I know many of you had your hearts set on a debate between me and Ray Comfort, but there has been a slight change of plans, for the better, I think. Instead of a debate, Comfort will be on tomorrow morning, Tuesday, at 10am Central time, and will express himself without fear of snorts of derision from me. I will then be on Wednesday, same time of day, to address the same topics. It’s a better plan, since we all know Comfort is going to gallop through a scattershot collection of nonsense, and I’ll be able to say something coherent in contrast the next day.
You can listen to WDAY radio live. I’ll open a thread Tuesday morning for anyone to state their opinions here as it plays out on the radio.
Dammit! While this may be the best for educating people, I was really looking forward to PZ destroying Comfort, and exposing his unacceptable ignorance of evolution.
Professor Myers:
Whose idea was it to change the format?
Sounds like a good idea to me. It will be much more difficult for Mr. Comfort to get away with ignoring your rebuttals and claiming victory. Or at least he won’t be able to do it in real time. It also ensures that no one can monopolize the time and that their own presentations suffer if they harp on any one point for too long.
That’s a better setup. Ray Comfort has a real talent for insulting the intelligence of his audience. You’ll have better ears on a separate show.
I’m somewhat dubious of this method. Fans of the ID franchise might just tune in to listen to hoozits speak, but then not bother listening to your responses because you’re the devil’s messenger.
At least if you get a head to head debate, fans of that guy would be forced to listen to the rebuttals.
Any word on whether they’ll have mp3s available after the fact? I would love to hear this exchange, but I doubt I’ll be able to at work.
Also, going up second seems like quite an advantage to me. You can be much more focused in your destruction of Comfort’s talking points. An advantage unless… are you sure they’re not going to put Ben Stein on the air Thursday morning to compare scientists to nazis?
It was the radio station’s idea. I like it. It’s better to have a block of time to talk about substance, rather than having to chase Comfort’s ludicrous contortions.
I agree with #5 and would reiterate the question of #2. Sure going up second is good, but the creos will simply not listen to your show. Or they will whine that Comfort was not given a chance to rebut your remarks, just like you (rightly) did when that radio show had your opponent on again the next day without you.
I too was looking for can o’ whoopass being opened.
Congratulations on going second…this is one scenario when being second wins.
I dunno, I think that a disdainful sniff (or snort) is, at most, all that Ray’s arguments deserve.
the creos will simply not listen to your show
It doesn’t matter, since they can’t hear anything that contradicts their beliefs anyway. The target should always be those who are capable of listening, not those who refuse to. And the latter will be able to hear PZ a lot better this way.
Instead of Ray Comfort, PZ, maybe you should think about debating someone like Brother Guy Consolmagno, a Vatican astronomer with a PhD from MIT. He’s got academic creds Ray doesn’t have and it’ll look better on your resume.
I found Consolmagno when I was trying to track a lie told by one of your godbot posters through its various plagiarized sources.
The original format was a “Kobayashi Maru” exercise. It’s very hard to have a rational debate with the irrational. Comfort would likely shift the focus of the debate away from science at the beginning. Anyone who has posted at his blog knows what’s that like.
Who cares if creos listen to PZ’s segment? As if they would end up saying, “Gee. I never thought of that before. Maybe I should question some of my strongly held beliefs.”
Ah, it’s much better for reason, much worse for entertainment.
I’m not proud of it, but I did want to hear the grunts and squeals of Ray’s evisceration.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
You coward.
Perhaps the producers will provide a recording, or at least a transcript of Comfort’s points…might be a bit easier for you as there will be no interruptions, blathering, etc.
Of course, this scenario might create a cascade of rebuttal after rebuttal, creating a game of Who Gives Up First.
Am I correct in thinking that this will be on at 4pm GMT?
As much as I would have enjoyed Comfort being reduced to a quivering blob of protoplasm, I agree this new format is superior.
The only interruptions, if any, would be from the host.
This definitely seems like a better way to actually discuss the issues. Too many “debates” seem to be structured with the ulterior motive of getting the participants shouting at one another. Having time to actually discuss the issues at some length is, I think, considerably to your advantage: science doesn’t distill into pithy fifteen-second soundbytes.
Here’s the problem, it the people who won’t listen to PZ’s side the next day… Comfort will just expouse his nonsense with impunity I am sure he will have new gems like god made poop brown so we know if helps to fertilize the earth or some silliness
I agree with others in that many people that are only interested in Comfort’s side simply won’t tune in the next day. I’d also imagine there will be a fair number of people who are out running an errand or something similar, and will only happen onto the radio show by luck of timing. They probably won’t tune in the following day, either, so will only hear Comfort’s inanity (though there will probably be an equally sized group of people who only catch PZ’s part).
Going second is a huge advantage, though it seems a bit unfair to Comfort (not that I have much sympathy for him).
Maybe the radio station was worried that PZ would get his butt kicked. It seems they have given him an unfair advantage.
Stimpy, you eediot!
Oooh… now I’m sad. I was very much looking forward to listening to you rip him apart on everything he tried to say. while this format may be more effective as far as you being able to respond rationally without him try to banter back and forth about pointless crap, it same drawbacks. The first one being Ray Comfort will be able to complain that he wasn’t able to respond to your comments like you will be able to with his and therefore the whole thing will be biased in your favor. The second being it will be far less entertaining than listening to him splutter out ineffectual counters to your responses.
Well, I have to say that it was precisely the snorts of derision that I was most looking forward to.
Wow, um, I don’t know what happened to my message but it’s plagued with typos that weren’t there when I proofed it before posting. Oh well, I think the substance of the message is still present.
I think the “debate” would have been a better format, since our Tentacled Overlord could have, in real time, pointed out such techniques as the “Gish Gallop” and the “Argument from Incredulity”. It would be nice to provide our trusty B.S. destroying toolkit for people who are new to the reason-based community.
@ Phentari, #19: Or structured so that the moderators force one side (generally those promoting evolution) to skip past some deeply flawed and ridiculous creationist arguments.
While having more time to present your argument is a good thing, have you considered the downside, PZ? Now there’s going to be a solid hour or so of Ray Comfort on his own that you’ll have to listen to in order to refute. The horror.
Ah, cool, PZ. You could post a link to Comfort’s crap, and have us write your rebuttal for you, if you wanted. Though at 12 lpm (lies per minute), it would take several hours to refute every last distortion. :(
Number 14:
How true. There’s no little entertainment value now.
Meanwhile,back in Dallas , here’s a spittle flecked bit of Tom Dreher’s column t from the day before the spouted at AZ:
“my own heart was broken by the systematic protection of sexual criminals by the Roman Catholic Church, I thrashed around, pinned by rage and panic over what pervert priests had done to children and what bishops who knew better allowed to go unpunished. I left my church to escape the pain like a wild animal chews off its leg to get out of a trap.”
Wholething at :
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_27edi.ART.State.Edition1.4d7ef8f.html
The anger that wrecked my faith didn’t start with news stories of clerical sex abuse I read. It started the summer before eighth grade, on a hotel room floor.”
Seriously, what’s with all the lickspittles who post here?
Atheism in-and-of-itself is nothing to be so proud of: it’s the absence of certain beliefs, after all. The noise in here is a deafening me-tooism. You cheer on your hero, but do you have any guts yourselves?
Prof Meyers–do you read all this stuff? Does it go to your head, or does it make you vaguely nauseous? (Maybe both?)
(PS: Y’all can call me a troll, if that’s easiest.)
I think its better this way. Debating wackos looks good on their resumes, not so good on yours.
Oh, before I get called an ignoramus: yes, I realize I spelled his name wrong.
Ben, #32
In a way I agree with you, Ben; atheism shouldn’t be anything to be proud of – like aracism or amisogyny it should be the default. But until religious believers grow up and stop believing in fairy tales then it will remain the intellectually-honest high ground.
No, the spittle-flecked thread is yonder (←), 6 posts previous or so.
That’s why we’re also pro-science, pro-skepticism, pro-rationalism, pro-secular-humanism, and pro-freethinking.
Oh, and we’re also anti-idiocy, so feel free to move along any time now.
Calling you a troll, while accurate, does not even begin to approach the full and proper description of your character. So, yes, it’s easier: You’re a troll. Shoo.
Atheism in-and-of-itself is nothing to be so proud of: it’s the absence of certain beliefs, after all.
Certain wrong beliefs that are widely held. Not falling for common mistakes seems like something people can reasonably be proud of.
Beyond that, your post is a series of non sequiturs and falsehoods.
@36: If you were more honest, you would have inferred my exclusion of posters who express any of the qualities you enumerate.
My point was that, after a good week reading this blog and its comments, I’ve concluded a Toady-to-Sage ratio of roughly 8:1.
And, since you set yourself up for this one, maybe you could tell me just what a “full and proper description of my character” would entail?
Finally: “Shoo”? — how prim.
Ben appears to consider credulity is a virtue.
Say, Ben – I have some friends in Nigeria who’d like to speak to you about some money…
@37: When the entire village jumps off the cliff on a whim, it’s nothing to be proud of that you happened to be in the crapper at the time.
As for my post: I was making an observation, not an argument–so you should be very proud to have found a non-sequitur.
Schlafly _STILL_ at it!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Letter_to_PNAS
He has no credentials to argue the study was flawed, his accusations have been pointed out, both on his site and elsewhere, to be ignorant or inaccurate, and yet he persists.
What a tool.
@39: Credulity implies a transaction involving vulnerability. But no: I meant simply that the argument would progress more quickly without lame diversions.
(Come, sit down! I’m free all afternoon.)
Thethyme @ 20:
The people who simply refuse to listen to Dr. Myers’ segment are the ones who weren’t going to listen to his points anyway–the ones who would’ve declared Comfort the winner of the debate no matter what. The point to discussing the issues isn’t to sway such folks: it’s to sway the folks who aren’t sure.
And that is why fellow fleckers of spit one should not desecrate bananas with communion wafers.
Oh and do we lick spittle besides flecking it? Now this could be quite a feat- atheists only.
Ben, #40
Again, Ben, I agree with you; I’m not as much proud of being an atheist as I am embarrassed for those who aren’t.
But that’s me. I never believed. I didn’t break free after years of cultural and social indoctrination or having to face the likelihood of being shunned as outcast by my family and former friends.
For some people it’s actually a struggle, a decision they’ve spent countless hours agonising over before finally making the break and accepting that nearly everything they once believed in is false.
There are a lot of atheists who fall into that category, Ben – and that is something to be proud of.
You should try reading some deconversion stories.
Actually, Ben, believe it or not, I’m not an atheist. However, I also don’t embrace the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, and I dislike the dishonesty and sophistry employed by some anti-evolutionists. I think that the best way to combat it is to calmly and rationally present the facts, and I hope that’s what will happen here.
Ben #32 wrote:
The post you’re responding to is on a Creationism debate. Most of us think the change of format will allow PZ a better chance to really explain the science of evolution.
So I don’t quite see what you’re driving at here. The “me-tooism” kind of comes along with the fact that this is scienceblogs, and so of course we’re on the science side. And just how are we supposed to show our “guts?” Debate Roy Comfort ourselves? Desecrate a banana? Please explain.
Thank you Wowbagger.
What’s the toady-to-sage ratio in churches? One god, hundreds of millions of sheep. Drat! They have us beat!
Of course, for that comparison to work, we’d all have to regard PZ as a god, which I doubt any of us do. Frankly, I’m still waiting for him to answer my prayer for the plateful of calamari.
@44: I have read those stories, and they are truly sad: mainly for the horrors inflicted on the victims by their families and communities. How the believers can claim a loving faith while they bludgeon and disown still amazes me. I was also brought up without a faith, and I take your point.
But pride in disbelief is a superior pride, and among the prof and many of his followers here it has manifested in an ugly way. Provoking the faithful, then laughing at them, is the province of the young atheist. The prof has plenty of real things to be proud of. I think he degrades himself.
@48: Aren’t fewer toadies a better thing? (Oh, I know you’re just being coy.)
Does “PZ” call you by your first name? Maybe he just shortens it to “Jer”. Either way, I’m sure you’ll hear from him once he gets over his laughing fit at your calamari joke. Good one, buddy!
Ben, if you met someone who openly professed his sincere belief in a magical turtle who could answer prayers and save mankind, what would you think of them? If you say “I’d respect their beliefs” you’re full of crap.
Think really hard about how you’d view such a person. It might be really similar to how some of us view people with superstitious beliefs.
For me, it might almost be a sense of pity.
Hmm, first I agreed that this is a good change. But I definitely think it may just result in all the wackos only tuning in for Ray man’s chat and not PZ’s. Also, I too first thought that PZ going second was quite the advantage, but really it isn’t. It’s just another reason for the crazies to not taking anything PZ says seriously and just whine that Ray didn’t have the opportunity for rebuttal, and that PZ’s a wimp and Ray is a superhero.
Oh well, they’ll never listen to us anyways, so I suppose this is the best was for PZ to get his whole message across, and hopefully some people who really need to hear it will listen.
I wish PZ would talk about the anthrax case (or did he already?) There are so many curious biological issues. See for example
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/04/anthrax/index.html
and other articles by Greenwald.
See especially
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6239
Like I said before, there is so much more relevant science and political trickery that it’s a distraction to focus on religious nuts.
@46: Don’t be so disingenuous: none of us really believes there’s a “debate” to be had about creationism. Just look at the leadup to this rout–the prof makes fun of his opponent, various posters cheer him on to “destroy” the guy, etc, etc.
We know what’s going to happen, just like the Romans did.
(Sure, I’d be false to disclaim any puerile interest of my own: but surely this is favoring dessert at the expense of the cheese-board…)
@51: Are you seriously calling me out on my atheist street cred?
Ben #49,
I think he thinks what he does is helping society – by reminding people of the need to make clear distinctions between church and state, and to give them reason to think more about what they believe in; in this case by pointing out to non-catholics that there are people who actually believe the cracker has magical properties; similarly, for catholics, that there exists amongst their co-religionists a frenzied extremist subset who consider the cracker more valuable than actual human life.
Yes, what he does is provocative and inflammatory – that doesn’t means he’s wrong to do so. Societal standards get challenged all the time and change as a result. If this helps get the godly to keep their hands to themselves then it’s worth it.
Let PZ worry about his own reputation.
Norman @12,
checked your blogpost; interesting, but it wasn’t clear whether this Vatican astronomer is a creationist. (In fact, I’d be a bit surprised if he is.) If he’s not, PZ could have a debate with him, but it wouldn’t be the same debate he’d have with that banana-brandishing gobshite Comfort.
(Also, one minor technical quibble from a former presbyterian, if I may: Bayes might have been a presbyterian clergyman, but it’s extraordinarily unlikely he’d have been a monk. The reformed denominations have their faults, but as a rule monkery is not one of them.)
