1. Beware the Believers

Comment #151721 by _J_ on March 29, 2008 at 8:52 am

Well, maybe it is possible to laugh when you don't really understand the joke.

If I may: I don't think it's a straightforward 'understand the point/don't understand the point, find funny/find unfunny' situation. Like a decent stand-up routine or long sketch, it contains many jokes. Jokes about rap culture, for instance. Register-clash jokes, of presenting subject matter in a strikingly inappropriate way. Personality jokes (like Hitchens' headband). The retro-style of the animation and the ludicrous, monster-movie-style, Death-Star-on-legs embodiment of 'science'. And the effort that's gone into detailing the history of evolutionary theory (okay, not that detailed!) give the impression that it's an in-joke - something you, dear viewer, get, but others wont.

You can laugh at all (or some) of that, and still not be sure whether, if you met the maker, you'd end up best friends or kicking one another in the teeth.

One of my favourite comedy movies is Shaun of the Dead. It gleefully sends up the zombie movie subgenre, but at the same time uses that subgenre's conventions to make a far-above-average zombie movie of itself. Is it attacking zombie movies, or is it an homage? It's an affectionate spoof, I suppose. (Certainly, Romero seemed to like it.)

We don't have any helpful notes or interviews from the maker of this video to tell what s/he really thinks. It could conceivably be a staunch atheist who was a bit tickled by the paranoia of the creationist lobby and wanted to make a send-up. It could be a member of that lobby, working the other way. They haven't made a clear expression of their opinion; they've made a piece of entertainment. So, it's up for grabs, interpretatively. Best not to worry too much (unless you're reading this thread from the comfort of a media studies class) and take from it what you will.

2. Iowa county board gives initial OK for ghost hunters to investigate asylum

Comment #151701 by _J_ on March 29, 2008 at 8:24 am

Maybe staring at corn for too long has some strange affect on people's mind.

Could be something to that. Heard or read the other day some researcher's thoughts on how big, open environments might play havoc with your mind's hazard detection kit, leading you to 'detect' the presence of threats or companions where there are none, and then to interpret this 'presence' in supernatural terms. Don't know whether there's anything to this idea (I think it was mentioned in the context of Jesus' sojourn into the desert).

One the reliability of the ghost hunters' detection equipment, I suggest a simple test. If they come back with evidence of Carl Sagan's dragon, the kit works. I'm sure the dragon will be there.

On which note: Richard Morgan, you're joking, of course. You already have the perfect script:

'...'

I guarantee they'll pick that up.

3. Fleabytes

Comment #151631 by _J_ on March 29, 2008 at 5:09 am

Rev Dark: Well written. And: my sympathy for you, and family.

annabanana

...in which sense of the word is Yahweh perfect?

Exactly so. The idea is absurd.

al rawandi

It is like he doesn't want us to believe in him at all.

Yes. There are a couple of lines in David Hare's version of Brecht's The Life of Galileo that put it quite well:

BARBERINI: [...] You like simple movements perhaps because you yourselves have simple brains. But what if God had chosen to make his stars move like this?

(He makes an elaborate track with his finger at uneven speeds)

GALILEO: Your Eminence, if God had constructed the world like that...

(He repeats the track)

Then he would have constructed our brains like that...

(He repeats it again)

So that it would have appeared simple.

If there is a lack of evidence for God, then God is either absent, hiding, or so incompetent as to misunderstand how his creations reason. Few people believe in a bungling deity and absence is the atheists' position. A theist, then, is either hiding some gem of evidence that we could all do with looking at, or reckons him/herself to be better at Hide and Seek than God. 'Ours is a hidden god' - pull the other one.

4. Beware the Believers

Comment #151624 by _J_ on March 29, 2008 at 4:34 am

hmcook87 - Yes!

I guiltily enjoyed that. On the surface of it, its anti-science/'New Atheism' position is tripe. But it's so well done, with so much attention to detail, so many little jokes - it just displays more care and wit than any of the usual (careless and witless) attempts at pro-religious satire.

Maybe we're all just flattering ourselves in thinking 'If they're canny enough to make a slick video like this, they must be on "our side" really'. It's genuinely hard to tell - the whole thing's so steeped in irony that you can't say for sure which 'level' it stops at - who's spoofing whom.

Like Richard, it reminds me of South Park, but for a different reason. South Park will gleefully savage both sides of an argument, grabbing its laughs from satirising all camps. You can't say for sure who is supposed to be the butt of this joke, but you can appreciate the execution of it, and you can be willing to laugh at yourself. The people who fall foul of this kind of satire are those who get uppity about the whole thing and either dismiss it all as rubbish (it is well done, even if it isn't to everyone's taste) or take serious offence to it.

