Stein has a little tantrum over outcry against his address at the University of Vermont. It’s not at all notable, except for one little comment.
Stein said he has spoken at many universities, including Columbia, Yale, Stanford, and American University, “and no one has said boo. Somehow at UVM, it has become a big issue.”
I recommend that we make it a big issue at every university where he speaks. The man who said flatly that “science leads you to killing people” should not be honored at any university.
Well, OK, he would fit right in at Liberty University and such places as that. But no real university.
He also said “Universities are fortresses of nonsense” or something like that. It seems strongly hypocritical for him to want anything to do with them at all.
Stein has spoken at UVM too; I don’t know what the boo-meter registered that time. Where else has he given the commencement address and/or received honorary degrees?
How can he not be aware of just how cockroachical that little whine sounds?
It’s amazing how much hypocrisy people will tolerate when a paycheck’s involved. I imagine that, even if the UVM gig was gratis, once word gets around people don’t want him near them, his ability to shill for cash will be limited.
Yeah, it might be good if working to destroy confidence in science and education actually had some bad side effects on you personally.
I got this, not to fear. My little violin is ready to play for poor Benny.
“[Science|Religion] leads you to killing people,” says [Stein|Dawkins]. Why do people bother listening to these clowns when they step beyond their fields of expertise? It boggles my mind.
Mr. Stein, why not look at the evidence, and then decide. Rather than making your mind up first. You’re a bright guy.
@2:
I speculate the boo-meter was not registering at that time. You didn’t have a narrow-minded mob who could not see beyond a single issue. They attempt to raise his bad economics and so on, but it’s a farce. No one would have complained had the Expelled movie never been made.
Stein has spoken at UVM too; I don’t know what the boo-meter registered that time. Where else has he given the commencement address and/or received honorary degrees?
How can he not be aware of just how cockroachical that little whine sounds?
William Hilbright’s mind appears to be easily boggled. He’d better take it somewhere where it can be kept safe; too much boggling might diminish what little capacity remains.
When I beat him for his $5000 on his old game show, I got a second look at his “brilliance.” The writers for the show scrupulously avoided ANY science or math questions, except in the final round that day–and he missed them all, giving me the win. His more recent activities make a bit more sense in that context…
Of course. But with that movie Stein sold his intellectual integrity and launched a full scale attack on academia, and for what?
Oh the anti science comment came from a caretaker at a concentration camp? liar liar pants on fire
He added, “As for those grapes up on that vine, well they were sour anyway”.
William Hilbright at #6: Show us when and where Dawkins said ‘Religion leads you to killing people’. Dawkins has indeed pointed out instances where religion has been the motivating factor for wars and subsequent deaths, but has never come close to saying that religious people by default become murderers. Stop putting words in people’s mouths.
Aseem: PDNFTT
More on topic, is Ben serious? He feels he was well received because nobody in the crowd was screaming “boo” at him?
Who the HELL boos a commencement speech? Does he not expect the defenders of science to have basic civility, or enough native intelligence to understand their current social context? Come to think of it, he probably doesn’t. Nevertheless, I’d say he’s unintentionally damned himself with the faintest praise imaginable.
Ummm, did I read the article wrong, or did this Stein fellow blithely associate PZ with ghastly crimes??
There’s a big difference between giving a speech at a university and giving a commencement address.
Even if he’s againist everything a university should stand for, university organizations shouldn’t be censored on who they can have as speakers.
@15,
“I am offended.”
@3:42
“There is a logical pathway leading from religions to the committing of atrocities,” says Richard Dawkins.
His unhappiness makes me smile.
Now cry for us, Ben. Cry for ussssssssssssss.
The speaker at my graduation was Philip Adams – broadcaster, film producer, writer, humanist, social commentator, satirist, left-wing pundit and atheist. I don’t really know who his equivalent in the US would be – he’s lower profile than anyone I’ve probably heard of.
Since I had that honour I feel that everyone should have the right to have someone better than Ben Stein at their University’s significant event.
Aside from being wrong about his claims on science and genocide, Stein is just making emotional appeals. They have no bearing on the truth.
You know, having read the comments on that site, I’m a little exhausted. How many idiots are on that site, anyway?
They all complain about the “foaming at the mouth childish far leftists” and act like it’s some big conspiracy.
That’s one thing I like about those kinds of people: when facts, evidence, the law, the constitution or reality itself is set against them, they just take comfort in delusions of conspiracy and persecution. Sure, they’re still just as much the losers they were otherwise, but now they can portray themselves as victims, if only in their own minds and the minds of those who share their sad little echo chamber.
Still, I’m a little surprised there was more than a dozen people dumb/crazy enough to support Stein in those comments. It was as unpleasant as Bush’s return to Midland, Texas a few weeks ago, when a crowd of people showed up and cheered for him. Realizing you share a country with so many people like that is sort of like realizing you’ve been sharing your bedroom with a nasty, disgusting infestation of roaches.
#19 Correct. There indeed is such a logical pathway, and he explains it in what follows after 3:42. While killing for god is logically justified by the said pathway, there is nothing about atheism that might lead an atheist to kill. In other words, while some religious people kill for their religion, nobody kills for their atheism. That is the point Dawkins is making. He is not implying that religion automatically leads a theist to committing murder, but that it can and has been the cause and justification of the same.
Some people thrive on the idea that they are being persecuted for their ideals; it makes them think they are even more correct, since the world is inherently evil. That assumption, that anything worldly is bad, leads to both contentment with the status quo (since obedience and servitude is good, striving for betterment must be bad) and a desire to be separated from those that don’t share the worldly-as-evil paradigm.
The extreme form of this is living on a separate compound apart from the evils of society. It is odd that such dedication to fending off worldliness and adhering to conservative values does, in fact, lead to a kind of communal living apart, or communism if you will. So, in a way, Ben Stein is a communist.
@24,
Granted for the sake of argument. So, consider this alternative perspective for Stein. Is it possible he is making a similar argument for science? Is he arguing science can be used as a tool to justify such behavior?
So, thanks to youtube, I’ve found a woman who is clearly in the “Ben Stein” school of, uh, scientific thought (ahem).
I sent the link to PZ, but if anybody else feels like laughing/sighing sadly, here you go.
@Aseem
While atheism as a non-philosophy does not inherently lead to killing, extreme factionalism does. It is not the sole purview of religion to foster dehumanizing the “other.” Nationalism, tribalism, factionalism, religious sectarianism; all are cut of the same cloth and all have the same goal of dehumanizing both their followers (forming an otherwise intelligent set of individuals into one much more obedient and easily influenced group) and their enemies (making it easier for their group to commit atrocities and compounding the easily influenced stricture brought on by conformity).
