51. The Out Campaign

Comment #60389 by J. J. Ramsey on August 1, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Henri Bergson: "do you think Dawkins (& Hitchens) fairly judged the classic ontological arguments (Anselm & Descartes)? Do you think Kant did?"

I know this is aimed at Wee Flea, but the answer are no, Dawkins didn't, and yes, Kant did. Dawkins alluded to Kant's argument but never actually explained it, but instead quoted a much weaker argument from Norman Malcolm.

Now onto Wee Flea:

"1) Firstly it shows, as RD admits the quasi religious nature of this site and the movement he is trying to start."

The OUT campaign certainly resemble a religious movement in a couple ways: a common set of symbols and a message to promote. Those things, however, are common to campaigns both religious and secular.

"2) For something that is supposed to be based on empirical evidence and science it is somewhat amusing and ironic that RD bases his opinion that there are more atheists on 'widespread informal surveys of the Web!'"

RD at least acknowledged the weakness of his evidence and didn't put much weight on it.

"3) Again the fundamentalism of RD and followers is clear. We know we are right. We know we have all the arguements on our side."

Believing that you are right is not a sign of fundamentalism, just a sign of having a strong opinion. And Dawkins does happen to have the arguments on his side, even if he isn't always that good at marshalling them. Demonizing the opposition and sloppy logic are the sins of fundamentalists. Encouraging people not to be in the closet about their beliefs is not.

"4) Good to see that RD has not lost his sense of humour! I like the joke about the 'gentle' patter of atheists feet - as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots."

Content-free ridicule. Come on, leave that to the fundies and ideologues.

"5) This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate."

What?! Inviting people to be upfront about their lack of religion is not discrimination.

"Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil."

I can't speak for RD or his fans. Maybe the ones who are fond of the irksome term "faith-head" would be so foolish as to do what you describe. There are plenty of us who realize that using coercion to stop religious expression would be playing with fire.

"In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant."

Atheism isn't an ideology. It is merely nonbelief in God. Integrate that nonbelief into a totalitarian ideology like Stalinism and you get intolerance. Integrate that nonbelief into a democratic humanism and you get something radically different.

"6) Its kind of sweet that you want to hold 'A' Fellowship groups where people who believe nothing (an atheist after all is just someone who does not believe in God) reaffirm one another in their lack of faith. What else will you do, united around your lack of belief? Hold tea parties? knit? listen to George Carlin?"

What's wrong with tea parties and knitting?

"7) If a religious group were to produce this kind of material (as many do) you would all be shouting about commercialism and making money etc."

Some of us might, unfortunately. As for myself, I wouldn't be complaining about *commercialism*. If the religious T-shirts were tacky, I might complain, or perhaps just laugh. (Then, so would a lot of members of Ship-of-Fools.)

52. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35607 by J. J. Ramsey on April 27, 2007 at 8:05 pm

I'm a little late in replying but here's a link:

"A blockhead pontificates on feminists, MLK, and going too far"

http://anirratrat.blogspot.com/2007/04/blockhead-pontificates-on-feminists-mlk.html

And, yes, I'm the blockhead in question. Oh, well, my historical gaffe had the useful side effect of letting Myers show his true colors.

One thing I see in the whole debate over rudeness is a bait-and-switch. Examples of "rudeness" that are largely examples speaking truth bluntly are used as excuses for foaming at the mouth with nonsense about "little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys." Knowing what I know now, I'm sure that Myers could cite examples of the feminist rudeness that more closely resemble his own, but I'm not so sure that we'd want to knowingly follow such examples. Better to pretend that spewing a cheap insult like "faithhead" or ranting like a pro-wrestling heel is in the same league as the loftiness of the feminists that he quotes.

53. Is God poison?

Comment #31043 by J. J. Ramsey on April 10, 2007 at 7:11 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen: "Did they just get frightened off? Or change their minds? I had a few exchanges in the beginning about that kind of thing, but it's fairly unusual now. Any ideas?"

I know I've had some partial changes of mind, in that I'm at least more attentive to whether I'm offended simply because religion is attacked, or whether the attacks are slipshod instead of reality-based. I'd say that for me, at least, some of it has been the former, but there is still a lot of the latter.

