Print
Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
by Megan Hawkins, Des Moines Register
Thanks to Martin Gill for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333
The community college instructor says the school sided with students offended by his explanation of Adam and Eve.
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
Sarah Smith, director of the school's Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman's employment status. The school's president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.
"I can assure you that the college understands our employees' free-speech rights," she said. "There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment."
Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.
Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."
"I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn't given any more credibility than any other god," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."
Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.
"I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here," he said. "From my point of view, what they're doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century."
Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman's free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.
"I don't know the circumstances, but if he's teaching something about the Bible and says it is a myth, he shouldn't be fired for that because most academic scholars do believe this is a myth, the story of Adam and Eve," Avalos said.
"So it'd be no different than saying the world was not created in six days in science class.
"You don't fire professors for giving you a scientific answer."
Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone.
Wild did not return telephone or e-mail messages Friday. Bitterman said that he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.
"As a taxpayer, I'd like to know if a tax-supported public institution of higher learning has given veto power over what can and cannot be said in its classrooms to a fundamentalist religious group," he said. "If it has ... then the taxpaying public of Iowa has a right to know. What's next? Whales talk French at the bottom of the sea?"
Reporter Megan Hawkins can be reached at (515) 284-8169 or mehawkins@dmreg.com
Reposted from:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333
The community college instructor says the school sided with students offended by his explanation of Adam and Eve.
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
Sarah Smith, director of the school's Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman's employment status. The school's president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.
"I can assure you that the college understands our employees' free-speech rights," she said. "There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment."
Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.
Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."
"I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn't given any more credibility than any other god," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."
Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.
"I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here," he said. "From my point of view, what they're doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century."
Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman's free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.
"I don't know the circumstances, but if he's teaching something about the Bible and says it is a myth, he shouldn't be fired for that because most academic scholars do believe this is a myth, the story of Adam and Eve," Avalos said.
"So it'd be no different than saying the world was not created in six days in science class.
"You don't fire professors for giving you a scientific answer."
Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone.
Wild did not return telephone or e-mail messages Friday. Bitterman said that he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.
"As a taxpayer, I'd like to know if a tax-supported public institution of higher learning has given veto power over what can and cannot be said in its classrooms to a fundamentalist religious group," he said. "If it has ... then the taxpaying public of Iowa has a right to know. What's next? Whales talk French at the bottom of the sea?"
Reporter Megan Hawkins can be reached at (515) 284-8169 or mehawkins@dmreg.com
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2007 | PermalinkComments 101 - 150 of 214 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers102. Comment #74096 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 8:14 am
JI much prefer Luca Signorelli's depiction of hell- lots of nude chicks :-)http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=9382&rendTypeId=4
Don't fancy seeing Mary whitehouse in the Scud - oooh
Other Comments by BillySands
103. Comment #74115 by Richard Morgan on September 27, 2007 at 9:21 am
Northern Bright...there's something very odd going on.Yes.
Or rather - no.
Unfortunately it's not odd at all. It's called religion.
For many years I was a highly respected, much-in-demand lay preacher (forgive me for not revealing the name of the religion in question, nor the country where I wreaked my righteous havoc) and yet in reality, as you have noticed, I am a cantankerous ol' sod.
When you're a pastor, being a two-faced hypocrite goes with the job, I'm afraid.
In fact when I compare myself with David WeeFlea the main difference is that he's wrong about God and I'm not. The other difference is that I would be thrilled to be proven wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
104. Comment #74123 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 10:14 am
Wee Flea, what stuns me is that godbots generally chastise non-theists for the enormous amount of faith that it takes to be an atheist. Although I think the very notion of that idea is vacuous [i.e., many of us here try very hard to avoid believing in things in the absence of evidence], by your standards, shouldn't it actually be a "good" thing that we allegedly have a lot of faith? Religious folks generally consider faith a virtue...if atheism requires so much...don't we "win"? What's our prize? Where do we collect it? No, rather, I think that most of us abhor the very idea of belief without evidence. Even ignoring the fact that the negation term, atheism, does not, by definition, imply any worldview, you need to tell us what assumptions ALL of us are making when we deny the existence of things unseen. And further to the point, how does denying the existence of something make one fundamentalist? If we need to pull out the dictionary, then we will. Are you a fundamentalist a-fairy-ist? If not, then why? Are you willing to hear the evidence and discuss the merits of the fairy-ist case?
Other Comments by oxytocin
105. Comment #74126 by Bonzai on September 27, 2007 at 10:34 am
Well many of you say that we can't prove a negative, in this case the non existence of something. Actually we can, provided that that something is sufficiently specific and we adhere to some ground rules, the most basic of these would be logic and compatibility with observed facts,--with the qualification that we do have some latitude in interpreting facts. A simplified version of this procedure is widely used in mathematics, known as proof by contradiction. You prove the non existence of certain object by supposing that it exists and demonstrate that this supposition eventually leads to contradictions.So if we actually have a sufficiently specific intervening "God",-- say Zeus, Yahweh or Allah,- of whom plenty have been written and if we agree to the basic rules of rational inquiry and accept certain empirical data, we can,--and actually do,-- prove that such a God doesn't exist.
The problem is that believers either 1)refuse to be specific about the attributes of their Gods by claiming they are essentially unknowable and their effects unobservable. These gods probably reside in the 11th dimension in the superstring or outside spacetime and they "work through" our conscience or the laws of nature. These believers tend to adopt an infinitely ad hoc approach to interpret their scriptures, their gods are slippery and cannot be "nailed down"(this is not a specific reference to Jesus); or 2) refuse to adhere to the standard of rational inquiry and logic. In a nutshell :since God is infinite and omnipotent etc he doesn't have to play by any rule or be constrained by "human" logic.
Though there are overlaps, it seems that the intelligent believers, the non fundamentalists are more likely to use 1) while fundies are more prone to use 2) because even they know the literal claims of their so called holy texts are so ridiculous that they can't be defended on rational ground. "With God anything is possible" is their final refuge.
In case of 1) I think there is really nothing we can say about such a "God" because even its followers admit that they don't know anything about it. They essentially surrender before the battle even begins.
Is it philosophically valid to claim the existence of something with absolutely no idea what its attributes are except that it has no definite attribute? I think philosophers may want to argue over that but for all practical purpose an existence claim really has not been put forward. Postulating such a God as the "explanation" for anything, whether it is lightning or the existence of morality, is a non starter, there has not been a single instance that such an "explanation" leads to any understanding. It is impossible to gain any knowledge of anything by invoking an "explanation" which we in principle cannot know even according to its most enthusiastic advocates. Such a "God" is not an entity, it is just a shorthand for our uncertainties, ignorance and vaguely understood emotions that cannot be clearly articulated.
For all intent and purposes, no meaningful existence claim is in fact made in the first place by people who believe in such a "God" even though they may "feel" otherwise. Since there must be a definitive claim for something to exist before one can prove or disprove it, it is no wonder that atheists have no proof that such a god doesn't exist. Such a proof is impossible for trivial reasons.
As for 2) there is a name for this method of argument in non religious settings. It is called Bull Shitting. It is meaningless to talk about "proof" because they don't adhere to the normally accepted rules of the game in the first place. By "normally accepted rules" I means the rules everyone, including they themselves, have to use on a daily basis in order to function in the world, solve problems, create and use technology, cure diseases and so on.
