out, the ban is ineffectual to determined users. But it’s worth noting why the complaint was made, and why the supposedly secular courts upheld that complaint. From the Guardian report.
According to Oktar’s office, Istanbul’s second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it “violated” Oktar’s personality. His press assistant, Seda Aral, said: “We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people. We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed. We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not.”
Pete Baker @ 08:06 PM
I’d rather stick with my ECHR Article 10 freedom of expression thank you very much!
Whilst from a western european perspective this seems ridculous, we in Northern Ireland have our own well meaning but silly law banning insulting or offensive speech in a religious context.
Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 09:35 PMAh offence. Censorship of the many because Adnan Oktar is offended.
Poor wee man, I hope his feelings are ok now.
Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 09:37 PMExcellent. The religious nutcases are running scared. Scared that intellect and reason might jeapordise their voodoo hold on society. And boy are they scared.
Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 09:46 PMI’m trying to figure out the connection between voodoo and Islam. Did I miss something?
Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 09:50 PMWhat is the difference between Voodoo and Islam? Or Christianity or any other cult for that matter?
Voodoo possibly has more ascetic value?Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 09:52 PMIslam is good for a bad hair day, or if you have face acne, but not good on hot days, whereas voodoo gets me all excited…
Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 10:17 PMI know it´s slightly off the the topic of the thread but I would like to share with you an incident I had at work.
On Tuesday during a long break I sat down in the back of the office while reading “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens. My colleague who I have since found out is a devout christian asked me what I was reading. I explained and told her a little about the subject matter. Later that evening my boss informed me that she had made a complaint and that even the title of the book in her opinion was obscene and worse than pornography. He informed her that he could not censor what I chose to read, but asked me not to bring such texts to the work place.
Well I chose not to make a song and dance about it, so this afternoon again I sat down in the back of the office and began to read, soon I was in fits of laughter, again the same person asked the question: what are you reading? “it must be hilarious”, I replied it was the funniest book I had ever read. I wish you could´ve al seen the expression on her face when I held the book upwards for her to read the title which was of course “HOLY BIBLE”.
Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 10:26 PMGwan doc you’re having us on!
Does Islam have weekly collections? Do they pass the plate every friday?
Posted by on Sep 19, 2008 @ 10:43 PMDoctor Who. Love that. Wish I was there.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 03:45 AMI don’t agree with barring anyone but Dawkins and his ilk have no grounds for complaining after the naked censorship of Prof Seiss this week.
Dawkins is a clown who has achieved what exactly? He is a joke compared to giants of Creationism Isaac Newton, Faraday, Boyle etc. He is hardly a Nobel Prize winner in uncovering the mysteries of the universe! Dawkins writes village idiot philosophy of poorly rehashed arguments of Paine and Ingersoll. Bit like a Jeffrey Archer book of Theology.
I have read Hitchens book recently and I think he makes some great points on Islam and the Mormons and their blatent plagarisim from the texts of the Christian/Jewish Scriptures.
That said, the rest of his thesis is a joke and consists of the usual sleight of hand tricks in ad hominen and straw man arguments. If you fall for this, then please remove your brain as it is no longer required.
Hitchens cannot account for why the universe had a beginning, offers no solution to the classic problems of consciousness, freewill/determinism, intellect, rationality and like all the puerile evolution fundamentalists waxes lyrical about how clear the evidence for his fairy tale is despite not being able to posit anything more than we share common building blocks of DNA and the species are generally adapting as they encounter different environmental challenges. Big Wow! May just as easily explained by a clever creator setting up the DNA mechanism to allow nature to survive for thousands of years.
I go back to my original challenge which no one on Slugger or Dawkins, Hitchens et al will answer. Some believe the brain evolved despite the fact that it cannot be replicated and is more complex that the world’s fastest computer (and all agrees it is designed). I argue the brain is prima facie evidnce for design and a Creator and my opponents reject this. However, to do this they clearly are able to detect design in order to reject my argument or else they are just whistling in the wind in rejecting ID. So here is the challenge: please give us the scientific objective apparatus that you have used to determine the brain is not designed so we can apply your methodology to the natural world and determine who is telling the truth.
