Epiphenomenalism is absurd; it is just plain obvious that our pains, our thoughts, and our feelings make a difference to our (evidently physical) behavior; it is impossible to believe that all our behavior could be just as it is even if there were no pains, thoughts, or feelings. (Taylor, 1963 and subsequent editions, offers a representative statement.)

This argument is surely the briefest of those against epiphenomenalism, but it may have been more persuasive than any other. Epiphenomenalists, however, can make the following reply. First, it can never be obvious what causes what. Animated cartoons are full of causal illusions. Falling barometers are regularly followed by storms, but do not cause them.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/

---------------

The argument above contains some elements of sophism, though, in short, the discussion is skewed. The relationship between the mental and the physical is undeniable and both influence each other. This is why we indulge in drugs — or what I call consciousness modifying substances.

I was heartened to learn recently that atheists are no longer the most reviled group in the United States: according to the political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, we’ve been overtaken by the Tea Party.  But even as I was high-fiving my fellow apostates (“We’re number two!  We’re number two!”), I was wondering anew: why do so many people dislike atheists?

I gather that many people believe that atheism implies nihilism — that rejecting God means rejecting morality.  A person who denies God, they reason, must be, if not actively evil, at least indifferent to considerations of right and wrong.  After all, doesn’t the dictionary list “wicked” as a synonym for “godless?”  And isn’t it true, as Dostoevsky said, that “if God is dead, everything is permitted”?

Well, actually — no, it’s not.  (And for the record, Dostoevsky never said it was.)   Atheism does not entail that anything goes.

Admittedly, some atheists are nihilists.  (Unfortunately, they’re the ones who get the most press.)  But such atheists’ repudiation of morality stems more from an antecedent cynicism about ethics than from any philosophical view about the divine.  According to these nihilistic atheists, “morality” is just part of a fairy tale we tell each other in order to keep our innate, bestial selfishness (mostly) under control.  Belief in objective “oughts” and “ought nots,” they say, must fall away once we realize that there is no universal enforcer to dish out rewards and punishments in the afterlife.  We’re left with pure self-interest, more or less enlightened.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/?ref=opinion

In a subsequent TV interview, Hitchens singled out for special condemnation Falwell's "encouraging the most extreme theocratic fanatics and maniacs on the West Bank and in Gaza not to give an inch of what he thought of as holy land to the people who already live there, undercutting and ruining every democrat and secularist in the Jewish state in the name of God". He concluded that "Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man".

In this spirit, one can only imagine that a younger Hitchens might have relished the opportunity to write about the death of Christopher Hitchens. Whilst Hitchens opposed the first invasion of Iraq by a US led Coalition of the Willing in 1991, he supported the second one in 2003. What can one say about the people who died and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man?

Indeed, what can one say about a man who responded to the Lancet report of some 650,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the invasion with the dual response that the figures were "almost certainly inflated", and that even if the figures were accurate, remorse and sorrow were not appropriate responses? An earlier incarnation of Hitchens, it should be noted, was appalled at the 100,000-200,000 killed in the first Gulf War. Indeed, even 3,000 dead once shocked his conscience.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3737110.html?WT.svl=theDrum

First an essay from William Cavanaugh

When I recently gave a lecture entitled "Does Religion Cause Violence?" at a college, someone scrawled across a poster advertising the lecture a single word - "Duh!" The idea that religion has a peculiar tendency to promote violence has achieved the status of truism in Western societies. It is currently advanced with great vigour by the so-called "New Atheists."

...

The true believer Hitchens has in mind is the Islamist. But Hitchens' message is that the true believer in secularism can also not rest until the whole world has been converted to secularism - by force, if necessary. The myth of religious violence is a way of saying, "Their violence is essentially irrational and fanatical. Our violence is essentially rational and necessary."

A more peaceful world depends on doing away with such binaries, and taking a hard look both at Muslim-inspired violence and at the things - flags, markets, "freedom" - to which we sacrifice lives.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/12/20/2992074.htm?WT.svl=featuredSitesScroller

-------------------------

Second, an answer from Gus: "Guns do not kill people..."

This is the famous quote that has been used by gun lobbies to "promote" the ownership of guns... "Religion is not violent"... is in the same vein. "Secularism is peaceful" follows suit...

The other day at a rollicking party a woman asked me what "existentialism" meant... Same question with "atheism"... Then came a rock of a question: "would you like everyone to be existentialist like you?"... My answer was quite swift and self-explanatory: "I could not care less" was my honest answer... "as long as no-one tells me what to do or believe..."

And that's the point... Hitchens was not a saint, nor was he the perfect atheist... But he had a golden way with words and supported some rotten causes. That's his beef, not mine. That was his guns, not mine. Unlike religious people, atheists and existentialists rarely make money out of being so: there is no redemption to sell, no false hope to flog. Hitchens mostly sold words and controversies for people to think about.

