Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Dr Benway


701. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130174 by Dr Benway on February 20, 2008 at 6:47 am

The Bishop: Unbelievers are blinded by their modern gods. They cannot see past what satisfies their bodies.
Why, it's the Baby-Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells!

Parsing humankind into "the godly" and "Satan's minions" is not a good idea for many reasons.

In this global nuclear world, we've got to get a grip on our instinctive in-group/out-group habits before we do ourselves in.

702. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130149 by Dr Benway on February 20, 2008 at 6:28 am

I use "verify" as a synonym for "corroborate," as in "verify the results of Kandel's experiment."

One can "prove" an hypothesis via the inductive method by falsifying its rival(s).

An hypothesis can be rejected if it violates logic or if it is less parsimonious than a rival hypothesis of equal explanatory power.


Thus the four tools in our reason toolbox:
1. verification/corroboration
2. falsification
3. logic
4. parsimony.

703. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130124 by Dr Benway on February 20, 2008 at 5:55 am

krisking: A non-hostile group of friends all over the world, wherever I travel to.
That word "world" is important. Two people sharing an accurate understanding of the world can be together. Two people entranced in their own fantasies about the world can only seem to be together. They're like dreamers lying next to each other, each imagining the other and imagining the sharing, but not actually sharing much.

Devote yourself to truth and love becomes possible. Devote yourself to love above truth, and you'll unwittingly waste your life in masturbation.

704. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128978 by Dr Benway on February 18, 2008 at 11:58 am

wooter: Human eyes have got 8000 cells and each cell has got a lens that receives each image with different angles.
LOL.

705. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128724 by Dr Benway on February 17, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Woohoo!

706. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122133 by Dr Benway on February 4, 2008 at 7:49 pm

But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time.
Priceless.

707. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121569 by Dr Benway on February 3, 2008 at 5:25 pm

**smacks head in disbelief**

The traditional duty not to harm patients is about as close to sacred as anything gets.

These people aren't physicians in any sense I recognize.

708. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119547 by Dr Benway on January 31, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Young, clever, and sexy to boot. Truly, the world is the mollusc of your choice

709. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115741 by Dr Benway on January 24, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Objection, hearsay. Mr. Phelps et al may subpoena God, but may not speak for Him.

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

Comment #115395 by Dr Benway on January 24, 2008 at 6:33 am

I agree that Darwin's politics are not relevant to the truth of his theory. But I still think it's important to clarify what he actually said regarding racial social policies. In bending over backwards to accommodate the proposition that Darwin was a proto-Nazi - e.g., "even if he said horrible thing X, that's not relevant...", we may inadvertently perpetuate an unfair, slanderous meme against the honorable man's good name.

I don't recall Darwin advocating for any oppression of the "lower" races, but my memory of The Descent of Man has faded badly. Hopefully I can take a look at it soon. Or maybe someone here will save me the trouble.

711. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #115272 by Dr Benway on January 23, 2008 at 9:22 pm

My letter sent a couple of weeks ago:

Dear Ms. Shea-Porter,

Please do not vote for the ridiculous, cherry-picked re-write of American history known as House Resolution 888.

The theocrats are over-due a whack on the nose from a rolled up newspaper. Our country faces several complicated engineering problems to solve, and we don't have time for rhetorical posturing and nonsense. Tell those pandering to their base that their time would be better spent boning up on their maths.

_______________
Got a form reply back with no evidence my letter was actually read. So it goes.

712. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112452 by Dr Benway on January 17, 2008 at 6:57 am

Some find the notion of moral absolutes an appealing counter to the the disturbing prospect of naive relativism, or the idea that all cultural values are equally valid. But we've other good ways to criticize naive relativism without the need for absolutes. For example, many dodgy cultural practices are built on beliefs about the world that simply aren't true.

713. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112446 by Dr Benway on January 17, 2008 at 6:37 am

Artful_Dodger: That's why commitment to "universals" is so important.
You start with the Golden Rule. Most everything else follows from that.

The tough questions usually arise when one is faced with two bad choices - e.g., kill the intruder, or allow him to leave with your child. We work this stuff out through dialog and negotiation with others.

The notion of moral absolutes seems a means for some to bypass the dialog bit. The impulse to bypass dialog strikes me as a violation of the Golden Rule.

714. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112274 by Dr Benway on January 16, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Dear Mr. Scales,

You prove that human solidarity is something real, enduring, and beautiful. Some people are bastards, no question. But most folks are caring and happy to be helpful, if they can be. No God required for this. Just part of the natural way of things.

Hospitals are tiresome so you must make your own fun. Examples:

1. Smuggle in a few leeches. When the doctors round, tell them you've come prepared for the morning blood letting, then drop a slimy one into some young fellow's hand. Say, "Go on, you know what to do with it..." If he seems puzzled, say, "Did they teach you nothing in medical school?"

2. Pack a dildo. When a pretty nurse comes by, gradually tilt it upwards under the sheets between your legs. See if she comments.

3. Flirt with the nurses inappropriately.

4. Nick an empty, unused Foley catheter bag and hang it on the side of your bed near the door (move the one you might actually be using to the opposide side of the bed where it's not easily seen). Put a can of Guinness in the bag. When they check it they'll express surpise at the odd color. Whip out the empty can and say, "The stuff just seems to go right through me."

5. Display several obviously recent baby photos. When asked, say, "Oh those are my sons Billy, Tim, Conan, Akbar, Rudolph, and Pete, and my daughters Anne, Emildebette, Halimah... see how many kids it takes before the staff catch on. End of the week, put up a score card with the names of the staff you've teased and a "# kids" score. Award a prize to the least credulous person. Give a copy of The God Delusion to the most credulous.

715. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111085 by Dr Benway on January 13, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Oh poo. I missed Henri. *sniff*

716. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #110748 by Dr Benway on January 12, 2008 at 9:17 am

Vinelectric: But even without a religious context I don't see how it is acceptable that thousands (possibly 2 million) Arabs were displaced to allow the Israelis to establish a country in a land they ruled around two millenia earlier.
Here's how to square things so we can move on: the living victims of the land grab 60 years ago get the nicer rooms with the better view in their respective nursing homes.

717. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109983 by Dr Benway on January 10, 2008 at 8:44 am

Since mutations are the only "tool" evolution has to "work" with, and since evolutionists have yet to show how new information could be added to a genome without design, mutations cannot account for the origin of these protein-transport pathways. If there is no way to form these pathways, then the organelles would become obsolete once they started transferring their genes to the nucleus.
How does the creationist explain mitochondrial DNA?

718. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108554 by Dr Benway on January 7, 2008 at 7:42 am

ADH:1. there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible: the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle, the implausibility of life having originated spontaneously from inert matter (etc.)
The set "that which begins to exist" is a bit of linguistic trickery. Time, space, and causation have meaning within the universe, which is everything that exists. If you imagine you can step outside "the universe" somehow, you must concede that you can't say anything. Time, space, causation, and meaning itself, vanish beyond the boundary of "everything that exists."

The anthropic principle is not teleological.

Abiogenisis is a gap in current scientific understanding. "God of the gaps" is fallacious.

719. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105463 by Dr Benway on December 31, 2007 at 5:14 pm

urin4it: I understand that you can only believe something through scientific evidence, as do I in most instances except when it comes to the works of God.
That's a special pleading. You're saying claims about God are exempt from our tests of logic, parsimony, falsification, and corroboration.

But words like "truth" lose all meaning once you reject these tests, which make up something we call "reason." Without reason efforts to persuade are limited to mechanisms of force --i.e., some variety of threats and bribes. Is this what you want?

Any right you claim for youself you must extend to others. If you're entitled to advocate for social policies on the basis of God claims no one can corroborate, so is Osama Bin Laden.

720. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105444 by Dr Benway on December 31, 2007 at 3:25 pm

urin4it: You're claiming he doesn't have anything to back up his arguments. Well it looks like you hit a wall when he picks apart your claims, so who's really misled here.
urin4it, two points:

1. If person A has no evidence for some claim, his position is not improved by pointing out that person B has no evidence for some other claim.

2. Religious claims typically involve threats, e.g., believe or go to hell. In contrast, people aren't required to accept scientific hypotheses until they've been tested and there's sufficient evidence for them.

721. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105195 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 9:08 pm

At any given point in time, I think humans can do a fair job holding in mind a reasonably sophisticated representation of about 200 unique individuals. Beyond that, the sketches get thin.

722. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105188 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Sexual stereotypes annoy because they so often don't fit real people very well, yet they do capture something familiar. Example: boys like to play rough-and-tumble games outdoors; girls wear pink and prefer to play indoors with baby dolls.

Each time I fit someone to a stereotype, I know I'm shrinking a 3D person to a 2D caricature. But could I live without these oversimplified, crude typecasts? Sadly, no.

Steve: I have given up attempting to derive meaning from the posts of the respected (and I mean that in all honesty) Dr Benway.
My bad, no doubt.

723. Monkey, Business

Comment #105175 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 8:05 pm

A simple laizzes faire model fails to account for our capacity to shape the environment in which goods and services compete for market share.

Humans can alter the play of the economic game by tweaking the rules - e.g., by setting higher car fuel economy standards, causing SUVs to be less "fit" and changing the average size of all cars on the road.

Such environmental mods are a function of the government, but shouldn't be confused with direct, centralized control of the production and distribution of goods and services. We know that don't work.

724. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #105156 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 7:24 pm

The boat-load of theists will either hold hands and pray until the end, or start murdering each other...
I like the holding hands part.

Theist, atheist, blartist --there's a good chance nearly all our monkey-minded notions are wrong. In life's final moments, I wouldn't take any of them too seriously.

Our primate metaphysics may be dodgy, but our hearts are in the right place. We've had hundreds of thousands of years of mammalian bonding and caring, and that helps.

725. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105140 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Morris is kinda feminine in the way he expresses himself. Impressionistic thinking seems feminine, but "feminine" is confounded with status.

I'm annoyed with sexist stereotypes, yet find them to be time-savers.

726. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105132 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm

He's continually accused me of promoting death due to my moral relativism.
Nothing says death cult quite like "afterlife."

727. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105065 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 1:40 pm

LOLcreashunist:

Im in ur thread... manglin teh grammars!

728. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #105058 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 1:24 pm

How about pricks who giggle at prick jokes? What's up with that?

729. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105055 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 1:20 pm

sent2null, your food stealing example is better than the kid torture example. Less emotional.

Strong emotion seems to short circuit thinking. You get, "I just can't believe anyone would argue that kid torture is okay," repeatedly, like a broken record.

730. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105042 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Thus whether or not you act "morally" is entirely constrained by your knowledge of others with whom previously defined cultural rules can be mediated.
Just had a Dianelos flashback. He argued that some things were "objectively wrong," e.g., torturing kids. He defined "objective" as meaning "eternally true regardless of anyone's opinion, even if no humans are around to have opinions."

I said, no humans, no kids to be tortured, so your standard is silly.

Oh 'round and 'round we went. His attachment to the word "objective" was a very curious thing to observe.

731. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #105019 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 10:48 am

There may be merit in comparing the atheist vs. theist approach to death. However I intended the raft analogy to illuminate something a little deeper, something inherent in being a creature of relationship.

"Rescue" = life after death. So everyone on the raft is an atheist.

Those on the raft have no illusions about living more than a few hours or days at most. There's no time for plans or passtimes. So what does one do under these circumstances?

I'm arguing that creatures of relationship, once stripped of the usual distractions, will become acutely aware of self and other, and will value a sense of shared experience above other needs.

732. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105001 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 10:04 am

spambot: A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly.
The prosecutor may call the policeman to testify, but he cannot convey the policeman's testimony himself.

The hearsay rule causes your entire post to vanish, Mr. Prosecutor.

As a set-up for the inevitable special pleading, it's a nice try. Might work on the poorly educated.

733. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104954 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

I find this article encouraging. Christian leaders usually argue that genuine brotherly love is impossible without Christ. Here Bishop Harries admits that most humans have the same moral feelings regardless of their religious beliefs. He describes God as a kind of intellectual framework that illuminates our understanding of morality. Contrast this with the traditional teaching, where God is the substance of the impulse to do good, like the Star Wars Force.

I'm less happy with the Bishop's suggestion that morality will erode as belief in Christ wanes. But this position is easily countered. Stable social bonds require reciprocal altruism, so we know that sharing and kindness existed for hundreds of thousands of years prior to any books of the Bible. More modern moral progress hasn't demonstrated any new flavors of goodness, but has largely been a project of expanding our sense of in-group boundaries, combined with a better understanding of how the world works.

734. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #104942 by Dr Benway on December 30, 2007 at 5:12 am

Shrommer: He is teaching us how helpless we are to live up to His standards.
The Lord creates creatures without feet, then commands them to dance. Or as Hitchens says, "We are created sick, then commanded to be well." If you idolize a sadomasochistic relationship like this, your reason and your humanity will suffer.

735. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104881 by Dr Benway on December 29, 2007 at 9:49 pm

I'd see a raftload of food packages. ;-)
An optimist!

The raft analogy only works if death is clearly inevitable. As presented, the story may need tweaking. Perhaps Russian ICBMs are airborn, and everyone has 20 minutes...

736. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104829 by Dr Benway on December 29, 2007 at 3:19 pm

The seriously mentally ill usually drive their pastors up a tree. More than once I've heard a pastor tell a patient, "Yes, I know that so-and-so preached that those who have faith do not need to take pills. But in your case, you really should stay on your medication."

An invisible enemy serves a political purpose. It's enough to casually associate some particular group or item with the unseen enemy to excite stronger in-group bonds.

737. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #104827 by Dr Benway on December 29, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Shrommer: Dawkins may say that someone's report of pain is no evidence at all to Dawkins, so he would end up calling the person gullible and an idiot for believing that their big toe hurts. That is cruel and illogical.
There's always a reason for sharing. A friend may say his toe hurts...

1) so I'll understand why he's cancelling a tennis game with me
2) or so I'll lend a little sympathy
3) or to convince me that Thor has just given him a sign and a warning: that all who fail to heed the word of Thor will suffer an endless hammer-to-toe beating in the afterlife.

People who share subjective experiences that cannot be independently corroborated, and who expect others to accept their reports as evidence for anything more than personal brain events, may or may not be idiots. But they are disturbingly egocentric. If they happen to be political leaders, I would find them frightening.

738. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104812 by Dr Benway on December 29, 2007 at 2:00 pm

They have introduced courses for priests to combat what they call the most extreme form of "Godlessness."
Anyone else disturbed by the reference to "godlessness" in this context?

Wasn't the last announcement from the Pope a warning against atheism?

Is the Pope implying that atheists are demon posessed?

739. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104377 by Dr Benway on December 28, 2007 at 11:51 am

Nice article.

Believers often assert that the natural reaction to the notion that there is no God and no afterlife is nihilism or selfish hedonism. But this argument ignores the profound need for relationship among the human beings. Loss of an important relationship can be supremely painful, even if the relationship is imaginary or impossible, as it is with God. The pain of loss sometimes provokes people to suicide and may cause hearts to harden. But more typically, loss drives people to invest more deeply in other relationships. In other words, the loss of God simply means one has more attention, time, and energy for others.

Believers say, "without God, there's no reason not to take advantage of people if you won't get caught." However freeloading or predatory strategies only pay in social environments where the vast majority are caring. Where most are coldly selfish, the capacity for empathy and attachment provides an even greater competative advantage. Thus human society will likely maintain a homeostasis where most are caring but a few are bastards.

Imagine you're in a life raft with a half dozen others. It's become clear there will be no rescue. Everyone will die within a few days from thirst, hunger, and exposure. After the initial shock and denial, what's the natural reaction? I believe for most, it would be sadness and compassion. Small displays of kindness would seem irresistably beautiful.

Oh, if only the illusion of rescue might fade.

740. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104284 by Dr Benway on December 28, 2007 at 9:12 am

krisking: ...and thus denied me the opportunity to study science, so I'm having to do a lot of catching up.
You might enjoy A Short History of Nearly Everything. Audible.com has an unabridged version that runs over 17 hours and an abridged version that runs for five and a half hours. I usually like unabridged versions. But Bryson himself narrates the abridged version, and he's got a nice storytelling tone that makes me smile.

Here's a link to the book at audible. Click the "hear sample" button for a taste.

http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=BK_RAND_000280&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes

741. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104090 by Dr Benway on December 27, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Billy Coconut: ... the religiosity of most of the great scientific minds in the history of science disproves the contention that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
Examples of religious people who work as scientists aren't helpful to your point. Individuals often believe or behave in contradictory ways - e.g. vowing to lose weight then eating a quart of ice cream. People might embrace the method of science yet fail to apply that method in certain areas of their lives.