(As a blatant example of the latter, I cite a comic strip [http://richarddawkins.net/images/thencallitgod2.gif] shown on the site, where Genesis 19:30-38 is taken an example of "Biblical Family Law" rather than a just-so story meant as a slam on Israel's rivals, Moab and Ammon. I can see why believers wouldn't pick up on that, but atheists?)

BTW, Helian, I would not take Dawkins' bad quote of Reagan's Secretary of the Interior--and could you please show us where it is in The God Delusion--as a sign of anti-American hatred. A sign that Dawkins let his understandable hatred for the ruinous right-wingers cloud his judgment, yes, and he has done this with a phony Thomas Jefferson quote on religion [http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/01/thomas_jefferson_and_richard_d.php] as well. But not a sign that he hates the U.S. in general.

54. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #29045 by J. J. Ramsey on April 1, 2007 at 10:28 am

Jonathan Dore: "What do you think that evidence is then?"

If we are talking Christianity, then the Bible is usually considered evidence, and if a Christian is into apologetics, then this evidence is considered to be bolstered by archaeology, some historical documents, and fulfilled prophecy. If we are talking moderate Christians, then there is usually an understanding that the Bible isn't perfect, but that the later parts are decently well-grounded. In my case, it was realizing just how problematic the Bible is as a historical source that led me away from Christianity. It's one thing to see the the Gospels as reasonably reliable documents with a few flaws here and there, like the discrepant genealogies in Matthew and Luke. It's another thing to realize just how *ahem* "creative" Luke can be, or to see just how fast urban legends can accumulate about a person. The growth of stories about Sabbatai Sevi is a good example of the latter. One of the reasons I was somewhat slow to realize this is that much of counter-apologetics is crap. Christian apologists often gain credibility by pointing out the crap, e.g. the pi=3 nonsense, fabrications about Mithras, and so on. It wasn't until I got access to a university library that I got a crack at much of the non-crap (some of which, like The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives by Reginald Fuller, was actually written by Christians, oddly enough).

For other Christians, personal experience and the apparent design in the universe are other reasons. Of course, these too also fall apart when scrutinized. Faith is often based on poor evidence, but seldom is it based on nothing at all. I recently listened to Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God, and she herself pointed out something similar.

55. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #29001 by J. J. Ramsey on April 1, 2007 at 6:08 am

Jonathan Dore: "I've made four -- now five -- separate posts to this thread emphasizing that in Harris's picture the circles are of diminishing reasonableness, yet you continue, with Clarkson, to ignore what is staring you in the face and focus obsessively on the secondary, and inessential, characteristic that Harris equates with unreasonableness -- namely 'purity' of faith."

If the connection between extremism and purity is so inessential, then why did you write, "All the extremist need do is appeal to the eager young mind to believe more intensely, and take the words of the holy book more literally." This was part of an argument where you were trying to argue that purity is not a necessary component to extremism, yet you fell back on the purported connection between extremism and purity anyway. You claimed that the belief in the supernatural and the idea that belief without evidence is a virtue provide the environment for extremism, but you never provided the evidence that those two things lead to anything more than, well, religion itself. Nor is it clear that the bulk of the religious really buy the idea that faith is belief without evidence. The existence of conservative Christian apologetics, and the attempts of creationists to show that the creation myths are really supported by science, would indicate that Christians aren't that comfortable with belief without evidence. Without the connection between extremism and religious purity, it is tricky to establish that a religious environment is anything but orthogonal to extremism. The idea that moderates enable extremists seems to be neat, plausible, and wrong.

56. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #28426 by J. J. Ramsey on March 29, 2007 at 7:00 am

"I don't think fundamentalists lose much sleep over their attitudes to the poor."

Ah, but that isn't the issue. The question is whether, by your logic, they should lose sleep over it, or rather whether they ought to have better attitudes than they do.

"I don't think they pretend that the biblical injunctions [against homosexuality] actually mean the opposite of what they do"

Most of the moderates don't either. Instead, they adopt a patronizing "Hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude. This is annoying, but hardly extremist, and it has plenty of support in the New Testament.