You gotta take it on the chin like Bobby De Niro...

5. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151608 by _J_ on March 29, 2008 at 4:00 am

Ah, wonderful stuff. PZ: thank you for continuing to exercise your talent for revealing this lot to be the bunch of ladder-waving, banana-skin-dropping, Ming-vase-juggling clowns that they are.

6. Fleabytes

Comment #151237 by _J_ on March 28, 2008 at 9:48 am

Annabanana and Quetz

I stand corrected! Thanks for putting me straight, Quetz. That wording does seem to raise the need for some poetic interpretation on the part of your friendly neighbourhood priest, along the lines later indicated by Mark Smith.

Thinking about it, though, Mark Smith is almost certainly right: this seems very likely to be a case of translation detracting from the original sentiment. Why? Well, if God wrote the bible, he's unlikely to be, or to portray himself as, deceitful or mistaken. And if he didn't, then whoever did is no more likely to deliberately try to create the same impression. Biblical contradictions are understandable in terms of the whole thing's textual history. But flat out straightforward instances of god looking dodgy are surely due to some kind of semantic or cultural divide between the original writer and the modern reader. Neither God nor a goddist would knowingly describe Jahweh walking into a lamppost.

It is presumably for this reason, in conjunction with my very feeble biblical knowledge, that I can't think of any other instances of God lying. He screws up a bit (like getting his arse whipped by men with 'iron chariots'), but generally avoids tripping over his own shoelaces or having to eat his words in public. The bible may occasionally be risible, but it isn't a spoof.

On the subject of God creating flawed beings: I don't see a logical problem there. All he has to do is want to, and that flawed being is then a perfect expression of his will. 'Ah, it's fucked up in exactly the way I wanted: perfect!'. Perfection needn't be a sort of Midas touch, where everything the perfect hand creates must also achieve perfection. Only the intention of the perfect creator need be perfectly satisfied.

Cue the Noah's Flood argument, of course...

The whole perfection thing is, very obviously, tosh, though. People who argue for the perfection of God are mounting a defence for not thinking through their beliefs. Examining the notion of a perfect being quickly reveals the idea to be nonsensical. No one, as far as I know, is even capable of imagining perfection. As a concept, it reassures believers with the idea that their god is soundly up to the task of handling their every problem - so they needn't worry about anything except believing in him - and by demonstrating to them that no matter how they try, they can't actually understand God fully - so , again, they needn't worry about anything except believing in him. The downside is that for anyone pedantic or inquisitive enough, it's another loose thread to pull at.

7. Fleabytes

Comment #151111 by _J_ on March 28, 2008 at 7:09 am

Steve Zara, 7244

New Scientist has a bad habit of publishing articles with titles like "Quantum Mechanics is Deterministic" when the content of the article is actually extremely tentative.

I've noticed this before now, too. Every now and then it's even there in the text of the article, with a journalist apparently straining against the facts s/he has to work with to suggest a confident radical interpretation that just isn't there. It's not limited to New Scientist, of course - you see it in newspaper journalism all the time - but when I started getting New Scientist I sort of hoped they'd be a bit more resistant to this sort of unit-pushing sensationalism. Sell outs. (Still, I do love the magazine, and look forward to it every week.)

annabanana, 7250

My turn to be pedantic!

YHWH lied in the NT to Adam and Eve. He told them he would kill them (or that they would die, can't remember exactly which at the moment) if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I suppose they did die eventually...but they didn't die immediately like he made it sound, anyway.

I think we can let Jahweh off the 'liar' charge, here! Did he make it sound like they were going to die immediately? I'd say that's just the way that we, who are used to death as the inevitable end of life, automatically hear it (as, if someone threatens us with 'You're going to die!' we can safely assume they don't mean '...at the end of your natural span'). If you try to imagine the (unimaginable, really) situation of not even knowing what 'death' means and confidently expecting to live happily forever, being made to die is as a dire a threat as you could face. It doesn't need to be this minute. And, of course, you could argue that death after any specific period of time is, when compared to immortality, as close to immediate as makes no odds.

And, rounding off the subject of the mendacious overlord:

Steve Zara

Can a perfect god say 'I am a liar'?

Yes: if it's being perfectly ironic.

(It really is a mug's game, this 'perfection' malarkey.)

8. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150626 by _J_ on March 27, 2008 at 7:33 am

173, Phantasmagigas

I hear something like that and I have to take it as a fairly chilling warning about my own readiness to form opinions. If it's possible for a person to get something so, so, so wrong...

9. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150598 by _J_ on March 27, 2008 at 6:49 am

marv78rpm

Is that true? That's absolutely appalling.

I can't understand how it can be a legally reasonable thing to leave such parents as those in this story in a position of responsibility for their children's wellbeing. Their actions (or inactions) are demonstrably harmful to the point of lethality - not only demonstrably, but demonstratedly, tragically.

Would parents with a devout opposition to premarital food be allowed to starve their children? Could hardcore naturists refuse to provide their kids with clothes?

I can't agree with the posters here calling these people subhuman and calling for death penalties, though I appreciate the gut frustration. This is a very sad example of the potential harmfulness of devout delusions. People in any society worth living in should have state protection from the harm that such delusions would do them.

10. Fleabytes

Comment #149712 by _J_ on March 26, 2008 at 7:05 am

Happy Birthday, Steve!

mlearnedfriend

Not really paying attention, but just to drag in an old point again:

'None of the [precursors of Hamlet] have anything like the complexity or sophistication of [Hamlet]. For anyone wanting to read an introduction to the complexities of [Hamlet] then [there's been plenty written on it...].'

Conclusion: Hamlet is a divine text and Shakespeare is god? Or Hamlet is a damn good play that does new, surprising and profound things with its literary precedents?

11. Two More Fleas

Comment #146460 by _J_ on March 19, 2008 at 5:39 am

WTF is going on in this thread?! Sorry, bit behind. clearmind (hilarious name, by the way: did you try 'vacanthead' and 'blankbrain' first?) is Wooter?

Damnit, Wooter, I'd assumed you'd have given up back in January, by which time it had already been conclusively demonstrated that the backwards child of a broken stapler would drop you from its debating team. Come on, sir/madam: learn something, or leave.

Or stay. The rehearsal of basic arguments, and the sheer ongoing hilarity of your madness, are really quite wonderful. Thanks for all that.

12. Fleabytes

Comment #146450 by _J_ on March 19, 2008 at 5:17 am

Quetz

'And then disagree with any definition that doesn't admit my "evidence" for God. And then sneer at any reductio ad absurdum presented to demonstrate that my definition of evidence is patently useless.'

I don't suppose he included that bit?

13. Fleabytes

Comment #146446 by _J_ on March 19, 2008 at 5:09 am

Yes, I'm sure David would take a different approach to Richard, who would clearly saw through the table argument (for instance) in an instant. But what else does David actually have in the arsenal?

I'm interested. Where would a Robertson/Dawkins discussion go, do you think? Presumably neither party is going to be convinced by the other, so that's two outcomes we can rule out. But where would the debate be likely to end up concentrating? David's concept of evidence? His accusations of outdated logical positivism? If we take an overview of the arguments we've seen fielded by both figures, where do think the front line would fall?

Welcome to Fantasy Richard Dawkins Debates. Gentlepersons, start your speculation.

14. Fleabytes

Comment #146421 by _J_ on March 19, 2008 at 4:26 am

Basically just repeating from your blog, Quetz, but well done. I'm as surprised (and simultaneously unspurprised, since it's the sort of surprise that David provides from time to time) to hear that David used the peanut butter (tables) argument. And I also hanker for some sort of polite disruption to Ham's forthcoming speech. Someone like Billy on stage to not so much whisper 'Bollocks' as point it out with neon and claxons.

15. Fleabytes

Comment #146388 by _J_ on March 19, 2008 at 3:08 am

Perhaps, Quetz, you showed too much deference by appearing in your human guise. A manifestation of your true image, descending in a rumble of kettles and a scalding typhoo(n), might have forced acknowledgement, or even spontaneous conversion, from the speaker.

We eagerly anticipate thy Testament on the occasion.

16. Fleabytes

Comment #145162 by _J_ on March 17, 2008 at 10:27 am

Sargeist

Anyone know if it is going to be repeated?

Probably, some other Easter. (It already was a repeat - I think I saw it last year.)

17. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145138 by _J_ on March 17, 2008 at 9:59 am

"But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."

A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Oh ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho!

A ha. A ha. A ha ha ha.

Oh dear me.

Please, protect young people from the stupid. And, probably best to send in someone to keep an eye out on behalf of the stupid, too. Any muppet who tried to teach from The Lie: Evolution in my high school would have got exactly the ridicule he deserved.

(Now I have to explain to my colleagues why I have been laughing my head off in the middle of the office.)

EDIT: Ok, now that I've read the whole article, I'm quite cross.