So the statement that atheism is a "faith" and atheists are "fundamentalists" only applies if one regards a commitment to logic and rational discourse as a "belief" on an equal footing with other fantasies. But in this case it would be hypocritical to insist that we atheists must "prove" the non existence of God because once you discard logic,"proofs" have no meaning whatsoever. You may as well believe in anything
Other Comments by Bonzai
106. Comment #74131 by ridelo on September 27, 2007 at 11:11 am
Like Dave Allen? Look here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk
I never forgot his sketch where he entered a church as a South African white minister during Apartheid en saw a black man kneeling on the floor. Irritated he asked: "What are you doing here?"
The man answered: "Scrubbing the floor, minister."
The minister: "All right then. It's OK as long as you don't pray."
Other Comments by ridelo
107. Comment #74139 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 11:37 am
Bonzai, just a minor suggestion: science does not "prove" anything...we leave the proofs to mathematicians. All science can do is disprove something...that is, showing an idea is false by finding evidence that contradicts that assertion. Other Comments by oxytocin
108. Comment #74140 by scottishgeologist on September 27, 2007 at 11:39 am
rideloThat Dave Allen sketch is fantastic. Kudos for finding that one! It really shows the absolute absurdity of religion. Someone pointed out on another thread that humour is a useful weapon. I actually reckon it is one of the most important and this sketch shows why.
And the South African sketch has its own little twist regarding a certain poster on this thread. There was a time not so long ago, although they probably would rather forget it now, that certain ministers in Wee Fleas church supported openly the "praying calvinists" of the apartheid regime.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
109. Comment #74142 by Quine on September 27, 2007 at 11:45 am
While continuing to watch the fight over on the Register Forum, I am encouraged by the information that is pouring in from the non believer side. Perhaps it is the culture of the local community that the Christian apologists are quick to post ridiculous retorts that then allow the rationalists to pour in yet more actual knowledge. Those there who are following this must be getting exposure to ideas they would have not often seen in school. And there are the zingers to enjoy, such as this one, today, from the poster DuckPhup:
It is up to the intellectually-honest inquirerer to judge the reliability and veritas of sources based upon their credentials (PhD in ancient history and ancient languages from Columbia has more value than a PhD in Theology from Bob Jones University, for example, when evaluating the evidentiary value of historical source documents.) and the quality of their scholarship... NOT the web page that they appear on.
Anyway... having a Ph.D in Theology is rather like having a Doctorate of Teletubby Anatomy, a B.S. in Warp-Nacelle engineering, or an advanced degree in 'Republican Ethics'.
Other Comments by Quine
110. Comment #74144 by Bonzai on September 27, 2007 at 11:50 am
Oxytochin,Bonzai, just a minor suggestion: science does not "prove" anything...we leave the proofs to mathematicians. All science can do is disprove something...that is, showing an idea is false by finding evidence that contradicts that assertion.
I know what you are getting at, but science does prove certain things, again provided you agree to the ground rules. Finding evidence itself is coming up with proofs that certain phenomena exist. We do know for certain that the planet Pluto exists and germs exist as a result of science. Pluto was in fact predicted before it was actually observed as the result of carefully analysing the orbits of those planets we did know to exist by direct observation. Moreover, from a purely logically standpoint, disproving the proposition X is the same as proving its negation -X. So it would be absurd to say that science can only disprove things but not proving things on purely logical ground.
I think you misunderstand the Popperian statement. Scientific theories cannot be proved, it cannot only be disproved (note also the passive voice). It has to do with, I am sure you know, the limitation of inductive reasoning and so on. But it doesn't mean science cannot prove any proposition, if that is the case it would be quite useless. Scientific theories are not single propositions, they are coherent narratives or models of certain aspects of the world. Those cannot be proven, only disproved.
Other Comments by Bonzai
111. Comment #74150 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Bonzai, I don't know if you're a scientist, but that really isn't the way that we speak about things. When we make statements to colleagues and in our published reports, we don't speak about "proving" propositions. We talk about "evidence in support of", or "failed to find evidence for". In other words, we talk about the "null" and "alternative" hypotheses, and then conclude on the basis of probabilities. Not "proof for". I'm actually sure that we agree on what we're talking about, but are perhaps using different language. As a scientist, I sure as heckfire hope I don't misunderstand inductive reasoning as you seem to be suggesting. That would be most unfortunate for my work!!
Other Comments by oxytocin
112. Comment #74153 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Somewhere in [The Dawkins Letters - by David Robertson] I've highlighted a paragraph that made me laugh out loud in the light of what we know of [Wee Flea] in here - I don't have it with me at the moment though, so I'll have to look it out later and post it then.
OK, I have the book in front of me now. Have only read the first half so far (I have the pleasure of the second half still to look forward to), but I invite you to enjoy these little gems in the light of his behaviour on this forum:
"Most of the arguments are of sixth-form schoolboy variety and shot through with a passionate anti-religious vehemence."
"It is propaganda - not truth, not reason, not debate and most certainly not fair."
"It hardly constitutes rational argument and discussion."
"Your view, that the universe is only physical, is a hypothesis and one that is largely based on wishful thinking."
"How would you feel if I took some of the more ludicrous and ignorant comments from some of the atheists on your website and used them as an example of how atheism rots the brain? It would not be fair or honest."
"I am sure you would recognise that whilst experience is an important factor it cannot be the determining factor in ascertaining what is objective truth."
"The trouble is that your ridicule, combined with an atheist fundamentalism and the bitterness and irrationality of some of your own supporters, leads to persecution and intolerance."
"I would suggest that biblical Christianity is the most tolerant and practical worldview that exists."
"We respect every human being because they are made in the image of God."
"But if you attack my family, my friends, my community I am offended because part of my identity is tied up with them. [...] My identity is bound up with the God of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ. Therefore, when you attack him, you are attacking me. So please don't patronise."
"When I read the Old Testament I find a wonderful God - a God of mercy, justice, beauty, holiness and love, a God who cares passionately for the poor, for his people and for his creation."
"Is it not the case that you are really aiming at a polemical and emotional response rather than a rational one?"
"It is a rhetorical device that does not actually deal with any of the issues involved."
"When someone tells me they do not believe in God I often ask them to tell me about the God they do not believe in. They will then come out with the kind of statement that you do at the beginning of the chapter and I will tell them that I do not believe in that God either."
"And the ad hominem examples you use of eccentric and unbalanced religious people are not what most Christians would identify with."
"It is your attack on a distorted and perverted version of Christian teaching about God which provides you with the most entertaining smokescreen for your lack of substantial argument on whether God exists in the first place or not."
"You argue for complete annihilation of the religious."
"Science can tell us nothing about the Rock of Ages - Jesus Christ."
"By the way, I am fascinated that you think that there is something to be said for treating Buddhism not as a religion but as an ethic or philosophy of life. Would you therefore accept the philosophy that says that handicapped people are born that way because they were bad in a previous life and they are just getting their karma?"
"Do you seriously think that the evidence for the God of the Bible is on the same level as the tooth fairy?"
"So how about dealing with the evidence that we assert and staying away from that which only states your own presupposition - that there is no God?"
"I live in a universe created by a personal God, the God of mercy, logic, justice, goodness, truth, beauty and love - the God whose purposes and intentions are good."
"Your attack on him in a footnote in this chapter [...] comes across as 'bitchy' "
"The hisorical evidence for the claims that Jesus made is quite clear. The Gospels make it explicit."