Ritual repetition, imposed self-denial, portrayal of the world outside of one’s group as inherently evil or prone to profane influence, and denouncement of any attempt at compromise; these are the primary tools of this kind of influence. In this environment, tragedy is victory. Slavery is freedom. Torture is justified.
The only differences are the borders and criteria for inclusion.
He spoke at MY school? Now I think I am going to be sick to my stomach…
Stein:
heh. It won’t be long before we hear ‘I know you are but what am I?’ from him?
Ben Stein better get used to this. He made it clear what he thought or at least who he was trying to appeal to. Anyone with the slightest understanding of scientific thought is insulted by the idiocy he was pushing.
This is his new life. He should plan accordingly.
Let’s see now… Mr. Stein tells us he didn’t want to do the commencement speech in the first place. And now the University seems to have made it clear, via President Fogel backing water frantically, that it doesn’t want him to do the speech either. Seems to me then, in the end, both got what they wanted, que no? Sounds like a win-win solution to me.
Stein says, “I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists.”
Well, that shows you just how deluded he really is.
Even Fogel knows this opinion is just a ruse to peddle dog fearing myths.
Rumor has Oral Roberts disposed to make Ben an honorary Doctor of Creative Film Accounting if he premiers the Expelled prequel, Springtime For Darwin : at their commencement.
plot summary :
Few suspect the fate befalling a baby faced Viennese choirboy lured to Victorian Manchester by the promise of a dishwashing job
.
There the cannibal bastard of a beetle-eating Sussex vampire and pigeon fancier known only as ‘Mister D’ steals young Schickelgrube]s identity by devouring him , and using his passport, absconds to Germany ,
There he begina the political career dictated by his natural eloquence, but denied him at home by rumors of Mr. D.s alienation from the Church Of England.
With a script meticulously fact-checked using both Wiki & Conservapedia, and a cameo appearance by Bonzo as “Mr D” , this cautionary tale of the dangers of natural selection was shot on location in 1-D UfaVision ( special monocle required for viewing) with grants from the Berlinski- Hoenecher Siftung and the Film Board of Labrador.
Color , 106 minutes. Not rated
Man… I almost feel sorry for the little whelp:
This has nothing to do with any so-called political correctness. The fact is, Mr. Stein has openly and repeatedly stated that science leads to killing people. It’s on record, and it’s irrefutable.
Nonetheless, it would be an insult to the graduates of this university to have someone whose view run so clearly contradictory to those of the university’s faculty and students.
In other words, if I say that your mother is a cheap, disease-ridden whore, are you going to invite me over for her Sunday roast?
Ooops… My blockquote failed in my above comment. It should end after the mention of Columbia University.
Honestly. I put the tags in the right place and everything. Not sure why it went all a-borky. Forgive me. I will now take my tentacled lashing post-haste.
William Hilbright wrote:
If he is then he’s either lying or deluded – or both.
No doubt those more familiar with the philosophy of science will explain it better than I can, but – to put it simply – science is the means by which we gain an understanding of how things work. It cannot be used to ‘justify’ anything. Science can no more ‘justify’ killing than ballistics can ‘justify’ skeet shooting, or wind resistance can ‘justify’ kite flying. They are explanations for what occurs, not justifications.
You can argue that the study of the science of ways of killing people is morally questionable; that is certainly a contentious issue, and rightly so – but that’s hardly the same thing. And I suspect you know full well that’s the case.
@ Hillbright #26
Science cannot make one discard one’s logic and compassion and lead them to genocide.
This is purely the realm of insanity and religion.
Capital Dan, failsafe algorithm (which I don’t often follow!): write your reply, copy the text box content, preview, adjust text box content as necessary, preview again, iterating the last two until the preview is acceptable, paste one last time, post.
#26
Watch the video in which Ben Stein makes that remark, and decide for yourself if that is Stein’s argument. He clearly and unapologetically says that science leads you to killing people. No exceptions. No further elucidations.
@37,
What does Stein mean by science?
@41
Stein’s definition of science is probably the same as all crackpots.
It’s anything that is not religion and goes against his own brand of whackaloonary.
Why don’t you ask him?
I imagine that would depend on who he was shilling for. When the anti-science ID loons were lining his pocket to badmouth evolution I imagine it amounted to ‘anything that showed ID to be a crock of horse shit’ – though after he said ‘science leads you to killing people’ he wasn’t exactly limiting himself to one branch or field.
Remember, they were his words: Science leads you to killing people.
Commence the equivocation.
Boy. What a baby. “I didn’t want to talk at your stupid commencement anyway. So there.” Reminds me of the first troll I banned from my blog, who wrote back a lengthily abusive email saying he didn’t want to be in my bullshit blog full of backpatters anyway… while also excoriating me for how I was censoring him, and saying I should change my mind and let him back in. ???
Wowbagger #21
Studs Terkel would be a good U.S. equivalent for Philip Adams -not sure on his religion. Adams played a great interview on LNL just after he died last year.
Oh btw this is my second comment on this site Hello. Been reading for a few months and just love it.
@38,
I do not believe science necessarily leads to such behavior. I do not believe religion necessarily leads to such behavior. These positions are both oversimplifications of complex behavior.
Hilbright @ 46,
please name one war fought in the name of science,where the adherents of one scientific position slaughtered the adherents of a different position.
Didnt think so.
So this “necessarily” thing is a strawman,totally different ballgame,science doesnt lead to killing anyone,it leads to you not freezing to death in winter and being able to watch the Superbowl from your home while the eggs you fry dont stick to the pan.
Religion,and its consequence of brainwashed blind obedience and holding onto ancient mythology and dogma,however,had lead and leads to plenty of killing.
William Hillbright @ various
Science tells you about how things are, but not how they should be. The fact that life evolves has no bearing on whether we should work on a Sunday or pray to Mecca. It says nothing about what should have been done in the Terry Schivo case, nor does it hold any position, other than factual, about eugenics.
Religion, (and as has been pointed out, other forms of group behaviour) do hold positions on these types of issues. If your holy book says you should stone adultresses and people who work on Sunday’s to death, then as a good xyz then that is surely what you should do, if you believe it is the divine word of God.
Religion can lead directly to murder. That much is clear. Look at the little girl who was stoned to death last month for the “sin” of being raped.
The fact that you can substitute the word “science” for “religion” doesn’t mean that it is true.
I… am trying… to be… nice…
I’m failing…
Of course it doesn’t mean that religion necessarily follows towards such behaviours, but it’s undeniable that on occasion it has. It’s equivocation to a non-corollary position by comparing science and religion, as if one dismisses the other. It’s like saying “well rape may be wrong, but so is lying.”
Damned apostrophes. Stupid things are even hard to spell (although normally not to use!)