Ben (#54) cried from the mountain,
In what way? What could you be using as a reference?
70% of the world’s population are lactose intolerant.
The other 30 debate using bad jokes.
Hello, this is the producer for Ben and Jim in the Morning, the show that was going to have the Ray Comfort/PZ Myers debate. After looking over the responses to Dr. Myers’ announcement of the change of plans, I thought I would make a short post answering some of the questions.
Posts numbers 2&8 : The decision to change formats from a debate to two separate segments was made this afternoon by myself and the hosts of the show, Ben and Jim. We decided that given the short time available, neither side would be able to construct much in the way of arguments for their respective positions, and it would ultimately be fairer to both sides to give them their own segment to make their case.
As for Mr. Comfort going first, Comfort has a very tight schedule, and Dr. Myers was able to re-schedule easier than Mr. Comfort was. Mr. Comfort will be on the show at ~10:06am CT Tues., Aug. 5th, and Dr. Myers will be on ~10:06am CT Weds., Aug. 6th, each for 20-30 minutes.
We apologize that plans were changed at the last minute, but we still invite you to listen to both Mr. Comfort’s and Dr. Myers’ respective segments. You can stream the show live from our website, or can stream it later in the day from the website. We do not currently offer podcasts or downloads of our shows, but they are available to listen to on the WDAY website for one week after the air-date. You can live-stream or archive-stream from the WDAY Radio site, http://www.wday.com/radio/
Hello Phentari #45,
If you are not an atheist what are you?
What do you mean, “us”, kemo sabe?
The Romans had public evolution-creation debates?
It looks like you’ve been hitting the dessert wines. Or maybe rather the port, or the rum.
Atheism should be abandoned as a descriptor of un-belief in deities. While some may (and have) disagreed, the better term is ‘non-theism’ as atheism implies theism as the default condition. Theism is taught (sanctioned child abuse), whereas non-theism can be a natural or an acquired state.
That’s what atheism is. Don’t know much about latin, huh?
@56: You make good points. But just as it’s vital to have this public debate, isn’t it just as vital to debate the way in which it’s conducted, as well as the general conduct of its participants?
Anybody can come to this site and see the prof’s relationship with the comment board. Much of it comes off very strongly as the exchange between an alpha male and his obsequious hangers-on. The constant egging-on–he doesn’t need it!–is sort of pathetic, and the endless and one-sided cephalopod in-jokes are a bit sad.
This is debatable, but: if the prof’s goals are as you suggest, he might turn on more people if he comported himself with less hollow triumph, if no less force.
(Why doesn’t Dawkins debate creationists anymore?)
Snort. You have been caught by the Bierce-Hartman-McKean-Skitt Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation.
The initial “a” is a negation in Greek.
Ben #54 wrote:
Actually, I was referring to the radio show debate itself, but as for whether there is really any “debate” to be had about creationism, yes and no. There’s no serious debate in the scientific communities — but there certainly is among the public.
And no, we really don’t know what’s going to happen, because the more interesting goal is not the smashdown of Ray Comfort on the science. That’s a given (and maybe a fun bit.) The harder part is going to be whether PZ Myers can find a way to explain evolution to a hostile audience, and say some things to make a few of the points stick. He doesn’t have to go for a total win, with creationists flipping 180. A few people thinking “well, I guess there may be some points to be said on both sides” is a victory.
That’s going to take skill.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that fans who cheer on a hero are all nothing but toadies who would blindly agree with whatever their role model does. People are a pretty diverse lot, and I doubt that’s true for either Pharyngula’s regulars or Comfort’s. Don’t underestimate the intelligence or overestimate the conformity of creationists. Even Ray Comfort fans.
I bet PZ won’t, or he wouldn’t have agreed to the debate.
Owlmirror re-corrected,
Drat, you have quartered my posture with the delicate stroke of a true gentleman (or lady). Beware, for I plot my revenge!
Is WDAY radio making this available as a download or anything? I’d love to hear it, but won’t be able to listen live.
Seems I should have read the thread before posting. Thanks EM!
Yeah, it’ll be better, but it won’t be as funny.
Ben #64,
I don’t really know what works and what doesn’t; it’s difficult (if not impossible) to get accurate data on things like level of (un)belief and how people reach and/or maintain those levels and the behaviours associated with it.
While I’m not a sociologist there are some who show up here from time to time (MA Jeff, for example) who could better respond to your question on that topic.
As for conduct; if you’ve read this post you’ll realise that, when faced with a civil opponent, PZ is measured and reasonable. His actions in the cracker incident were, I believe, relative to the actions of instigator.
My own opinion is that he was better off not actually going through with the desecration – it made the ridiculous carryings-on of the frenzied catholic jihad all that more nonsensical considering it was regarding something that hadn’t even happened.
But that’s me.
Randy @60:
I don’t really like labels. If you must have one, I suppose I’d be considered a theistic evolutionist.
Does anyone know where I can download the talks for Tuesday and Wednesday. I will most unfortunately not be able to listen live.
@63, the whooshing sound you undoubtedly heard was my point passing majestically overhead. To be conciliatory, I could perhaps have spelled it out better. Christians frequently make the argument that having to add the ‘a’ to theism shows that we are by default theistic, and yes this is a false analogy but they use it non-the-less. Non-theism while still suffering from the added prefix has a clarity of meaning so simple even a Christian can grasp it. Atheism seems like all Greek to me. I freely admit to having had only 2 years of Latin in high school, I really did enjoy Caesar’s Gallic Wars and I [not] being Caesar would never allow myself to be caught in a two front battle with Vercengetorix.
#73: Yes, you can listen to the show after it’s been aired live. Read post #59.
I just watched some of the Comfort/Cameron vs RRS debate on youtube to see what this guy Ray Comfort is about. Wow, his “arguments” against evolution are hilariously feeble and fallacious, even by ID proponent standards. Not to mention, Comfort & Cameron were supposed to present “scientific” evidence that God exists. I don’t understand how presenting evidence which (supposedly) falsifies evolution, even if legitimate, accomplishes that.
Hi Phentari,
True labels are very inadequate. But would you consider yourself to be a non-Christian? Do you think that evolution was guided by God, or that God exists and evolution happened and they are unrelated, or what?
Randy @76,
I consider myself a Christian; not a very good one, perhaps, but a Christian. However, I am also aware that that is an article of faith on my part. I can’t prove that Christ rose from the dead; I can’t prove that my faith is true and someone else’s is false. I don’t attempt to do so. It may be that I’m wrong. Perhaps there’s no God at all; perhaps there is one, and I’ve got the details completely wrong. If the former is the case, my choosing to believe does nobody any harm. If the latter is the case, hopefully whatever God there is will be tolerant enough to accept sincere but misguided attempts at worship.
I think evolution exists, yes; having looked at the evidence, there’s just no way I can believe otherwise. Since I believe that there’s a God, I believe that He guided that process in some way. Exactly what way is something that I don’t think I’ll ever be able to know, so I don’t lose any sleep over it; I’ll stick to measuring what I can measure and testing what I can test. If God wants to make His involvement in the process known, I’m quite confident that He can do so without my help.
Mrs Tilton wrote:
He’s not. He blames creationism on the protestants.
That’s the point. A logical, scientific argument aimed at Ray is kind of like casting pearls before swine.
I’ll have to check that out and I will change my post if you’re right.
I assure you, your point was understood well before you laid it out.
You’re not the first atheist/agnostic/whatever to suggest that the very word is the problem.
First, I can agree slightly that changing ‘a’ to ‘non’ would aid the reading comprehension of the Christians that you had gotten this idea from, but I don’t think most of them have a problem understanding this. I think the next part shows a bigger problem than the first.
Second, that they choose to view ‘theism’ as ‘default’ smacks me of linguistic trickery, because yes, theism is the root word of atheism and yes, atheism relies on a definition of theism to be understandable, but that’s language structure, and says nothing about accepted positions, which is what ‘default’ does.
If someone has argued as such with you, then I’ll put it plainly: they’re either very stupid or a total nob.
Lastly (and I’m glad you didn’t go there, but I will!), some say that ‘atheism’ as a word has a bad image. I would say that the people who want to tarnish the word will just as soon tarnish any replacement. It’s the meaning they dislike and only some good PR can help turn that around.
Randy Stimpson asked “Do you think that evolution was guided by God, or that God exists and evolution happened and they are unrelated, or what?” (#76)
Which “God” are you talking about? (The term “god” is an occupational title, not a name.) Yahweh/Jehovah or Wotan/Odin or Jupiter/Zeus Pater or Mumbo-Jumbo Lord of the Congo or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Ahura Mazda or Vishnu or…?
Boo! I was excited for an actual debate. He needs to be challenged directly.
I’ll see your toadies and raise you a sage.
Ryan F Stello, #79
I agree there are connotations involved in using the term – while I don’t especially like it, there’s not much else to choose from; I’ll answer to it if necessary.
Have you read what Sam Harris had to say about it?
Whenever these discussions come up about being atheists, I can’t help but wonder how much energy is wasted on arguments of definition. Couple that with the fact that I have family and friends that are very religious and they will honestly worry about my soul if I say I’m an atheist.
Therefore, I realize it’s a bit of a cop out but I now define myself as a skeptic. It seems accurate enough to me and doesn’t carry the ‘baggage’ of saying you’re an atheist. Hell, even Prof Dawkins doesn’t claim to be 100% sure there is no supernatural so, hey, it works for me. Life’s too short (especially when you don’t believe in an afterlife).
People don’t tend to agree with PZ because they read Pharyngula. People tend to read Pharyngula because they agree with PZ. Obviously none of us agree with him all the time and all of us disagree some of the time. But it is nice to see someone with a voice expressing views that I agree with; it happens so infrequently in the real world.
&Phentari (#&):
Horrible. Why do Christians have to stick their magic into evolutionary biology? They don’t invoke the Magic Man for gravity. Why should evolution be any different? Evolution is guided by natural selection, not by some magical sky fairy.
Only 14% of Americans accept evolution without magic. That’s disgraceful.
Aye, his speech was what I was referencing in the third part.
To note, I thought that Dawkins’ response said pretty much what I would say on the subject (a link escapes me).
BobC said,
To be fair, he’s not sticking it into biology, he’s encasing evolution, like a bubble.
I just hope it’s big enough to allow for such an expanding universe (like, what happens when humans aren’t defined as the end product of evolution? What’s the purpose of ‘guiding’ something if there’s no given direction to guide it?)
Sounds like a plan. Half of the problem we have when arguing with his type is the constant stream of interruptions to prevent us from getting our point across.
Bob @ 86:
Therein lies the difference between reasonable and unreasonable. I acknowledge that my faith is not scientific. If you actually read my post, you’d notice that I made it pretty clear that, since God’s presence or non-presence in the process isn’t measurable or testable, I don’t try to measure or test it.
It’s reasonable to say “I don’t see evidence for a God; therefore I don’t believe that one exists.” It’s reasonable to say “The evidence for evolution as a natural process is overwhelming, and those who deny it are not being rational or honest.”
It’s not reasonable to get angry and offended simply because there are those who say “I accept the evidence for evolution, but choose to believe in a higher power nonetheless.”
Ryan @ 88:
The answer to that one’s easy: “I don’t know.”
If the universe was created for a purpose, I don’t know what that purpose was. If there’s a guiding principle behind evolution, I don’t know what that principle is. If there’s a desired end product to the process, I don’t know what that end product will be.
I do know that, however I got here, I have eyes; therefore, I conclude that I should use them to observe the world around me. I do know that, however I got here, I have a mind that asks questions; therefore, I conclude that I should question what I see. I do know that, however I got here, I got here at a point in history where the scientific method seems to be the best means of systematically asking questions; therefore, I conclude that I should employ that method in my questioning.
I don’t think I differ from the most staunchly atheistic scientist in that regard. I don’t attempt to claim that my faith is the basis of scientific methodology or subject to proof; nor do I attempt to claim that it is infallible or verifiable. I don’t attempt to bend the facts to fit my faith, and I’m willing to allow for the possibility that I may be wrong.
All in all, I think it’s a pretty reasonable position. Of course, that means I routinely get flack from BOTH sides–enraged fundamentalists who accuse me of not taking enough on faith, and enraged atheists who accuse me of taking too much on faith.
I’m sure Roy “(Banana Boy” Comfort is already proclaiming victory in the upcoming “debate” …
(and I’ll bet privately he’s breathing a big sigh of relief that PZ won’t be in the studio to challange his “facts”)
Why didn’t they just give you both a head to head over the course of 2 days?
I think you meant you choose to believe in magic. “Higher power” sounds less insane, but whatever you call your invisible sky fairy, he’s still a magic man who performs magic tricks.
I’m not angry and offended, Phentari. I just wonder why 86% of the American population either completely rejects evolution, or invokes magic to explain it. I thought I was living in the 21st century. Apparently the vast majority of Americans are living in the Dark Ages. I find that to be extremely disgusting. There must be something horribly wrong with my country. Wait. I know what the problem is. It’s Christianity. Americans can’t accept a simple process like natural selection without invoking magic because America is infested with Christians.
I’m sure Ray Comfort is very pleased he’s not going to be ridiculed and laughed at the same day he spreads his lies and stupidity. I’m also pleased with the new format. Now I can learn something from PZ without having to listen to a babbling idiot.
Bob @ 94:
Is it really that important to you to assign derogatory labels to beliefs with which you disagree? If it makes you feel better, I suppose, have at it; personally, I’ve never seen the appeal, for the same reason I’m not big on folks like Mr. Comfort who feel the need to demonize and ridicule others for not subscribing to their precise particular flavor of faith.
Intolerance is intolerance, no matter what hat it wears. I can understand why you would resent having Christians try to force you to believe in God. Apart from that, though, I don’t get why the simple existence of faith offends you so mightily. How it is rational to get that upset over something that you can’t control?
I think you might find life a little more enjoyable if you didn’t fixate on the fact that not everybody believes what you want them to believe.
BobC, at this moment in my life I do not believe in a magic man. However I do wonder. OK, let’s call it what it is (at least for me) fall victim to wishful thinking. Wishful thinking because sometimes I want to believe. Sometimes I just want to fit in with my family and friends. I suspect that there are many people that wrestle with the same issues. As long as they don’t tell me that the earth is 6000 years old or that God Hates Fags or that I’m going to hell because of xyz, or that they try to impose their beliefs on me (or the school curriculum) I just think it’s wasted energy to get to worked up over them. If we get to the point that everyone is either an avowed atheist or Buddhist or a Quaker or a Unitarian, then I’ll get a little more outspoken in the vein of ‘why do we need to believe in a god at all’. Until then, I’ll focus what little energy I have into focusing on the creationists and the hate mongers.