"The reason that we believe in God is because of the evidence, because of science (knowledge), because of what we see in the universe. [...] I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
And finally, and rather beautifully: "Hoisted by your petard."
Other Comments by Northern Bright
113. Comment #74157 by Bonzai on September 27, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Oxytochin,Bonzai, I don't know if you're a scientist, but that really isn't the way that we speak about things. When we make statements to colleagues and in our published reports, we don't speak about "proving" propositions. We talk about "evidence in support of", or "failed to find evidence for". In other words, we talk about the "null" and "alternative" hypotheses, and then conclude on the basis of probabilities. Not "proof for..
I work in mathematical physics, though the experimentalists may think otherwise, we do consider ourselves scientists. :)
Now it seems that you are only talking about one kind of scientific reasoning, namely testing of hypotheses in the sense of statistics. Hypothesis testing,--I mean it in the specific sense used in statistics,-- and model fitting are probably the only methods used in the health sciences(you are a doctor, right?) In that kind of work of course you are right. The whole enterprise is based on probability.
Edit: (It is also true that in many areas of the health sciences they rarely make cause and effect assertions because their "theories" are primarily driven by data and there is an almost exclusive reliance on statistical methods. Statistics usually can only tell you about correlations but not causation (though with things like structural equation modelling you may actually tease out some causal inference but I am no expert) But this is not universal to all sciences, especially something like physics which has very powerful and well developed theories.)
Beside statistical hypothesis testing science does allow us to make factual statements in the form of yes/no propositions. Going back to my earlier example of Pluto. Through careful studying the planetary orbits scientists concluded that there had to be a massive object lurking in the outer reach of the solar system. This was later confirmed by observation. This is not a statistical statement.
That brings up another point.
Russell was wrong that we couldn't prove if there was a mystical giantic teapot flying around the solar system. If his teapot is more than a "phantom" which has no attribute, it would leave some traces which we can discover. For example, if it has mass it would perturb the motion of other planets like Pluto does, etc. So we do have ways to prove whether it exists, at least in principle.
What if it is a genuine phantom which has no other attributes other than existence? In that case IMHO the question is ill posed. I don't know whether it is meaningful to talk about "pure being" without any attribute and does not interact with the rest of the universe. I think the notion doesn't make sense ontologically, though I will leave that to the philosophers.
So yes, I think science can prove whether a God with any set of specific attributes exists, in other words, provided theists can say anything meaningful about their gods. Of course the ground rules of logic and rational inquiry is always assumed. If we don't adhere to such ground rules
we basically admit that the world is ultimately a lawless and arbitrary place. In that case we may as well have a lobotomy.
P.S. I didn't question your understanding of inductive reasoning, I was only saying that Poper's statement applies to scientific theories, not to factual propositions which often can indeed be proved or disproved.
Other Comments by Bonzai
114. Comment #74159 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Thanks for that Nothern bright, I remember reading some of them before on his troll thread. You have to laugh at the hypocricy of some of those comments - as well as their intelletual illiteracy. The one that made me laugh out loud was the one about the ot god being wonderful and concerned for people - tell it to Egypts first bor (exodus 11) for example, You have to worry about the mental health of someone who believes in that. The biblical christianity being tolerant was also a howler. Tell that to the Phelps's. Did you know the Rack was developed by the inquisitors based on numbers 9:12? - something to do with not breaking bones. Biblicist also claim this is a crucifixion prophecy that jesus would not have his bones broken on the cross - dream on boys!
Really love the fact that SG can produce all these embarrassing wee free facts, it really makes me laugh that David thinks he is morally superior
Other Comments by BillySands
115. Comment #74160 by ridelo on September 27, 2007 at 1:41 pm
scottishgeologistThanks for the kudos but it was sheer luck. I only looked for Dave Allen and saw a(n) (not sure about the n!) Dave-Allen-on-religion item. I'm looking forward to enjoy some more Dave Allen's on YouTube!
He was one of my comic heroes in the seventies and eighties. I liked the comedy on BBC better in those days than now.
Other Comments by ridelo
116. Comment #74167 by robert s on September 27, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Bonzai, you seem to have Neptune and Pluto confused - Neptune was discovered in the way you describe, but Pluto is about the same size as the Moon and has no observable effect on the motion of Neptune. Lowell started the search for a ninth planet based on a perceived anomaly in Neptune's motion, but whatever the cause of that anomaly was, it certainly wasn't Pluto.Similarly, whilst in principle a teapot has a gravitational effect, a teapot in space would be quite undetectable with current technology. (And, of course, undetectability is the point of Russell's argument - should someone develop a teapot detector, one would merely have to switch to something harder to detect to keep the analogy valid)
Other Comments by robert s
117. Comment #74171 by scottishgeologist on September 27, 2007 at 2:14 pm
rideloI had a look at some of the other Dave Allen vids on YouTube (that appear on the same page as the video you linked to) - some of them are seriously funny
As he used to say at the end of his programme "may your god go with you!" LOL!
And you're right, the comedy was much much better then - Python, Fawlty Towers, Porridge, brilliant. With the possible exception of Bill Bailey, it seems impossible now for a comic to get a laugh unless they say "shag" or "knob" or stuff like that evry 2nd sentence.
Speaking of Bailey and religion, try this (Acts of God):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tH2PkXLxGs
or Hinduism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHDQ6B0disY
Brilliant!
or
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
118. Comment #74176 by Fedler on September 27, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Thanks for the quotes, NB!"And the ad hominem examples you use of eccentric and unbalanced religious people are not what most Christians would identify with."I would agree with this to an extent. It's easy to handpick the nutjobs and put them up as the poster child. However, they're the most easily identifiable. Which brings up the question, what do most passive Christians believe in? One look at the zombie hordes of people going to church on Sundays out of habit makes me think: Have they ever really examined what they believe? Most have not. They just continue to go as a leftover duty to their family who dragged them to church as a youngster, or who go now as adults with children because they feel going to church will help "bring them up right" without explaining or exploring whether they believe. It's a passive charade that the church (of any denomination) is only too eager to prolong so long as people keep putting money into the collection plate. Where are the church officials actively seeking to confirm their beliefs scientifically? If they 'investigate' alleged miracles, do they do anything else constructive?
Other Comments by Fedler
119. Comment #74177 by Bonzai on September 27, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Robert s,You are right regarding Neptune, I stand corrected.
It may be difficult to detect Russell's teapot but it is not in principle impossible. The point I was trying to make is that if the existence claim of something is meaningful, it has to be specific. If it is specific then in principle we can disprove its existence if these attributes are in conflict with what we can observe. In other words, proving its non existence.
I should clarify that the indirect proof or proof by contradiction is quite standard and legitimate in proving the non existence of something with a list of attributes. To establish something exist by such method,--showing the absence of something lead to unaccounted for observations,--is considerably more tricky and controversial, though it is not the same as Popper's idea of falsifiability,--Neptune was proved to exist when it was observed.
So the point is yes, we actually can prove a negative as long as they are specific enough to say exactly what the "positive" is.
Other Comments by Bonzai
120. Comment #74178 by ridelo on September 27, 2007 at 2:34 pm
scottishgeologistThanks for the links to Bill Bailey, but for me (Flemish) he's a lot more difficult to understand than Dave Allen.