Readers will not that this question will never be answered as the whole anti-ID case will collapse.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 04:11 AMWhile holding no credibility in the creationist argument I must say that I do so much enjoy it as a mythical tale well told and to be valued as such. Which is why perhaps I find Driftwood’s assertion that “Voodoo possibly has more ascetic value” than Islam just plain silly.
However unappealing one may find its teachings (many of which are quite inspirational and common to all cultures and societies) it would be ridiculous to compare the Alhambra to a bamboo hut covered in chicken-shit and find the latter more ascetically pleasing. Besides which astronomy, mathematics and medicine among other sciences owe a great debt to early work carried out by Muslim scholars when the rest of the world was mired in ignorant, superstitious belief. Credit where credit is due, please.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 09:49 AMRory.
I know people often refer to advances made during the enlightenment and the times of great Muslim scholars but I don’t buy the argument. It was the case that in those times one could only pursue such a career through religion, so it is a little disingenuous to suggest religion contributed something that otherwise wouldn’t have happened, we don’t know what advances were delayed because of religion.
Similarly those who claim that people like Newton were creationists are conveniently forgetting that Darwin hadn’t yet been born and creationism was the only show in town.Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 10:38 AMTAFKABO,
I don’t advance the argument that science developed as a result of Islamic faith. I do however observe that science was able to develop under the aegis of Islam. We cannot really say whether or not it would have developed had not the stability that Islam provided been absent.
My point was really that it would be wrong to ignore the development of great science and art that did occur and to lump all that was magnificent in Islamic culture (or indeed in Christian or the great pagan cultures of Egypt and Rome)) along with something like voodoo which gave us nothing except perhaps the inspiration for the Harold Arlen/Johnny Mercer number, That Old Black Magic - “You do that voodoo/that you do so well”- which I presume to be a favourite of Anorak Ann’s.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 11:41 AM“Similarly those who claim that people like Newton were creationists are conveniently forgetting that Darwin hadn’t yet been born and creationism was the only show in town.”
Creationism was’nt the only show in town, a number of Newtons peers were openly atheist or at least agnostic, and no, none of them got torched.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 12:12 PMSpeaking of Christopher Hitchens, I have never really seen the point of his book, God is not great. What exactly is he trying to prove? Who is he attempting to influence? Woo-oo! look at me - I’m an atheist. Aren’t I a naughty boy?
Does he really expect that devout christians or muslims are rushing to buy it in droves so that they can all be alerted to how stupid they are and how smart dear Christopher is?
And what need do those who are at ease with their lack of faith have of reassurance from a neo-Trotskyist turned neo-con that Big God does not really exist and won’t someday come to hurl them all into a fiery pit? I see them brandishing copies on the tube, nervously peering through their little designer specs, hoping that some well-fit babe sitting opposite will take note of how intellectually ungodly they are.
The poseurs were much better off in my day. All a guy needed was a black polo-neck, a Gauloise dangling from the lips, a glass of red wine (careful to remove the fag before raising the glass to the mouth) and a copy of On the Road or Nausea. Of course they never pulled either but they gained iconic status after their time had passed.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 12:48 PMRory
I’m afraid my only experience of the aesetics of voodoo was good. But it was from “Live and Let Die”. My point is separating one set of superstitions and rituals from another is futile.
Anyway, this sort of censorship smacks of fear rather than ‘hurtful’. If anyone has a strong belief system, fine, they have nothing to fear from science. Or have they?Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 02:39 PMRory
“Speaking of Christopher Hitchens, I have never really seen the point of his book, God is not great. What exactly is he trying to prove? Who is he attempting to influence? Woo-oo! look at me - I’m an atheist. Aren’t I a naughty boy?”
Are you a bit smug Rory.
I can only asume you have not read “god is not great”. Hitchens argues from a philosophical side, using science and the barbarity of religion to back his points up. If anyone is likely to be influenced by this book it may be social christians who go to church out of habit but really don´t believe the nonsense served to them.