@40/42/43,
I tracked down a different copy of the video because the one linked to by the page no longer exists.
It seems Stein is using “science” to mean “Darwinism.” His argument is not that all science leads to killing people, but rather it is certain aspects of science. This sounds rather similar to Dawkins argument about religion. Thus, it seems to be a fair comparison.
@47,
My perspective is a recognition that human behavior is not dictated by one thing. Human behavior is complex, and given the right mixture elements from science or religion or both can be used to justify horrible behaviors. I am neither attacking nor promoting science or religion.
I am willing to criticize and question both. That is what a skeptic and a freethinker does.
Again, it’s a false equivocation.
@46:
This is not about what you believe, but what Stein believe.
..and as Porco Dio says, no field of science can make people discard their logic and compassion like religion can.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. ” – Steven Weinberg
Hilbright has it backwards. Science doesn’t lead to behaviour; behavior leads to science. At best he can claim that someone who wants to kill finds a better means of doing so through science. Which puts the fault squarely on the person, not science.
Religion, on the other hand, leads people to want to kill, because it gives them motive and – if you ask your god really nicely – forgiveness for doing it. The holy books of all three Abrahamic religions are filled with their invisible sky-fairy reveling in the countless acts of slaughter and genocide he both ordered and committed.
Like clinteas said, how many have been killed in the name of competing theories of science? Was there a Thirty Years’ War between organic and polymer chemistry that no-one us about? Can you name me a contemporary science textbook where killing is justified?
@Kel at #51
I don’t think rape-lying is analogous to science-religion in any way. Rape and lying are both things that belong to the same category – wrong actions. Rape and lying are comparable. Religion and science do not belong to the same such category. Religion is a set of unfounded beliefs, science the collective name given to the way things work, as observed, and hence the two are not comparable like ‘rape and lying.’ What I mean to say is, ‘Religion has on occasion led people to kill, but so has science’ is not analogous to ‘Rape is wrong, but so is lying’. In fact, the former is a non-sequitur.
#46
I do not profess to know your beliefs but consider these propositions.
1) The Charge: “I thought that I could improve the lot of the human race by killing those I consider inferior to me.” Unlikely. There can be no scientific justification for this stance as there is no scientific method to prove superiority. The Verdict: Insanity.
2) The Charge: “By the time he finally solved Fermat’s Last Theorem , Mr. Wiles had dismembered 7 of his neighbours then ate the victims.” Clearly he was frustrated by his efforts and not by his science. The Verdict: Insanity
3) The Charge: “The woman arranged for men to rape other women. She would then convince the victims to become suicide bombers so they could rid themselves of the shame of rape and restore their family’s honour and avenge The Great Satan.” Entirely justifiable by scripture and religious idiocy. Just like apartheid, the Inquisition, pogroms… The list is endless. The Verdict: Insanity
Religion is madness, it’s followers insane… they can easily commit atrocities in its name by taking their superstition too far. Belief in the unjustifiable and the flexible is a way that will, necessarily lead to abominable behaviour.
@48/49,
This is becoming rather boring. If you are going to criticize Stein’s argument you must understand what he means by science. His “correct” usage of the term is irrelevant for evaluating the soundness (or lack thereof) of the actual argument. His “incorrect” usage of the term for the purposes of persuasion or propaganda is a different issue which must be dealt with separately.
I understand it’s a hard distinction to make for some people, but at least try.
@48,
Which holy book would that be? Please, enlighten me as to which holy book I follow.
@50,
I am not dismissing science nor religion. I am dismissing the perspective which holds that human behavior is simple and dictated by one component.
It’s more to demonstrate that even if one is wrong, it doesn’t make it okay for the other one. Say with rape any lying, no-one would buy if a man raped a woman and the man said “the bitch lied to me” as if it were a justification of the rape. It’s the equivocation that one is comparable to the other, and anyone other than Ray Comfort would not put rape and lying in the same category. Likewise, even if bad things are done in the name of science (or the pursuit of knowledge), then it cannot be off-handily equivocated with what is done in the name of religion.
The type of reasoning is analogous, not the actual statement. I’m commenting on his use of equivocation, not the comparable statements.
I too spend many hours pondering gravity. Is it mutual attraction or does the earth simply suck?
@58
‘Your Mighty Overload’ obviously used the term ‘your’ to mean ‘one’s’, as is often used. You saw that when Stein said ‘science’, he specifically meant ‘Darwinism’, but couldn’t identify ‘you’ being used in a comment in a generic sense to mean ‘someone’.
Whoa, careful. You’re going to pull a muscle attacking that straw man.
You are making an equivocation here between two entities that need no such link:
“I do not believe science necessarily leads to such behavior. I do not believe religion necessarily leads to such behavior. These positions are both oversimplifications of complex behavior.”
Given that religion is closely tied with morality, given it’s dictatorial influence over society, of course there could be at least somewhat of a link between religion and violence. Of course there’s some oversimplification in a statement like that, you aren’t going to sum up any behaviour in one sentence. Saying it’s an oversimplification in both instances sounds like there is an equal amount of truth to the claims. You are equivocating one with the other, and saying regardless of any validity that both are oversimplifications. Either you are just pointing out the obvious (that you cannot sum up complex issues in 5 words) or you are trying to equate the words of Stein with the words of Dawkins in an effort to make it look like the truth is somewhere in between and both men miss the mark.
Hilbright:
I am willing to criticize and question both. That is what a skeptic and a freethinker does.
I
am willing tocriticizeand question both what I.what I do not understand because I think that is what a skeptic and a freethinker does; in reality, I am neither.Sorry Hilbright – in #64 I meant to add ‘fixed it for you’.
And you’re still welcome.
@54,
Why does Stein believe science leads to killing people?
@55,
Well, obviously, we disagree. I believe human behavior is more complex than presented by your perspective. Hence, I dismiss the “religion leads to” perspective. Likewise, I dismiss the “science leads to” perspective. This is the perspective assigned to Stein. I believe things are more complex, and it takes more than religion or science to bring about human behavior.
It would seem, then, that I disagree with everyone other than myself.
@57,
Too simplified. Rarely is human behavior the result of one thing. To be honest, I can think of no example where human behavior could be reduced to one thing.
william at 58
I left the holy book deliberately vague. It could be any holy book. I don’t care about which you particularly follow if any.
As I said, it doesn’t matter whether BS says “science” or “evolutionary biology” or even “Darwinism”. The fact is he is dead wrong. Evolutionary biology takes no position on whatever moral decision it is you have to make. it is an explanation and that’s it.
Bill at 66
The you’re not listening.
No-one has said religion ALWAYS leads to murder, but that is can. And that it can be used to justify atrocities in a way that science cannot.