Other Comments by ridelo
121. Comment #74183 by Goatsbane J on September 27, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Oh, Northern Bright, thank you for that selection!It's these three that really jump out at me:
"So how about dealing with the evidence that we assert and staying away from that which only states your own presupposition - that there is no God?"
"The historical evidence for the claims that Jesus made is quite clear. The Gospels make it explicit."
"The reason that we believe in God is because of the evidence, because of science (knowledge), because of what we see in the universe. [...] I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
One big fat signpost to the never-ending conversation with David. The script is always the same:
'I don't believe in god because I don't see that there is any evidence for him.'
David: 'There is plenty of evidence for God. That's why I believe in Him!'
'Really? What is it?'
David: 'The Bible! Creation! Morality!'
'Right, okay. That's not good evidence as I understand it. Here, let me explain to you what I mean by "evidence" and why that's important...
[Painstaking explanation is spelled out]
So, now we're clear on evidence and the kind that backs up my unbelief: what evidence do you have for god?'
David: [Deafening and enduring silence.]
Oh, and I loved the last one:
And finally, and rather beautifully: "Hoisted by your petard."
Always nice, if you can manage it, to misquote Hamlet.
Other Comments by Goatsbane J
122. Comment #74184 by robert s on September 27, 2007 at 3:16 pm
How would you take the suggestion that scientists use the word 'proof' in a way that is more similar to the legal rather than the mathematical uses of the term? That is, 'a convincing set of evidences' rather than 'an irrefutable demonstration that carries complete confidence'.Other Comments by robert s
123. Comment #74195 by BillySands on September 27, 2007 at 3:55 pm
JNice to see Quetz has resurrected you on the other thread. One more incarnation and you could form a trinity. It was nice to see Revcort have a change of position, although I dont see him deconverting. If only Wee troll had the balls to be that honest. Anyway,
Always nice, if you can manage it, to misquote Hamlet.
And I thought it was just athiests that he misquoted.
There is an alternative discussion with David that appears frequently too
David: "typical atheist fundies adhereing to your creed - you cant accept the supernatural because of your irrational pre suppositions"
Us: "Explanation of reason, evidence, open mindedness, willingness to discuss.
David: "Random personal insult, I have proof, You are deluded by your faith - banana, wibble, more personal insults - a few lies thrown in".
Us: "really David? please tell us this proof so that our souls can be saved if we are wrong".
David: "you are all fundies, it will be wasted on you. I'm off to whack off in my tool shed - erm, I mean, I'm off to the netherlands for a few weeks - erm, you're all ignorant, bigoted fundies ...."
Now David can cut and paste these at Will, afterall, he never changes it
Robert s
I would include mathematics as a science. What do you think of the role of mathematics in physics? There is a great deal of truth in what you say though. Atomic theory was the result of compelling and increasingly self supporting evidence. These days though, we can "see" atoms
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/whittle/astr124/matter/atom_lattice.html
Other Comments by BillySands
124. Comment #74201 by robert s on September 27, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Mathematics isn't science because there's no observational component. Maths and science are both types of philosophy, though, so of course there are a lot of similarities and one often inspires advances in the other.My confidence that sqrt(2) can not be expressed as the ratio of two integers is on a completely different level to my confidence that Pluto exists or that matter is atomic. Even in the wildest Cartesian Demon scenario, there's still no two numbers that make root 2.
My point was that for scientific questions, 'proof' has a subjective element. Rather than trying to out-do the religious by claiming that our proof is better than theirs, we should make a point of expressing how confident we are in what we claim. The message in doing that is that having a contingent belief based on evidence is better than having certainty in a holy book.
Although when we do this, it does seems to go right over the believers' heads. Dawkins, the Fundamentalist Atheist, Prince of Certainty, qualifies all his assertions with very carefully chosen adjectives to indicate his confidence (eg: "Why there very probably is no God"), but those qualifiers don't seem to make it past the believers' filters.
Those qualifiers are vital, though, because once you regard proof as subjective, you can treat it as a proportion instead of an absolute.
It would be really interesting to see the discussion on the religious side run the same way - logically, shouldn't one be more convinced that Jesus lived than that he was born of a virgin? So far that kind of thinking seems entirely absent.
Other Comments by robert s
125. Comment #74210 by Bonzai on September 27, 2007 at 5:31 pm
robert s wrote:Mathematics isn't science because there's no observational component.
This is not the main point of my post but I think it deserves a response.
I think you are quite wrong on this. Mathematics is not like science in its method of verification, but not because of lacking of observation component. In many branches of mathematics mathematicians study and discover patterns and formulate hypotheses in much the same way that most natural scientists do. The only difference is that a hypothesis doesn't become a theorem until it is proven. That is the issue of verification. But how are these patterns discovered? If you look at things like the distribution of prime numbers and Riemann hypothesis it is essentially through observations.
Non mathematicians who read philosophy of mathematics often confuse the style with substance. Philosophers seem to have the opinion that mathematicians just sit and play with axioms and use only pure deduction to get their results. It is just the way mathematics is presented. It is quite far from what mathematicians actually do.
Another thing to keep in mind is that mathematics and physics are intimately linked. The cutting edge work of theoretical physics is often indistinguishable with mathematics. The great Russian mathematician Arnold put it thus, "mathematics is physics on the cheap". It may be a bit of an exaggeration, but he does have a point.
Whether sqrt(2) truly "exists" in some metaphysical realm is a question for philosophers, but you don't need to retreat to mysticism to appreciate what mathematicians do. In its most basic mathematics is the study of patterns and order. You can think of numbers and abstract mathematical objects as constructs that attempt to capture some aspects of the order in "real life" processes. The amazing thing is that these order and patterns can be studied in an abstract, disembodied way regardless of their origins, we can get information that applies universally in all instances where similar patterns manifest themselves (now there is mystery to the effectiveness of mathematics, see Roger Penrose for a some Platonic musings)
But regardless, this is just a digression and my main point doesn't rely on any reasoning process peculiar to mathematics.
My point was that for scientific questions, 'proof' has a subjective element.
Of course there is a subjective element. These are the ground rules of logic and empirical observations that I spoke of. It is conceivable that they are all wrong as the Biblical literalists would tell you, but in that event the whole discussion is moot.
The message in doing that is that having a contingent belief based on evidence is better than having certainty in a holy book.
Of course I agree with that. But if the claim is specifically that their God has done X Y Z (say stopping the Sun or flooding the whole world 4000 years ago) and there are incontrovertible evidence that X Y Z didn't occur then I don't feel we need to make the disclaimer that it is only based on contingent evidence that we rule out such a God. He couldn't have existed. Some other gods, perhaps, but not this one who supposedly has done X Y and Z. We know X Y Z didn't occur as sure as we know that Pluto exists.
Now in some absolute sense one may say that perhaps Pluto is an illusion and we really are captives of evil robots who harvest our bio energy like in the Matrix, such a possibility exists. In that sense our evidence is only "contingent" but if one can actually believe in that the commonly accepted notion of evidence would be quite meaningless and one can believe in anything and it would just make as much sense to reject their God in favour of the flying Spaghetti monster.
This argument has nothing to do with mathematics.
Other Comments by Bonzai
126. Comment #74217 by oxytocin on September 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Bonzai, No, I'm a psychologist. We don't need to get into the specifics of statistics, but health research does attribute causation, depending on the nature of the study's design. Obviously, correlational research suggests connections, but nothing more. If we're using a longitudinal, double-blind controlled trial design with multiple regression, for example, we talk about prediction and causation.