Sam Graham
“So here is the challenge: please give us the scientific objective apparatus that you have used to determine the brain is not designed so we can apply your methodology to the natural world and determine who is telling the truth.”
Sam this of course works both ways, however given the brain´s many faults and latent space it makes an intelligent designer look not very intelligent.
Science has always tried to find the answers to the big questions, religion belongs to a time when scientific research didn´t exist. To survive the Catholic Church has actually adopted evolution as fact, with inteligent design placed at the dawn of man. Of course everything that came for millions of years before then was just larks.
The challenge is for creationists to prove their completely unfounded and irrational beliefs.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 05:56 PMFunnily enough, Driftwood, your voodoo comment conjured up images from a James Bond movie in my head as well. I do realise that your intention was only to liken differing unlikely belief systems and I have no beef with that. I would however take issue with any argument that the cultures that sprang from the great religions did not create much that was good and lasting and much of that inspired by the very religious beliefs of those cultures.
It would be a strange soul indeed that would not wonder at the majesty of the Sistine Chapel or the Taj Mahal or, as I have already mentioned, the Alhambra.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 05:57 PMRory
“It would be a strange soul indeed that would not wonder at the majesty of the Sistine Chapel or the Taj Mahal or, as I have already mentioned, the Alhambra”
Absolutely Rory, man has constructed some outstanding buildings in the name of religion. It has also destroyed many for being in the name of the wrong religion.
The Alhambra was one of the lucky ones to escape vandalism by the christians when the Moors where sacked from Spain.
Beautiful architecture aside there is not much positive input from religions. Art and literature would have happened if religion had not, and although god was an inspiration for art and literature during the enlightenment, you also have to remember that in Europe these works where commissioned by the Vatican and remained in control of the Church.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 07:20 PMRory.
I’m not surprised you don’t understand what Hitchens is trying to do with the book God Is Not Great You ask what is he trying to prove?
Its about the lack of proof, not proof.
Besides, the fact that the book was a best seller ought to indicate that a lot of people did understand what he was getting at.Oh, and don’t try and give us that old guff about how the bookish types never got the ladies, that’s certainly not my experience.
;-)
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 08:39 PMRory,
I’ll back up Tafkao, especially on his last point! (Although I do get some rather disdainful looks sometimes)
Believe in a supernatural deity, don’t you doubt the existance of God, don’t you dare try and develop critical thought of established dogma… get your end away! Good line I say.
Clearly belief in God has something to do with pulling well fit babes!
Hmm.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 11:30 PMTAF
I actually agree with Rory about Chris Hitchens somewhat. He isn’t a scientist, more a polemicist. That said he is very enteraining to read, whatever his politics.
Rory
I watched “Live and Let Die” at the Grand cinema, Downpatrick, circa 1973. Sex, zombies and speedboat chases beat the hell out of parochial hall dances with orange juice and biscuits to my impressionable mind. And the girls were more interested in what car you drove???. I always assumed you Catholic boys were getting laid more than us, until I discovered Assumption Grammar girls. Reader, I married one.
So it goes…Posted by on Sep 20, 2008 @ 11:36 PMI appreciate the irony of someone who felt Reiss should go because of what he said now deploring creationist censorship in Turkey. Personally, I think both the campaign against the Rev’d Prof and the Turkish lawsuit were misguided.
But Sam… can you explain “Some believe the brain evolved despite the fact that it cannot be replicated”. I don’t get the connection you are suggesting between whether we [scientists?] can replicate something, and whether it could have evolved.
Besides, isn’t a brain replicated inside each new human’s skull? Though I accept that may be not exactly what you were intending to say.
Posted by on Sep 21, 2008 @ 01:41 AMTAFKABO - you clearly have a rather unenlightened background when you posit the Dawkinite line that if Newton, Faraday, Boyle et al had just read Darwin they would have been evolutionists. You forget conveniently that Faraday was in his prime in 1859 and did not die until 1867 yet he rejected evolution! William Thomson Kelvin lived until 1907, Mendel until 1884, and even Max Planck who was a theist until 1947. This does not take into account some of the great minds of our own day such as arguably the greatest scientific mind of our generation in Northern Ireland, Prof Norman Nevins a Christian Brethren elder and world renowned geneticist of QUB.