"I'm curious as to why you (and Clarkson) invest so much in an objection that has no impact on Harris's argument."

According to you, Harris believes that the extremists display their religion in its purest form. To claim that the objection that the extremists aren't that pure has no bearing on the claim that the extremists are the purest religionists seems strange.

57. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #28328 by J. J. Ramsey on March 28, 2007 at 6:57 pm

"Perhaps it's to do with the fact that they say explicitly that they do and, in argument, always rely on quoting texts from their magic books, rather than relying on later commentaries, complex theological positions, or traditions of interpretation."

Yet the Christian Right's opposition to abortion involves a tradition of interpretation, since it is isn't in the text. Nor does it take a theological genius to find multiple quotes about caring for the poor, the widows and orphans, etc.--which are very much neglected by the Christian Right. How much fancy interpretation does it take to grasp, for example, Proverbs 14.31, "Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, but those who are kind to the needy honor him"? And that's just in the awful and bad Old Testament.

"So you don't disagree with the actual biblical prescriptions on homosexuality, only with the emphasis that extremists give to it"

Considering that I'm not a Christian, I feel quite free to disagree with the Bible on homosexuality.

Anyway, the mental gymnastics are yours. By your logic, if someone focuses on a few sentences in Holy Book X while ignoring major themes in the same book X, such a person is a purer adherent of the book's religion than someone who does it the other way round. You have a curious definition of "purity."

58. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #28195 by J. J. Ramsey on March 28, 2007 at 9:54 am

Jonathan Dore: "'Best represent' (Clarkson's words) suggest that he understands Harris to mean jihadists and dominionists are most representative of Muslim and Christian believers today"

I see some selective quoting here. Clarkson wrote Harris claims that the extremists "best represent the central tenets" of their religions. It is pretty clear that he is not saying that Harris claims that extremists represent the majority of believers. Let's look more fully at that quote:

Nevertheless, many people are very taken with his argument, which is essentially this: "Extreme" religion is the fault of moderate, even progressive religion and; the most "extreme," of those speaking in the name of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, adhere to most strongly, and best represent the central tenets of their respective faiths. [emphasis added]

Now you (and apparently Harris) claim that "jihadists and dominionists are simply the purest of believers -- that is, their faith is taken straight from the original texts, with as few overlays of modernity as possible." How is this any different from saying that "jihadists and dominionists are simply the believers who adhere most strongly to their faiths -- that is, their faith is taken straight from the original texts, with as few overlays of modernity as possible"? How is this any different from saying that "jihadists and dominionists are simply the believers who best represent the central tenets to their faiths -- that is, their faith is taken straight from the original texts, with as few overlays of modernity as possible"?

"The mainstream of Christianity today, in which I assume you situate yourself"

You assume wrongly.

"if you can imagine a Luther or a Boniface VIII transported to the modern world, but with all their instincts for certainty and authoritarianism intact, who do you think they would most recognize kinship with -- you, or a dominionist?"

They probably wouldn't agree with either me or the dominionist. In particular, Luther's idea of "two kingdoms," one earthly and the other spiritual, would not sit well with the dominionists, who want one kingdom to handle both mundane and spiritual matters. Luther's ideas were certainly influenced by Paul's instructions (and probably pseudo-Peter's words as well) on respecting Roman earthly authority while following Christian tenets, and could arguably be considered more pure than the dominionists for that reason.

You have yet to show that jihadists and dominionists really do take their faiths "straight from the original texts."

59. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27888 by J. J. Ramsey on March 27, 2007 at 6:12 am

tomwb: "Why should Dennett have to provide a 'metric of complexity'."

Because complexity is a vague concept, and there are many different possible working definitions for complexity, not all of which will yield comparable metrics.

tomwb: "Complexity is just a measure of the number of connections between different parts of something."