I think the only time that we're ever able to say something relatively concretely in science is when we examine entire population parameters and those are very hard to get. Even then, the very spirit of science is that our knowledge is always tentative, hence, the inherent omnipresence of probabilities behind all of our statements. Now, there are some things in this world that we act "as if" that's not the case, such as "Pluto exists". But the essence of science is that it is really only a very high probability. I don't know of any instance where measurement error is zero. That's one of the main reasons that "proof" isn't what we generate, although I'm sure we'd all like to be able to do so. Again, the practical differences between us, Bonzai, are truly microscopic.
I will also mention that your ideas concerning finding evidence of the celestial teapot are very much in keeping with Victor Stenger's approach to disproving the god hypothesis. Unfortunately, I don't think that any theist will be moved by such arguments since they commonly assert that their deities are outside space-time, and could even go so far as to willfully prevent us from detecting their presence. This assertion breaks down somewhat when theists further posit that the deity also exists in our material universe, as Francis Collins does. Then we might be in a position to detect the residue of its alleged presence. Even still, we likely wouldn't have enough data points to say anything meaningful unless "god" remained very still for a loooong time and permitted multiple measurements!
Other Comments by oxytocin
127. Comment #74219 by Russell Blackford on September 27, 2007 at 6:31 pm
This thread has certainly taken a turn for the better. Interesting discussion guys.There may be theoretical problems with Popper's work, but it's interesting to me to see how intuitive scientists find it. When I talk to working scientists about how they understand what they are doing, they tend to come out with Popperian-sounding falsificationist language. It's the philosophical theory about science that real scientists often seem to think "gets it".
Looking at science from outside, I don't think that everything they do is really like this, and I do think that science proves things all the time. I use words like "proof" in an everyday sense, or maybe in a lawyer's sense (which still has to be everyday enough to be understood by juries). Proving a fact doesn't necessarily mean showing that it is deductively entailed from incontrovertible premises, like a sound argument in deductive logic; it just means providing convincing evidence (to some standard of satisfaction, such as beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probabilities). By this point, science has provided convincing evidence of many things. E.g. we have convincing evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun and rotates on its axis, that the Solar System is billions of years old, that Pluto exists, that life has evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and so on. [Edit: I now see that roberts has already made a comment contrasting the legal and mathemetical concepts of proof.]
But all that said, Popper obviously had a huge part of the story of science right, judging by the reactions of working scientists, such as that of oxytocin above. Scientists really do seem to find that it comes naturally to think hypothetico-inductively and to be modest about what they are achieving - thinking of it as eliminating conjectures. Popper's work deserves to have more prestige outside of science faculties.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
128. Comment #74244 by pewkatchoo on September 27, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Northern BrightThank you for posting those little gems from the Flea's trashy book. My admiration for your fortitude in reading that bilge is immense. He really is a disgusting little weasel isn't he! It certainly validates my stance of simply ridiculing him every time. He will take whatever we say and use it against us anyway, but if he does, I suggest a class action lawsuit is possible.
As I said before, the presbyterian church is responsible for holding my country back for hundreds of years. Wee Flea is just a typical example of a middle ages throwback. He does not love his god, he simply sees an opportunity for him to exert some influence on his community. It is power and status that he desires, nothing else.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
129. Comment #74247 by epeeist on September 28, 2007 at 12:49 am
Comment #74219 by Russell Blackford
There may be theoretical problems with Popper's work, but it's interesting to me to see how intuitive scientists find it. When I talk to working scientists about how they understand what they are doing, they tend to come out with Popperian-sounding falsificationist language. It's the philosophical theory about science that real scientists often seem to think "gets it".
Popper's ideas on falsification are an excellent basis for deciding on the validity of theorems, though some people use the idea quite crudely.
Where it is less good I think is on the methodology of science, i.e. problem, hypothesis (or hypotheses), test, rinse and repeat. It is somewhat simplistic. Have you read any of Imre Lakatos' works? I think he gets closer on this.
Other Comments by epeeist
130. Comment #74248 by ridelo on September 28, 2007 at 1:05 am
As a retired science teacher it is for me a real eye opener to read all those interesting posts here about what science really is about.(I find it a pity that internet was not invented 20 years earlier!)I see now that my (and most of my colleagues) science teaching was too technical and too little philosophical.
Hopefully the next generation will use it for the best. At least they have the opportunity.
Other Comments by ridelo
131. Comment #74256 by hungarianelephant on September 28, 2007 at 1:32 am
oxytocin - health research does attribute causation, depending on the nature of the study's design
That is true, but it is largely because of the commercial and regulatory background rather than because of the "scientific" nature (or otherwise) of the research.
If you have a new drug, you have to establish that it is safe and effective before you can put it on the market. Safety means that the people in the trial didn't suffer unduly nasty side-effects, and efficiacy means that it has a statistically significant effect compared to placebo. Scientifically speaking, this doesn't actually prove a whole lot. It certainly doesn't prove a mechanism of action, and most drugs are approved with a label saying that "the mechanism of action is unknown". All you know is that taking drug A tends to lead to effects B, C and D. Causation is attributed as a shorthand. As you say, that's not proof. Of course, the scientists involved in discovering the drug will have had their own hypotheses about how and why it will work, and successful studies are some evidence for those hypotheses. But as a practical matter, its correctness or otherwise is irrelevant. It's the utility that counts.
I get the impression that most of the public have at best a hazy understanding of all this. Much of this is down to lazy media presentation - "Drug A Cures X", "Eating Chocolate Is Bad For You", "No Wait, It's Good" - and some of it is marketing. After all, if the FDA approved it, it must work, right? There's close to zero understanding of what science actually is and what scientists actually do (which are not necessarily the same thing). That's probably a discussion for another day.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
132. Comment #74261 by scottishgeologist on September 28, 2007 at 2:02 am
Billy mentioned:
I would include mathematics as a science.
I remember clearly, at school, in the back of my 6th year maths class, there was a book on the shelf, "Mathematics, the Queen and Servant of Science" by Eric Temple Bell
Somrthing of a classic and a title that always stuck with me.
And I think, says it all!
Mind you I have heard theology referred to as the Queen of sciences....
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
133. Comment #74330 by Russell Blackford on September 28, 2007 at 6:44 am
epeeist:
Have you read any of Imre Lakatos' works? I think he gets closer on this.
I've only read secondary literature on Lakatos, though I think I have a reasonable understanding of the main ideas. Yes, they seem useful, but they're not usually as intuitive for scientists - at least in my perhaps limited experience. You may be an exception, or maybe my experience needs to be broadened.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
134. Comment #74331 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 6:45 am
hungarianelephant, you bring up some interesting points to be sure. In statistics we do have causal models, regardless of whether one's involved in commercial endeavors or not. In fact, I've never been involved in RCTs within industry...I work in the public system [in Canada] and, if anything, I've done research to disprove the findings of industry in a particular field.
Now, with regard to causation: I think you're right that the general population does not understand what this concept means. When analyzing these models, we do talk about causation [i.e., x came before y, and likely lead to y], but it's not so simple.