Unless I missed it nobody has mentioned this. Stein said
Errrmm, BS, you showed in that dumb game show that you aren’t stupid so I assuming you are being deliberately dishonest here. Everyone involved was very clear that you were free to speak at UVM, just not to give the commencement. They will allow a platform to sprout you hate for what they stand for, but they will not garnish you in laurels for it.
@61,
I may well have misread or overlooked something. Fair game. It happens. However, rather than take potshots, how about actually engaging my comments?
@62,
To advance the discussion, clarify the original argument. Then please explain what you perceive to be the argument I am attacking. This would help more than merely claiming that I am attacking a strawman.
@63,
Are you sure you mean equivocate? It seems the criticism you are attempting to level against me is actually one of false equivalence rather than equivocation. If you mean equivocation, you will need to explain more.
Hilbright wrote:
It’s not a question of complexity. No-one has claimed religion and religion alone is responsible for the horrendous acts the religious perpetuate. Obviously there are other factors.
But you still can’t replace ‘religion’ with ‘science’. It’s like trying to replace ‘rage’ with ‘mathematics’ or ‘injustice’ with ‘philosophy’. Science is about finding out how things work. Religion is about telling you how to live your life.
Oh, and IIRC, Stein’s comments also pertained to the Nazi chemists who manufactured the gases that were used in exectionts, and the doctors who oversaw the experimentation in the camps. So I dispute that Stein was only attacking evolutionary scientists; his brush was far broader than that.
Yeah,I meant equivalence. My brain isn’t working right today
You are now just arguing for the sake of discussion…
Let’s try a new question to revitalise this thread:
Does God think Stein is a twat?
exectionts? Meh. I think what Kel’s brain has is catching – over the internet…
I meant executions.
This argument is going nowhere because people just start with the assumption that murder or genocide or human death is always “bad” and thereby anything that leads to it is also “bad”. Sure, as a general rule it is, but it is fairly simple to construct a thought experiment where horrible things are justified and necessary. I don’t want to die, and we can all agree that it is undesirable, but I could think of lots of hypothetical situations in which I would walk willingly (if reluctantly) into the abyss.
I don’t think it is true that science can never be used as a justification of genocide or murder. Science is simply a systematic method of revealing the truth and sometimes that might be something horrible that requires some kind of horrible action (insert scenarios of limited oxygen on spaceship, quarantining/euthanizing victims of communicable horrible disease, etc, etc…). The difference is that science will be based on our best approximation of reality, whereas religion is based on our best approximation of the traditional prejudices and biases of various bronze/iron age cultures.
Morality is essentially a set of general underlying value/goals/needs (companionship, nourishment, pain avoidance, etc.) and the knowledge of how to achieve them. Science is knowledge (religion would be false knowledge–an unreliable way of knowing), and is a part of the logical pathway that constructs our moral dictates.
BenStein is a piece of shit
@William Hilbright:
Seems to me you keep missing the point people here are trying to make to you. I think this is what they’re trying to tell you:
Religion tells you what is right and what is wrong.
Science does not, it merely tells you how things work.
Now, you keep saying that that is, apperantly, not what Stein means when he says “science”, as it is obvious that what I have just described as being science does not lead to any sort of action. What I think Stein probably means when he says “science” is not the process of science, but the results of science, which, he claims, could be used to justify all sorts of evil things.
This is wrong, for the following reason: the results of science merely (attempts to) explain how the world works. It is no justification for anything.
Consider the following example:
Scientist discovers a specific (human) gene that causes some undesirable trait (this could be anything, from some kind of disease to blue eyes in some whacky culture where having blue eyes is bad for whatever reason). He, or another scientist, also discover a way to turn this gene “off” in an unborn child in some way.
Does this knowledge, in any way, justify turning this gene off? Of course not.
(note that I am not a biologist and have very limited knowledge of genetics, so my example is probably not very realistic)
On a side note, I just realized something: Stein said that science leads to, um, evilness. But, it is curiousity that leads to science. So, it is in fact curiousity that leads to evilness. Maybe we should send a letter to the Vatican that Curiousity should be one of the Deadly Sins?
ummmm, hi there
re: Kel, #78
?
Oh, I get what you are saying there. Fuck, I think I need more sleep. And I’m supposed to be on holiday here!
@67,
Stein’s definition of science is directly relevant to Stein’s argument about what science causes.
@71,
Then, I suppose my failure is being incapable of parsing categorical statements to understand they were meant to present a softer perspective.
[My response to the second paragraph will be combined below.]
Fair enough. Thus, if we are going to criticize Stein’s argument, then we must take this broader definition into consideration.
@71/72,
The fallacy of false equivalence results when someone is equating two things which are from different categories. An apple is not an orange, and vice versa. However, the problem here is one of misunderstanding the category. My comments are not equating apples and oranges, but fruits and fruits.
The category being used is one which includes all things which have been or could be considered to be sufficient alone to result in human behavior. Science and religion both clearly fit within this category.
Thus, the charge of false equivalence fails on this point.
@73,
Probably.
@77,
I do understand what people are saying. It was the other way around. They were using ‘x’ categories for thinking about the issue, while I was using ‘y’ category. See my comments on the false equivalence charge.
@All
Anywho, it’s late. I have much to do tomorrow, so I must bid you all a good evening or morning.
Again, can you show anywhere where science has had acts done which leads to killing people, or that the realm of behaviour is anywhere near what is done in the name of religion? This is where my problem with your statement was.
@ 81,
What kind of a category is that? You are spreading your legs really wide here….Drinking beer results in human behaviour for gawd’s sake,just make the category non-specific enough and you can make anything fit a category.
Science and bronze age sheepherder mythology,as others have pointed out,are not in the same category.
@66:
Why ask me? Stein is the one who makes that claim.
Once again the wingnut right, this time personified by one Ben Stein, displays its ability to multi-task.
Stein demonstrates he can be both disingenuous and dishonest simultaneously.
And let’s not omit stupid, too.
Note to Ben Stein – when you appear on TV programs, say like the 700 Club with Marion G. Robertson, remember that devices exist to record your words. An archive is created. Your ridiculous statements preserved and cataloged, available to be resurrected and referenced later. What you say can and often will bite you in the ass.
As for the commencement speech, he said, “I didn’t really want to do it in the first place…Mr. Fogel endlessly, endlessly asked me to do it” for a discount — roughly 80 percent cut in his usual fee. No sum was ever agreed on, Stein said. The only reason Stein finally agreed, he said, was that Fogel is the brother-in-law of “my best friend.”
How unbelievably crass is it to say something like that? This guy is completely tactless (in addition to all the other fine qualities he displays). Yuck.
Let’s have Stein’s speaking schedule so we can be sure the host receives some boos that it can pass on to him.
@71
“Science is about finding out how things work. Religion is about telling you how to live your life.”