Phentari, Why do you think Christians upset me? I don’t much care for Christians, but I’m not going to become upset because I live in a country of idiots. I might get very disgusted with living in a country infested with religious insanity, but I’m not going to waste my time getting upset about it.
Calling your “God” a magic man or a sky fairy is not derogatory. It’s telling the truth. Your god and everyone else’s god is nothing more than an invisible fairy who performs disgusting magic tricks like turning Jebus into a zombie. I tell the truth. If you think the truth is derogatory, that’s your problem, not mine.
Randy, seriously. Up until this point you’ve put up the illusion of yourself being an intellectual. While most of us saw through your charade, that comment alone has erased any doubt.
You sir, are an idiot.
rmp @ 97
We completely agree on most points. As a public school teacher, I would not even consider attempting to use my classroom as a pulpit from which to spread my faith. I’m an English teacher, not a teacher of religion; I respect my students’ right to believe or not believe as they choose, and I’m certainly not qualified to advise them on such matters. It thankfully hasn’t been an issue in my district; if it ever becomes one, rest assured that I will stand firmly with those who believe that science belongs in science class and that questions of faith do not.
Well, count me in among the disappointed.. but I’ll be interested to see how this turns out. At first I was just plain disappointed, but I may have figured out your point in saying you prefer it this way.
We shall see. I’ll keep mum on it to sustain my juvenile fantasy that I’m somehow in on your secret plans, and I don’t want to spill them to Comfort.
Thanks to the simple existence of faith there’s a big gaping hole in Manhattan where there used to be two extremely tall buildings. Thanks to the simple existence of faith I live in a country where biology teachers are harassed and threatened when they try to do their jobs.
The invention of Mr. Magic Man was the biggest mistake of the human race. The sooner faith is eradicated from this planet the better.
The people who need to hear this will never listen to PZ alone, they will, however, tune in to Comquat and drool on his every word. It would be much more edifying for them to hear PZ point out his inanity in realtime…bananas? yeah, right.
Bob @ 98:
You have an interesting definition of “not becoming upset.” I would certainly consider someone who spends his time wandering around in a state of perpetual disgust at the majority of his neighbors “upset.” I would consider someone who believes anyone who doesn’t share his beliefs insane, and therefore concludes that something is horribly wrong with his country and the world to be “upset.” Likewise, I would consider someone who feels the need to engage in namecalling and ridicule immature.
Clearly, you define these things differently. So be it; it’s no skin off my nose, and I’m not going to lose any sleep tonight knowing that random Internet poster BobC is “disgusted” because I don’t recognize the obvious superiority of his beliefs.
BobC, your comments about 9/11 make me think of Dawkins poster (imagine no religion). I do understand your point. However I’ll love to run an experiment where you were at a gathering (let’s call it a company picnic). There’s plenty of free beer and you are surrounded by coworkers who are Unitarians and Quakers. I’d just love to see how that would turn out after about a couple of beers.
Bob @ 102:
“Thanks to the simple existence of faith there’s a big gaping hole in Manhattan where there used to be two extremely tall buildings. Thanks to the simple existence of faith I live in a country where biology teachers are harassed and threatened when they try to do their jobs.”
Ah, yes. That argument. You might want to take note of the fact that I already anticipated and answered it in pointing out that I don’t feel the need to lay the misdeeds of others at your door because you happen to share some of their beliefs.
When it’s that easy to anticipate your arguments, Bob, it’s time for some fresh material. So far, you’re about on a par with the Gish Galloping YEC advocates in terms of substance.
Has faith been used as a justification for murder? Sure. Does that mean that faith inherently causes murder? No. Charles Manson used Beatles tunes to goad his followers into a killing frenzy; the rational response is not to declare that we need to rid the world of the Beatles.
Why do I suspect that you’re one of the folks who’s quick to wax indignant when someone brings up Stalin?
“The invention of Mr. Magic Man was the biggest mistake of the human race. The sooner faith is eradicated from this planet the better.”
Your hypothesis is noted. Now please defend it. Provide objective support for the proposition that the world would be better without faith. Please provide examples of stable long-term societal models that have demonstrably functioned well in the absence of faith. Please also provide examples of situations in which concepts key to civilization have evolved and prospered in the absence of faith.
So many of your arguments are predicated on the notion that faith has no value. I maintain that that’s a particularly unsubstantiated hypothesis–as much of an “It is so because I say so” as ANY Young Earth Creationist argument.
Phentari, not believing in your invisible friend is NOT a belief, for the same reason not believing in flying pink elephants is NOT a belief.
Phentari, I thank you for supporting science education, but your belief in a magical sky fairy is idiotic. In a world of religious violence and religious attacks against science education, I’m not going to be quiet about how hopelessly stupid religious beliefs are. The god invention is just plain insane, and the people who can still believe in it in the 21st century have something seriously wrong with them. No matter how moderate they think they are, they are getting in the way of human progress. That’s why I say the world would be many thousands of times better off if all childish beliefs in supernatural magic were eradicated from this planet.
SWEDEN
JAPAN
This is dumb. A debate is only a debate if you can turn on the guy and ask him what he knows, and to explain the logic of his beliefs, and then attack those as well…
I am very disappointed.
Can someone answer if they are simulcasting on teh intartubes? If it has been answered I’m prepared for my flaming.
The people who currantly need to hear this pear will never listen to PZ alone, they will, however, tune in to Comquat and drool on his every peachy word. It would be much more edifying for them to hear PZ point out his plum inanity and squash him while pointing out all his limes in realtime…using his meek, mild, public professorial persona (concealing his “grapes of wrath persona”)as only PZ can …bananas? yeah, right.
Orange you glad this comment is okra?
Nevermind, looks like it is.
The religious extremists who fly airplanes into buildings or yell at biology teachers, need the moderate religious people. If moderate Christians became atheists, the extremists would become isolated and would be more like to die out eventually.
An example is the heaven belief. How can Americans tell Muslim suicide bombers their heaven belief, which makes suicide bombing possible, is insane when most Americans believe in heaven?
The heaven belief is most definitely insane. Only cowards and idiots believe in heaven. Unfortunately even the most moderate Christians believe in heaven. So there’s really no such thing as a moderate Christian. There’s nothing moderate about being a coward.
Oddly enough, Bob, a little research indicates that neither Sweden nor Japan is a society free of faith. In fact, both countries, while religiously liberal and broadly ecumenical, have a substantial population professing one faith or another.
Let’s also note that even in such countries, the comparative decline of faith is a very recent development. (Atheism became officially legal in Sweden, what? 60 years ago, if I recall correctly?) This is hardly compelling evidence for the hypothesis that a society free of the fetters of faith is demonstrably superior to one where faith is still a part of the culture.
So, I ask again: can you provide actual evidence in support of your hypothesis, or is it simply something that you take on faith?
“The heaven belief is most definitely insane. ”
As I said before, I’m a skeptic but ya gotta know that this isn’t exactly a compelling argument.
BobC, you strike me as ‘being mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore’. I can understand that. I also understand your point that moderates support (unintentionally) the extremists. I’m not saying I agree, just saying that what I hear you saying.
Sweden is 80% atheist. Look it up if you don’t believe me. The other 20% are idiots.
I’ll also note that, at this point, you have accused me of being an idiot, a coward, and insane. I ask again: do you really feel that namecalling strengthens your position? Do you really think that it’s likely to convince anyone to reexamine their faith?
For all you accuse me of being irrational and cowardly, I’m willing to discuss my beliefs and consider those of others without resorting to ad hominem. Are you?
BobC, “The other 20% are idiots.”
Bob, I assume you don’t have a job that requires a lot of diplomacy ;)
Calling a belief in heaven an insane idea does not require a compelling argument. Anybody who isn’t brain-dead can figure out dead animals stay dead, including dead human apes.
There is no belief more idiotic, more childish, and more cowardly, than a belief in life after death.
BobC, “There is no belief more idiotic, more childish, and more cowardly, than a belief in life after death.”
I don’t follow your reasoning/proof but that’s ok. You hate what’s happened in this world as a result of the belief in various religions. I don’t fault you for that. Hell, I agree with you. I just wish you’d be a little more tolerant of folks like Phentari because I think we need to fight the common enemy. I also wish I had a pony.
Phentari, if you believe in heaven, and I think you do believe in heaven, then you are a coward who is willing to believe any nonsense, not matter how idiotic it is, because you are terrified of reality.
You should thank me instead of complaining about me. If I was stupid enough to believe in heaven, I would hope somebody would have the decency to tell me I was an idiot to waste my life believing in medieval nonsense.
There is no wish more idiotic, more childish, and more cowardly, than a wish for a pony.
Sorry, I had to…
“Calling a belief in heaven an insane idea does not require a compelling argument. Anybody who isn’t brain-dead can figure out dead animals stay dead, including dead human apes.”
“I don’t have to prove it because it’s obviously true, and anyone who thinks differently is stupid!”
Where have I heard that before? Oh, right: Mr. Comfort. You and he seem to have a lot in common, Bob.
As for your claim, I see conflicting accounts on the subject. I find one study that reported that 80% of Swedes are atheists; I find another that reported that 53% believe in “some sort of spirit or life force.”
Either way, Sweden is certainly not an example of a country that can be demonstrated to function better because it has no faith. The argument fails on two points: first, no matter how selectively you interpret the evidence, a substantial percentage of the population has faith, and, second, you have offered no evidence demonstrating that the relatively high incidence of atheism has measurably improved the society.
I thanked him for supporting science education, but he isn’t much help when he says his invisible friend guides evolution.
This should be interesting, and I think on the whole I prefer the new format.
Another problem I see though with the change is that Mr. Comfort will have more leeway to just blather on about whetever he wants. He seems to treat his public appearances as simply another opportunity to preach, he’s not at all concerned with any kind of rational discussion or debate. He’s probably just going to yak on for an hour about how evolution is wrong (without giving any evidence) and how atheists conversely don’t exist, and hate god.
That’s not really a fair question. We’ve never had a truly faithless society. Throwing off faith as a society when not mixed in other ideologies (communism for example though there were plenty of faithful people in communist countries) just hasn’t happened. In order for your question to be valid there has to be a society that has totally rid itself of faith and not by force.
Its not that those types wouldn’t work, it’s that we have never had an example of it. Faith has been apart of every major society in history (correct me if i cam wrong). Be that personal faith, organized or state sponsored.
If anything one can argue that faith has been a governor on the speed at which we as a human race has advanced.
“You should thank me instead of complaining about me. If I was stupid enough to believe in heaven, I would hope somebody would have the decency to tell me I was an idiot to waste my life believing in medieval nonsense.”
Yep. Mr. Comfort also believes that he’s doing others a favor by pointing out that they’re stupid for not agreeing with him.
I’d like to know how anyone who believes in that for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence reconciles the mutual exclusivity of faith and reason. Provide a logical argument for that and I will consider no longer being disgusted by superstition in all its guises. Take your time coming up with the answer…
JonathanL, thank you. I needed a good laugh before I retired for bed. I owe you a beer!
“That’s not really a fair question. We’ve never had a truly faithless society. Throwing off faith as a society when not mixed in other ideologies (communism for example though there were plenty of faithful people in communist countries) just hasn’t happened. In order for your question to be valid there has to be a society that has totally rid itself of faith and not by force.”
Precisely! My point exactly! It’s certainly possible that a society totally free of faith could function well, but it has never been demonstrated by experimental evidence.
Therefore, those who insist that the world would be better without faith are making a statement of faith…and, I think, a fairly simplistic one, especially when they assert that faith is universally negative and has no positive effects on a society.
I would very much enjoy debating the value of faith from a sociological perspective. I don’t think I’m going to get such a debate from Bob, sadly; he doesn’t seem to be willing to go beyond “I’m right and you’re wrong and if you don’t agree with me you’re stupid and bad.”
I noticed the more religious a country is, the more dangerous that country is. Sweden which is mostly atheist has very little crime, especially when compared to the violent United States which is extremely religious. Also, the Middle East is extremely religious and they have daily suicide bombings there.
What’s most important to understand is believing in something that doesn’t exist is good for nothing. Your magic man has no evidence, and it’s just a childish invention. You really need to consider joining the modern world. You’re almost there. Just try to free yourself from your religious brainwashing. It’s worth the effort. It’s like escaping from a prison.
Are you sure you want to compare me to a creationist wacko? I’m for reality and I’m against religious woo-woo. Ray Comfort doesn’t even know what reality is.
Humm, I think the world would be better if we didn’t hold faith above ridicule or criticism but I’m not sure I’d make the argument that a world without faith would be “better”. I can’t make that call. The world would be better if faith was not put up as worth more than measurable reality and left as a personal choice kept private. I don’t pretend to talk about totally removing faith because I don’t think that will ever happen, or at least no time in the next multiple centuries. Some people need to have something un-real to believe in to take away their real pain when there is nothing real to actually do that. I don’t think that will every change.
every = ever.
Milo @ 128:
I’m glad you asked that question. I answer it thusly: human beings are not purely rational creatures. To attempt to function on a strictly rational basis is to deny a major part of what makes us human, and what enables civilization to function.
Consider: do you love your family? Do you have favorite foods? Have you ever placed trust in someone, despite not having strong evidence of their trustworthiness? Do you like music? Have a favorite color? Do you play games?
Why? How do you justify those things on a rational basis? If you cannot justify them on a rational basis, do you feel that life would be better if those irrationalities were eliminated?
Yes, we can discuss studies on the importance of play, but the child at play isn’t engaging in play because he has made a rational decision to develop. He’s playing because it’s fun. The man who falls in love isn’t falling in love because he’s made a rational decision to contribute to the propagation of the species. Certainly, rationality should play a role–people shouldn’t rush off and get married without thinking things through. It’s not an exclusive role, though.
My epistemology is large enough to accommodate a component of human behavior that isn’t governed solely by rationalism. Is yours?
Well, there are different types on unreasoned responses to your world. All you listed above are not the same as the utterly unreasonable faith of believing in a deity.
Bob @ 132:
“Are you sure you want to compare me to a creationist wacko? I’m for reality and I’m against religious woo-woo. Ray Comfort doesn’t even know what reality is..”
Absolutely, given that he’d say the exact same thing about you. Dogmatic and unquestioning faith in science is no better than dogmatic and unquestioning faith in religion.
Let us expand upon this for you then. You are discussing belief in something for which there is not only absolutely no evidence, but for which there is an enormous body of contradictory evidence. Further, this belief is in something which everyone who embraces it will freely admit is something they consider most wonderful and to be desired.
How would you describe believing that what you wish were true is true despite all the evidence being to the contrary? Obviously you don’t like the suggestion that this is stupid, so… what word do you prefer we use? Credulous? Puerile? Naive?
It’s not simply a matter of calling you stupid for not agreeing, it is pointing out that you believe despite (rather then because of) the available evidence. And that, yes, that is rather stupid.