18. Fleabytes

Comment #144796 by _J_ on March 16, 2008 at 6:41 pm

And it also seems odd that his, presumably, theistic readers should find it compelling rather than slippery and deceptive. But presumably Cornwell knows how best to address his intended audience; by insulting their intelligence.

Quite right. Benny Hinn is not, after all, short of a bob or two.

(The twat.)

19. Fleabytes

Comment #144779 by _J_ on March 16, 2008 at 6:01 pm

I'd say he was just trying for a gimmick. Didn't work.

Moi?

[Sigh.]

Marmite, then...

20. Fleabytes

Comment #144778 by _J_ on March 16, 2008 at 6:00 pm

mixmastergaz, 5593

I suppose, on our common cultural imaginative spectrum, we don't have anything more towards the rational extreme than a human being. And certainly nothing more unambiguously admirable in its sheer rationality than a human being, anyway.

It's easy enough for a Christian apologist, playing to the crowd, to invoke an angel for the associations of both virtue and insight that that brings ('how like an angel in apprehension' - quibble with punctuation if you wish...). Angels have the 'rational' thing, but it's inextricably tied up with the 'godly' thing, rendering it - how to put it...? - fucking worthless for an atheist in the present situation. So where's the creative rhetorician on the sceptics' side to go?

Besides, these flights of fancy, for all their rabble-rousing bonus points, don't give an ounce (or a pard (sorry, sorry)) of real weight to an argument. Shit's shit whether it's got wings and a halo or not.

21. Fleabytes

Comment #144761 by _J_ on March 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm

(Plus: very well done, Geoff.)

22. Fleabytes

Comment #144759 by _J_ on March 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Now entertain conjecture of a time
When creeping murmur and the poring dark
Fills the wide vessel of the universe.
...Oh now, who will behold
The royal captain of this ruined band
Walking from watch to watch, from tent to tent,
Let him cry 'Praise and glory on her head!'
For forth she goes and visits all her host,
Bids them good morrow with a modest smile,
And calls them brothers, friends and countrymen.
Upon her royal face there is no note
How dread an army hath enrounded her,
Nor doth she dedicate one jot of colour
Unto the weary and all-watched night,
But freshly looks and overbears attaint
With cheerful semblance and sweet majesty,
That every wretch, pining and pale before,
Beholding her plucks comfort from her looks.
A largess universal, like the sun,
Her liberal eye doth give to every one,
Thawing cold fear, that mean and gentle all
Behold, as may unworthiness define,
A little touch of Paula in the night.

23. Fleabytes

Comment #144751 by _J_ on March 16, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Shit.

By not reading from the start, and not properly participating in the ensuing debate in this, the Fleabytes thread, I have missed out on the great online event of our time.

Visiting Richard Morgan's page to hear his remarkable (and a serious 'well done', there, from someone who once sweated blood over music theory exams) compositions has, alongside the unprecedented explosion of this thread, brought this fact crashing home.

Someday, someone will write ballads about this (Richard M's got a head start, obviously). Who knows, maybe it'll even form the basis for a new (slightly crap, in fairness - but aren't they all?) religion.

For myself, I shall hold my manhood cheap whiles any speaks that fought on Fleabytes' Day.

24. Fleabytes

Comment #144205 by _J_ on March 15, 2008 at 10:24 am

whatthe..?!, 5469,

the alleged mechanism ie Natural Selection Random Mutation Time has no creative power.

Howja figure that one out, poppet?

Reading your post, I'm not sure which edition of The Blind Watchmaker you've got on your shelf, but it's decidedly different from mine. In mine, Dawkins' various sentences all form part of a robust demonstration of evolution. Yours seems to be the Argument-Free Quote-Miner's version. I recommend looking up the original.

The universe and life show overwhelming evidence that they were intelligently designed.

Personally, I don't see it. Convince me.

If I design something, I've got a purpose in mind. Life is for...what? To hang around a bit and then die? Sure, you can say a frog's legs were 'designed' for jumping and an owl's satellite-dish face was 'designed' for picking out prey. Evolution also covers these details perfectly well. But what is life, as a whole, for? Evolution gives a rock-solid answer: life as a self-perpetuating process. God, the invisible cause, leaves us grasping for an equally invisible purpose: 'Life is for the glorification of its creator', or some such circular tosh. As far as I can see.

Whilst we're on purposes: what are your various little concluding appeals to authority about? Some well-known intellectuals didn't or don't understand evolution? Not exactly front page news. So Fred Hoyle couldn't process the micro/macro evolution - fine, he's not alone (and I gather this is hardly the only time he got something substantially wrong, either). Niles Eldredge has problems with the fossil record? As far as I know, paleontology as a whole would disagree with him.