I agree, but what if the best way to find out how things work involved using humans as test subjects and sacrificing some in the process? Scientifically, wouldn’t it work better to test drugs on humans instead of rats? Whatever it is that stops us from doing this, it isn’t science.
Ones religion/philosophy/moral framework can lead to increased killing or not killing when you otherwise would.
William Fulbright,
If Stein did not mean, when he said “science leads you to killing people”, that science leads you to killing people, then it is up to him to issue a retraction or clarification; and an apology. To the best of my knowledge, he has not done so. Until he does, we should take him at his word; and someone who holds that view is clearly unfitted to give a graduation address at a university.
The parallel you claim to see with Dawkins’ statement that “There is a logical pathway leading from religions to the committing of atrocities,” is absurd, since Dawkins’ statement is, in the case of many religions, true. Religion, unlike science, is concerned with telling people how to live their lives; and since the “holy books” of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism at least contain approving accounts of large-scale violence instigated by divine beings, the logical path is clear. Fortunately, very many religious believers are far better than the religions they follow – as Dawkins repeatedly notes.
So, to be clear, yes, you are guilty of drawing a false equivalence.
#27
Loved this comment on the video;
hehehe… Chemistry book with transitional fossil drawings… hehehehe!!! Degree in phantasy numbnuttery, methinks.
PZ – you are using the “no true scotsman” fallacy here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Christians use it all the time (“but he wasn’t a REAL christian”) to excuse bad behavior. Instead of “no real university” how about “no university with a respectable science program?”
Sure, it’s not as short, but at least you aren’t sinking to their level. :-)
What a fucking moron!
It’s okay, because he didn’t want to do it anyway. *roll eyes*
@11
“When I beat him for his $5000 on his old game show, I got a second look at his “brilliance.” The writers for the show scrupulously avoided ANY science or math questions, except in the final round that day–and he missed them all, giving me the win. His more recent activities make a bit more sense in that context…”
Dr.Prothero,
That’s a great tidbit of info, lol.
Your book ‘Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters’ is on my list of books to buy. I’m looking forward to reading it. :)
#77 SOCR-4735
Where? Not in the religious source texts I’ve read. It usually takes a shaman from the cult to interpret the texts, and they usually do so based on the mores and attitudes of the tribe they live in. Religious leaders do no more than reflect tribal values at best, and pervert them to their own advantage at worst.
It is possible to have moral values without either religion or science playng a part. You’re deluded if you believe the only source of values is that damned book.
Considering how Stein made me feel after I forced myself to watch Expelled, anything that makes him feel peeved is a good thing in my mind.
Could use some help in the comments section of the BFP: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090204/NEWS02/302040002&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
Alextangent #96
to answer your “Where?” question.
Pehapse you’ve heard of the 10 commandments. This would be but one example of where in the religious source texts, religion (gods word) tells you what is right and wrong.
thou shal not steal etc.
Maybe you are familiar with this????
Stein’s usual speaker’s fee is listed at $50K to $60K, so an 80% reduction would be “only” $10K – $12K—quite a lot to pay for a commencement speech!
I knew it! I didn’t say it but I knew it, knew it! (That’s how predictions are made, you know – after the fact.) ;-)
As for the commencement speech, he said, “I didn’t really want to do it in the first place.”
Yeah. This is just a bunch of theatrics. I’m beginning to think we ought to give Ben Stein some sort of award for turning the ID movement into a pinstriped version of “The View.”
@ alextangent (#96)
Umm, I don’t think SOCR-4735 was saying that one should accept any religion’s position on morality, merely that the purpose of religion is to dictate right and wrong. This is in contrast to the purpose of science which is only to explain how things work and, as such, it cannot be used as a “source of values” at all.
Certainly, there are non-religious sources of values, but that is not relevant to the point SOCR-4735 was making.
This is in contrast to the purpose of science which is only to explain how things work and, as such, it cannot be used as a “source of values” at all.
This is all, of course, going back to the reductionist strict-father frame that people are lascivious morons that cannot figure right from wrong and need a “source of values” in the first place.
William Hilbright @46
I suggest you read the book Fighting Words, by Hector Valos. Unless I’m reading the book wrong (always a possibility), it argues that violence is an inherent part of the world view of the Abrahamic religions. (it also has a chapter on secular-humanist violence, but I haven’t gotten that far yet)
Join the discussion!
“But there’s no sense crying over every mistake
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake
And the science gets done
and you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive.”
Someone give Ben some cake.
Ah, Ben “Darwinism-doesn’t-explain-gravity” Stein:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ben_Stein
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/contest/on-what-evolution-explains
Even aside from all the Darwin/Nazi crap, anyone anti-intellectual enough to say these things with a straight face is unqualified to give a commencement speech at an instutution of learning.
Oops! “Institution,” not “instutution”
Ben Stein: relax, all you have to do, if you so choose, is place this entry on your resume: “Honorary Ph.D., University of Vermont, 2009; Declined.” There, see how easy that was. Now your honorary degree is just as valuable as any other persons honorary degree (and you didn’t have to waste money on a frame). The entire practice is as absurd and meaningless as giving a Purple Heart to some one who never got shot (only, unlike a university, the military is smart enough not to do it).
Charley @ #89 said:
It isn’t science. I agree. That is the point we are trying to make! Science does not tell us what is right or wrong. It merely explains how things work. Science tells us that it is possible to use human beings as test subjects for study, but does not remark on whether this is a moral or immoral idea. Like you say, it isn’t science that stops us from using from using humans as test subjects instead of rats. Agreed. By that very logic, if some deluded scientist did use a human subject and sacrificed him for testing say, a new kind of drug, it would be the deluded scientist’s lack of morality to blame, not the science by which the drug was concocted.
As a genocide scholar, I’d like to throw a monkeywrench in the discussion on
“[Science|Religion] leads you to killing people,” says [Stein|Dawkins].
Being human leads people to kill people, not being religious or being atheistic. War has, again and again, been demonstrated to be the result of a complex calculation of wants, availability of resources, differences of all sorts, and deterring forces of all sorts. In short, war is clearly realpolitik.
Genocide, on the other hand, is the ultimate in perception fogging, in which circumstances and historical myths create a perception of threat for which the only defense is annihilation. I cannot repeat this strongly enough: If you are capable of self-defense, you are capable of genocide. And, religion in no way precludes nor requires self-defense.
In other words, this is a stupid argument of name-calling in which either side attempts to suggest that the other is incapable of living “rightly.” And, more to the point, if somehow you have watched Dawkins’ specials or read his books and not come away with the conclusion that religion must be the source of all (or at least most) of humanity’s evils, then you must have been watching something else.
