Thank Goodness

THANK GOODNESS! About Dan Dennett's recent brush with death.

"Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now."

"Do I worship modern medicine? Is science my religion? Not at all; there is no aspect of modern medicine or science that I would exempt from the most rigorous scrutiny, and I can readily identify a host of serious problems that still need to be fixed. That's easy to do, of course, because the worlds of medicine and science are already engaged in the most obsessive, intensive, and humble self-assessments yet known to human institutions, and they regularly make public the results of their self-examinations."

"One thing in particular struck me when I compared the medical world on which my life now depended with the religious institutions I have been studying so intensively in recent years. One of the gentler, more supportive themes to be found in every religion (so far as I know) is the idea that what really matters is what is in your heart: if you have good intentions, and are trying to do what (God says) is right, that is all anyone can ask. Not so in medicine! If you are wrong—especially if you should have known better—your good intentions count for almost nothing. And whereas taking a leap of faith and acting without further scrutiny of one's options is often celebrated by religions, it is considered a grave sin in medicine. A doctor whose devout faith in his personal revelations about how to treat aortic aneurysm led him to engage in untested trials with human patients would be severely reprimanded if not driven out of medicine altogether."

"In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does!"

Wired on Religion

So. Many. Letters "We would have sworn that our November cover story on New Atheism was going to generate a firestorm of reader criticism, delivered with a side order of brimstone just for good measure. Wrong. You all just started calmly talking. And talking. And talking. We got more responses to this article than to any piece in memory. Brimstone quotient: low."

"So we posted every last letter to our website."

Good Models - My Super-Turtle is Better than Yours

• Standards and Pseudo Standards from Celebrating OWL interoperability and spec quality. Can a standard be based on a pseudo standard? Another posting also points to "An Investigation into the Feasibility of the Semantic Web" about the feasibility of integration using ontolgies.


• Beyond Belief 2006 Session 5 includes Paul Davies (asks why the universe should even be understandable to human beings, why he's no longer a Platonist and levitating super-turtles) and Session 9 on why religion may have a place.


• Agile Atheism "I am not agile because I don't believe in the agile religion and I don't accept its dogma. I like the engineering and planning practices that agile teams use - in the same way that I like people who do nice things (even when they do it because of fear of divine retribution). The difference is I don't want to be constrained by dogma into only doing those sensible things which are prescribed by agile. In the same way I don't like being prevented from doing sensible social things because of religious beliefs."


• Jane's Rule for Loading Dishwashers "Compare this to test-driven development. There may be a little more effort when writing code, because you are writing programmer-tests to drive writing that code. It's an "unnatural" process, like sorting silverware into sub-bins when loading the dishwasher. But the true benefit comes later in the project (possibly just minutes or hours later), when you can rely on those programmer-tests to make refactoring safer. And since you fixed bugs during TDD, you have much less work fixing bugs later when it comes time to ship your product."


• How can I get financial market information updated automatically to my spreadsheets?


• 10 most intelligent / least intelligent dogs My dog is apparently the stupidest breed with regards to obedience. I'm not sure I'd call obedience a sign of intelligence (the complete opposite really).

The Search for the Levitating Super-Turtle

Atheists: The New Gays "Prior to 9/11, it would have been career suicide for a public figure to come right out and say God is a fairy tale. Now it’s a feature of popular culture. You can see it on cable of course, in shows such as BullSh*t, Real Time, The Daily Show, and Southpark. But it’s also a feature of network TV. The main character on House is written as the most brilliant human on the planet, and he’s an atheist."

"Ask a deeply religious Christian if he’d rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don’t seem so bad lately."

A good preview of Dawkins book is here.

I've recently finished reading both "The God Delusion" and "The Goldilocks Enigma" and I found both books quite good. Seeing as though so many people commented last time I thought I'd post a bit more about what I think this time.

Much like the disappointment of revisiting old television shows of your youth, Dawkins' book is great for pointing out how truly bad those stories taught at Sunday school were, including Noah, Lot and Abraham. Although I must admit, even as a child I found the story of the flood and "The A-Team" both rather unbelievable. There are other interesting topics, like coming up with morals without religion, but I think these are better covered elsewhere.

One of the main things I got out of this book is that progress is about conscious raising. Most improvements have come about when a society becomes aware of a problem and goes about trying to solve them. Historically this includes human rights, more recently global warming and ones to fully take hold like animal rights. The other thing I got out of it is that I don't have as many problems with religion as Dawkins.

I found Dawkins the least convincing when he diverges from his areas of expertise especially when he tries to cover cosmology. This is especially apparent when you compare his counter argument against teleology (things look like they were designed therefore there must be a designer). Dawkins explanation in relation to biology is clear and concise but for cosmology its rather glossed over and there seems to be a bit of hand waving. He doesn't provide a good argument why evolution on a universal scale is well founded. This is where Paul Davies' book provides some better arguments for a rational creation of the universe.

Davies is actually a little bit more open to the idea of God than Dawkins which, when he chooses a different explanation, makes his arguments more convincing. The possible explanations of the universe he discusses include: absurd (no real cause), unique (there are no free parameters for the universe to be the way it is), the multiverse (String theory), intelligent design (God or Gods), the life principle and the self explaining universe. He says he prefers the latter two explanations. I found the most interesting explanation given is the self explaining universe. It uses quantum mechanics, casual loops and the requirement for the universe to understand itself.

The last chapter of the book is certainly the best and I wish he spent the whole book on the ideas in it instead. His description of the infinite regress as the levitating super-turtle is great. He also describes how Platonism is incorrect, especially at the beginning of the universe, and how the laws of physics have emerged over time.

I'm Sick of the Anti-Thor Rhetoric

The flying spaghetti monster "Why do you call yourself an atheist? Why not an agnostic?

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

When you're talking about God, are you really talking about the God of the Bible -- Yahweh of the Old Testament?

Well, as it happens, I am because I have an eye to the audience who's likely to be reading my book. Nobody believes in Thor and Apollo anymore so I don't bother to address the book to them. So, in practice, it's addressed to believers in the Abrahamic God."

More provactively, "My sense is that you don't just think religion is dishonest. There's something evil about it as well.

Well, yes. I think there's something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that's dangerous is that it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die -- anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed -- that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith. They don't have to say, "Well, here's a very good reason for this." All they need to say is, "That's what my faith says." And we're all expected to back off and respect that. Whether or not we're actually faithful ourselves, we've been brought up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be challenged. And that can have extremely evil consequences. The consequences it's had historically -- the Crusades, the Inquisition, right up to the present time where you have suicide bombers and people flying planes into skyscrapers in New York -- all in the name of faith."