If I now run off a list of soundbytes from evolutionists (a few minutes rummaging through the pile of New Scientists by my bed should turn up plenty), are you going to be pursuaded by weight of authority? No. So drop the name-dropping, eh?

You know, people ought to expect these mistakes, unknowns and revisions. It's the theory that looks consistent from the start and always remains so, with never a serious barrier to worry about, that should worry us. If you're trying to find out what's true about the world, you're going to crash into a few difficult problems, and occasionally have to admit you got something wrong and revise your ideas. But it's extremely easy to achieve smooth consistency if you just make the whole thing up. You want the sort of difficulty-free 'reality' that'd satisfy your Hoyles and Eldredges? Try Middle Earth.

25. A God blog

Comment #143232 by _J_ on March 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm

That is refreshing. Though I lean more toward the Guardian, I read the Telegraph a lot. A lot of good journalism in there, and it occasionally persuades me to attitudes I wouldn't have expected to hold. But then it occasionally turns into an objectionable five-year-old-child of WWI-era parents, and gives gibberingly mental coverage of issues like the 'cybrids' embryo research.

This was a really good piece, and if I saw Ceri, I'd buy her a drink (and not only because she shares a name with someone I used to be hopelessly in unrequited love with). Although 'a chain-saw passing through warm butter' is not the way to renovate a cliche. 'Now, I want a little butter; I'm very lazy; what would be the easiest way to slice a bit off without, say, splattering it all over the wallpaper? Oh yes, I know...[R-VRRMMMM...]'

26. Fleabytes

Comment #143225 by _J_ on March 13, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Dicanu - thanks. That was stupid; wasn't thinking, there. (Very excited - just been offered direction of a production of The Life of Galileo next year. Only amateur, like, but: what a fucking brilliant play...)

27. Fleabytes

Comment #139273 by _J_ on March 5, 2008 at 1:08 pm

epeeist and Paula,

Yes, I agree. I ought to have said that in my own experience, I have been treated fairly by the FCOS's moderators. But I have to concede that the current example seems to reflect poorly on them. I wonder whether other hard-to-field-comfortably comments have also passed un-posted.

I can rarely resist the opportunity to debate with David Robertson when he appears, and I do have a certain sympathy for him. But I have to admit that the conclusion I have come to after extended visits to his forum is that, whilst it is quite possible to have a polite conversation with him, it may not be possible to have a productive one. If the most pointed arguments are not even being allowed through the moderation filter, then that pretty much confirms it. (And tells me that I need to sharpen up my argumentation.)

Nice to speak to you two, too.

28. Fleabytes

Comment #139262 by _J_ on March 5, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Dear all and sundry, regarding conversation circa posts in the 2830s and '40s:

I'm just chipping in because I received Paul Creber's email (see post 2839 ) and thought I should clear up a confusion, since it relates to me. Apologies if this has already been dealt with somewhere.

I am not the author of the challenges to David Robertson on the FCOS site (see posts 2832 and 3 ), regarding his 'Clearthinker' escapades here. I somewhat regret being unable to lay claim to having leapt to Paula's defence; I'll have to find another opportunity to do so in future.

Truth be told, I've just not had time to keep up with this thread, or with this website in general, recently. But best wishes to everyone else who is doing so. And, since I'm here for a moment, well done again to Paula. (Once wasn't really enough.)

(On the question of how the FCOS forum works: we may accuse David Robertson of various things, but rampant censorship ought not to be one of them. I have burdened his moderation process with numerous rambling arguments over the last few months, and they have all appeared eventually (though this can take some time). If some comments are barred, I assume it must be on the basis of incivility, rather than their argumentative content.)

29. Fleabytes

Comment #131780 by _J_ on February 23, 2008 at 9:34 am

Sorry to be so late in saying this (haven't been around this site in a while), but: very, very well done, Paula. Very well done indeed.

30. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #124375 by _J_ on February 9, 2008 at 9:08 am

Gutless brownnosing gobshites.

31. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124373 by _J_ on February 9, 2008 at 9:04 am

Well, I can't say I like everything I read about Anonymous, here. But I won't be shedding any tears the day the good ship Scientology sinks below the waves.

32. An Altar Beyond Olympus for a Deity Predating Zeus

Comment #122858 by _J_ on February 6, 2008 at 8:21 am

Et in Arcadia ego.

33. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118896 by _J_ on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 am

Tyler Durden

Some guy is trying to show that "prayer beads" work in Catholicism on the basis that "prayer beads are also used by other major religions."