That's one way of looking at complexity, but not a good one if one is looking at the complexity of snowflakes, where the interest would be on the shape of the snowflake rather than connections among water molecules, or of the complexity of a piece of music, where the focus would be on chord changes, combinations of overtones, and so on. Indeed, what constitutes a "connection" for a snowflake and for a piece of music would be rather different.

tomwb: "Comparing the complexity of the Grand Canyon to the Complexity of a cat would be a strange task ... but no-one would try to use either of these things as an explanation for the other"

That no one would use one as an explanation for the other is irrelevant. The point is, as you said, comparing the complexities of the two things would be a strange task, and--more to the point--an ill-defined one. Whether a cat is considered more or less complex than the Grand Canyon depends a lot on how one measures the complexity. One could argue that your conclusion ignores that the Grand Canyon has different kinds of rock in many different configurations. One could argue back and forth about which one is more complex than the other, and do it ad nauseum, simply by arguing over which working definition of complexity is an appropriate one to cover both a rock formation and an animal.

tomwb: "Orr seems to take the position that since arguments involving the supernatural exist, then we should treat the supernatural as though it is real."

No. Not at all. You are trying too hard to see an endorsement of the supernatural in Orr. What Orr is saying is that one of the premises of Dawkins' argument appears terminally vague.

60. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27733 by J. J. Ramsey on March 26, 2007 at 11:51 am

"For example, the notion that belief in Yahweh via Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation - the ONLY one. ... And any person who follows that notion and fully believes it must necessarily be disrespectful and intolerant of other religions"

Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. There is a vast difference between saying that other religions are wrong, even dangerously so, and being disrespectful of other religions. If a Christian gets too disrespectful toward potential converts, then he/she drives them away, which would only further push them to hell. This is an attitude that can make Christians into annoying salespersons, but that is hardly the same thing as being terrorists.

It is telling that you conflate saying that someone is wrong with being disrespectful.

61. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27713 by J. J. Ramsey on March 26, 2007 at 9:52 am

Jonathan Dore: "YES, Harris is saying (as Dawkins is with his Gerin Oil trope) that the more extreme forms are the purer ones"

If this is the case, then Clarkson has understood Harris quite well, as he writes that Harris believes that "the most 'extreme,' of those speaking in the name of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, adhere to most strongly, and best represent the central tenets of their respective faiths."

Jonathan Dore: "Surely it doesn't matter if the bible only mentions homosexuality in passing"

Of course it does. You are trying to argue that the purest form of Christianity is the extremist one. Yet a form of Christianity that focuses on a few verses in the Bible while ignoring major themes like care for the poor can hardly be said to adhere to the Bible that closely.

And what is the literalist extremist to do when faced with fluffy bunny stuff to do when faced with "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone," "Judge not lest you be judged," "Turn the other cheek," etc.? Of course, the obvious answer is to ignore them or reinterpret them, but that makes our extremist not so much of a literalist.

Jonathan Dore: "Christian theocracy has indeed used biblical support, quite successfully"

Yes, by picking and choosing certain verses over others.

You and Harris are not just trying to argue that religion is irrational--which is relatively easy--but that the nasty and violent among the religious are the better representatives of their faiths, which is a much tougher thing to prove, and with Christianity at least, probably impossible.

62. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27694 by J. J. Ramsey on March 26, 2007 at 6:55 am

J. J. Ramsey: 'Unfortunately, the Ultimate 747 argument shares at least one flaw with the very arguments that it is meant to counter'

tomwb: "And that is precisely the point."

Except that the flaw that the Ultimate 747 argument shares with design arguments is a flaw that prevents it from successfully overturning them, namely a failure to make its premises clear. If the premise "the designer must be more complex than what it designs" is either outright incoherent or hinges on a definition of complexity that is irrelevant to design arguments, then the Ultimate 747 argument flops.

tomwb: "I didn't assume you were a theist. I'm just puzzled by the idea that there could be 'another sort of reality' that we can't understand."

"Another sort of reality" is your words, not mine.

63. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27632 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 8:38 pm

tomwb: "But why should I accept that there is 'a really weird part of the universe that doesn't go by the same rules as the rest of the universe' at all."

You shouldn't. But neither should you accept bad arguments that happen to support your beliefs. It is perhaps telling that you assumed that I was a theist because I was arguing against an antitheistic argument.

tomwb: "The ultimate 747 argument ... is a counter-argument to the 'standard 747' argument from design."