The goal of research like this is to account for the variation within and between groups [simply referred to as "variance"] subsequent to intervention. That means we have to match our groups on a whole host of variables, so we can say, with relative confidence, that the differences between groups at the end of the trial are due to the intervention and not individual differences. If there are indeed statistically reliable differences between groups after implementation of the research protocol, then we attempt to see how much of the between group variance can be explained by the intervention [having accounted for within group variance]; we derive an index such as the mutiple regression coefficient that takes into account the "error variance" that all research of this type generates, and then evaluate the strength of the intervention. Sometimes, the effect size, or the impact of the intervention, is small [but statistically significant], an aspect of this type of research that is WAAAAAY lost on the general public. When looking at trials like these, there is far more to account for than "this caused that".
Also, I think you're confusing mechanism with effect. Those are two entirely separate lines of inquiry. Both important, without doubt.
Scientists have a lot of responsibility to communicate findings to the public as accurately and clearly as possible, with the full understanding that they'll be terribly misunderstood no matter what! It's a constant battle.
Other Comments by oxytocin
135. Comment #74348 by hungarianelephant on September 28, 2007 at 7:51 am
oxytocin Interesting stuff. My experience of research is largely limited to how things work in the pharmaceutical industry. It's interesting to see how concepts translate to other fields.Yes, my post didn't clearly distinguish between mechanism and effect. The point I was trying to make is that knowing that Drug X has a specific effect in a certain proportion of patients doesn't actually greatly advance the course of "science" or "medicine". In terms of effect, what we know is of a relatively small study group. Most likely, we haven't a notion of why some people responded better than others. (Though in practice, we may have a theory, and designed the study protocol specifically to take advantage of it.) Even the precise effect can be nebulous. Sure, more people taking Vioxx get heart attacks, but is that because Vioxx increases the risk of a heart attack, or because the patient is not taking an anti-inflammatory which reduces the risk? It took a study of a huge number of patients to establish that the answer was "Probably both".
We know even less of mechanism, which leaves us without a sound scientific basis to progress to Drug X2. This isn't a situation that academic scientists are comfortable with, but industry has no choice but to live with it. Or go bust.
That's not to say that drug research isn't worthwhile, of course.
What's interesting is to see how these things are spun. The drug companies go to great pains to communicate clearly what the actual results of the trials were (not least for legal reasons). This is then summarised in a way which will clearly be understood by physicians, the financial markets and journalists as "This Drug Is Great", which of course is what gets reported. And realistically, we couldn't expect a mainstream newspaper to report, "In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of 3,120 subjects displaying at least 8 of the specified indicia below ..."
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
136. Comment #74364 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 8:43 am
hungarianelephant, I think that the public would be shocked to discover the number of treatments for which we do not understand the mechanism. Pragmatically, if they work, they work. And you're right: without understanding the mechanism, it's tough to improve on the effectiveness. This is the case with antidepressants. There are many choices, but all have roughly [with few exceptions] the same level of effectiveness in large groups of people, differing mainly in side effect profiles. When the mechanism is understood, we will be in a better position to say which drug will work well for which people. From what I've read, tailored medicine is the next possible revolution. Other Comments by oxytocin
137. Comment #74367 by hungarianelephant on September 28, 2007 at 9:11 am
Indeed, and the smaller drug companies developing anti-depressants frequently go data-mining in failed studies to see what they can do. If that sounds like a rather "hit and hope" approach, it's because it is. But there isn't the money for any reasonable alternative. (Re your comment on the other thread, it's a pity someone doesn't sit these companies' CEOs down, and not let them leave the room until they get this point.)Tailored drugs sound great, but since the off-the-shelf variety currently cost around $1bn a throw, and the FDA only approved 16 of them last year, I won't hold my breath!
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
138. Comment #74382 by oxytocin on September 28, 2007 at 11:12 am
Yes, this is the battle we have in the free market...let the companies take us for a ride with their never-ending barrage of nearly-equivalent options vs. strict regulations requiring them to "get on with it" already. Other Comments by oxytocin
139. Comment #74392 by captain underpants on September 28, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Reverend WeeWee is clearly at great pains to appear to be reasonable.WeeWee: Please excuse my ignorance regarding fairyological questions, my parents neglected to teach me fairyology.
Am I correct in understanding that Jesus is supposed to have been gentle, meek and mild? Would you say that these adjectives accurately describe your behaviour here?
Am I correct in understanding that the fundamental tenets of Christianity are love, compassion, charity, and kindness? Would you say that your behaviour here adequately does justice to these principles?
I don't expect you to answer these question, but you will be seen not to answer them.
Other Comments by captain underpants
140. Comment #74394 by CHeard on September 28, 2007 at 2:12 pm
The Des Moines Register has a new unsigned editorial today about Bitterman's firing. Near the beginning, the editorial takes the school administration to task for keeping mum on its reasons for firing Bitterman. Then here are the last four paragraphs:For faculty and students, institutions of higher education should be havens for free inquiry into the most controversial topics. It's outrageous if Bitterman's expression of his interpretation of a biblical passage figured in his dismissal.The last two paragraphs are, I think, especially important.
Yet, neither should anyone in America - in a classroom or elsewhere - be belittled for their religious beliefs. Giving free rein to discussion doesn't mean condoning a lack of civility, or worse, harassment.
One thing, though, is crystal clear: This story sends a message to all college students in Iowa that if your instructor says something offensive, you can complain and maybe get the instructor fired.
That is a very dangerous message to send when it comes to higher education - a place where students should be exposed to new ideas and have their thoughts challenged.
Other Comments by CHeard
141. Comment #74403 by seanspeed on September 28, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Forgive me for referring to the original article that started this all, but I had a thought:Does this give an 8 year old authority to threaten legal action when their parents(or anyone else) tell them that Santa Claus doesn't exist?
Because I fail to see the difference.
Sorry for the generic God=Santa reference. I know its old.
But its a good 'un.
Other Comments by seanspeed
142. Comment #74489 by The Wee Flea on September 29, 2007 at 5:48 am
My point is that your behaviour reflects badly on the ideology you represent and which you claim to be so superior. Suppose your god really did exist and really was watching and judging everything you did? Would you really want him to scrutinise your antics in here too closely? Would he approve of your methods, do you suppose?
Northern Bright. I'm not sure. I'll ask him and see what he says. I'm delighted that you think that behaviour (as reflected in language) is something that determines truth. What chance do you think that gives the atheist cause going by the vitriol, abuse and arrogance on this website?
So don't hand-wave away this 'elephant' argument. Either come up with a decent refutation of Russell's Teapot argument or be honest and admit there is a problem.
Steve 99 I know that atheists like to repeat the same arguments (and even illustrations like some Christians!) but surely you can see the difference between proving whether there is an elephant in your fridge and the chocolate teapot and by the way I could prove that there is not a chocolate teapot. It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge. I was speaking at Dundee University last night to over 100 students and they were highly amused that some atheists think that their inability to disprove the elephant in their fridge, is somehow a reason for not believing in God.
Oh, and exactly where did I attribute to you a quote that you hadn't said? Unlike you, I take such things seriously, and will retract and apologise if I've done so.
Try comment no. 63. I did not say nor use that one.
He doesn't make grandiose and unsubstantiated claims that his faith rests on anything more than his own personal feelings and choice.
J. I'm very disappointed in you. I thought that you despised the notion of people believing irrationally? Is that not the whole crux of your argument? Maybe you like C because he reinforces your prejudice about faith. If its only personal feelings and choice and that is to be commended, then perhaps you would say the same about your atheism? Is it just personal feelings and choice?