This is an argument by...?

A whole stack of things, anecdotal evidence, appeal to numbers, appeal to popularity, irrelevant conclusion.

If he's using this observation to support Catholicism as a whole, then it's also a lovely argument by paradox, or contradiction. Saying 'my religion is true because mutually exclusive other religions are true too' would be very special thinking.

If he isn't drawing that conclusion, then he's effectively isolating prayer beads from the rest of Catholicism by pointing out that whatever value they have has nothing to do with Christianity. Either way, it's grist to the atheist's mill.

34. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117944 by _J_ on January 30, 2008 at 3:27 am

Well chosen quote, clodhopper (32).

Compare:

1 a definition of humanism (in this case from Wikipedia, but any common definition, including the most basic, will do):

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality.

with

2 Our friendly neighbourhood Jesuit's opinion:

[...] jejune, wan, and bloodless humanism

What a bleak, unsympathetic perspective of 'the dignity and worth of all people'. Like a fantasist hooked on Second Life, Oakes' addiction to the dramatic extremes of his mythology and 'the terrifying character of nature' leaves him unable to be moved by reality. Of course he can't give it up - no, we must all join in his addiction. And, if we do, maybe his verbose assemblage of straw men and selectivity will no longer stand out as the sorry excuse for an argument that it is.

35. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117111 by _J_ on January 28, 2008 at 9:25 am

And what about the "dogma" that religion is a virus (evidence please?) and that "religion is the root of all evil"? What about the dogma that Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with his atheism (you try telling that to people in the Soviet Union who were threatened with the Gulag or who were sent there on account of their theism!)?

On the scientific level, what about the dogma (still unproven belief based on a priori commitment to - in this case - a materialist worldview) that life can arise spontaneously out of inanimate matter?

If it's "dogma" the four horsemen or going to tilt at, let them tilt at ALL dogma.

Did you deliberately set out to half-understand the article or what? Behold:

Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have discredited Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now, say Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, it is time for them to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.

When your surgeon promises to fix your heart condition, do you rebuke her for not also sorting out your eczema? Seriously, this kind of argument is just irritating.

It isn't 'dogma' that religion is a virus. It's an analogy.

It isn't 'dogma' that religion is the root of all evil. It's unhelpful hyperbole that even Dawkins has explicitly disavowed (Channel 4 TV producers getting carried away).

In Stalinist Russia, dogmatic enforcement of atheism was a tool used to propagate the dogmatic cult of personality of his quasi-theistic dictatorship. This doesn't make atheism per se a dogma - as the article clearly explains.

Abiogenesis is not a dogma. It is an area of research. God-initiated creation would also be an area of research, if anyone could present something to actually be researched. I think I've said this before: there's not a lot of useful work that can be done in an empty lab.

Any of the things you mention can be dogmatically asserted, certainly (like atheism was in Stalinist Russia). But none of them ought to be, or commonly are.

It's related to the point about Occam's Razor, earlier, and to your question about obscurantism. An assertion derived from observation and reason, and that is given as much weight as that observation and reason lend to it, is not dogma. An assertion that is given weight significantly above what observation and reason can support is obscurantism (because it aims to spuriously shift our appraisal of what is true and what is false) and dogmatism (because it prescribes our beliefs without a solid basis for doing so).

Come now, Artful_Dodger. Don't undermine your position by choosing silly fights.

36. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #117096 by _J_ on January 28, 2008 at 9:00 am

Boy should declare himself recipient of divine revelation and announce formation of new Jewish sect which accepts circumcision of the male foreskin, but also requires circumcision of the paternal scalp. He submits to having his todger trimmed if his Dad'll have his useless forehead off.

Case closed.

37. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117078 by _J_ on January 28, 2008 at 8:10 am

ianmkz

Is Occam's Razor a scientific dogma?

Only in the same way that car wheel designers have a 'dogmatic' predilection for circles. There are other ways of doing the job, but this is the one that has proven to work best.

In other words: no!

38. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115501 by _J_ on January 24, 2008 at 8:54 am

al-rawandi

That way [we] will all be a non-fat double latte color and no more bull shit.

Nah, thanks. Everywhere else, from TV scheduling to restaurant menus, we like variety. People just need to stop being such arseholes about human beings and love the diversity.

I am trying to get it on with some exotic girls

Exactly.

39. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114949 by _J_ on January 23, 2008 at 9:03 am

Maybe I should round up the Oxford University Medieval Society and the medievalists of the Faculty of Modern History and take them along down to Headington for the planned lecture on medieval science education.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Responding to deliberate misinterpretations with more deliberate (but pointed) misinterpretations, particularly if you could make up a large part of the audience, might be quite effective.