And no one has disputed that. Unfortunately, the Ultimate 747 argument shares at least one flaw with the very arguments that it is meant to counter. It relies on appealing to intuition, leaving far too many of its premises either unstated or underdeveloped. Saying that the designer must be more complex than what it designs looks good until you start asking how the heck you are going to measure this complexity. This was Orr's point, which Myers obscured by leaving off the question, "just what metric of complexity does Dennett take to extend so readily from the natural to the supernatural?" and by changing the subject.

64. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27619 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Janus: "But anyway, it really doesn't matter whether you can compare the complexity of the universe to that of God."

It does if you are claiming that God would need to be more complex than the universe--and that is what the Ultimate 747 argument does.

Janus: "if a complex being like God can 'just exist', then why can't the universe 'just exist'?"

That's a great refutation of the cosmological argument, but that's not what the Ultimate 747 argument is about. The Ultimate 747 argument is meant to counter design arguments that focus on either the origins of particular pieces of the universe, like flagella, or why the universe is supposedly fine-tuned. It is not about arguments dealing with why the universe exists at all.

Janus: "God refutes the theistic assumption that complex things cannot 'just exist'"

True, but not even those arguing for design are making the generic argument that complex things, in general, cannot "just exist." Usually, they are arguing that the particular instances of complexity that we see, such as flagella or eyes, could not have come about by particular blind processes. These arguments, faults and all, have details that are specific to various biological things. For example, the arguments about the flagellum presume that it is made from discrete parts and that "evolutionists" make the bold claim that all these parts just came together by chance. Such an argument doesn't really work on things that aren't made of discrete parts. (Such an argument doesn't work at all, actually, as van Till's article "E. coli at the No Free Lunchroom" points out, but that's another story.)

65. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27608 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 4:16 pm

tomwb: "These sorts of arguments mystify me.

"The term 'universe' ... refers to everything we can observe."

"There cannot be 'another sort of complexity' outside the universe unless either A) it has absolutely no effect on our universe and is therefore irrelevant, or B) it does have observable effects and is therefore part of the universe."

Your conclusion follows from your premises, but it is a purely semantic argument. When others talk about the universe, they often mean the "material world," which doesn't include God. But let's use your definition. God is then, supposedly, a part of the universe. A really weird part of the universe that doesn't go by the same rules as the rest of the universe, but a part of it.

We still have the same problem, just rephrased. Instead of comparing the complexity of God with that of the universe, we are then comparing God the complexity of God with that of the rest of the universe. All the problems with defining a common metric of complexity still remain.

66. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27603 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm

"I think Orr is looking at it in the wrong way, and part of his problem is a failure to define the god he is talking about."

I think this sentence distracts from Orr's point. Here's a fuller quote from Orr:

Frankly, I find it astonishing that Dennett thinks the 747 gambit accomplishes much of anything. If Dawkins had offered his argument as a parody of those admittedly puerile philosophical proofs of God's existence, I'd laugh along. But Dawkins clearly believes his argument is much more than this: it's a demonstration that God almost certainly doesn't exist. Can Dennett really believe that some facile argument about the probability of correctly assembling all of God's parts by chance alone is anything of the kind? Does he really believe that God is (necessarily) complex in the same way as the universe, just more so? And just what metric of complexity does Dennett take to extend so readily from the natural to the supernatural? Does none of this trouble Dennett? Are things really so neat as Dawkins says? [emphasis added]

The problem, which PZ Myers dodges, is how the heck is Dawkins comparing the complexity of God to the complexity of the universe. It is one thing to say that God and the universe are each complex in their own ways. It is another thing to say that one has a metric of complexity that applies equally to something physical like the universe and a ghostly who-knows-what like the Deity we all know and, um, well, we all know, and that one can judge whether a complicated arrangement of matter is more or less complex than a really weird fictional specter. To put it in more concrete terms, this can be sort of like comparing the complexity of the Grand Canyon to the complexity of a cat. How would you even go about doing that, and would you even get a meaningful result when done? This is the problem that Orr is talking about. The problem is not so much whether God is simple, but whether it is even coherent for Dawkins to claim that the complexities of God and the universe can be compared at all.

67. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27591 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 1:39 pm

To expand on Dore's line:

By agreeing with extremists on the fundamental point of God's existence and Jesus's divinity, liberal Christians have no clear grounds on which to stand from which to refute the extremists' interpretation. They have already conceded the most important ground of all to the extremists: namely, the belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions and condemns others (among other things). Once this ground is conceded, "debate" or "criticism" between religious groups of varying degrees of moderation becomes a mere footling question of which biblical verses one likes and which one doesn't, which aspects of doctrine one prefers to emphasize and which one doesn't, which interpretive traditions one holds dear and which one doesn't. What it doesn't provide is any clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis on which to make a judgement between these conflicting truth claims. Only standing outside religion altogether does that.

The problem is that even in a bible-verse pissing contest, about the only place where the moderates and liberals are in a weaker position than the extremists is creationism. Just about all the other Christian Right positions either emphasize something only occasionally mentioned in passing in the Bible (like homosexuality), or not dealt with in the Bible at all (like abortion). The bulk of the law in the Old Testament is superseded by Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews. The Sermon on the Mount provides a serious roadblock to Christians advocating violence, and to get around it requires exegetical kludges at least as bad as those used to stretch Genesis to accommodate evolution. A "clear, rational, empirical, neutral basis" would certainly be a better footing for debate, but the idea that "belief that there is a supernatural god who commands certain actions [in some holy book] and condemns others" concedes much to the extremists only works if the contents of the holy book tend to advocate extremism. As it stands, Christian theocracy has tepid biblical support at best.


ETA: One more thing. You guys appear to be saying that Harris does not think that the extreme forms of religion are the purer ones, and that moderate religion is diluted. I gather, then, that Harris would disagree with Dawkins' "Gerin Oil" metaphor (http://www.bmc.uu.se/~danl/Gerin%20Oil.html)?

68. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27583 by J. J. Ramsey on March 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm

justme: "except when you see what happens when Sam debates someone like Andrew Sullivan (a moderate and not a fanatic right winger) and the moderate starts to cling to the core concepts that Frederick Clarkson says are not the core of Christianity but are part of the radical religious right."

And which tenets are those? The idea that gays should be second-class citizens? The idea that evolution is false? The idea that a zygote has full rights as a human being? Obviously not. They agree, as far as I can tell on, as Jonathan Dore puts it, "God's existence and Jesus's divinity," but contrary to Dore, it does not follow that "liberal Christians have no clear grounds on which to stand from which to refute the extremists' interpretation." Indeed, I rather wonder how Dore even makes the bridge between those ideas.

69. Kissing Hank's Ass

Comment #26191 by J. J. Ramsey on March 17, 2007 at 2:57 pm

"'Karl' is a stand in for anyone who writes a book, and then claims that it was dictated to him by a higher power. Fine examples include the writers of the old testament, the gospel writers of the new testament, that bloke wot wrote the Koran, the book of Mormon, the gospel of the flying spagetti monster; i.e. basically anyone who says or writes anything that they claim came from some sort of deity."

Nitpick: Actually the writers of the wouldn't qualify at all, since to the best of our knowledge, they didn't claim that they were dictating something from a higher power.

Still, point taken, at least insofar as Karl is a generic stand-in for, as Kingasaurus put it, as intermediary between "Hank" and potential believers.

70. Kissing Hank's Ass

Comment #26151 by J. J. Ramsey on March 17, 2007 at 8:52 am

USA_Limey: "Pushes all the right buttons and makes all the salient points about why organized religion, (in particular), is such a crock."

I wouldn't go that far. It has about nothing to say about Judaism, for example. "Karl" is obviously a stand-in for Jesus. It certainly makes the point that the form of Christianity believed by a large swath of Protestants is bunk, though.

The neat thing about "Kissing Hank's Butt" (yes, there's an expurgated version :)) is that it takes what is actually preached by many Christians and, for the most part, just changes the labels. When viewed closely, there is surprisingly little exaggeration.

71. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25263 by J. J. Ramsey on March 11, 2007 at 12:01 pm

kaiserkriss: "To that extent the term faithhead is easily understood and descriptive."

Easily understood? Yes. Depending on the context, though, it can be more libelous than descriptive.