Russell was wrong that we couldn't prove if there was a mystical giantic teapot flying around the solar system. If his teapot is more than a "phantom" which has no attribute, it would leave some traces which we can discover.
At last! Some sense. And Bonzai ,can I thank you for the following discussion. It is very helpful. I also disagree about mathematics not being a science. Without maths there would be no science.
One look at the zombie hordes of people going to church on Sundays out of habit makes me think: Have they ever really examined what they believe? Most have not.
Fedlar. Why do you make this statement? It is nothing more than prejudice. You cannot possible know whether most people have examined their beliefs or not. Going by my own small experience (ie ministering in a congregation for 21 years and being editor of my church's magazine) I would say that most Christians I know spend a great deal of time examining their beliefs. But I suspect it suits you to think that we are all a bunch of deluded non-thinkers and so, because it suits you, lo and behold it becomes 'fact'.
He really is a disgusting little weasel isn't he! It certainly validates my stance of simply ridiculing him every time. He will take whatever we say and use it against us anyway, but if he does, I suggest a class action lawsuit is possible. As I said before, the presbyterian church is responsible for holding my country back for hundreds of years. Wee Flea is just a typical example of a middle ages throwback. He does not love his god, he simply sees an opportunity for him to exert some influence on his community. It is power and status that he desires, nothing else.
Russell thanks. NB is this what you mean by an enlightened rationalist response? Call people names, threaten lawsuits, give a distorted view of history which would make Goebbels proud and then throw in a bit of amateur psychology! Yes of course I desire power and status in 21st century Scotland by becoming a Free Church minister either I am stupider than you think or you really do believe the fantasy world you inhabit.
Captain Underpants a few comments on your witty, incisive and stimulating contribution.
Reverend WeeWee is clearly at great pains to appear to be reasonable.
Thanks. Glad you noticed. It seems to have escaped the attention of some here.
WeeWee: Please excuse my ignorance regarding fairyological questions, my parents neglected to teach me fairyology.
No problem. Not quite sure what this has to do with what we are discussing. However if you want to discuss fairyology I am sure this is the site to do it.
Am I correct in understanding that Jesus is supposed to have been gentle, meek and mild? Would you say that these adjectives accurately describe your behaviour here?
No you are not correcr. There was certainly gentleness and meekness. But there was also authority, power, anger, irony and warning. (eg when he threw the money changers out the temple). And no my behaviour is not as Christlike as it should be. I remain a sinner. But I appreciate your concern for my spiritual health.
I don't expect you to answer these question, but you will be seen not to answer them.
Guess I disappointed your expectations. Sorry. Maybe that was not Christlike either?
In all the above what intrigues me is that noone has answered my original question and point. Why are you all getting so upset because a teacher was allegedly disciplined for seeking to teach his religious views in a secular school? If it were the other way round if the teacher had been disciplined for teaching a biblical view in a secular school would you not all be shouting from the rooftops what a good thing that was? I would call that double standards.
Did you hear the one about the religious state that sent in the army to kill protesting atheist students and leaders? No? Well did you hear the one about the secular state which sent in troops to kill monks and other protesters? No? Not on this website. If the Burmese government had been religious and the protesters had been atheist then you can be certain that this website would have carried articles on it and numerous posters would have sent in the messages stating that this proved how evil religion was. But no because they are a secular government and supported by the secular government of India and the atheist government of China, no a word is said.
Still maybe we can all get back to the really important issues like a teacher in Des Moines who was suspended for seeking to indoctrinate children with his religious views, and finding out whether NB really does have problems with an elephant in her fridge.!
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
143. Comment #74493 by Matt7895 on September 29, 2007 at 6:23 am
Wee Flea, why on earth do you post here on this website? The description in the banner says 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'. I don't think telling a room full of students that atheists don't believe in God because of Russel's teapot, is very clear-thinking.You also say there is arrogance on this website. I would think the real arrogance comes from someone who thinks his imaginary friend is more real than all the thousands of others.
Other Comments by Matt7895
144. Comment #74495 by the great teapot on September 29, 2007 at 6:28 am
wee fleaOk prove there is no "chocolate" teapot.
You must back your claims up.You said you could, so prove it.
Should you, praise be to god, be able to do that, then that is not the chocolate teapot I meant. My teapot....
Other Comments by the great teapot
145. Comment #74498 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 6:55 am
Steve 99 I know that atheists like to repeat the same arguments (and even illustrations like some Christians!) but surely you can see the difference between proving whether there is an elephant in your fridge and the chocolate teapot and by the way I could prove that there is not a chocolate teapot. It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge. I was speaking at Dundee University last night to over 100 students and they were highly amused that some atheists think that their inability to disprove the elephant in their fridge, is somehow a reason for not believing in God.
I am glad they were amused. But the 'elephant in the fridge' argument is a good one, precisely because it is the one used by theists.
It used to be the case that theists claimed that the God-elephant was visible. After all, where did life come from? What about the stars, the world? There were reports of miracles. But.. we know where life comes from. We know about the stars, and how the world formed. There are a few unanswered questions, but that is to be expected - why should a species of ape with just a bit more intelligence than the rest be able to understand the entire basis of reality? (we have done pretty well to get where we have in terms of science)
The problem, you see, is that what seemed to be footprints of the God-elephant have turned out to be either nothing of the sort, or just illusions. After all, if James Randi can do what seems like a miracle, why believe anyone who claims to perform 'real' ones? Why claim that morality and beauty come from a God when we can explain them so well using evolution?
So what do the theists and theologists do to cling to their beliefs? They claim that the God-Elephant is invisible. He does untraceable work behind the scenes... work that is so untraceable he might as well not be there. Perhaps he hides in other dimensions or somehow outside of space and time, doing so little that science can't detect Him.
You claim that there is a God-Elephant, and you claim that He is invisible. So enjoy your laughter. You are laughing at yourselves.
Other Comments by steve99
146. Comment #74499 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 6:56 am
Has someone farted? Oh no, it's just wee fleas post, as usual it stinks.I'll ask him and see what he says
Don't expect an answer. Love the way you try and twist Nothern bright's point and think yourself so clever - Padded ambulance for Robertson!
DISPROVE THE ELEPHANT! I see you miss the point about it. Were these students bigoted wee free homopobic yec pope is the antichrist jail nelson mandel type fundies like yourself? I'm sure you were incredibly liberal with the truth too.
Perhaps, and i know this is a big ask of you, you could provide proof of the supernatural, or why you thing it is reasonable to believe in it and not fairies - wont hold my breath reverend retard.
By the way, hear the one about the christian president and PM that killed muslim civilians because god said so - Muppet!
Other Comments by BillySands
147. Comment #74501 by _J_ on September 29, 2007 at 7:19 am
David 'Wee Flea' Robertsonby the way I could prove that there is not a chocolate teapot. It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge.
Oh my god.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Really? Gosh, lucky you. Show me the unicorn.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: So you say: show me the unicorn.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Please show me the unicorn.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Show me the unicorn
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: The unicorn. Now.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Show me, or be quiet about it.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Okay, enough now. On with the lesson.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Quiet.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: One more time
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Stand outside.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Teacher: Outside, now.
Child: I have a baby unicorn.
Do they teach this tactic in theological college? Or do you have to be genetically predisposed to it?