Science is a method for testing claims about the world. That method involves logic, parsimony, falsifiability, and corroboration.

Religions typically are systems of assertions about the world that are not falsifiable or in some way subject to corroboration.

If the world's religions surrendered any claim to truth about the world and somehow morphed into a branch of the humanities --like literature or theater-- science and religion might enjoy their non-overlapping magesteria. But that's not likely to happen in my lifetime.

742. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104069 by Dr Benway on December 27, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Leftists tend to be fags, no?

743. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104058 by Dr Benway on December 27, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Steve, Is finding gay sex gross actually a "view" to be declared wrong or offensive?
All things in context. Currently the naturalistic argument is used to support the oppression of homosexual expression. Therefore, unless one is careful to qualify such feelings, and unless one is careful not to restate the "I can't help how I feel" position several times in the same conversation, and unless one avoids linking "homosexual" with a political group one despises (e.g., "leftists"), one will likely convey a political intention.

Aside: Generally I advise against educating pod people. But this I provide for the sake of the young hobbits among us.

If the ever the day arrives when most pods can fake human fellow-feeling convincingly, we hobbits shall be totally screwed.

744. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104040 by Dr Benway on December 27, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Some people have female bodies; some male; some in between.

Some people experience their own personalities as feminine; some masculine; some in between.

Some people prefer partners of the same sex; some the opposite sex; some a little of both.

Some people are dominant; some submissive; some can switch roles.

Some people identify with the opposite sex as a means of enhancing same-sex pair bonding; for others it serves to draw the opposite sex closer (e.g., Eddie Izzard and most cross-dressers).

Sorting any Nancy boy you might meet can be a challenge. Is Sentator Craig a closet case, or a horny hetero wearing women's underware and hunting for a macho man to fulfill his deeply heterosexual lusts?

I suspect that natural selection favored sexual variability among humans. A capacity to form enduring bonds with all sorts of people likely enhances one's chances of surviving, say, a difficult winter. Degrees of sexual feeling can strengthen bonds even when consummation or reproduction aren't options.

Are there two sexes among humans or 81 (3x3x3x3 - e.g. female feminine straight submissive)?

745. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104031 by Dr Benway on December 27, 2007 at 3:37 pm

BJohn: I'm aware that the universe is not the same as a T.V. The respect in which the analogy claims they are similar is that that they are particular "things" which exist. Or, in your words that they are things that have "developed" and now are.
The universe is not a thing, but the set of all things.

Bertrand Russell:
I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all... I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother--that's a different logical sphere.

746. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103465 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 6:09 pm

AtheistJon, I predict that many on this site and those linked to it will find you unattractive. You will erroneously conclude that this has something to do with leftist politics dominating the discussions.

When I was younger, I might have offered a bit of advice to someone dancing with two left feet, such as yourself. However, I've come to appreciate that the great ecosystem truly takes all kinds.

747. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103460 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Ah. I know nothing of Finland. Here in New England we generally try not to get so openly excited.

However these regional quirks are slowly melting away, thanks to the homogenizing influence of mass media and mega-retail development.

...what politics you have in mind where there is no "gap in our understanding of some problem"?
Straightforward civic infrastructure matters: should your town buy another ambulance, or not? That sort of thing.

Contrast that with, "Should moms stay home with infants, or is daycare during the first two years fine?"

748. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103455 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Some of them will sit next to you on a train and start acting out their fantasies in public.
Your train rides are far more interesting than mine.

749. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103452 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 5:28 pm

...reeks of liberal left wing political correctness
Q: What do the following have in common?
1. Alternative medicine
2. Religion
3. Left vs. right politics

A: The argument from ignorance. Each can only flourish where there is a gap in our understanding of some problem.

750. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103440 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 4:28 pm

It literally turns my stomach when I see people eating oysters - but that doesn't mean I secretly want to ban oysters or persecute the oyster-eaters.
If someone in a public place says that "lesbos kissing" is disgusting, how are any lesbians present going to feel? Might the upset be intentional?

I don't doubt that people have visceral reactions to certain sexual acts. However slagging the gays is rarely a spontaneous expression of innocent feeling a la "oysters... yuck!" It's generally a political tactic. Or trolling.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next