I think we are starting to drift off-topic, though

72. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25244 by J. J. Ramsey on March 11, 2007 at 8:54 am

justme: "That said, the term 'faith-head' or 'faithheads' is not valuable. At best, it sounds divisive and derogatory. It stands out as a specialized term and sounds cliquish. At worst, it is an ineffective attempt at an insult."

The problem that I see with "faith-head" is that it is part of the process of depicting the enemy as an oversimplified, easy-to-hate stereotype. In World War II, the Germans and the Japanese became "Krauts", "Huns", and "Japs", and it isn't too hard to find propaganda posters where the Germans are portrayed as barbarians or the Japanese portrayed as buck-toothed buffoons with bad English and coke-bottle glasses. More recently, Republicans have portrayed liberals as elite sissies or moonbats. Christians appeal to the stereotype of the arrogant atheist.

Like all stereotypes, there is an element of truth to them. The Germans were barbaric. The Japanese sometimes do have poor English. Some liberals do come of as weak, and some atheists have been arrogant. Like all stereotypes, there is oversimplification and distortion. We'd like to think that the Nazis were simply monsters who were totally unlike us, yet much of the evil was done by ordinary human beings. (The Milgram experiments come to mind.) The Japanese were not the buffoons seen in the posters. Liberals are not all Volvo-drinking, latte-sipping, etc. Not all atheists are arrogant.

The same could be said for the faith-head stereotype. There certainly are those who are stupid and self-deceived. However, the reaction of many so-called faith-heads is probably closer to this depiction in the Skeptic's Dictionary on self-deception (http://skepdic.com/selfdeception.html):

"A common example [of self-deception] would be that of a parent who believes his child is telling the truth even though the objective evidence strongly supports the claim that the child is lying.... [However, t]he parent may have very good reasons for trusting the child and not trusting the accusers. In short, an apparent act of self-deception may be explicable in purely cognitive terms without any reference to unconscious motivations or irrationality. The self-deception may be neither a moral nor an intellectual flaw. It may be the inevitable existential outcome of a basically honest and intelligent person who has extremely good knowledge of his or her child, knows that things are not always as they appear to be, has little or no knowledge of the child's accusers, and thus has not sufficient reason for doubting the child. It may be the case that an independent party could examine the situation and agree that the evidence is overwhelming that the child is lying, but if he or she were wrong we would say that he or she was mistaken, not self-deceived."

Given this, we ought to be careful before writing off the religious as rubes.

73. Daggers Drawn

Comment #25235 by J. J. Ramsey on March 11, 2007 at 6:44 am

Pastafarian: "Try finding a religious apologist who'll admit to certain parameters which would cause them to change their minds."

I noticed that your words were carefully phrased, speaking of "religious apologists" rather than just the religious in general. Here are some words from a moderate religious person who has thought of what might change his mind:

"My study of the texts has consequences. To discover that everything that I had ever believed about the foundations of Christianity was in error would affect me deeply. But the danger of such a discovery in no way relieves me of my duty to examine the evidences honestly and evenly."

From http://textexcavation.com/about.html

This guy is a regular on IIDB's BC&H forum (see http://www.iidb.org), BTW. This is a place where you can find believers who can take "slightest hint of criticism" and much more than that.

macronencer: "And, from a logical perspective, it is not possible for atheists to be 'fundamentalist' - though it is possible for them to be 'extremist' in a number of ways."

Yes, but it is tempting to ironically apply the label "fundamentalist" to those who exhibit some of the same traits as the fundies even as they attack them. I don't mean emotion so much as tendencies to demonize the enemy and to argue poorly (i.e. get one's logic or facts wrong). It is probably better, though, to recognize that those are tendencies that can affect anyone who advocates passionately for a particular stance, no matter what the stance is.

74. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25229 by J. J. Ramsey on March 11, 2007 at 6:16 am

mikkala: "It takes an even bigger man to apologize, when he has nothing to admit to."

Whether he has nothing to apologize for depends on what he said on the telephone.