Some religious traditions contain words that incide the killing of people, especially in the three Abrahamic religions... Though many preachers are peaceful, many readings can be picked in the old testament or the quoran that "justify" either war or the killing of infidels...

It's time to give that up... Though it would be preferable to stop owing guns or religious beliefs even if these do not kill people.... meanwhile, only our decisions kill people if we decide to kill people. Are we the master of our decisions? Most atheists and existentialists are so — the master of their decisions — far more than the indoctrinated. It's our responsible call to be more peaceful.

From Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Al Jazeera:

...

The question is: How does religion know that there is definitely a God? Well, there is no "proof" here either. Religion starts with belief, based on the same message from all the prophets who were known as truthful in their life. Religions, particularly Islam, demand critical autonomy from its adherents in order to see the observable world, the "ayat" or signs in the creation. Prophet Abraham observed these signs, used his critical autonomy, and "discovered" God. The Quran is replete with exhortation to keep an open mind, observe, reflect, contemplate and act for the benefit of all humans and the creation. Religion's premise is different from that of science. Religion, when properly understood, brings ease of heart and mind and teaches love and care for all.

Religion may be on the decline in Europe, but it is flourishing among some communities and in many other parts of the world. Religion can be a source of tranquil hearts and inspiration for fight against tyranny, inequality and injustice. For argument's sake, even if there is no God, human beings need one to behave responsibly on Earth.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is a parenting consultant. He is a founding member of The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO), Chairman of the East London Mosque Trust, and former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (2006-10).

-------------------

Gus: The question/answer is that one can behave responsible without a religion. Atheism when properly understood and applied, bring ease of heart and mind, and encourages love and CARE for all, including the care for nature.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the Franco-Swiss border has made its first clear observation of a new particle since opening in 2009.

It is called Chi_b (3P) and will help scientists understand better the forces that hold matter together.

The as-yet unpublished discovery is reported on the Arxiv pre-print server.

The LHC is exploring some of the fundamental questions in "big physics" by colliding proton particles together in a huge underground facility.

Detail in the sub-atomic wreckage from these impacts is expected to yield new information about the way the Universe is constructed.

The Chi_b (3P) is a more excited state of Chi particles already seen in previous collision experiments, explained Prof Roger Jones, who works on the Atlas detector at the LHC.

"The new particle is made up of a 'beauty quark' and a 'beauty anti-quark', which are then bound together," he told BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16301908

Researchers have developed a clever way to achieve the lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth.

Achieving such temperatures is necessary to study fundamental properties of matter and the strange effects caused by quantum mechanics.

The new method relies on "optical lattices" of atoms from which only the hottest atoms are selectively removed.

The approach, reported in Nature, may be well-suited to create memory for future quantum computers.

The limits of low temperature have been constantly pushed in recent years, and the current best lies somewhere in the nanoKelvin regime - that is, within just billionths of a degree of "absolute zero" at zero Kelvin or -273.15C.

That ultimate limit is set formally as the lowest possible entropy, or disorder, that is achievable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16285036

from Alister McGrath — Professor of Theology at King's College London, and President of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. He is currently writing a new biography of the Oxford apologist and writer C.S. Lewis.

...

But science is ultimately about a method - a way of making sense of things. Its outcomes change down the ages. Its interim reports are always important and interesting, but they are also provisional. A century ago, most scientists thought that the universe had always been here. Now, we believe it had a beginning.

Some atheist scientists ridicule Christians for believing in a God whose existence cannot be proved. Yet science regularly posits the existence of things whose existence cannot be proved to make sense of our observations.

Thus we infer the existence of dark matter from observations that would otherwise be puzzling. We can't see it, and we can't prove it's there. Yet this doesn't stop most leading astronomers from accepting its existence.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3745688.html?WT.svl=theDrum

------------------

Sorry Alister, I've got news for you, some science can "prove" the existence of dark matter. To say science still does work on searching and evaluating its effect on the universe is part of ... science.

One thing which puzzle me more is the total lack of "humility" from religious people to think that they are "the children of god"... That is blowing one's own trumpet big time, "even if one is humbled by this concept".

As I have mentioned before, and has been recognised in many old philosophical concepts, including religious concepts, the universe needs "flaws" to exist. The universe is thus relative... In some concepts it's the yin and the yang and in others it's god and the devil. But the devil cannot exist should god be an absolute being. This duality would be a complete nonsense in perfection. But for many years, when religion ruled the roost of our naivety, the devil was the source of all our ills, until we started to investigate scientifically. Now as Joe Hockey would say his god is merciful, all fluffy and nice, while in the hebrew past, we had to fear the wrath of a choleric god.