AllanW - An impressive battle plan. Unfortunately, there is no way I can visit Preston next Friday, so I can't produce a report of the event. I've also been trying to be less combative about religion in general, lately (I feel like I'm becoming a terrible bore), but may be able to lend some sort of hand, if you and epeeist are keen to go ahead with something. I've wanted to do something about Ken Ham since the first 30 pages of his book made part of my brain crawl out and run away.

40. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114948 by _J_ on January 23, 2008 at 8:49 am

Geoff
Yeah, nice shirt. I liked this detail:

Available in XL only.

These ale brewers know their audience. ;)

I missed the Star Trek conversation. (Sniff.) al-rawandi, I'm with you. TNG is the truest of Treks; TOS was an admirable warm-up. I am repeatedly surprised and saddened that real society seems conceptually so far behind what Gene Roddenberry had in mind decades ago.

I've met Patrick Stewart. If I'm ever in your area, I'll let you touch me. (No funny business.)

41. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114924 by _J_ on January 23, 2008 at 7:34 am

Well, I am happy to write to the Lancashire Evening Post. _J_ lives in the region, so a coordinated attempt might be an idea.

Oh no. Am I going to have to dig out my copy of The Lie: Evolution again?

I may be able to write a short letter on Sunday. (Annoyingly soon, the Preston event.)

However, I'm a bit torn about this. What sort of angle are you thinking of, epeeist? Ridiculous though I think Ham's exploits are, this is a talk taking place in a church, presumably with the happy consent of that church, and at which attendance is optional. It's not being forced on the unwilling.I don't want to oppose freedom of speech, even if it's stupid speech.

I suppose it'd have to be pointing out that Ham's teachings are not solely religious in their sweep, but subversive to science and reason. I guess referring to the creation museum would substantiate this criticism.

42. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114899 by _J_ on January 23, 2008 at 6:28 am

No throwing rotten fruit, no abuse, no blocking of people or cars...

By the way, notwithstanding my earlier remarks, I completely agree with Roger Stanyard on this. Anyone who's thinking of taking some rational objections to the Ham ought to be prepared to make superhuman efforts to stay calm and civil. Ham's people would be delighted with an opportunity to look like the meek victims of rabid atheists.

43. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114896 by _J_ on January 23, 2008 at 6:25 am

On the other hand, if RD had a nearby talk at the same time, Mr. Ham might find himself talking to an empty room.

Much though that'd be nice, I doubt it. Astrology fans don't read flock around Hawking and crystal healers don't attend geology symposia. Two very different audiences, I think.

44. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114879 by _J_ on January 23, 2008 at 5:27 am

Is he coming to Manchester? I can start stocking up on rotten fruit now.

Ken Ham's brigade, if not the man himself, have been doing talks like this at locations in England for some time. I considered making a nuisance of myself at one (in Knutsford, I think) late '06, early '07, but somehow wound up having something less depressing to do. But a visit from the Dork Lord himself? I can almost feel the braincells dying in advance. Do you know he can kill a man with a single non sequitur?

45. This Week's Flea

Comment #114470 by _J_ on January 22, 2008 at 9:08 am

ADH

He very rightly pointed out that clear blinding evidence is coercive. It leaves one with no choice but to believe any more than one has any choice but to believe that 2+2=4 or that water boils at 100º.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is a nice example – and quite a common one – of a believer adapting a habit also commonly found among rampant postmodernists. You play with near synonyms until you find one that has the sort of associations that make your argument seem reasonable.

Clear evidence is compelling. Convincing. Persuasive. Now, if you want to, you can thesaurise your way to 'coercive'. Instead of 'clear evidence convinces us of truth', you can say 'clear evidence coerces us into accepting truth'. You could use 'tyrannical', if you like. 'Clear evidence tyrannises us into getting things right'. How about 'robbery'? 'Clear evidence robs us of mistakes'.

You can do the same for anything. 'Love coerces us into joy.' 'Bed tyrannises us into sleep'. 'Medicine robs us of illness'. Lose the tail ends of these sentences and you lose the factual content that provides the context for the inflated imagery: 'Clear evidence coerces, tyrannises, robs'.

Welcome to elementary rhetoric. If you want to persuade someone that black is really right (Adamsian consequences notwithstanding), here's where you start. And this, in fact, gives the lie to the other half of the point you attribute to Pascal.