If he really did say, "How can you take seriously someone who likes to believe something because he finds it 'comforting'?" then he should apologize. Obviously, it isn't good if someone has the flaw of holding a particular belief simply because it is comforting, but if someone does worthwhile things in spite of this flaw (like, oh, Martin Gardner), then he or she should be taken seriously. If Dawkins really did say those words, then he said something very nasty about someone that he knew nothing about. This is the sort of thing that can happen when one thinks of the people at the other end as stereotypical "faith-heads" instead of as real people.

If he DIDN'T say that--and given that the purported quote comes from the Daily Mail, that's a pretty strong possibility--then of course he has nothing to apologize for.

75. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24379 by J. J. Ramsey on March 6, 2007 at 9:40 am

"While claiming that atheism is an intellectually superior approach to life, Harris denies that it is a philosophy."

Well, there is this, ahem, little matter that atheism is not a philosophy. It can be a piece of an ideology or philosophy, but it is only a single belief. It can be a part of ugly ideologies like communism or fascism, or a part of far saner outlooks like rationalism or humanism.

"He glosses over the wicked acts of atheistic regimes such as Stalin's Russia and Mao's China."

Well, yes. These wicked acts are useful for showing that atheism isn't a cure for human irrationality or depravity, but not for showing that atheism is evil in and of itself.

76. Darwin's God

Comment #24272 by J. J. Ramsey on March 5, 2007 at 4:00 pm

"It's not a post hoc rationalization. There's plenty of time for thinking it through the first time."

Really? Five, ten minutes for the whole class? And again, what is the point of putting forth the mental effort in this instance when a gut-level intuition will do? You write as if it is natural for we humans to respond with reason, when that is far from our normal behavior.

Furthermore, the reasons given on this forum for why not to put the hand in the box aren't that good. "An animal of some sort, ready to bite"? A way of stealing drivers' licenses? Do you really think these are even plausible scenarios? It's too easy for such pranks to backfire.

"As a test to see if the person has attitudes like religious faith the test is very broken"

Why are you presuming that this is the point of the test? The point seems to be to illustrate the difference between how rational we think we are and how rationally we really behave. Our lack of rationality, of course, can tend to lead to religion, which is closer to Atran's point, but that is not quite the same as having religious faith or something like it.

77. Darwin's God

Comment #24247 by J. J. Ramsey on March 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

chance: "I'm afraid I don't follow this logic. There's nothing post hoc about it."

"Post hoc" just means that *you* are thinking about it after the fact. My point is that it is very easy and often tempting to retroactively attribute motivations for actions that were not the real motivations at the time.

chance: "It's not like they only have a split second to decide."

But neither do they have several minutes, either. We are probably talking about a five-minute demonstration at the beginning of a lecture to introduce a topic. There is a least a little time pressure, and there is not much motive to spend the mental effort rather than resort to heuristics. It's not as if it were a homework problem, where deeper thought would have more benefit. Our brains can be very lazy:

http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2004/12/lazy-brain.html

78. Darwin's God

Comment #24229 by J. J. Ramsey on March 5, 2007 at 12:07 pm

"There are plenty of mundane secular reasons to be fearful. For example, why is the instructor reluctant to show what is inside the box? It could be a trick and its an animal of some sort, ready to bite."

That may be a good post hoc rationalization for why one doesn't put one's hand in the box. However, you and all the other people saying that this is a bad demonstration are presuming that the students' reactions to the box are based on conscious critical reflection rather than a more gut-level response.

79. Darwin's God

Comment #24086 by J. J. Ramsey on March 4, 2007 at 5:51 pm

"On the beyond belief meetings he was very angry at Dawkins and others for suggesting we could or should get rid of religion."

From the bits and pieces that I saw, that wasn't what he was angry about. One bit he didn't like was that so many people were arguing from their own personal intuitions and speculations, rather than from the data. There's a YouTube of that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn3CzIl4o4k

Another concern was that no one really had an answer for how to promote rationality in a fundamentally irrational world. He has a point. We have evolved brains that, while capable of a great deal of abstract thought, are prone to all sorts of bias and other problems. It's easy to be argued out of particular kinds of nonsense, like fundamentalism--as Sam Harris pointed out--but escaping particular kinds of nonsense does not mean that one is necessarily more rational.