I was speaking at Dundee University last night to over 100 students and they were highly amused that some atheists think that their inability to disprove the elephant in their fridge, is somehow a reason for not believing in God.
I'm glad you found some other children to share your unicorn with. I hope I never find myself relying on them to make any sort of responsible judgement about anything.
J. I'm very disappointed in you. I thought that you despised the notion of people believing irrationally? Is that not the whole crux of your argument?
Now, how have I given you this impression? Perhaps when I wrote, to you, on your site:
Of course, I have counter-naturalistic inclinations I get a bit obsessive compulsive sometimes and repeatedly check that the gas is turned off, or if don't like to entertain the idea of a car crash or plane accident in case my thoughts somehow make it happen. But I consciously know that these are silly thoughts and that they themselves have naturalistic explanations, and that they are not things to govern my life by. I expect you do the same.
Or could it have been this bit:
David, I don't think your faith is a problem. As I hope I have acknowledged, time and again, as far as I can tell, your faith factually wrong though I genuinely think it is is nevertheless very well crafted and overwhelmingly a force for good. (Minus those comments about atheism cheapening life, of course. That's a serious error.)
Or this bit:
We faithless would be happy enough to bite our lips and let you get on with praising the god of your choice no matter how implausible if there was really no harm in it.
Gosh, there are just so many examples of my fundamentalistic intolerance!
I am not about to try to summarize what I have spent hours and hours of my life trying carefully to explain to you, David. If I could do that, it wouldn't have taken tens of thousand of words already.
Perhaps you can answer me one question. If, after having an argument spelt out to you at such length, and reformed, qualified and restated in response to your questions and challenges, you can still respond with gross misrepresentations like this one (whether because you wilfully disregard what you have heard or because you genuinely can't understand it, I really don't know) than just what on earth is the point in anyone talking to you?
I am overcome with a profound sense of having wasted a large part of my year. I had at least thought you a well-meaning man and a preacher with some integrity. You don't seem to be leaving me much material upon which to continue that assumption. I hope you are just passing through some sort of temporary amnesia or argumentative red mist.
I am deeply disappointed.
Other Comments by _J_
148. Comment #74505 by Russell Blackford on September 29, 2007 at 7:34 am
I've been writing over on my own blog something like the following.If what were said about the orthodox god were sufficiently specific, maybe science could corroborate it. It might conceivably have turned out, after all, that modern dating methods show an age for the Earth which closely matches what one would expect from tracing back the genealogies in the Bible, that there are geological formations very like those that would have been caused by a giant flood a few thousand years ago, that the Ptolemaic picture of the Universe matches up to astronomical observations with no anomalies, that incontrovertible miracles take place (such as severed limbs growing back in answer to prayer), etc., etc. I actually find it very easy to imagine what the findings of science would have been like by now if the canonical holy books gave a literal description of God and His modus operandi. If the scientific findings and other observations had turned out a certain way, the existence of the god described in the Hebrew Bible would not even be controversial. Of course, that's not how it happened, which is the cause of the crisis that has faced theistic belief in the last few centuries.
Now that obviously doesn't prove the non-existence of a deity whose actions and so on are recorded in a symbolic or metaphorical way, and whose attributes cannot be understood literally, but only analogically. The God of the orthodox Abrahamic theologians can be rendered so abstract, and its properties so elusive and open to redefinition, that there is no way of falsifying the claim that it exists (but not much prospect of corroborating it, either). And of course, the dispute about whether this being exists has proven to be intractable, for practical purposes, precisely, in part, because there is no way of decisively falsifying the claim or dramatically corroborating it ... and no prospect of finding a way to do so.
That's because of the nature of the particular claim, not because science cannot investigate any "supernatural" claim. If the claim were about some less abstract, metaphysical being that interacts with the world in certain specific ways, we might well be able to treat it as a testable hypothesis. In fact, I think we can already rule out ghosts, ancestor spirits, anthropomorphic deities, and so on quite confidently.
At the moment, we live in a universe where specific in-universe beings with anomalous (godlike or magical or "supernatural") powers don't seem to exist. I'm pretty sure that if we encounter any powerful aliens they will be as bound by the ordinary laws of physics as we are, and will not be capable of anything like magic. I'm also pretty sure that there is nothing around like Zeus, Poseidon, Aphrodite, Thor, Cthulhu, Baal, the Rainbow Serpent, the Midgard Serpent, the cunning serpent that tempted Eve, or any other kind of supernatural serpent ... or like, if it comes to that, the anthropomorphic wrathful being depicted in the Old Testament - if we read the Old Testament pretty literally.
But a conclusion like that may not be of much use in discussing a highly abstract creator/designer that has only ever been described metaphorically or symbolically or by analogy, so it's difficult to rule one way or the other on the claim that such a thing exists. The most that can be said against it, when the claim is at such a level of abstraction, is that there doesn't seem to be any rational motivation to believe in the existence of such a thing, and to the extent that the idea seems to be psychologically attractive to a lot of human beings that might require a psychological explanation rather than a metaphysical one.
I certainly can't see any reason to think that this thing does exist, and I'd be betting massively against its existence if it were described in any particular non-metaphorical, non-analogical detail. But as things stand, the nature of the claim is such that there's no prospect of bringing evidence that would be decisive in falsifying it.
I think that's a problem for theists rather than for atheists.
And let me add that it's a problem very like the one faced by people who want to argue about an invisible, metaphorical, analogical, eternally elusive and non-interactive elephant in my fridge.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
149. Comment #74508 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 7:41 am
JOne of the definitions of a fundie that david likes to keep pointing out is someone who refuses to listen or consider someone else's point. Everyone can see that in David. Presumably he cant because being an ugly MF, all his mirrors are broken.
For what it's worth, although it's been a thankless task for you, i dont think of it as a waste of your time. I'm sure you have helped many on the path to enlightenment - hopefully some in david's own church - ooh, that's got to hurt - probably why he censors everything.
I've helped a member of the wee free's start to overcome their delusion in that past - it was a joyous experience - that one lost sheep is worth the effort.
It is very disapointing when you discover someone is not treating the debate with respect. The atheists put in the most work and david's and devolveds just sneet and insist they have a personal invisible elephant.
It only took three exchanges for me to work out he is a fundie and a dick. You have been a better example of respect, tolerance and rationality than this follower of the so called god of love - I love it when atheists show up the hypocrites!
Other Comments by BillySands
150. Comment #74509 by scottishgeologist on September 29, 2007 at 7:45 am
Wee Flea; I was speaking at Dundee University last night to over 100 students and they were highly amused that some atheists think that their inability to disprove the elephant in their fridge, is somehow a reason for not believing in God.
Wouldnt be a talk to the Christian Union would it by any chance, given in this events page:
http://www.dundeecu.co.uk/events.html
Try talking to a group of students with brains rather than a bunch of god botherers....
Wea Flea:
ministering in a congregation for 21 years and being editor of my church's magazine
Ehmmm, you've been editor for what, 2 months? Big deal. And you call that experience (albeit small experience)
No doubt your magazine, like your web site will become your presonal fiefdom where you can carry on your Dawkins obsession, and of course stroke your own ego as the Great Aspiring Apologist. Just like the Free church message board has become Dawkins obsessed.
All I can say is that Dawkins must be landing some killer punches if this is the result.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
101. Comment #74091 by _J_ on September 27, 2007 at 7:53 am
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0096/0096_01.asp
Other Comments by _J_