Whilst it is absolutely true that water boils at 100º and 2+2=4, it is nevertheless quite possible to believe differently, as Orwell and Camus pointed out. A person can be persuaded – or can persuade themselves – to believe things that are directly contradictory to the truth, in spite of the 'coercive' power of evidence. Of course, it's easier to achieve this with something like evolution, where clear evidence isn't constantly smacking you in the face, than it is with gravity, or boiling kettles or basic addition. But, even in such cases, it is possible to delude oneself, if one wants to.

And simple rhetorical tricks like the one you've pulled here are exactly the right way to go about it. Here you can hide uncomfortable truths ('Clear evidence demonstrates the truth') behind ideologically weighted half-restatements ('Clear evidence is coercive'), and give yourself the psychological propping up you need to sail neatly past problematic realities into your chosen belief. Allowing you to say things like this:

Because I accept and have confidence in the Bible as a truthful reflection of the character of God.

…without any apparent recognition of the difference between believing a very old collection of hearsay, and believing something that can be repeatedly demonstrated before your very eyes.

As for the question of whether a god would willingly choose to present hearsay evidence or 'coercive' evidence for his existence: Comment 136.

EDIT - Oh. I'm fifty posts behind the pace. Didn't spot page 4. Sorry.

46. This Week's Flea

Comment #114028 by _J_ on January 21, 2008 at 8:40 am

Artful_Dodger

[...]that is to insist that God subjects himself to our agenda. Why should he?

Because an omniscient god would perfectly recognise the nature of human knowledge - how we learn things reliably and so forth. Indeed, a creator god would have given us these characteristics, and the environment in which we apply them. An omnipotent god would have no concept of difficulty, and thus no problem at all in according with those processes of aquiring knowledge.

It is not a matter of 'insist[ing] that God subjects himself to our agenda.' It is simply a matter of taking the question of whether or not there is a god seriously. Were there a god that wanted us to have reliable knowledge of its existence, we would have reliable knowledge of its existence. That we do not indicates that there is no such god. Either there is no god at all, or any gods that do exist are in hiding. It is clearly a mistake to claim knowledge of an absent god, and it is nonsensical to presume to claim knowledge of a hidden god.

You may attempt to solve this apparent contradiction by saying to yourself 'There is a god, and it has given us a way of finding knowledge of itself, and that way is different than methods such as science. It involves [having faith, reading the bible, etc]'. If you are tempted by this line of thought, look at it this way. Put the matter of god on one side for a second and look at the many other questions we face. How and when do we rely on science, logic, scepticism and reason, and what are the results? And in what areas are we encouraged to accept miraculous claims as truth, without questioning or testing, and what are the results? Now, why would an omniscient, omnipotent, creator god, when choosing the path by which it might make itself known, opt for the latter type of inquiry? When it could have gone with the methods we use to keep holiday-making families safe at 35,000 feet, or to save mothers from breast cancer, or to determine whether to sentence a person to life imprisonment, why would a god opt to reveal itself in a manner akin to that which is used by salespeople, con artists and frauds?

It wouldn't. No such god exists. And, if it does, it is not seriously aiming to be recognised by us.

47. King Me!

Comment #113481 by _J_ on January 19, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Satanburiedfossils

http://www.control-z.com/pgs/why_no_longer.html

Great link - but Jesu Christi, did that guy do a lot of work to realise that it don't make a jot o' sense.

48. King Me!

Comment #113479 by _J_ on January 19, 2008 at 5:25 pm

HarryHUK

I have a born again christian friend who,whenever we debate issues of faith,simply smiles at me and says "you really don't understand,do you",to which I reply "no"

So true.

Can I suggest adding: 'And neither do you. That's what worries me.'

I think I'd stop arguing with religious folks if they'd just admit that they really don't know. It's the pretending that they understand that buggers everything up.

Like our yellow-shirted 2D friend. If he'd just said 'How does a knight move again?' there'd be no depressingly true joke.

49. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #113058 by _J_ on January 18, 2008 at 2:03 pm

annabanana et al:

In the year 0, a crack religious reformer was sentenced to death by a Roman governor for a crime he did not commit. This man failed to escape from a maximum security crucifix and was relocated post mortem to a cave. Today, still mistakenly wanted as a god by billions of misled believers, he and numerous other historical figures linger on as objects of unwarranted veneration.

Meanwhile, a growing band across the world has come to realise their innocence and to oppose the harm that is constantly done in their name. If you have a faith problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire…

50. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #113055 by _J_ on January 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I live for arguing with people. I would just excoriate their ideas at every turn.

Oh yeah, I sympathise with that. It's all the learning Hebrew and wading through reams of turgid gobshite that'd put me off.