Religion is unneccessary. It is incorrect. It is logically unsound. These are the arguments to make, not those that are the equivalent of “if your hand is bigger than your face, that means you have AIDS!”
There was a man named Hillbright
who argued in a thread
So willfully obtuse, it seems,
to beat a horse long dead
Clinging to a point of view
silly in extreme,
Splitting hairs with stubborn care,
pilectomy supreme!
Science is amoral and avoids
all thought of “should”.
It’s only seeking knowledge,
not judging bad from good.
It does not guide our actions
or influence our will
It never says to any man
“It’s time to go and kill.”
Religion on the other hand
is quite another matter.
It’s full of admonitions
and moralistic patter
Of when to lie and when to kill
and whose boots you should lick
It says right there in holy writ
to kill the heretic,
To stone your straying daughters
and misbehaving sons
And maybe tame the heathens
by reaching for your guns.
No one says religion
need lead to Holocaust
Just Hebrews 6 and Luther’s piss
might justify such loss
Of basic human decency
in tyrant’s quest for power,
And ease the pious conscience
of the man who starts the shower.
So Bill atop your little hill
that isn’t quite so bright
Go stow you lame-ass arguments
Begone, you troll, good night.
Welcome to my world, where you’re convinced everyone is salt of the earth, well-meaning and overly polite – until they freeze and point with an ghastly extended arm, their gaping mouths emitting an insect-like scream; they’re pod people from the plant Conserviachristiania and they can’t wait to take over the world.
Not really, they’re just xenophobic Texas goobers with an authoritarian fetish who get all moist and gooey for Jeebus and anyone identifying as a conservative republican.
@83/84/90,
Does religion alone lead to killing people? No. Does science alone lead to killing people? No. Therefore, both religion and science are a part of the category “does not alone lead to killing people.” Within this sense, they are equal. Thus, no false equivalence has taken place.
@85,
I suspected you wanted to be involved with the conversation.
@90,
It seems Stein’s definition of science includes Nazi elements. Thus, we must evaluate Stein’s argument in these terms. It would be helpful to have him provide further clarification though.
With regards to the remainder of your post, see my comments above.
@104,
Thank you for your recommendation. Are you be interested in summarizing and engaging his arguments with me? Or were you merely suggesting a book?
@112,
Good word. (Haha.)
@113,
I suggest you understand the definition of troll before accusing someone of being so.
Mister Hilbright….
Your persistence in arguing a thoroughly debunked point and your absolute refusal/inability to understand how it has been debunked labels you as either idiot or troll.
I was merely giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Have a nice day.
@ #99 gingerbeard wrote:
Pehapse you’ve heard of the 10 commandments. This would be but one example of where in the religious source texts, religion (gods word) tells you what is right and wrong.
Have you ever read the 10 commandments? Except for not stealing and killing, which have existed in just about every society that ever existed, most would be unconstitutional in America, not only unconstitutional, but idiotic. Cast no idols? Let’s throw all sculptors in jail. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or slaves? Let’s stone people for what they think. People who think they need to follow the 10 commandments to learn what is right and wrong couldn’t possibly have ever read them.
I revise my last position —
Bill hasn’t got the wit
To be an honest troll here.
He’s just an idiot
Arguing a strawman,
shifting the goalposts.
Keep tilting at those windmills, Bill,
and refuting your own ghosts!
William Hilbright at # 114
Does religion alone lead to killing people? No. Can it and has it been at times the sole motivator for killing people? Yes. Does science alone lead to killing people? No, science does not lead to killing people, at all. Alone or otherwise. Period. For the umpteenth time William, science is a mere explanation of how things work, not an imperative in any sense, unlike religion. Unless it is something like, you want to blame the law of gravitation if someone fell down a tall building and died. That is why the equivalence fails. A valid equivalence would be, say, between greed and religion.
# 116
Gingerbread is not a godbot defending the Bible. If you follow the previous comments, he is merely giving an example of how religion makes it imperative to follow certain things. He is not implying that those things are moral and are to be followed.
Aseem, you argue for lost cause
with a man who’s so obtuse,
He’ll never see your valid point,
his mind has broken loose.
He’s lacking in brain power
and what is even worse,
He’s had crap kicked out of him
by a horse talking in verse.
Stein spoke at West Texas A&M University. This was way before “Expelled”, but there several boos from the faculty sitting behind him when he mentioned that Bush did not throw his war medals into the fire like the other candidate. Moreover, his talk was long and boring, which must have disappointed the organizers because they thought he was going to be funny. That was the biggest joke.
My definition of Catholic involves pedophilia and anti-Semitism, so when I say “The pope is a leader of buggery and Jew-hating”, you have to evaluate my argument in these terms.
Or, to summarize what appears to be your position:
“”When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
@115/117,
Thank you for comments.
@118,
You are attempting to push my equivalence beyond what was intend. There is intellectually dishonest. Allow me to provide an analogy to help highlight the error you are making.
Speaker 1: Apples and oranges are fruits.
Speaker 2: False equivalence! They do not have the same nutrients!
Further, I am highly skeptical of the notion that anything can be the “sole motivator” towards action. Could something, religion included, be a primary source of motivation for action? Sure! The sole source of motivation? You’re going to have to support that one with evidence.
I protested Stein when he came UVM and I’m really reall glad/proud/etc that this went down this way. Go VT!
William Hilbright, consider your equivalence statement in terms of rewards and punishments. Some religious ideologies absolutely reward the murder of people with specific characteristics or behaviors, or at least there is a case made that the act of murder will bring rewards to the murderer (such as heaven and martyrdom). You cannot find such a case in science.
Even the rewards for Nazi scientists, who were conducting inhumane, unethical science experiments on humans, were not due to the actual act of killing, maiming, or torturing their subjects; the rewards came from an ideological assumption that there would be gains in knowledge that would make the Nazis stronger and probably even more so from a pathological desire to kill. Certainly you can’t call the Holocaust a science experiment (as Stein implied in Expelled), it was thoroughly ideological and non-scientific.
So of course an unethical person conducting science can be every bit as murderous as a religious zealot, but science itself does not reward murder while the zealot’s religion does.
Likewise, some religions demand punishment for human traits and behaviors; the very act of punishing is supposed to promote goodness according to some dogma. Science has no such ideology attached to it even though certain types of scientific knowledge do end up being used to punish people.
Some religions do reward murderers and do call for punishment of humans for various reasons, so they do instigate both murder and punishment. Science of any kind does not, although it can be used to murder and punish humans. You and Stein are wrong in saying that science is necessary for murder and punishment of humans. Certain religions, however, are sufficient cause for a religion-abiding person to murder or punish another human.
has the ben’ster been dropped by UVM?