“I noticed the more religious a country is, the more dangerous that country is. Sweden which is mostly atheist has very little crime, especially when compared to the violent United States which is extremely religious. Also, the Middle East is extremely religious and they have daily suicide bombings there.”
Basic science: correlation does not equal causality. Are you so sure that I can’t find examples of religious countries that are very peaceful? Atheist countries with high incidences of violence?
Phentari, this is getting boring.
Look it. You’re invisible friend has no evidence, but you believe it anyway. Therefore you are a gullible idiot.
Don’t like being told the truth? I don’t care.
Reverend,
In what way? How is love any more rational or reasonable than belief in a deity? I respectfully suggest that any argument that can be leveled against religion can also be leveled against love.
And there’s my Bingo!
Semantic silliness with the word “faith” is an old, old, old card in this game. Unless and until you demonstrate that confidence in science is, in fact, “dogmatic and unquestioning faith” rather than justifiable confidence in the a proven method of investigation you’re just blowing word-smoke.
In #140 I meant “Your” not “You’re”.
“Phentari, this is getting boring.
Look it. You’re invisible friend has no evidence, but you believe it anyway. Therefore you are a gullible idiot.
Don’t like being told the truth? I don’t care.”
“It is so because I say so. I can’t make a reasoned case for it, so instead I’ll simply repeat the assertion and insult you some more.”
Yes, Bob, I think it’s evident that you’re very much like Mr. Comfort. I’m willing to debate rationally; you’re not. Let’s leave it at that.
I respectfully suggest that any argument that can be leveled against religion can also be leveled against love.
then get on with it.
this I gotta see; I could use a good laugh.
As for Mr. Comfort going first, Comfort has a very tight schedule, …
Puh-lease!
Is Ray like the CEO of J. Christ Industries Worldwide, Inc? [He does claim to have an exclusive contract with Jesus–because Ray’s product is advertised as the genuine, 100% certified, real thing, kind of like those German-made ShamWows that Vince hawks on TV.]
Or is he due on the set to play cowboy western dress up with Kirk Cameron for their next video extravaganza?
If PZ is anything like me, he’s beginning the work of tooling up for the fall semester.
“Semantic silliness with the word “faith” is an old, old, old card in this game. Unless and until you demonstrate that confidence in science is, in fact, “dogmatic and unquestioning faith” rather than justifiable confidence in the a proven method of investigation you’re just blowing word-smoke.”
I never said that they were the same, Alexandra; please don’t put words into my mouth. In fact, I draw a very strong distinction between them; they’re mutually exclusive.
Take a look at Bob’s messages. Seriously. Do you see any evidence whatsoever of confidence in the scientific method there? Any substantiative attempt at debate? Or is he simply repeating, “I’m right, you’re wrong, and you’re stupid if you don’t agree?”
The former is confidence in the scientific method; the latter is faith-in-science.
I am fully willing to question my own beliefs. I am fully willing to entertain the possibility that they’re wrong.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Bob is willing to do the same.
Let me ask you this: what rational reason can you offer me for renouncing my belief that there is a God? How will it objectively improve my life? In what way will it be advantageous to me to do so?
I thought you were pro-science, Phentari. You think scientific facts require faith? You’re much worse off than I thought you were. The religious woo-woo that has infested your brain has caused a lot of damage. Not to worry, a little education can cure anything. But first you got to rid yourself of that death cult you believe in.
Ichthyic @ 145:
Certainly. I’ll have to keep it fairly brief, since it’s past midnight here and I do need to be up fairly early, but I’m game. Which specific argument will you advance against religion?
My epistemology is large enough to accommodate a component of human behavior that isn’t governed solely by rationalism. Is yours?
“You must keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”
– James Oberg
Well, considering the quality of his “Argument from Bananas”, I’m happy to be on the other side of any bell-curve from him.
As for the rest of it, Christianity is, indeed, cowardly, immoral, and insane. Cowardly for the pathetic lip-quivering of life-after-death and a magic friend who “really loves me”. Who other than a blubbering infant would believe such vacuous fairy-tales? Immoral for its repugnant doctrines: the vicarious guilt of Orignal Sin; an immoral compulsory share in an immoral vicarious redemption by brutal murder; compulsory love by coercion with eternal torture. Only a mind perverted by brainwashing could subscribe to such moral abjection. Insane for its bizarre obsessions with blood and death, a Levantine zombie, angels, demons, apparitions, “miracles”, magic crackers, and a perverse belief in the moral supremacy of bronze-age Mesopotamian goatherds. How is it sane to venerate a corpse nailed to a stick, believe in geocentrism, YECism, moving statues, or to let a child die for want of medical attention? Absolute lunacy by any standard.
Bob @ 148:
“I thought you were pro-science, Phentari. You think scientific facts require faith?”
I think that anyone who so freely throws around the term “scientific facts” doesn’t understand science nearly as well as he thinks he does.
I haven’t heard a lot of scientific facts from you, Bob. Frankly, I doubt very much that you understand most of the science behind the position you’re taking. You’ve demonstrated a very tenuous grasp on basic statistics and citation of evidence, just for starters.
Those who engage in rational, systematic inquiry, test their premises, and evaluate the results fairly are scientists.
Those who say “It’s a scientific fact, so it’s right, and anyone who thinks differently is stupid” are not scientists; they’re precisely the opposite.
I had your problem Phentari. I was a Catholic and I believed everything I was trained to believe, including the cowardly heaven belief, and the disgusting Jebus was a zombie belief.
When I escaped from my religious prison, I felt like a free person for the first time in my life. It’s a feeling that’s impossible to describe. You have to experience it. To get started I suggest just try imagining a universe without God’s magic. You will realize everything starts to make more sense when you leave sky fairies out of it.
I’ll have to keep it fairly brief,
I’m waiting for ANYTHING.
you stated:
I respectfully suggest that any argument that can be leveled against religion can also be leveled against love.
It’s your damn idea, not mine. This has the makings of a testable hypothesis. I’m waiting for you to provide support for it.
so, show me exactly how any argument leveled against religion is equivalent in nature to one “against” love.
frankly, I think you’re just nuts, but I smell a winner in the making here; I just know I’m gonna get a laugh out of you trying to prove it.
Phentari, I was talking about scientific facts like ‘Jebus shared an ancestor with chimps’. That’s a fact and it doesn’t require faith.
By the way, why do you worship a cousin of a chimp?
Which specific argument will you advance against religion?
oh, I see, you want me to pick one?
too much work on my end. why don’t you choose for me. surely you’re familiar with many.
it doesn’t matter which one you pick.
really.
“Who other than a blubbering infant would believe such vacuous fairy-tales?”
Martin Luther King comes to mind immediately. Would the world be better off if he hadn’t followed the dictates of his faith, I wonder?
So Bob’s not being terribly effective at conveying the basis of his position. Maybe he thinks you’re a concern troll and he just can’t be bothered trying. And, speaking of… I cannot help but notice that when I expanded (slightly) upon his position regarding belief in heaven you blithely ignored it in favour of continuing to hound him.
So what’s the deal? Provide no explicit rational basis and you accuse him of dogmatic faith, provide one and you ignore it?
Bob @ 153:
“When I escaped from my religious prison, I felt like a free person for the first time in my life. It’s a feeling that’s impossible to describe.”
No, Bob: I asked for a rational reason. None of this “It’s just a great feeling, it’s impossible to describe.” That’s not rational.
a little late, but way back up at #5:
I’m somewhat dubious of this method. Fans of the ID franchise might just tune in to listen to hoozits speak, but then not bother listening to your responses because you’re the devil’s messenger.
naw, it wouldn’t make any difference, they would auto-tune out PZ anyway.
the responses are not FOR the IDiots, it’s for those still able to think anyway, and this format serves that crowd far better IMO.
#157, It’s possible for a minority race to fight for their rights without invoking a magic man. Religious beliefs are good for nothing but getting in the way of progress.
Isn’t it interesting that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. I suggest African Americans would have been many times better off if the death cult called Christianity was never invented.
Phentari, #157, wrote:
I’m not going to join the pile-on here; I don’t agree with what’s going – but I will say this:
It’s impossible to speculate on whether MLK would have had the same goals if he wasn’t religious – and perhaps the goals came first and religion was the best means available to achieve those goals. As far as I can recall he didn’t follow every tenet of his religion, particularly in regards to adultery – though that’s mostly coming from my reading about J Edgar Hoover, so that mightn’t be fact.
He used non-violent resistance, a concept popularised by Gandhi, who was not a Christian – perhaps not even a theist; i’m not sure.
Martin Luther King comes to mind immediately. Would the world be better off if he hadn’t followed the dictates of his faith, I wonder?
irrelevant. Atheists supported equal rights too.
However, should we take another Martin Luther into account?
say one that lived in the 15th century?
I do indeed wonder if the world would have been better off if he hadn’t followed the “dictates” of his faith.
I’m sure a lot of Jews do, too.
“I asked for a rational reason.”
Because you’re wasting your life mister. You believe in bullshit. All your religious beliefs are idiotic fantasies. It’s a horrible way to waste a life. It’s your problem, not mine. I give a shit what you believe. You’re just one of billions of idiots who want to live in the Dark Ages.
Alexandra,
Please be a bit patient with me. There’s one of me, and there are about a half-dozen people telling me what a bad, insane, stupid, irrational person I am. It’s a bit difficult to keep up. If you’d like to repeat your question, I promise I’ll try to answer it.
Ichthyic, that’s a bit of a no-win position. How does it test the premise if I come up with the arguments? Very well, though, let’s provide a few:
1. Religion leads to irrational behavior. So does love, quite frequently. People have quit their jobs, become estranged from their families, left their families–all in the name of love.
2. Religion is the source of great suffering. Again, so is love. Ask anyone who has ever been abandoned because their spouse fell in love with someone else. Ask anyone who has ever grieved for the loss of a loved one. Without love, after all, there’s considerably less grief.
3. Religion has driven people to commit horrible acts of violence. How many people have been murdered by a jealous lover over the years?
Those are the three arguments that immediately spring to mind that I see voiced here on a regular basis; I’m willing to examine others.
Now: am I saying that love is a bad thing? Of course not. It’s not entirely rational, but that’s not a bad thing.
Oh what a crock of… nonsense. MLK was no less following the dictates of his faith than was Klan Kleagle (and Baptist minister) Edgar Ray Killen when he was killing civil rights activists in those same 1960s. And let us not forget those men and women who fought the civil rights fight, and continue to fight for equality, justice and civil rights without any “dictates of faith”. Faith in this, as any other moral issue, is largely a red herring.
Phentari: If you are religious, I disagree with you there, but kudos for picking out the fallacies in BobC’s statements.
BobC: I understand how you feel. It’s great, isn’t it? Just don’t let it get to your head.
“Phentari, I was talking about scientific facts like ‘Jebus shared an ancestor with chimps’. That’s a fact and it doesn’t require faith.”
It’s certainly a theory borne out by strong evidence. Why do you seem to think that I have an issue with it?
“Oh what a crock of… nonsense. MLK was no less following the dictates of his faith than was Klan Kleagle (and Baptist minister) Edgar Ray Killen when he was killing civil rights activists in those same 1960s. And let us not forget those men and women who fought the civil rights fight, and continue to fight for equality, justice and civil rights without any “dictates of faith”. Faith in this, as any other moral issue, is largely a red herring. ”
Please take a look at my answer in context, Alexandra. I was responding to someone who suggested that nobody but a “vacuous, blubbering infant” would express faith.
I selected Martin Luther King as an example, because (I would hope) we can agree that he was a man of significant courage and strength of character, and not a “vacuous, blubbering infant.”
People are an ape species. The dead and decomposed Jebus was an ape. You worship a dead ape, Phentari. Why?
Hello Paul #80,
When I say God I am simply referring to the designer of life which I consider to be a highly intelligent being. There are other things I believe about God but I wouldn’t try to defend them. I don’t ascribe to any religion but I think that its influence on the world is generally positive. I wouldn’t try to discourage anyone from persuing it. I know it did me a lot of good.
Ichthyic:
If you’re expecting me to claim that horrible things have never been done in the name of religion, I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. I’m quite willing to acknowledge that they have.
It’s a big step from that, however, to “Therefore, faith is inherently bad.”
Scroll bar broken? (#138)
#171: “I know it did me a lot of good.”
A lot of good? I noticed it turned you into a babbling idiot.
Designer of life? What a bunch of medieval bullshit.
“People are an ape species. The dead and decomposed Jebus was an ape. You worship a dead ape, Phentari. Why?”
I thought you were bored, Bob? No matter.
My faith has nothing to do with whether Jesus was ape-descended or descended from Adam or sculpted from clay. It has to do with ideas. I find the teachings of Christ compelling, and so I choose to believe them and follow them.
If I’m wrong, it costs me nothing, and causes no harm to others. Perhaps by following those teachings, I can make the world a marginally nicer place to live in. Perhaps I’ll be a bit more civil; perhaps I’ll refrain from insulting someone, even when they’re insulting me.
I have rational reasons for keeping my faith–rational reasons that are entirely independent of the question of whether there is or is not a God. My faith has tangible, measurable benefits to me.
Nobody has yet offered me a rational reason for abandoning my faith. Nobody has yet explained in logical terms how it would be to my benefit to do so.
Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence, confidence in ignorance. This utter abrogation of both critical thinking and honest inquiry, especially when coupled with proselytization, systematic indoctrination of the very young and active political involvement, is a deeply pernicious influence on our society.
Can’t really see how love fits that particular pattern, can you?
Hey BigDumbChimp #99,
I think PZ can handle a little ribbing.
Also I never did claim to be an intellectual but I would sure like to be one — so how do I do it? Do I have to become an atheist first? Are you an intellectual — if so what makes you one. Do you have to agree with PZ or read his blog every day or what? Do I have to go read a book? If so which one? Do I have to believe in evolution even though it doesn’t make a lick of sense to me or what?
Let’s face it. It doesn’t take a lot of brains to call someone stupid and it seems to me that’s the only argument you’ve got.
“Scroll bar broken? (#138)”
Having a hard enough time keeping up with the barrage without hunting at random for one post. Thank you for the reference.
While I didn’t answer your question directly, I think I answered it nonetheless; I think that the notion that human behavior should be governed solely by rationalism is quixotic at best. All of us have beliefs which are not strictly rational, and are not subject to methodological testing and verification.
What of it? Why is that a bad thing?
My beliefs are of observable benefit to me. They provide me with strength in times of grief. They provide me with some measure of peace of mind when I feel my mortality.
They provide those benefits regardless of whether they’re true or not. Why, then, should I work to rid myself of a set of beliefs which are beneficial to me? I ask again: can you give me a rational reason? Can you explain to me how my life would be improved by renouncing faith?