Another point you need to understand is that evolution did not begin in 1859. The Egyptians taught the same theory 2000 BC when they were the world’s leading empire. Darwin just rehashed this mythical story with an enhanced narrative and threw in some impressive sounding titles.
“Besides, the fact that the book was a best seller ought to indicate that a lot of people did understand what he was getting at.”
Errr..think you are caught in your own logic here TAF mate. The best seller week on week for the past 400 years is guess what - BIBLE. This year about 400 million copies. Hitchens book will be selling for a pound in charity shops next year.
DR Who
“Sam this of course works both ways, however given the brain´s many faults and latent space it makes an intelligent designer look not very intelligent.”
I never said we had optimality of design as Genesis 3 provides the evidence why this is not. However, I am glad you are conceding in your remarks that the intelligent designer who designed the human brain is a LOT LOT more intelligent than the collective wisdom of all neurosurgeons as He can design something that they cannot even understand or replicate today.
“Science has always tried to find the answers to the big questions, religion belongs to a time when scientific research didn´t exist. To survive the Catholic Church has actually adopted evolution as fact, with inteligent design placed at the dawn of man.”
Again factually inaccurate. The greatest scientific minds and advances happened during the hey day of the rise of the Protestant Reformation. The reality is since the West has adopted the post-Christian mentality since the 1960s we have strugggled to make any great advances. Hence the fact that we are still using much of the basic technology from this time such as the Boeing engines.
This should also teach you not to trust the Catholic Church who are the masters of assimilating the trends in vogue in order to forward their interests.
Notmy opinion,
“I don’t get the connection you are suggesting between whether we [scientists?] can replicate something, and whether it could have evolved.
Besides, isn’t a brain replicated inside each new human’s skull? Though I accept that may be not exactly what you were intending to say.”The basic point is this - if you believe the complex computer on earth could evolve from nothing by nothing by the “spooky force” of natural selection which is an irrational source then surely it is not unreasonable for me to demand that what this “force” produced should be able to be replicated by rational scientists who claim they understand the mechanism of how it was produced.
You are right a new brain is being reproduced which is a marvel itself. Not only did the creator create the first brain which clearly is so powerful that it cannot be replicated but He also cleverly built a blueprint in the DNA for it to be replicated un unimaginable scales (7 billion right now)perfectly. You have got to admit that is an awesome work of engineering.
All I ask is that the collective wisdom of modern science produce one brain to at least challenge my basic thesis. But in fairness I should have demanded they construct a mechanism from nothing to replicate this process also!
Am still waiting for my original question to be answered by TAFKO and his Dawkinite troll friends…..
Posted by on Sep 21, 2008 @ 05:54 AMDriftwood,
I agree that those with a strong belief system really haven’t anything to fear from science. Why a devout man need not fear the Devil himself I would have thought. But my issue with Hitchens is the corollary of that if you like - what is there to fear from religion by one who is secure in his agnosticism?
Doctor Who says that Hitchens book may be aimed at “social christians who go to church out of habit but really don´t believe the nonsense served to them”. But if they “don’t believe the nonsense” in the first place why bother preaching to them. Is Hitchens on some kind of atheistic evangelical crusade trying to save souls from religion? The religious will disdain his views and the irreligious have no need of them.
As to me being “smug” - I suppose, like the rest of us, I am betimes, but I’d have a hell of a long way to go to rival the King of Smug himself whose book we have just been discussing. He’s bad enough on television but, Jeez, you don’t want to meet him in the flesh (of which there is rather a lot) - you’re likely to be smugged to death.
By the way, Driftwood, your attraction for the Assumption girls displays good taste. I did like the girls of Down High meself especially those not over-impressed with the bookish type - “Is that a copy of Das Capital in your pocket, Rory, or are you just pleased to see me?”
Posted by on Sep 21, 2008 @ 06:50 AM