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/902030316/-1/NEWS05
You know, I just noticed this while skimming the comments:
Ben Stein: “science leads you to killing people”
[Later:]
Ben Stein: “I am far more pro-science than the Darwinists,” Stein said later in an e-mail. “I want all scientific inquiry to happen — not just what the ruling clique calls science.”
So… Given that Stein asserts that science leads you to killing people, he then adds that he is in favor of this thing that leads to killing people, and he wants more of it?
Really, someone should call him on that, and record it on video.
So whats the plan, stalk Stien and sabotage any university visits? Sounds good to me!
I disagree, P.Z. I don’t think Stein would be welcomed at Liberty University. His people killed their gawd, you know.
EXPELLED! NO JEWS ALLOWED!
From the linked article:
Wait… what?… He’s The Stein now?
Hilbright @123
You are the one being intellectually dishonest by comparing science and religion like you would compare apples and oranges. Science and religion are as incomparable as oranges and science, or apples and religion. You want me to give you an example where religion was the sole cause of murder? The most glaring example is 9/11. The 19 young, educated hijackers had no material gains in mind. They knew they were going to die. The only motivation behind this heinous act was their religion – wanting to please their god. According to them, their god and their religion demanded it. Same with the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Now, you tell us one instance of science being even partially responsible for the killing of a human being.
William Hilbright @114:
Which leaves your statement bland to the point of meaninglessness.
Within that sense, everything is equal. Can you think of anything that doesn’t fit in that category?
Try a more useful category of “sometimes motivates people to kill”, and see if you still think they rank the same.
this has been a wonderful exercise in futility, banality, inanity.
random poster: you are william hilbright.
william hilbright: your argument fails as the order of your lettering merely matches my name.
As for the commencement speech, he said, “I didn’t really want to do it in the first place.”
Oh, sure. I wish he would just go away. Let’s find a cave for him Bush, Cheney and Rove to hide in.
So, William Hilbright, let’s see if I can put this in the most simple terms possible:
– Religion’s purpose is to guide our actions and thoughts in very specific ways.
– Science’s purpose is to explain reality.
This means that, in their purpose, they are not at all the same.
Your equivalence fails to recognize that religion requires action. Religion alone can and does lead to killing people because it takes a stance on the value of life and demands particular action. Science alone cannot lead to killing people because it takes no such stance and demands no particular action.
(Note that however they are used as justification after the fact is irrelevant because we’re talking here about whether they lead to action.)
Thank you Assem for defending me, it is very weird to be accused of being a god bot.
As tomh didn’t follow back in the postings I’ll take a bit longer to make the point
alextangent claimed that in the religious texts he’d read religion does not tell you what is right and what is wrong. I thought this was disingenuous as anyone in modern society would be aware of the 10 commandments from the bible, which clearly state what is right and wrong. I know there are lots of other examples but not having a bible or other religious fable book handy at work I went with the most obvious example.
The whole Science vs. Religion thread and which one kills people.
I would restrict my comments to monotheistic religions and specifically the three “desert dogmas” (as Pat Condell puts it).
Yes, anyone can misapply either science or religion and/or ascribe to each support of homicidal behavior.
There exists a big difference between faith and religion. Many religious apologists try to conflate the two. Quoting Condell again (and I paraphrase) linking faith and religion is like a pet store that gives away a free rattlesnake with every bunny rabbit.
Here’s the difference between science and religion. I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to quote this passage from Bill Pullman’s trilogy. He does not mention “science” specifically, but philosophically, it fits.
Philip Pullman. The Subtle Knife (New York : Alfred Knopf, c1997) p. 320.
One last bit of snark on the subject of religion or science leading to killing people:
When we see radical empiricist suicide bombers blowing up the discovery institute or a school of economics somewhere, or the fortune teller’s booth at the carnival then I may concede some equivalence.
The old Stein’er is certainly not welcome at my alma mater “Wossamotta U”. He’ll get “the bum’s rush” if he tries to do his bizzness there.
The Christian creationist Discovery Institute is upset.
@ Steven Dunlap (#137)
Except that religion does not require misapplication to support homicidal behavior. Rather, while religion, as a concept, does not necessarily support killing, adherents of religions that do support killing are correctly applying their religion when they kill in its name.
@131,
I have clearly defined the categories. Category A includes things which alone lead to killing people. Category B includes things which alone do not lead to killing people. We have both agreed that both science and religion fit in Category B. Therefore, logically it follows, that science and religion are equivalent within this regard.
With regard to your example, how do you know religion was the sole motivation? You made the claim, now support your assertion.
Further, I have no obligation to show science has been used to justify behaviors because I never made the claim that it has been.
@132,
My categories would be meaningless if there were no people who claim religion alone leads to killing people. There are enough anecdotal examples in existence to show that such a distinction is meaningful, however.
@133,
There exists failure, but it is not with my argument.
@135,
If you are going to critique my argument, then you must do so as defined. You are using different categories from those which I have defined. Thus, your counter-argument fails.
I agree religion can and has been a factor in leading people to kill other people. The categories which I defined were asking the question about whether it necessarily leads to such behavior. I think we have all agreed it does not.
William Hilbright #114:
Jihad, holy war, conversion by the sword, has religion as the sole justification for adherents to kill non-believers.
Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II (1578–1637) was a pious Catholic. His recognition as King of Bohemia and suppression of Protestantism precipitated the early events of the Thirty Years’ War, and he remained one of the staunchest backers of the Anti-Protestant Counter Reformation efforts as one of the heads of the German Catholic League, prolonging the Thirty Years Wars by insisting the Edict of Restitution be enforced. Some historians blame him for the large civilian loss of life in the Sack of Magdeburg in 1631, as he’d instructed Count Tilly to enforce the edict upon Saxony.
@138,
Are science and religion both human activities?
@143,
Yes, I see the claim. I want to see the evidence that religion is the sole motivation for behavior in each case.
Give me another justification for jihad, Billy. Give me another justification for conversion by the sword or execution for heresy.
There’s all kinds of killing with religion as the SOLE reason. Do you think the Spanish Inquisition was killing heretics for grins and giggles?
Hilbright, many posters have presented examples of where people driven (partially or wholly; I’m not fussed) by religion have killed. Can you remind us of your specific examples of where science has driven people to killing? IIRC you have presented nothing of that sort to support your claim, only the assertion.
Is Hill-not-so-bright still banging on this topic?
The evidence is sworn testimony, eye-witness testimony, confession, professional evaluation, and so on.
In addition – you seek proof that religion is their ‘sole’ motivation, yet in previous statements accept, nay demand, that people are ‘too complex’ to be motivated by single factors.
You are an ass.
In the majority of cases, we could simply say that mental illness weas the primary factor governing the behavior – and we’d be right.
We could suggest ‘upbringing’, and in many cases would also be correct.