If you believe in ideas such as charity, compassion, forgiveness, hating fig trees, or other ideas ostensibly attributed to Jeebus that’s good… for the most part. However that has nothing to do with belief in the supernatural abilities also attributed to him. The former are human concepts and the latter is something for which there is no supporting evidence.
“Can’t really see how love fits that particular pattern, can you?”
Certainly. All you have to do is look at the divorce rates in America to see that. Children are bombarded with the idea that love is great, that everyone should fall in love, and the sooner the better. They’re hit in the face with media romances at every turn.
As a result, many of them rush into marriage based more on the notion that they SHOULD be in love than on actual love–or on a mature relationship based on an understanding of the other person’s strengths and flaws.
It’s a problem, but I don’t argue that the answer is the eradication of love as a concept.
I don’t think there’s a need to hassle Phentari over this. He said very early on that he’s aware that he doesn’t consider his belief to be rational. We agree with him on that.
And really, at this point, if the irrationality is limited to what he states he believes (i.e. he doesn’t make irrational decisions about other things based on this belief) then there is no benefit to giving up that belief.
Ray Comfort’s an idiot because he lies to people about things he knows aren’t true and criticises those who don’t agree with him. There’s a huge difference.
Charming little rhetorical diversion, but invalid. I don’t trust people without evidence, I don’t necessary like people just because we have related DNA, and I have taste buds and color vision. All of the things you talk about share no characteristics with that nebulous quality referred to as faith. They are all explicable and therefore not irrational. Humans choose rationality, and just because you don’t does not mean nobody else does. Your argument is just a way of leading up to challenging those who find your faith unsupported by empirical evidence, and in defiance of reams of evidence to the contrary, to prove to you that your deity does not exist. That’s not our job. You are the one making the extraordinary claim and not providing the extraordinary evidence. That’s a losing forensic stance, so you have failed thus far to demonstrate your beliefs to not be exclusive of reason. As far as the size of your epistemology, it matters not. What matters is the quality of it, and in the absence of logical argument and evidence still find belief in things for which there is no evidence and no necessity to be irrational and unable to be reconciled with faith.
Love is an evolved biological behaviour that serves a biological purpose….faith in a deity is a human construction that may have served a purpose to primitive people in explaining their world, but has no real purpose in the modern age but to be a devisive and destructive force that keeps an antiquated but efficient power structure in place. It’s all about money and power now, kept in place by exploiting the worst in human nature.
I’m not sure I can listen to Comfort. He hurts my brain.
I will try, just for you PZ.
Daily Kos is infected with nutjobs
I’ll be wrapping up shortly, folks. It’s been interesting, but I really do need to get some sleep.
Commissar @ 179,
Why is it automatically a bad thing to take some things on faith? I take it on faith that my wife means it when she says “I love you.” I can’t read her mind; I can’t measure the depth of her love. Sure, I have the evidence that she’s stayed with me (some might argue that’s evidence of her insanity :). I certainly believe that she’s faithful to me. I can’t prove it; should I thus reject it?
Sometimes, it’s okay to take things on faith.
I’m an English teacher. There are poems that move me to tears. Is that rational? I can’t objectively prove that they’re great poems. Should I vigorously work to rid myself of the totally irrational joy I derive from reading?
Sometimes, it’s okay to be irrational.
Not all the time, no; it’s certainly not okay to turn your irrationality against others and cause them harm. Having irrational reactions, though, is in no way a guarantee that you’ll do so, any more than being an atheist is a guarantee that you’re going to lead a life free of morals.
Folks, let me ask you this: I’ve been on this blog for a while now. Up until today, nobody ever had an issue with me.
The ONLY thing I did today that was any different from any other day is that I admitted that I’m not an atheist in one post. That one difference has led to several hours of people telling me what a bad person I am.
All I’m asking is for you to go back and look at the exchange. A lot of people here were outraged when Catholics started tearing into Dr. Myers for the simple act of saying “I don’t believe in your cracker.” They were justifiably outraged; the reaction was all out of proportion to what he said.
Is the reaction I’ve gotten simply for saying “I’m not an atheist” really justified? Is it really rational?
A couple of people have suggested that I’m trolling. I’ve tried very hard to remain respectful, even when people have called me some fairly rude things. I’ve tried to honestly answer every question put to me. Not once have I ever suggested that being an atheist is a bad thing, or insulted anyone’s intelligence or education because they don’t share my beliefs.
Is that really trolling?
Sometimes it’s been tough; I’ve had a dozen challenges being thrown at me at once, and had a really hard time keeping up. When I do answer, there’s no followup; it’s on to something else.
I can certainly sympathize with anyone who’s been the subject of a Gish Gallop.
All I’m asking is that you honestly look at what I’ve written in the last couple of hours. I didn’t come here to declare my non-atheist nature; it happened to come up in the course of a discussion. I didn’t think it would be a big deal. I figured as long as I wasn’t being in-your-face about it, nobody would much care.
Clearly, I was wrong.
That’s a shame. I agree with you on so many points. I believe in the power of science as a way of making sense of the world. I believe that fundamentalists attempting to impose their faith on our system of government are dangerously misguided. I believe that public schools are not a vehicle for religious indoctrination.
If not for those four little words, in fact, I’d be willing to bet that nobody here would have thought of me as anything but “one of the guys.”
But I said those four little words:
“I’m not an atheist.”
Apparently, that’s enough to make me the enemy. And that’s a great pity.
At any rate, have a good night.
Okay, this is starting to bug me.
I, Wowbagger, like Komodo Dragons. I have no rational reasons for this; I just think huge monitor lizards that sleep head-down in burrows are cool – they’re creatures and just seeing a picture of them makes me smile.
I do not let my liking of Komodo Dragons influence me in any way. I don’t worship them, imagine they speak to me in dreams, or force my lovers to dress as one and do a specially-choreographed Komodo Love Dance of my own invention.
But it’s still not rational, since I’m not zoologist or a tourism operator or anyone who might benefit from feeling how i feel about said lizard. Should I force myself to give up my feelings for them?
Now, just in case you’re wondering, I believe that Phentari is better off without religion just in principle.
Call me pragmatic, but as long as he’s not making any other irrational decisions other than answering yes to believing I can’t see an advantage to doing without it.
One quick thing–Procyon:
“faith in a deity is a human construction that may have served a purpose to primitive people in explaining their world, but has no real purpose in the modern age but to be a devisive and destructive force that keeps an antiquated but efficient power structure in place”
I’d actually love to debate this with you at length sometime. I question your premise, and I’d like to examine the evidence you can present to support it, and present evidence of my own in response. I’m only going to be getting about six hours of sleep as it is, though; would you be willing to have that conversation at a latter date?
You said:
I said no such thing. Faith is stupid, irrational, and feeble-minded, but not necessarily cowardly. What I actually said was:
Believing in life-after-death and a magic sky-daddy who loves you unconditionally reveals infantile insecurity and an unwillingness to face up to the reality of finite life and that some of us may never be loved as we want. Inventing a comforting fairy-tale solution of a Santa Claus figure who’ll bring us what we want some time is, indeed, abjectly cowardice.
They are fundamentally childish, wretchedly spineless and contemptibly craven security-blankets. Nobody is immune to believing in rubbishy platitudes for the sake of comfort and MLK, to the extent that he may have believed in such pathetic nonsense, may well have been a coward too.
Wow. I almost agree that Wowbagger #181. However, Phentari realizes the limits of what can be known but Wowbagger does not. It takes quite a bit of faith to be an atheist.
#189 typo: s/abjectly/abject/
*puke*
It takes quite a bit of stupidity to say that.
People don’t require faith to not believe in your invisible friend, mister.
I’m sure there is a law somewhere that says you just lost the argument.
@ Phentari # 186
You don’t need to take your wife’s love on faith it’s demonstratable. I can only assume that she is able to tell you so herself. It’s also not a supernatural ability.
Randy, #191, wrote:
I’ll probably regret asking this, but: care to elaborate? Be careful, though; you might make an assumption I’ll take you to task for.
Phentari @ 137:
“Dogmatic and unquestioning faith in science is no better than dogmatic and unquestioning faith in religion.”
Dogmatic faith in reality is no better than dogmatic faith in unreality?
Question: by “science” do you mean knowledge about teh world acquired by means of the scientific method or do you mean the scientific method itself?
If the former, “unquestioning faith” is a completely inaccurate description of a rationalist’s attitude toward knowledge. acquired through science. Scientific knowledge is ALWAYS provisional, is ALWAYS open to question. Rather different from religion in that respect.
If the latter, “faith” is an inapposite word to describe the belief that the scientific method is the best means humans have so far discovered to generate accurate information about the natural world. There is plenty of evidence to support that position; it is hardly a leap of faith. Or if it is one, it is a far smaller leap than the one which religionists must make to believe things for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It’s an inch compared to a mile.
Your comparison is disingenuous. You are using the word “faith” in
Can’t stick around any longer.
Procyon: here’s hoping we have the chance to discuss the issue of faith and its value or lack thereof to modern society at some point.
Wowbagger: thanks. It’s nice to know that there are people here who can disagree with me without feeling the need to tear me down and tell me what a worthless person I am.
Sorry I didn’t preview. Ignore that last, unfinished sentence in my post.
@ Randy # 190
Actually it doesn’t take any faith at all to be an atheist. I have the same amount of faith in your deity as you have in the deities of the Olympian Pantheon. How much faith does it take for you to not believe in Zeus and his family?
Wowbagger,
What would you consider to be proof that God doesn’t exist? I don’t actually expect you to answer that question but if you want to give it a try you might want to start a blog.
Aaargh…folks, please! I hate to walk away and leave honest questions unanswered, but I do need to sleep!
Plum: what I mean by “faith-in-science”…as opposed to BELIEF in science, or adherence to the scientific method…is the unquestioning acceptance that something is true simply because it’s presented as being scientific. There are a tremendous number of folks in the world, for instance, who believe that we only use 10% of our brains–because it’s been presented to them as being “scientifically proven.”
Someone who believes something, despite not understanding it, simply because they’ve been told “Science says so,” is engaging in an act of faith precisely equivalent to someone who believes something, despite not understanding it, simply because they’ve been told “God said so.”
Faith-in-science is what gives birth to pseudoscience; it’s not actually scientific, but it’s cloaked in impressively-scientific sounding jargon, and that’s enough to get some people to believe it. I would argue that it’s also, in large part, responsible for the placebo effect–faith in the power of modern medicine leading to an actual or reported improvement in condition.
I hope that clarifies things…and now, I’m sorry, but I really DO need to get some sleep, as interesting as this is.
Good night.
Phentari: let’s just say I prefer harm minimization to zero tolerance.
Randy Come on, ante up. Please don’t make me have to write your name again; it’s a word I really dislike thinking about.
Yet another cowardly atheist turns tail and runs before the mighty banana!
Don’t confuse saying “your beliefs are worthless” with “you are worthless”. It’s not just semantics, there’s a big difference. Smart people can believe incredibly stupid things. Good people who make enormous positive contributions to humanity can believe worthless things. Strange as it may sound, saying that some of your expressed beliefs are stupid, cowardly, or vacuous is not a personal judgment. Personally, I have believed most Christian religious things and some much stupider (although I never quite got to the YEC level of burning stupid). I don’t think it made me bad, worthless, or stupid, just wrong on those particular things.
That’s like saying What would you consider to be proof that my invisible friend doesn’t exist?
It’s your sky fairy. You should prove the existence of it. Nobody else should have to disprove your childish idiotic fantasy.
Speaking of fantasies, your intelligent design idea is even more idiotic than your sky fairy belief. Why don’t you grow up moron. The development of life did not require any of your medieval magic.
You missed the part that no one who correctly employs the scientific method accepts claims “unquestioningly.” There is evidence for every scientific theory, and after they have been scrutinized, the theory becomes part of the collective human intelligence. And even then, they can, and often are, revised. That is the key point about the scientific method, it is self-correcting based on evidence. You don’t have to taken anything “unquestioningly.”
This is a different matter altogether. You are talking about people who *do not* correctly employ the scientific method. But to your point that we believe in authorities. Yes, *real* authorities are to be respected. I have little clue about the going-ons of biology, but I trust the claims that biologists make are true because they arrive at these claims using the scientific method, a method that I have experience with in my own field of expertise.
No, stupidity, ignorance, and gullibility are what gives birth to pseudoscience. We know that most of modern medicine works because they have eliminated the placebo effect in double blind clinical trials.
Sorry, Randy (dammit!) – I didn’t refresh first. Oh, and for the formatting stuff-up.
Well done on not assuming I’m an atheist because of evolution. I accept evolution, but my atheism isn’t dependant upon it. I was an atheist before I’d even heard or read the words ‘natural selection’.
I don’t have ‘proof’ – but then again, I don’t need it. As you’ve no doubt heard before, the burden of proof is upon you, not me – as you are making the positive claim.
And I don’t believe it can’t be proved that god (depending on your definition) doesn’t exist, because many definitions of god may (and do) include a nebulous, immeasurable nature.
You might ask me what I think the origins of the universe are. I’d tell you I don’t know. But I don’t need to know what the answer is before I can discount what the answer isn’t. And it certainly isn’t an interventionist, personal god or pantheon of gods.
While I could arguably be convinced to hold weak deist beliefs, but I doubt I’d bother since it’d make no difference to my life.
Thanks for the suggestion of a blog. I’ve been thinking about it for a while; I’ve just got to get off my slack ass and do it.
Science bears no responsibility for those who hijack its language and trappings to obscure the truth for personal gain. That EnzytE, UFO believers, and “Monster Hunters” exist and cloak themselves as science is no more the fault of science than religion is. The fact that charlatans and fools hijacked the language and stage dressings of science does not taint the scientific method. You seem to be willfully missing the point that the rational position is that observable reality is the emergent property of chemistry and physics, and that the traits and characteristics of living things do not require the postulation of the undefinable, and unobservable. It is incumbent upon you to show that there are no empirical explanations of things like “love” or “pleasure.” Just because there are words for these concepts does not make them concrete reality. Love is not a thing, it is a label for an emotional condition. You have to demonstrate that “love” is a measurable and definable object or quality before you can declare it to be the providence of deities. That is where faith and reason irrevocably split.
Hi BobC,
Part of growing up intellectually involves realizing that people that disagree with you aren’t necessarily morons.
I can’t prove any thing to you Bob. But there is plently of evidence to suggest that God exists. I have published my thoughts on my blog and if you want to dispute them with scientific evidence feel free to. However, calling someone a moron is not a scientific argument.
It’s not, but it makes us happy.
One thing I will disagree with Phentari on is the idea of science as faith – i.e. something you trust and adhere to no matter what.
