51. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180075 by Dr Benway on May 14, 2008 at 7:18 am

Totally off topic:


I especially like the awkward, forced smile.

Anthropomorphism is teh funneh.

52. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180061 by Dr Benway on May 14, 2008 at 6:49 am

Fanusi can have my bunk. I miss Barnes and Noble.

53. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180053 by Dr Benway on May 14, 2008 at 6:34 am

Cars are horribly designed.

54. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180051 by Dr Benway on May 14, 2008 at 6:27 am

We can build homes now in New England that need very little energy to heat and cool. A tight outer envelope is key.

The ground is about 52 degrees all year round if you go a few feet down. Run a hose down to a heat exchanger, and you've got a source of warmth in winter and cool in summer using a fairly low-cost pump.

The ideal refrigerator would be like a kitchen counter with lids you lift for separate compartments - freezer, beverages, dairy, vegetables, meat. Leave the lid up as long as you want while you're debating what to eat - it will stay cold in there.

55. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180020 by Dr Benway on May 14, 2008 at 5:45 am

Everyone wants a fuel efficient car. But the roads are filled with largish boxes and people don't feel safe in small, light vehicles. If we set some federal standards for fuel effeciency, cars in general will get smaller and lighter.

We need to change the way we zone property. Large residential tracts force people to commute to work. Better to combine housing and commercial property as much as possible --much as things were a hundred years ago.

People don't want traffic near their homes. But traffic generally would decrease if more people could walk, bike, or bus to work. Less commuting means less spent on roads and parking lots, and more green spaces.

Refrigerators: Having the door on the side means all the cold air falls out each time you open the thing. If we simply designed them with the door on top, we'd save an enormous amount of energy.

56. God seekers go public

Comment #179827 by Dr Benway on May 13, 2008 at 8:30 pm

The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #179330 by Dr Benway on May 13, 2008 at 6:00 am

OK, here's a simple analogy to illustrate how mutation can lead to novel information.

Imagine a program that copies a word but occasionally gets a letter wrong. Let's say the word is "cat" and it screws up the last letter replacing it with some other letter from the alphabet at random. So it generates:

caa
cab*
cac
cad*
cae
caf
cag
cah
cai
caj
cak
cal
cam
can*
cao
cap*
caq
car*
cas
cat*
cau
cav
caw
cax
cay
caz

Most of the mutations are meaningless. But a small percentage actually have meaning. Similarly, point mutations sometimes do generate useful proteins.

And just to complicate things: imagine some part of the reading machine is replaced so it reads in French rather than English. Now the set of useful words will be different.

Changes to the reader might be analogous to some change in the DNA--RNA--protein transcription system, or more broadly: to any change in the environment around the organism.

Yes, the environment "mutates" also.

58. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179097 by Dr Benway on May 12, 2008 at 2:30 pm

After a year of debating with theists, I'm starting to think of theism as a form of substance abuse. I see the same convoluted lawyering in service to the substance, which the brain has come to value even above reality.

I sympathize. I can imagine myself in a situation where my need for something was so intense I'd say or do almost anything rather than give it up. Example: Someone is heating up hot lead and is about to pour it up my ass if I don't spill a few government secrets and so betray my country. Well I'm sorry, country, but my need to avoid having hot lead up my ass likely will trump my sense of duty to you.

Unless you're unusually strong willed, the capacity to think rationally may depend upon a life free from extreme need or suffering for long periods of time.

The believer, like the drug addict, indulges in denialism and control games that replace what might have been relationships. And this high price is so unnecessary. It's like chasing a mirrage in the desert, when someone beside you has a canteen of water and likely would be willing to share.

59. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178812 by Dr Benway on May 12, 2008 at 5:16 am

Artful_Dodger: No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin.

60. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178800 by Dr Benway on May 12, 2008 at 4:50 am

Artful_Dodger: The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God, of human beings setting themselves up as gods, of human self-deification leading to human destruction

61. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178561 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Ah yes, Frankus1122, I remember that exchange. Artful_Dodger's answer boils down to, "trust me, it's obvious."

That answer doesn't explain why Christians, Jews, Mormons, Witnesses, etc., do not all see the same "obvious" interpretation.

I'd think the above would be sufficiently obvious to prove Artful's answer useless.

62. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178556 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:30 pm

People can be non-responsive for several reasons:

1. they didn't realize the question was pressing
2. they didn't see the question
3. they were going to answer it eventually
4. they want to pretend they have an answer when they don't
5. they want to pretend they have a good answer, when they have a shameful one.

Three strikes is a means of ruling out hypotheses 1-3.

63. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178546 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Artful_Dodger: These are questions that anyone committed to natural selection and convinced of its explanatory power needs to address. So far answers have been thin on the ground!

64. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178544 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm

STRIKE ONE! for the Artful_Dodger

STRIKE TWO! oh, he lives up to his name

STRIKE THREE! HE'S OUT!

There you have it, folks. No answer to the question: "How does one know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphoric?"

And yet he pretends to know.

65. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178517 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm

epeeist: And by the way - you still owe me a description of how you separate the literal from the metaphorical in your "holy book". And who gives you the right to do it.

66. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #178172 by Dr Benway on May 10, 2008 at 5:13 pm

"One reason the buildings are needed is that the Bush administration now prohibits federal financing of research using any human embryonic stem cells derived after August 2001, because creating such cells entails the destruction of human embryos. "

67. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178132 by Dr Benway on May 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm

fides_et_ratio: It's a conclusion based on you not being able to provide an answer to the question just a series of avoidance techniques and fallacies about my supposed name calling.

68. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178129 by Dr Benway on May 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Congratulations, Fellatio, you just used reasoning.
;)

Thus endeth the lesson.

69. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178126 by Dr Benway on May 10, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Reason is a method for assigning an appropriate level of confidence to claims about the world. It involves four tests:

1. Corroboration
2. Falsification
3. Logic
4. Parsimony

Pass me a claim our shared reality --any claim at all-- and I'll be happy to demonstrate a rational assessment of that claim.

70. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177983 by Dr Benway on May 10, 2008 at 6:16 am

fides: Clearly an admission that the Cardinal's response to Richard Dawkins et al should not be given a public forum.

71. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177895 by Dr Benway on May 9, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Well fides, I thought it was satire until the bit about the hats.

72. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177892 by Dr Benway on May 9, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Reason leads to Hitler and Science leads to killing people.

Is this Tin Woodsman message some new right wing god botherer talking point thingy?

I'm starting a list on my blog of the uber rich nutter funders. So far I've got:

Sun Myung Moon
Howard Ahmanson
Richard Mellon Scaife

I'll add John Templeton soon. Other suggestions welcome.

BTW, the moonie video link is a hoot, yet creepy, as you might expect. Thanks, US Senators, for crowning our new King!

73. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177889 by Dr Benway on May 9, 2008 at 10:39 pm

fides_et_ratio: The Cardinal's lecture is in large part a response to RD and other modern athiest writers. You seem to be suggesting that only Richard's view should be covered in the national media, and not the response of those he attacks. If this is your stance or an accurate portrayal of RD's stance, I think it adds more substance to the Cardinal's idea of how athiesm can lead to Hitler/Stalin figures.

74. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177886 by Dr Benway on May 9, 2008 at 10:29 pm

MPhil: ...it is catholic dogma that the existence of god and reasonableness of faith are demonstrable by unaided reason...

75. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177334 by Dr Benway on May 8, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Whatever we're paying Dawkins, it's probably not enough. Srsly.

What's left to say to the Cardinals and Bishops?

How many times can you say things like, "You mention Hitler and Stalin because you know I'll agree with you: they were bad men. Doesn't my agreement prove a non-believer can value the same things you value?"

If I were in Richard's shoes, I might hope for a wink and a nod, some sign that the theist knows it's all bollocks, but is trapped in a game he can't stop playing.

76. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177310 by Dr Benway on May 8, 2008 at 10:52 pm

If someone could translate this into LOLcat, I probably could make my way through it.

kthxbai!

77. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176123 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Have we ever had a Chomsky thread that didn't look something like a car wreck beside the road?

/OT

78. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #176120 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Just watched the first bit. Angry.

Stein and Beck laugh at Dawkins for mentioning "space aliens" as a candidate designer.

Well, toopids, the ID proponents themselves have said the designer might be space aliens!

Michael Behe: Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel, fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. (Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi 3 [2001] 165; HT: IDEA Center)

79. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #176110 by Dr Benway on May 6, 2008 at 3:12 pm

MorituriMax, you have "<" with "i" somewhere in your post, causing italic text that can't be stopped.

bachfiend: I suggest Ben Stein should run for dog catcher, but I think he will underqualified.

80. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175447 by Dr Benway on May 5, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Sorry to be off topic, but I maded a blag like Steve, Quetz, and Anna! Hope you are proud of me. You can visit, if you want.

http://tuftedtitmouse.blogspot.com/

81. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175202 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Well I've talked to people who were in the camps, ASMarques, so I believe those camps did exist and the conditions were awful.

I don't know how many people died, but I'm pretty sure it was a whole fucking lotta people. That's as precise as I need to be, for my purposes.

82. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #175200 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Marc Weeks: Jack's always driven me nuts by the constant scripture quoting. It almost sounds like he's trying to sneak the stuff in there subliminally, like: "Rexella and I had dinner last night--1 Timothy 4:1 and God said, 'Let's eat!'--and it was just marvelous.

By the way, I'm writing this e-mail from the World Headquarters of I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!

83. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175198 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2008 at 8:40 pm

TearsInTheRain: ...why evidence? Why facts? Are not somethings just outside an evidence based approach? Is the belief in the scientific approach, rather than the scientific answers, not just as fundamental as a faith based approach?

84. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175186 by Dr Benway on May 4, 2008 at 7:05 pm

fides_et_ratio: By 'we're' you mean 'you' presumably, in which case 'I'm' is probably more appropriate.

85. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174724 by Dr Benway on May 3, 2008 at 10:48 am

Bizzaro Dawkins: Also, I find it absurdly boorish when some of the atheists on this site bash God on an article that is totally unrelated to the issue of His existence (or non-existence).

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174698 by Dr Benway on May 3, 2008 at 9:34 am

eagles12: Not one scientific fact supports evolution...

87. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174689 by Dr Benway on May 3, 2008 at 8:57 am

Up to page 117. Apparent missing Brian English posts in the fossil layer.

There are some advantages to hiding behind a pseudonym.

MPhil: Most people here do fully stand by the historical crimes committed in the name of "Germany", they know about the dangers of nationalism and patriotism.

88. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #174535 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Mitchell Gilks: If I walk into a room and you are stabbing a guy to death, that isn't evidence that you stabbed the guy, that is direct observation of the event.

Mitchell Gilks: We don't need to prove things that we know are true, and we don't require evidence for first hand accounts.

89. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174516 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Perhaps this has already been posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y

Creationists and the Speed of Light

Short slide show reviewing supernova, speed of light, and age of the universe.

90. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174380 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 10:40 am

I really do not like "Darwinism" and "evolutionist." I realize we're probably stuck with these words. But they are so misleading.

Art, architecture, politics have their clubs, parties, and schools of thought. But science seeks to view the world from the perspective of a generic any-man.

91. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174374 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 10:30 am

seeker_of_truth: I was thinking before my morning break how incredibly bored I would be participating in ridicule on any extended basis...When on my break, I asked my wife [a psychologist] exactly what purpose ridicule serves in the individual who perpetuates it and society as a whole. She told me that each of us deals with internal conflict in varies ways...snip

92. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #174369 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 10:18 am

Mitchell and Ty, I think you are arguing over confidence.

Any claim about the world can be termed "evidence" initially. But then we judge the claim. We assign some confidence to it. If that confidence is nearly zero, we often say, "that's not evidence" as a short-hand for "that doesn't meet minimal evidentiary standards."

Uncorroborated eye witness testimony can be used to establish facts provided that:
1. Acceptance imposes no great cost to the listener.
2. Acceptance doesn't profit the speaker.
3. The lack of corroboration is easily explained.
4. The reports are not self-contradictory.
5. Errors in the testimony are few.

With respect to the Gospels:
1. Acceptance imposes great costs upon the listeners.
2. The writers, as cult leaders, stood to gain much via acceptance of their stories as facts.
3. The lack of corroboration is difficult to explain. Dramatic, public miracles seen by many people ought to result in several independent reports.
4. Contradictions exist within the accounts.
5. Errors exist - e.g., the census at time of Christ's birth didn't happen.

So I think it's fair to say the probability of Jesus existing with the Gospels is no better than without them. To say otherwise would lower the evidentiary bar so low, we'd find ourselves saddled with Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, mermaids, etc.

93. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174309 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 5:17 am

From epeeist's link:

Ben Stein: I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that's where science --in my opinion, this is just an opinion-- that's where science leads you.

Herbert Stein: My father came here from Russia when he was nine years old. As a teenager he enlisted in the U.S. cavalry and went to the Philippines to chase guerrilla rebels. He worked as a blue-collar machinist in manufacturing plants for much of his life. And when I was 10 he already had the specific but fanciful idea that I would, in time, work my way through college by playing the saxophone in a dance band on an excursion boat in the Detroit river.

94. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174191 by Dr Benway on May 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm

seeker: Now can we move on from this tom-foolery?

95. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173763 by Dr Benway on May 1, 2008 at 8:23 am

Richard,

Fidelity to corroborative evidence is a necessary but insufficient condition for love.

Fidelity to love above fidelity to truth corrupts the character and damages the capacity to distinguish real love from illusory love.

Compliments and insults can both serve as ad hominems distracting us in our search for what is true.

When you speak of your inner Jesus as if others ought to take it seriously, you are saying, in effect, that your subjective experience has more import and authority than the subjectivity of others. This is narcissism. It is anti-human. It is anti-love.

96. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173684 by Dr Benway on May 1, 2008 at 5:54 am

Thanks for the softball story, seeker. I'll share it with my husband. He's a gifted runner and a big softie who has collected a number of similar stories over the years. It'll make him go all misty, which I find sexy.

97. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173388 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 5:43 pm

I am taking up a collection for The Wootered and Enfeebled Infirmary. This cheery and well-lit facility includes padded corridors, plenty of nappies, pureed carrots, finger puppets, and shiny happy staff persons.

Please give. The streets and the internets are no place for a wooter.

98. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173270 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Chris Davis: General Order #1 prohibits troops in theater from consuming alcohol, viewing pornography, or having sex.

99. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172928 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 7:19 am

Congrats to al-rawandi and annabanana! Two fun, handsome, brilliant, people find each other - the greatest story ever told.

Drop me a line if you're ever in the greater Boston area. I'll take you out for dinner someplace.

100. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172803 by Dr Benway on April 30, 2008 at 5:33 am

Chris Davis: I've only been here two months and I'd consider blowing myself up for a couple of strippers and a 12 pack of Guiness...cans or bottles.