We could say ‘environment’ and be equally true to the facts.
But we can definitively say that the common factor in all is their devotion and submission to the tenets of religion. In. Every. Case.
So stop being such a fucking sophist and accept that you lost the argument many many posts ago.
Kagato @ #132:
Now you’re being unfair to William here. His statement is actually incredibly useful, because we can now say that indigestion, haemorrhoids, and not getting laid are perfectly equivalent to religion, because they also do not alone lead to killing people. Other conditions are also required, such as being living and breathing.
William Hilbright,
Some religions do reward murder of people, and some religions (such as Christianity) have historically demanded murder in the form of sacrifice. That is enough to make them a sufficient cause for murder, isn’t it? You can say all you want that such a religion is not a sole cause, but it is still the primary cause and is guilty as charged.
You seem to be saying that a person’s interpretation of religious doctrine is the underlying motivator in cases where adherents commit murder in the name of religion. Yet, religions that advocate murder for various violations of religious law are based on authoritative hierarchies of interpretation, not democratic interpretation. For example, the Catholic Church does not actually carry out executions based on its religious doctrine in the modern day because the male at the top of the religious hierarchy does not interpret it that way anymore, but that is not true of other less established Christian sects in the modern day or of the historical Catholic Church.
There are many human institutions that cause murder besides religion, such as law, nationalism, and militarism, but science is not one of them. That’s what you are missing. If the law says a criminal’s punishment is death, then an officer of the law will kill the criminal. The law is the primary cause of that as interpreted by a judge, not the state of mind of the officer of the law. Religions that prescribe murder for religious law violations go further by rewarding vigilantes or condemning those who refuse to go along to a similar fate. Science just does not do that in any way whatsoever.
@146,
Nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof. However, the burden is on those who claimed religion is the sole motivation in Jihad. This means it could have nothing to do with wanting to belong to a community, politics, and so on. I am still waiting for the evidence to support the claim.
With the Spanish Inquisition, you tell me. Was the sole motivation religion?
@147,
I never said there were any instances in which science lead to killing people. Thus, I have no obligation to support such a claim.
@148,
If being an ass means full aware of my perspective but still remaining open to evidence to the contrary then I am an ass. If I have lost any argument, it was arguments which I was not making to begin with.
@149,
Yes, you are correct. These things could be said to be equivalent to religion in that respect.
@150,
I admitted it is possible for religion to be the primary cause. I remain skeptical about its ability to be the sole cause. And I am not equating science and religion in the manner which your post suggest. Though, many here have misinterpreted my statements to mean as such.
Witch burning throughout the middle ages, it would be hard-pressed to argue that one didn’t have a religious motivation.
@152,
You are correct, and I would not argue there was no religious motivation involved. However, can it be shown the religion was the sole motivation in any single case?
@all,
I have repeatedly stated religion cause be a cause mixed with other factors. I have even stated it could be the primary cause. I am looking for evidence from those who claim it can be the only cause or motivation.
I would expect those who make sure absolute claims to be able to support them with some really wow-bang evidence. As the old adage goes, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Sole motivation? Why does that matter if it’s the only factor? the fact that it’s a factor at all has strong merit. Of course these days the only cases of witchcraft come out of Africa where there’s still a paranoia about witches being literally true. Which would suggest an appeal to authority combined with a general ignorance facilitates such behaviour – things lacking in the technocracy we find ourselves in. Does religion cause the violence? Well yes, given certain factors. If it weren’t for the belief in witches, then there would be no-one killed for being a witch. It’s an obvious truism, just as if there were no people who believed in demonic possession then there would be no exorcisms.
To deny that religion played a part, that it had responsibility, that would be absurd. Just as it would be absurd to conclude that because someone is of the same religion they would exhibit the same behaviour. But that’s not the point, it never has been, and it seems a very limited way to look at the world if one thing has to be an absolute in circumstance.
William Hilbert erects a strawman:
“[Science-AS DEFINED BY STEIN|Religion-ALONE/SOLELY] leads you to killing people,” says [Stein|Dawkins]. Post #6
Consider this:
“There is a logical pathway leading from [sciences|religions] to the committing of atrocities,” says [Stein|Dawkins.]
There are two clowns here. Dawkins isn’t one of them.
Hilbright,
We have presented evidence for our claims that religion has contributed motivation for killing.
in post #151 you wrote:
yet in post #81 you wrote (emphasis mine):
You are claiming science and religion are equally capable of affecting human behaviour. To support this claim you need to show evidence that science is religion’s equal in contributing to the motivation for killing.
As yet you have not done so.
@154,
It matters because this was the claim by other posters. They were claiming religion can be the sole motivation which leads to people killing other people. So, I am looking for someone who can provide actual evidence to support this claim.
And I am not at all in disagreement with anything within your post. I agree with everything you have stated.
Who has claimed that religion is a sole motivation?
@ William Hilbright (#142)
No, we have not agreed on that. In fact, religion has shown that it fits into your Category A quite readily. That it does not always do so doesn’t excuse it from that fact that it sometimes does so.
Your argument fails because you’re arbitrarily refusing to place religion in both categories. My argument merely shows that, because of the difference in purpose, religion cannot avoid finding itself in Category A as well as Category B.
Granted, religion in general does not necessarily lead to such behavior. But, given religion’s purpose, a particular religion can necessarily lead to such behavior. You are not comparing “fruits and fruits,” you’re begging the fucking question. You might want to “dismiss the ‘religion leads to’ perspective,” but you can’t honestly do it by setting up a false equivalence and ignoring the fact that religion fits in a broader category than the one you’d prefer it belong to. You’re like Cinderella’s step-sisters, hacking off toes and heels to stuff your foot into the glass slipper.
The whining and sniveling has already started at the Disco Toot’s website.
Pathetic frauds that they are, I love to read their drivel.
Gives me a little lift to read John West or Robert Crowther trying to act like real intellectuals. It’s really cute.
Let me analogise Hilbright’s argument.
Hilbright: Frank is equally as tall as John.
Pharyngulites: We’ve measured Frank. He’s exactly six feet tall. So you’re saying John is exactly six feet tall?
Hilbright: I never said that. I simply said Frank exists and John exists and they are both tall. Stop misquoting me!
Religion can lead to atrocities and killings.
Science — social sciences and humanities — is a useful tool to understand the origins, consequences, usefulness, insanity etc of relgions…
Hence Science “leads to” killing.
@ waldteufel #169
linky pinky pleasey weasey
I believe he taught law here at AU, but that was before everything happened with his endorsement of IDiocy.
Howard Dean is going to be the commencement speaker at UVM (www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090206/NEWS02/90206016).
Can’t say I’m cheering at that choice, but it’s way above the choice of Stein.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592