The body of knowledge we refer to as science isn’t science, as far as I’m concerned; science is the process (or processes) by which that body of knowledge is accumulated.
People, of course, can be wrong. They can be wrong a lot, over and over, for many years, before someone who gets it right comes along. But you can’t blame science for that.
At this point, of course, it’s sounding a lot like the explanations we hear for religion. But the difference is in how things that don’t match ‘science’ are dealt with.
With science, once something is shown to be incorrect, it is removed; therefore, science cannot be wrong since if it’s wrong it’s not science.
To an extent this is true of some liberal versions of religions, but with one key difference – god. There is no ‘god’ for science; everything is up for grabs. No matter how sacred. That’s one place religions (as I understand it) won’t go – they’ll always stop short of questioning the validity of god.
Eh, I think i’m rambling now so I’ll stop.
Well, for what it’s worth I may not agree with your belief but it’s yours to have. I don’t agree with people pushing religion on others or trying to have their religion guide politics or education. You have shown no interest in any of that. It’s sad that the message out of this seems to be “if you don’t agree you should probably just keep quiet”. I think some people should really lighten up and recognize the difference between a moderately religious person who AGREES WITH US ON THE ISSUES and a fundamentalist.
@ 211 :
//calling someone a moron is not a scientific argument.
It’s not, but it makes us happy.//
Speak for yourself !
@ Randy,No 201:
//What would you consider to be proof that God doesn’t exist?//
You might want to ask that question to the “witches” burnt at the stake,or abused altarboys,or how about visiting your friendly psychiatric Hospital down the road,or a nursing home? Oh,maybe Darfur would be a good place to go ! Ever seen a child born without a brain,or with no legs?
@clinteas #214
You mean to say that you *don’t* enjoy schoolyard name-calling? I’d say that you are missing out.
Wowbagger,
To say that the burden of proof is on theists is a copout, but I think the rest of what you said is reasonable.
Mathematician Dr. Jason Rosenhouse has taken a decent stab at proofing God doesn’t exist on his blog and I think he was soundly refuted by people who probably weren’t nearly as smart as him. It much easier to poke holes in someone elses belief system then to defend your own. The refuters has no problem pointing out flaws in his arguments.
Ray Comfort never wants an actual debate anyways. His entire goal is to say those magic words of his, “the Bible says you’re a sinner, and you need Jesus to fix that” to as large a crowd as possible. If he gets to say that, then he feels that he’s done his god’s work, and is happy to then sit back and dream of the cookie his god will give him in the afterlife.
Randy,
Simple response
Do you believe in unicorns? No? Why not? You can’t prove they don’t exist, can you?
More complicated response
It’s about parsimony if nothing else. To prove god doesn’t exist i need to define god – and that’s very difficult to do; some, in fact, claim it’s not possible.
Can you define god?
Also, if I manage to disprove one person’s god then the next person who comes along might say, ‘oh, that’s not my god; you haven’t disproven my god at all’ – and there are a lot of people in the world and only so much time.
That is why the burden of proof for a positive claim is always on the proponent.
Not because it’s a cop-out.
Randy # 210
Depends upon whether or not there is any evidence
@Wowbagger & Randy:
I agree. It’s not only NOT a cop-out, it’s also the default behaviour in everyday life, for very good reasons.
If someone states, that he bought my house, my car or whatever just last week, he has to present proof of that. If I had to proof that he didn’t, that would be neigh to impossible.
#86 Horrible. Why do Christians have to stick their magic into evolutionary biology? They don’t invoke the Magic Man for gravity. Why should evolution be any different? Evolution is guided by natural selection, not by some magical sky fairy.
A sky fairy is pagan mythology but I wonder if you teach your kids (if you have any kids) about Santa Claus…lol
There is no way gravity could be created out of nothing by an unthinking process. Dawkins liken evolution to that of walking up a mountain step by step. That sounds more like intelligent design, a mountain is a fixed place, very difficult to climb by intelligent people, just ask those who tried climbing K2 the second largest mountain in the world. It takes a lot of faith to believe in an unthinking process being able to walk up a mountain without going backwards, or taking the wrong angle and missing the mountain entirely. It really takes intelligence to walk up a mountain, an unthinking process would never make it as it wouldn’t know how to do such a feat.
Michael @222:
I’m crushing your head! I’m crushing your head!
Everyone here is wrong!
The universe and everything in it is merely a dream had by the Great Wednog.
And when he wakes up everything will just disappear.
Something that bothered me earlier in the thread by Phentari was the statement that he has faith that his wife loves him because she says so.
That’s ridiculous.
If his wife came home at 2 am three times a week with her bra on backwards, stinking of bikers and gin, then told him, ” I uz wrk, [belch], workin late, gotta go ta bed, I love you , [belch]” perhaps he would lose faith.
Phentari’s belief in his wife’s love is based on her behavior, observable facts, and reason, not faith in her proclamation, nor ((((vibes))).
I hope.
Anyway Dumb argument, but sleep deprivation was mentioned.
#224
BULLSHIT, I am the GREAT WEDNOG OG Og og og
and when I wake up, all you annoying glorps are still here.
Michale #222 coincidentally 33.3 of 666
It’s interesting that you would say that, since goats are far superior to humans at walking up mountains.
Are you implying that goats are more intelligent than Hyoomans?
If so, you do realize that the Goat is a powerful satanic symbol in Xian mythology, and what with the whole fall from grace with the curse of knowledge and your goat worshiping subconscious glorification of Goat Supremacy , I suggest you go to the nearset Cracker Store for an Exorcism.
Before it’s too late.
//There is no way gravity could be created out of nothing by an unthinking process//
Says who?
Ah,Michael.
Familiar with gravity,are we Michael? Studied the subject and all?
Didnt think so….
How is it that religionists feel competent to babble forth about stuff that takes scientists a lifetime to study and understand?
Clinteas
Hubris
#227 “I suggest you go to the nearest Cracker Store for an Exorcism”.
LOL is that what we’re calling Crackerlick churches now? (being a fan of alliteration, I think I’ll go with “Cracker Kiosk” ;-)
Stimpy @177:
1. You could look it up, like an intellectual, instead of being plaintive/sarcastic, for starters.
2. Alas, it does take a few brains to realise there’s more to the argument.
Hmmm.
Dawkins liken evolution to that of walking up a mountain step by step.
My view is that the “mountain” analogy would confuse people like you.
Try thinking about it in another way:
Descending Mount Probable.
A different perspective on what Dawkins is saying.
Sorry Randy, but you claiming that Ray Comfort has any chance of factually “kicking PZ’s butt” on the subject matter shows you are either incredibly intellectually dishonest or plain fucking stupid. You don’t have to agree with PZ or with evolution but Ray Comfort is so far off in left field on the subject that he doesn’t even argue against the actual Theory. He is a con artist and a schmo. Any defense of him or claims of him easy to best PZ or any biologist shows bumbling ineptitude and idiocy.
I don’t call you that with out reason.
If you were only “joking” then fine. However that reeks of the classic “no I was just kidding” defense.
Disappointed by this, a debate would have been far more entertaining.
Who decided that a debate would no longer be worthwhile?
should read “claims of him easily besting”
Anybody up for a steel-cage death match
between BobC & Truth Machine?
Best possible outcome for everyone. You get right of reply, the ultimate chance to refute his asinine nonsense, without his presence. And he gets to talk on his own for an hour, which means he’ll dig his own grave. Fun times.
Coming in late to a party that’s gone home, but I’ll strike a few points anyway:
Phentari wrote:
And I respectfully disagree, because I think your analogy is uneven, and blurring some rather important distinctions. Love, as someone above pointed out, is an emotion. The category also includes behaviors inspired by this emotion. Religion is a huge category involving beliefs, rituals, ethics, community, etc. But of course atheists are a-theists. We’re going to focus on the beliefs — on facts.
The significant difference is that “God” is supposed to be something that exists, a purported fact. Comparing it to feelings about facts isn’t going to work. You cannot legitimately compare belief in God to love for your wife. We won’t do that. It’s ‘belief that God exists’ compared to ‘belief that your wife exists.’
Person = person. Feelings about person = feelings about person. Not “person = feelings about person.” So I’m not going to follow up on your analogy.
The arguments we’re leveling against religion have their foundation in the truth claims. If you don’t care about the truth claims, and only focus on how the belief in a claim effects people, then we’re into a different argument.
Phentari wrote:
We can’t offer you a rational reason for abandoning your faith because there IS no rational reason for abandoning your faith, given what you’ve written above. Bottom line, it’s not just that you don’t know whether God exists or not. You don’t really CARE whether God exists or not.
For you, religion has become similar to what PZ Myers talked about in the EXPelled movie: knitting. It’s something you do because it works for you, makes you feel good. You approach it like a form of personal therapy. It provides tangible, measurable benefits. God’s existence, the truth of Christianity — not important. They’re props. They’re so much wool you can use.
So within that framework, you are of course right. It WOULD be irrational to abandon your religion. It appears to be working very well for you, and not interfering with rational pursuits like science. Good for you.
But looking at the larger picture, not so good, I think. At some point, truth matters. And it should matter. Not everyone who believes in God can be so obliging as to view it all as a bundle of benefits. They’re not going to interpret it as poetic and symbolic narratives which guide the believer to follow what makes sense in the world. They’re going to take supernaturalism seriously, as facts which effect the way the world works and should work, and make a real difference.
Let me make an analogy. Assume for the moment that the pseudoscience of astrology today takes the place of religion. Most people believe that the movements of the stars and planets are signs and portents, and that studying them and understanding their message is one of the MOST important and significant things you can do in life.
The astrologers have divided into roughly two camps. The first takes it all very, very seriously. They wage war, fire employees, and make critical decisions based on what the stars tell them to do. Mars in Jupiter shows the king must be overthrown. Since there is no actual reality behind astrology, there is no consistency. That causes conflicts as well.
It also allows the growth of the second faction — the “reasonable” astrologers. A true and proper reading of the stars is not supposed to give you specific information. No, that’s silly, that’s too literal. It gives you important tendencies and general advice. The motions of the planets this spring means that Capricorns they need to be kinder to their friends; and Taurus should get to those projects they’ve been putting off. Everything is perfectly reasonable. It’s just that there are a lot of people who wouldn’t do those reasonable things without that little extra push that it gives, to know that the planets look down and care.
Once you’ve fastened on some pseudoscientific system which isn’t true, there is no way to justify the claim that the SECOND set of astrologers are doing astrology the “right way,” and the first astrologers don’t know how to work the system.
It really does matter whether astrology works. Not “works positive benefit in people’s lives.” But is true.
There is no empirical evidence of God. Not the tiniest shred.
It’d have to be called “Eucharist Barrel”.
I am not sure what incentive I have to listen to Ray Comfort pontificate. A few minutes of YouTube clips will be more than enough to show anyone tempted to do so that there’s no fruit in that tree.
Michael #222 – //There is no way gravity could be created out of nothing by an unthinking process. //
Say WHAT???? Listen, I not only am not a scientist, I was a lowly English major, and even *I* know that gravity is a function of mass. Mass is what the universe had at the Big Bang. So what you are really saying is that an Intelligent Designer created the Big Bang? Seriously, Michael, I sense your acute need of some remedial education.
Sastra@241,
I read through the thread, noting the fundamental problem with Phentari’s God/love analogy, and thinking, “Why doesn’t anyone make that point? I will if no-one else has.” I got to “So I’m not going to follow up on your analogy.” in #241 and thought, “Ah, must be Sastra!”
#236: I think we all know it wouldn’t be worthwhile; we already know the outcome of the debate.
Gdlchmst @ 208:
“You missed the part that no one who correctly employs the scientific method accepts claims “unquestioningly.””
Sigh.
No. I didn’t. I really, really didn’t. It would be nice if people would respond to what I’m saying, rather than to the preconceived script.
I didn’t say that people who correctly employ the scientific method accept claims unquestioningly. In fact, I said the opposite–repeatedly. I defined faith-in-science as a FAILURE to correctly employ the scientific method…or, in some cases, to employ it at all.
“There is evidence for every scientific theory, and after they have been scrutinized, the theory becomes part of the collective human intelligence. And even then, they can, and often are, revised. That is the key point about the scientific method, it is self-correcting based on evidence. You don’t have to taken anything “unquestioningly.””
And you think that I don’t know this…why? Because I made the point that some people fail to recognize this? Because I acknowledge that there are people out there who say the word “Science” when what they really mean is “Oracle?”
I understand the scientific method quite well. I grew up in a house with two anthropologists. I was going on archaeological digs by the time I was ten. I also know that I routinely encounter people who blather on about “scientific facts” which are nothing of the kind–people who don’t view science as a system for asking questions, which is how I view it, but as the source of all answers.
Saying “I believe in science” is ultimately meaningless. Saying “I believe in using the scientific method” is at least somewhat better, in that it implies that the person saying it has some clue of what science is actually about. It isn’t, however, a guarantee of veracity.
Sastra @ 241:
First off, thank you for respectfully disagreeing. I’ve tried to remain respectful, but frankly, the level of rancor last night made me wonder at times if there was any point to it.
Now, to address your points: yes, the analogy is uneven. However, I’m not sure you understand the point I’m trying to make with it. It wasn’t my intention to say that love and religion are perfect analogues.
As I see it, there are a number of assumptions being made by the majority here:
1. Rationality is always good.
2. Irrationality is always bad.
3. Any activity which is irrational is bad and should be avoided.
These seem inherent to the proposition that “Belief in God is irrational, and therefore should be eschewed.”
I maintain that these assumptions are precisely that–assumptions, unsupported by evidence. Irrationality is part and parcel of human existence, and I don’t believe that it’s always a bad part.
The love analogy was an attempt to show that. Romanticizing love is, at heart, irrational. The wedding ceremony is irrational. Celebrating anniversaries is irrational. Staying with one partner for your entire life is, on some levels, irrational.
The fact that these things are irrational, though, does not necessarily make them bad; nor does it indicate that we’d automatically be better off if we eliminated them. I could make, I think, a fairly strong argument for the failure of marriages and the increase in single-parent households as a negative impact on society, and I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to posit that some of that increase was linked to the decline of religious authority. I’d want to do quite a bit of research before having that debate, though.
Your comment about my views on God is interesting. To be honest, I’d never thought about it that way. Perhaps you’re right; were you to offer me conclusive, undeniable proof that there is no God, I’m not sure it would have any impact on how I choose to live my life.
Phentari, I’d like to chime in on this discussion with some thoughts of my own. I’d like to start to by saying that your tone has been one of civility and you seem to have made an honest effort to engage in rational discussion – things that make you dramatically stand out from the overwhelming majority of theistic commenters here – and you are to be commended for these things. If you were my neighbor, I’d feel totally comfortable living next door to you.