God is an idea designed to allocate meaning. God isn't meaning. Religion only gives meaning like Santa Claus gives children the meaning to the concept of being good or bad... Nothing else. Science does not judge, except it tells us that if we push this button, or mix several chemicals, a resulting change will show up. If we burn fossil fuel beyond a certain point, climate on this very little planet — on which the atmosphere is very very thin — will "change". Temperature will increase.

The meaning of being good or bad is an improved stylistic desire, the roots of which are embedded in the natural world, where individuals are searching for ways to nourish themselves with proteins and survive well by minimising pain and increase comforts within the limits of their abilities that can change with E-VO-LU-TION. There is more enlightement is this low level explanation than in the meaning we're "fallen angels" made by a god in "his" image — who must have been bored with his own self, deciding to create little stupid beings to adulate him or they'd be banished to a crappy place called hell... Rubbish.

It is hard to find a spot of meaningful elevation and peace on this site mostly dedicated to satire and the purposeful nose-bitting of politicians around the world and Australia specifically. But I'd like to honour a couple of people I knew, whose passing will be missed by many. First, let's honour that fellow producer and chief of staff at 60 minutes — Channel Nine Australia, Cliff Neville...

Then of all people to go was Vince Lovegrove who died today (25/03/12)... He was one of the most gentle bloke I knew. His story and that of Suzy's was an inspiration to many battling AIDS...

May their life be inspirational to all.

My view of the godot particle...

One of the Large Hadron Collider targets

Strasbourg church rose

sun in haze...

flower

meaning

USA

political luck

life

Note: some of these pictures need parallax corrections due to the observer (Gus) not being fully square on to the view.

Read from top.

Almost exactly one year before his death in 2011, Christopher Hitchens reaffirmed his support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and predicted that a “confrontation” with “theocratic Iran” was all but inevitable.

Now, nine years later, his prediction is perilously close to coming true. But if we recognize the biases that underlie the famous atheist’s assessment of the geopolitical situation, it quickly becomes clear that his hawkish worldview could never lead to peace and is in fact a recipe for perpetual, and perpetually escalating, war.

When I recently watched Hitchens’ 2009 debate with Christian apologist William Lane Craig over the existence of God, I noted that although Hitchens’ logos failed to measure up to Craig’s philosophical expertise, on the level of pathos, Hitchens’s stark recounting of the horrors of religious violence and oppression could not be easily discounted, even by a lifelong Christian like myself.

Eventually, though, Hitchens began to overplay his hand, blaming Russian ultranationalism and the continuing cult of Stalin on the Orthodox Church and the Holocaust on Christian anti-Semitism without so much as gesturing toward either the Soviet Union’s religious persecutions or the eugenics movement that was vehemently, and almost exclusively, opposed by such religious intellectual giants as G.K. Chesterton. Hitchens even compared North Korea’s totalitarian regime to the Christian conception of heaven, failing to acknowledge either the explicit atheism of juche ideology or the Christian insistence that no political leader is worthy of the reverence we owe to God.

Read more crap:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-debt-neocons-owe-to...

Fuck god!

Read from top.

Here we have the classic displacement of intent by someone called GRAYSON QUAY... An article that should never have seen the light of day, especially on The Conservative American... Hitchens was his own man and DID NOT REPRESENT ATHEISTS. He was an atheist, sure, but atheists are numerous and varied and I am prepared to say that most committed atheists  — about 95 per cent — are against wars of any kind. Wars such as those declared against Saddam or Libya or Syria by the USA HAVE NOTHING TO DO with atheists, but more often than not have been supported by "Christians" under the guise of a (wash your mouth) "crusade". The word CRUSADE was used by G W Bush though he was told to quietly forget it, as his actions would have seemed a bit too religious.

You cannot blame Hitchens for the US wars, please. Not even for one tenth of one percent of the US commitments to wage aggression on any thing that moved with a Shiite label. It had all to do with the worst religious country on the planet —Saudi Arabia with the most restrictive laws — not even being a country, but a fiefdom in which people live. The conclusion by Quay is CRAP. CRAP!

"But if human suffering is, at least in part, the result of our own inherent defects (or sins, if you like), then those who set foreign policy would do well to purge themselves of all utopian inclinations before launching any sort of military intervention. The neocon foreign policy can thus be read as an inheritance from atheistic leftism and, as Peter Hitchens reminds us, is in direct conflict with both Christianity and conservatism."

Bullshit! Bullshit! ALL OF QUAY'S WRITING IS BULLSHIT! Atheists abhor war. War is a function of Christian and other religious beliefs since the Jews got lost in the desert somewhere.