Next, I’d like to offer a pertinent quibble – in an earlier comment you complained that after identifying as a theist you were “subjected to several hours of people telling me how bad I am.” In fairness, that was BobC but not really anyone else. Many other commenters struck at your positions and your reasoning, but BobC was the only one who struck a personal tone.
And BobC provides an excellent lesson, I think. If I were on the receiving end of everything he launched at you, I’d feel pretty stung and wonder what I ever did personally to him… but I’ve got to say that I completely understand exactly where he’s coming from.
To be an atheist in America is to alternate between living under siege or living under the constant threat of siege. To acknowledge that you are different, to insist on evidence for a claim, to wield logic where others blithely wave away concerns with the dismissive hand of faith – usually quite smugly – is to know first-hand what it means to be a member of what recent polls show to be the most distrusted group in America. At best, you are frowned at. At worst, you are threatened or even attacked. Most commonly however, you are immediately denounced and harassed for not being one of the herd. And it wears on you. This happened to my wife, also an atheist, at a recent family gathering. There was a dinner discussion where someone made a comment about how “everyone believes” with regard to something supernatural and my wife – calmly and non-confrontationally – remarked that that statement was not true of her personally since she is an atheist.
Without even stopping to draw breath, the relative on the other side of this conversation loudly denounced her as a “militant atheist” and another relative snarled that she shouldn’t be judging Christians since not all of them were fundamentalists. Which, of course, is a response to something she never even said. Her atheism is not news to any of these relatives, but she has never engaged in any sort of confrontation with them over it before; she has tried to get along with them and hope that they would show her the same courtesy. But for some of these people, their courtesy is contingent on her shutting up about being an atheist, while having no such restrictions on their own speech. To a theist, a “militant” atheist is nothing more than one who says out loud that she is.
This is what it’s like to be an atheist in America. And this is something that you, as a theist, will absolutely never, ever understand, Phentari. I don’t say that to suggest that you lack sufficient empathy, merely that the experience of being an atheist is, by virtue of the way our society has chosen to categorize and treat atheists, completely outside the context of how a theist is viewed and treated. That’s not your personal fault, by any means, but it is the reality. And it’s why most atheists have historically chosen to keep quiet, rather than ending up calling their spouse in tears while leaving what was supposed to be a wonderful time with family.
BobC is certainly guilty of not being constructive and of eschewing careful arguments in favor of ranting. But most of us have, at one time or another, felt exactly the same way for exactly the same reasons. Sometimes we have acted on it, as BobC did here. I have certainly been guilty of that myself. And sometimes you just get so tired of rebutting the same tired canards over and over again that some variant of “Fuck you” honestly IS the most appropriate thing to say. But mostly we try harder. I am only an occasional commenter on these pages, being overshadowed by a great many people far more intelligent, educated, and articulate than I, who have rightly taken me to task when I didn’t do my best and whose company I am privileged to share. And those people have formed the bulk of the responses to you. People like the Reverend Big Dumb Chimp, Sastra, Wowbagger, and Alexandra, just to name a few, have engaged you quite eloquently and have pointed out that your arguments rely chiefly on the logical fallacy of false equivalency. This places a moral burden upon you, Phentari. I repeat, the fact that you have conducted yourself as you have speaks well of you, and the fact that you do not attack science suggests that you are a natural ally…
…but no one gets a pass on illogic. Nobody. Not me, not any of the commenters above, not PZ himself, and not you. As you have seen, most people here will treat you fairly (and assume you have a moderately thick skin), but they will flay your arguments alive if they are half-assed. Hopefully, you can see that this is one of the best things this place has to offer. If not, we will all shrug and move on. Except for the trolls, of course…
Eric,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. However, let me pose this question to you: are you really sure that, as a theist, I can’t comprehend?
Please consider: I am a theist, but I am a theist who rejects Biblical inerrancy. I am, in fact, a theist who acknowledges the possibility that, if there is a God, I have every possible detail concerning that God wrong. I am a theist who acknowledges that there may, in fact, BE no God.
I would suggest to you that that places me squarely in the crossfire. To someone like BobC, I’m no different than the fundamentalist who clings to his Bible and howls defiance at any evidence to the contrary. (Please take note of how often he tried to get a rise out of me by making comments about how we evolved from apes, despite my repeated assurances that, in fact, I’m quite conversant with the evidence for evolution and find it compelling.)
On the other hand, to the fundamentalist, I’m no better than an atheist myself. Trust me on this one; I know whereof I speak from long and painful experience. Half of my family is from rural Louisiana; being the child of a liberal anthropologist and a firm believer in evolution myself makes for some…interesting family reunions.
I have been pamphleted. (I have a lovely collection of Chick tracts; would you like some?) I have been lectured. I have been warned of the peril my blasphemous rejection of Biblical inerrancy poses to my immortal soul.
You’ve probably experienced all of that, too. I’ll go you one better: I’ve been the subject of an attempted exorcism. (It was an interesting experience, too, to say the least.)
Trust me: it may be lonely being an atheist. It’s also lonely being someone who AGREES with atheists on most points, but isn’t one.
I have to respectfully disagree with those who claim that my arguments are predicated on a fallacy; simply put, equivalency isn’t central to my arguments, inasmuch as I have arguments to put forth. Any false equivalency is therefore, I would argue, tangential at best.
I am, however, always willing to examine my positions, and (sometimes grudgingly, I’ll admit) accept it when I’m wrong. I have a small sign on my desk at school which contains a quote from the Canterbury Tales: “And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche.” I try to make it my guiding philosophy.
Phentari, I’m glad you’re still here and I hope you’ll stick around. I read most of the thread last night and wanted to follow up this morning. Alas I didn’t have the time. Fortunately Sastra said most of the things I wanted to say.
You might check out some material on Robert Price, a biblical scholar who has come to some fairly radical conclusions (at least relative to mainstream Christian thought) regarding the historicity of Jesus. Yet he still happily partakes in his local church worship service. I think he likes the music and ritual, plus he feels part of their community. Perhaps you can empathize.
I’ll broadly apologize for my fellow atheists here. I think many of them are like me, trying to live our lives as rationally as possible. We read your statements in support of science the process and wonder why you don’t take the obvious next step. Though we may see it as obvious that may only be our hindsight kicking in. But I think you have explained why you’re not taking that step (yet?) and I’ll accept your explanation.
Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d welcome you to my neighborhood and be pleased to have you teach English to my children. I hope you’ll at least remain a neighbor through Pharyngula.
Ray,
Thanks. I plan to. As I mentioned before, I’ve been here for a while, and I don’t really plan to change that. My “outing” was largely unintentional, and I hope it doesn’t render people unable to respond to the substance of what I say. The most frustrating thing last night was the fact that I sometimes felt like there was a script for what theists were expected to say, and some people were responding to the script rather than to anything I was actually saying.
I have to be honest: I sometimes think that those who see themselves as rational get caught up in that and forget that they, too, are capable of being irrational, or of making assumptions. I stand by my key points concerning the assumptions in the “Religion is bad” argument; of course, I am willing to debate them, and will attempt to do so honestly and respectfully.
While we’re recommending books, I’d also like to recommend one that may be a bit off the beaten track, given the discussion. It’s one I use with my students: [i]Yann Martel’s The Life of Pi.[/i]
The ending dovetails pretty neatly with my position on faith.
Phentari #248 wrote:
I think you are making a serious mistake here in leaving out an important third category: the non-rational.
The non-rational would include: art, poetry, tastes, love, emotion, values, inspiration, celebration, romance, and so forth. These are indeed part and parcel of human existence, as you eloquently put it.
And completely beside the point here. “God” is supposed to be a fact, not a feeling. Saying that “God exists” is more similar to the statement “the Big Bang occurred” or “the human brain generates emotions” than it is to statements like “you have to have hope” or “I experience great love.” That doesn’t deny the reality or importance of hope or love. It’s trying to be careful and clear.
I have a friend with a background in chemistry who takes a homeopathic remedy. He agrees that it’s scientific garbage, and almost certainly worthless. But, the wife buys it, and it doesn’t hurt, and there’s a lot to be said for the placebo effect. It makes him feel better. So who cares?
Well, you might expect him to catch high holy hell if he went to one of his chemistry conventions and sung the praises of homeopathy, defending it with this so-what-if-it’s-a-placebo gambit.
I know you feel as if you’ve been personally attacked as the enemy here (ok, you’ve got some reason *cough*), but I think the attacks have been more in line with the chemists convention situation: you’re a colleague who should ‘know better.’ Yes, you KNOW that homeopathy is chemical garbage. You accept science. You understand chemistry. But you buy the damn pills anyway because you draw a line where truth bows to convenience and pragmatism and indifference. “It works in making me feel better.” Fine. But it’s a placebo, man, then don’t go on to say it’s “homeopathy” that’s doing it for you. Where’s your integrity?
I think that could be the sort of frame we’re using on theistic evolution. It’s not that we think you don’t have any integrity at all. On the contrary.
Atheists tend to catch it both ways. If we attack anti-science fundamentalists, we’re praised for that, but also accused of going after the easy targets (atheism is so extreme itself, it can’t understand sophisticated nuances.) Go after liberal belief, though, and suddenly we’re betraying our wonderful colleagues helping us fight the fundamentalists.
Maybe you can look at it this way. Your beliefs are more respectable, more interesting, and harder to refute. If we were genuinely interested in the ideas, instead of grandstanding and posturing, wouldn’t you rather expect us to come after you instead of Ray Comfort?
Thanks for coming back, Sastra; I’m sorry that I didn’t get a chance to speak with you directly the other night.
“I think you are making a serious mistake here in leaving out an important third category: the non-rational.
The non-rational would include: art, poetry, tastes, love, emotion, values, inspiration, celebration, romance, and so forth. These are indeed part and parcel of human existence, as you eloquently put it.”
This is an interesting distinction, but I’m not sure I see where you’re drawing the line between irrational and non-rational. What would you use as a benchmark?
“Maybe you can look at it this way. Your beliefs are more respectable, more interesting, and harder to refute. If we were genuinely interested in the ideas, instead of grandstanding and posturing, wouldn’t you rather expect us to come after you instead of Ray Comfort?”
I would hope so. Now, mind you, I’d hope that by “coming after me,” you mean that folks would engage me in debate and attempt to demonstrate the flaws in my positions. I enjoy that sort of discussion, and I’m always up for a good debate.
If “coming after me” means a barrage of “You’re a big stupid-head and you’re ugly and the magic sky-fairy dresses you funny”…I’ll pass on that, thanks. :)
Glad you toughed it out Phentari. But don’t look forward to many in depth arguments from me. I r not as smart as the others.
Romanticizing love is, at heart, irrational. The wedding ceremony is irrational. Celebrating anniversaries is irrational. Staying with one partner for your entire life is, on some levels, irrational. – Phentari
I disagree. A belief is irrational if it is contrary to the available evidence, or held with a degree of certainty disproportionate to the available evidence; a course of action or institution is irrational if it is ill-suited to achieve its ends. None of the above are beliefs, all (except possibly the first, which I think is insufficiently specified to be anything much) are courses of action or institutions. Before judging whether they are irrational, we need to know what (if anything) they are intended to achieve. If they are not intended to achieve anything (e.g. whistling a tune, starting the year at the beginning of January), courses of action and institutions are neither rational nor irrational.
As you say, irrational does not of itself imply harmful. However I would argue, as I think many commenters here would, that the practice of holding and propagating irrational beliefs is, overwhelmingly, harmful, and that religion encourages this practice. It is no coincidence that it was religious people who were responsible both for 9/11 and for the invasion of Iraq; nor that many of those denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change do so from a religious standpoint.
Further to both #254 and #257, I agree with Sastra that you’ve left out the non-rational. Beliefs about matters of fact, but nothing else I can think of right now, fall exhaustively onto a rational/irrational continuum, according to how far the strength of belief is proportionate to the strength of evidence. Outside this domain, however, where rationality means being well-adapted to achieve a specific goal or goals, this continuum does not exhaust the possibilities. In particular, top-level goals (getting rich, doing as little as possible, doing as much good/evil as possible) are neither rational nor irrational.
Nick,
I think that implying that denial of climate change is, at core, based on religious faith is a gross oversimplification, at best. Denial of climate change is a political position, propagated for reasons that have very little, if anything, to do with religion.
Can religion be used as a tool to manipulate the credulous into doing things? Even horrible things? Certainly. It is not, however, necessary in order to accomplish this end. To put it indelicately, mass-murdering dickheads are mass-murdering dickheads irrespective of whether they’re religious or not. Yes, 9/11 was done by religious fanatics. What about the atrocities and human rights violations in North Korea?
The potential for misuse of faith exists; granted. I think a strong case can be made for the positive contributions of faith to a stable society, though. Let me offer a couple of thoughts for consideration:
1. To the best of my knowledge, no stable society has ever evolved in the absence of some kind of faith. (If anyone knows of an example of such, please correct me–I’ve been looking for quite some time.)
2. It is, as of yet, impossible to confirm the hypothesis that a society free of any form of faith will function better than a society in which faith is still a factor.
Let me further pose you this question, Nick:
Given your definition of “rational” and “irrational,” if we postulate that a major purpose of religion is to act as a stabilizing element against too-rapid change, and as an inhibiting factor against socially unacceptable behavior, and if we can further demonstrate that religion accomplishes these ends–is religion rational, or is it irrational?
I’m setting aside the question of God’s existence or lack of existence here and focusing on the institution of religion. A viewpoint that I’ve heard repeated here frequently is that it served a purpose at one point, but no longer serves a purpose in modern society. I have never, however, heard that belief rigorously supported. I’m curious as to whether it can be.
Phentari #255 wrote:
It can get complicated, but I was basically trying to point out the division between “matters of fact” (which are theoretically testable) and “matters of taste and value” (which theoretically aren’t.) When we talk about an “irrational belief,” we’re really using that as a shortcut for “false belief which it is irrational to believe is true.”
As Nick points out in #258, rational and irrational have to do with goal seeking. If your goal is to be happy, then it may be a perfectly rational thing to marry the Mormon girl you love, become LDS, and pretend to accept the Book of Mormon. Happiness is a matter of taste — not truth and falsehood. When someone says that “Mormonism is irrational” they generally don’t mean you can’t be a Mormon and be happy. They mean that the BoM was an invented pile of pseudohistorical garbage. Which can still “work.”
“Does God exist?” is not like asking “does love matter?” It is like asking “Does God exist?” and not yielding to the temptation to prevaricate.
I’m afraid it means neither. I was being literal — we’re all coming over. Dinner on you. I can bring potato salad, but I hope you’re stocked up on beer and soda.
Eric, Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
You are very welcome, Phentari.
However, let me pose this question to you: are you really sure that, as a theist, I can’t comprehend?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Let me explain. No, there is too much; let me sum up.
Like most people, I am many things. Atheist is but one. I am also a sci-fi geek, a former bodybuilder, an actor, a swordsman, a citizen, and a husband and father. To name but a few. I am also heterosexual, which places me outside the experience of homosexuals in our society. I have friends and relatives who are gay, and I have enough experiences in my life that I can say unequivocally that I know what it’s like to be different… but I can NOT say that I know what it’s like to be gay. (If you follow my signature link to my infrequently updated blog and scroll down, you’ll find a post regarding my recently outed sister-in-law that paints a much fuller picture.) I submit that, just as I can’t fully comprehend being gay, you can’t fully comprehend being atheist in our society.
Do you get what it’s like to be different, and to be in some way persecuted for it? I don’t doubt it. I don’t deny that there are parallels between your experiences and ours – but it’s not the same. There’s an extra twist of the knife that we get and you don’t. The bad guys are outraged at you for not being sufficiently like them; they are outraged at us simply because we exist at all.
Again, let me stress that I am in no way suggesting that you are lacking in the ability to comprehend this, merely that the experiences differ in ways which, however subtle they appear, are nonetheless quite significant.
Please consider: I am a theist, but I am a theist who rejects Biblical inerrancy. I am, in fact, a theist who acknowledges the possibility that, if there is a God, I have every possible detail concerning that God wrong. I am a theist who acknowledges that there may, in fact, BE no God.
An… agnostic theist?
I would suggest to you that that places me squarely in the crossfire. To someone like BobC, I’m no different than the fundamentalist who clings to his Bible and howls defiance at any evidence to the contrary. (Please take note of how often he tried to get a rise out of me by making comments about how we evolved from apes, despite my repeated assurances that, in fact, I’m quite conversant with the evidence for evolution and find it compelling.)
I’m pretty sure that part of what drove that line of attack on BobC’s part was the suspicion that your protests were an attempt at subterfuge. It should be clear that I don’t make that assumption on your part, but it is a common and clumsy tactic that has long since bored many of us to tears.
On the other hand, to the fundamentalist, I’m no better than an atheist myself. Trust me on this one; I know whereof I speak from long and painful experience. Half of my family is from rural Louisiana; being the child of a liberal anthropologist and a firm believer in evolution myself makes for some…interesting family reunions.
A believer in evolution? I understand that “belief” is often used colloquially in statement like that, but I offer you my clarification when someone asks me about that – “No, I don’t believe in evolution; I acknowledge the self-evident fact of evolution. Belief does not enter into it.” That may present difficulties for you in your milieu, but give it a shot if you think it would help.
I have been pamphleted. (I have a lovely collection of Chick tracts; would you like some?) I have been lectured. I have been warned of the peril my blasphemous rejection of Biblical inerrancy poses to my immortal soul.
You’re in good company here. For what it’s worth, I’ve been on both sides; I was once a church youth leader (albeit in a very liberal setting). Long story.
You’ve probably experienced all of that, too. I’ll go you one better: I’ve been the subject of an attempted exorcism. (It was an interesting experience, too, to say the least.)
Not quite, but I have had a couple of people raise a hand out to me and mutter invocations to Jeebus before relaxing and saying that they had successfully driven out the demon they saw lurking behind my eyes. I don’t talk to those people anymore :-).
Trust me: it may be lonely being an atheist. It’s also lonely being someone who AGREES with atheists on most points, but isn’t one.
And that would be an example of something that you would understand better than many atheists.
I have to respectfully disagree with those who claim that my arguments are predicated on a fallacy; simply put, equivalency isn’t central to my arguments, inasmuch as I have arguments to put forth. Any false equivalency is therefore, I would argue, tangential at best.
I’ll take your word that you didn’t intend to draw direct equivalencies in the arguments above, but you did in fact do precisely that, i.e. “Faith isn’t rational and is therefore bad? Well, love isn’t rational either. Is love bad?” That is a blatant false equivalency. Looking above, I see that you’ve been having a bit of back-and-forth over that; hopefully you’ve been finding it constructive.
I am, however, always willing to examine my positions, and (sometimes grudgingly, I’ll admit) accept it when I’m wrong. I have a small sign on my desk at school which contains a quote from the Canterbury Tales: “And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche.” I try to make it my guiding philosophy.
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us.”
I majored in English and history.
Phentari #259 wrote:
To cut to the chase, both statement #1 and #2 are correct. No stable society has evolved in the absence of faith. Nor has a stable society ever evolved in the absence of superstition. Or violence. Or virtue or vice. And, given that, we can’t confirm the hypothesis that faith is not necessary (especially if you extend that out to “any form of faith,” which can get into tricky, hairsplitting territory.)
But I want to bring up the point I made before with the hypothetical society which was grounded in the firm conviction that an understanding of astrology was necessary in guiding a good and happy life. Once you accept that frame, there is no good way to use astrology to justify that the “moderate” astrologers — who see astrology as an art form of symbol and wonder, and derive common sense aphorisms like “appreciate the beauty around you” from observations of the orbits — as being more “correct” than the “extremist” astrologers, who take it all very literally, and discover that those same planet movements indicate war.
The first group is more reasonable from the standpoint of someone who isn’t using astrology. But what would be the point of bothering to do astrology if it gave you no special insight or knowledge which you couldn’t get without it?
There’s a question I’ve sometimes asked of religious people, to determine how much of their faith is really humanistic. If you were to come to the conclusion that God does not exist, and never has existed — what would you change about your life?
Humanists will consider and respond with “I’d change very little.” Give up church, perhaps, feel sad over death, no doubt. But the things they love and value are still there, and matter the same. Love still matters. Maybe even more, because it’s fleeting and we get no second chances.
Non-humanist religionists say that it would all change. They would no longer want to live. They would rape and kill. Without God, nothing matters. The wonderful thing about God, was that it gave you a reason to be unselfish, and love others. No God? Then fuck it all.
I never really trust that second answer — meaning I don’t buy it. That’s a game they’re playing to keep their faith strong. They’ll throw their own darling baby out the window now? Right. Bull.
What religion gives is certainty. It’s a ! at the end of any statement. “You’re not just arguing with me, now, you’re arguing with God.” It allows us to say that we OUGHT to “appreciate the beauty around us.” Or we OUGHT to “kill the infidel.” There will be equal certainty that it’s the right thing.
Trouble is, the more what God says and wants and is makes sense, the less important God becomes. God isn’t needed to persuade people to do things that are reasonable anyway. But it NEEDS to be invoked for the things that are not.
Argument about “stable society” is impossible without a clear definition of what that would be. As all countries and cultures in history have changed or come to an end of some sort, it seems that there is no such thing as a stable society, and since we don’t know the ultimate disposition of existing cultures and countries, we can’t conclude that any of them are stable either.
English, psychology, and cultural anthropology, myself. (If you want proof of irrationality, look no further–three degrees, and none of them particularly marketable!)
I suppose “agnostic theist” would be one way to describe me, yes. I think it’s more that I’m very aware of my own ability to be absolutely, positively certain that something is true–and to be absolutely, positively wrong about it.
That’s happened a couple of times; I looked like an utter ass as a result. It was a valuable lesson. I try very hard to be open to the possibility that I’m wrong as a result.
To be honest with you, I don’t think we’re close to understanding how the universe works yet. Not remotely. I think we’re a little closer than we were a decade ago. I think we’ve made substantial progress since a century ago. I think a big part of the progress that has been made comes down to six words: “We’re not sure, but we think…”
The temptation to regard the present as an age of enlightenment and knowledge in stark contrast to the woeful ignorance of the past has been present throughout history. Frankly, I think it’s a trap. I don’t doubt that a hundred years from now, enlightened modern folks will be rolling their eyes at the quaint notions of the early 21st century and wondering how we could have been so backwards.
I try to keep that in memory; it gives me a sense of perspective.
That’s a fair observation, Milo, and I’d be open to setting some benchmarks. However, the basic point, I think, is valid: the structures we typically view as necessary to civilization grew up with (and in many cases out of) religion. While it’s certainly possible to speculate on what a totally atheistic society would be like, we have no actual real-world evidence of same. Thus, claiming that the world would be better without religion is speculative conjecture…and, I would argue, speculative conjecture with some very hefty stakes attached to it.
Sastra,
Heh. Well, given that I already answered that question (and, yes, my answer was “Very little would change,”) I suppose you may have me pegged there.
Touching on the other constants you mentioned, I think that many of the same pitfalls I see in calling for a faithectomy would apply to those as well. We can certainly posit that a society with no violence would be a nice place to live, but I think we can also agree that there would likely be consequences to unilateral disarmament. We can argue that a society without vice would be ideal, but isn’t that what Puritan types have been trying to achieve throughout history, without particularly good results?
In the same fashion, I think there would be consequences–some foreseeable, some not foreseeable–to a society in which faith and religion played no part.
Phentari #267 wrote:
And in the same fashion, I think there would be consequences — some foreseeable, some not foreseeable — to a society which values progress in science and reason, and promotes the view that it is very, very important to have faith in the supernatural.
“Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply held religious belief – and I don’t care what it is.” (Eisenhower)
Touche. However, that is the current de facto state of affairs; we don’t need to do anything to achieve that. If we did, and someone called for the creation of such a state, I would probably be skeptical of that, as well.
Since “values science but values faith more highly” is the existing state of affairs, though, it behooves us to think things through before we change it (assuming that it can be changed.) I think such a radical social experiment should be predicated on more than common-sense assumptions that things would get better in the absence of faith.
English, psychology, and cultural anthropology, myself. (If you want proof of irrationality, look no further–three degrees, and none of them particularly marketable!)
Heh. I hear that. It’s why I worked for a long time at a bank before turning my lifelong hobby of being a computer technician into a career.
I think it’s more that I’m very aware of my own ability to be absolutely, positively certain that something is true–and to be absolutely, positively wrong about it. That’s happened a couple of times; I looked like an utter ass as a result. It was a valuable lesson. I try very hard to be open to the possibility that I’m wrong as a result.
That’s called “becoming a grownup.” Not all of us go through that, but enough do to make a difference :-D.
To be honest with you, I don’t think we’re close to understanding how the universe works yet. Not remotely. I think we’re a little closer than we were a decade ago. I think we’ve made substantial progress since a century ago. I think a big part of the progress that has been made comes down to six words: “We’re not sure, but we think…”
As a history buff and a science enthusiast since the time I could walk, I must strenuously disagree. The bulk of the HUGE progress we’ve made over the last century has come in the last thirty years, and it’s been due largely to our construction of tools far beyond the reach of previous generations. Advances in genetics, the deployment of orbital observatories, robots sent to all planets in our solar system have expanded our knowledge by several orders of magnitude in less time than I’ve been alive. I have no doubt that we have a vast array of wondrous things yet to discover, but the progress just in recent history has been epic.
The temptation to regard the present as an age of enlightenment and knowledge in stark contrast to the woeful ignorance of the past has been present throughout history. Frankly, I think it’s a trap.
But it has generally been true throughout history. Enlightenment and knowledge have grown through fits, starts, and occasional backslides rather than a clean linear progression, but they have indeed grown. The worry held by myself and many others on this forum is that the forces that cause the backslides have been gaining a lot of traction recently.
I don’t doubt that a hundred years from now, enlightened modern folks will be rolling their eyes at the quaint notions of the early 21st century and wondering how we could have been so backwards.
I do largely doubt that, actually. Oh, I don’t doubt that they will find many things about us backwards, but I suspect that they will be things that we complain about now as being backwards, and that we are working to fix. I also think that even as they enjoy greater knowledge and understanding of the universe they will recognize that the work being done now was part of what built the knowledge and understanding that they posses.
We look back at the mid-nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries and see the contentious arguments and even outright brawls that occurred over scientific investigations that were being done at the time and see an array of people who were frauds, heroes, charlatans, geniuses, arrogant pricks, idealists, liars, stalwarts, knaves, champions, power-hungry bastards, principled workers, professional hate-mongers, and ordinary men and women. In other words, the same landscape we have today. We have our Philip Johnsons, Carl Sagans, William Dembskis, Craig Ventners, Michael Behes, James McGraths, Casey Luskins, PZ Myers, Denyse O’Learys, Richard Dawkins, Andy Sclaflys, Richard Lenskis, Bill Donohues, and folks like you and me.
People back then got a lot of work done, went down a lot of blind alleys, made some amazing discoveries, and laid down much of the foundation that, though some had yet to be added and some had to be scrapped, we build on today. And they did it while being hounded and excoriated and mercilessly attacked. And yes, there were plenty of things that they were wrong about, or at least had an understandably incomplete understanding of. But there was and is nothing quaint about their work. Nor is there about what is done now, or what will be done by the generations that succeed us, if only they can inherit the best we have to offer them.
I try to keep that in memory; it gives me a sense of perspective.
As I do with what I’ve written above; it does the same for me.
Phentari #269 wrote:
I suspect that it would be as difficult to “get rid of faith” completely as it would be to get rid of superstition, irrationality, violence, tribalism, racism, nationalism, and people watching bad tv shows. It seems to me that a “radical social experiment” would have to involve some kind of force. Gradually persuading the majority of people over time to change their religious views by becoming more reasonable simply doesn’t trip my OMG meter.
What does bother me is this almost Straussian concern with “what’s most effective” when it comes to religion. In putting truth aside, and just considering the pragmatic results, I can’t help but feel an underlying disrespect for both human potential and intellectual integrity. We’re back to the arrogant form of “sympathetic atheism” which leaves religious belief alone because the ignorant, simple-minded masses can’t handle the truth as well as the more enlightened intelligentsia. Like me.
This disregard for truth (not Truth-with-a-T but the provisional, tentative, search for more accuracy than not) might be more corrosive to a so-called stable society than changes in religious belief. It’s manipulative and condescending. It’s as if someone were saying “look, people are so upset about evolution. They’re clearly not ready for it. So let’s teach creationism, if that’s what they really want. It may make them more comfortable with other changes, and it will certainly strengthen their faith in God, which has a proven track record of providing comfort and meaning to them. Scientists will simply make sure their evolutionary publications stay unreadable to all but experts.”
I’m an atheist. I wouldn’t like playing God like that. Or giving people so little credit.
And by the same token, it seems disingenuous to hold back on arguing for atheism too effectively, lest it hurt people or damage society as a whole. Is it my common sense, or sense of decency, that is bothered more?
Whoa! Change of format! Name of commenter at top!
DISORIENT! THIS IS GOING TO MESS WITH MY HEAD!!!
Ok, I’ll try to get used to it.
The world has gone upside down! This is just wrong. Obviously the work of the devil.
˙ʇı ɥʇıʍ op oʇ ƃuıɥʇou pɐɥ ı ɹɐǝʍs ı