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


1051. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87113 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 8:24 am

krisking: Tell me, what does atheim have to offer the world
Honesty.

1052. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87112 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 8:17 am

Bonzai: #85828: It seems pretty reasonable that moral instincts such as empathy are hardwired. Where else can they come from if you don't believe in God?
Honeybees make combs composed of many perfect hexagons. Are bee brains wired to know something about hexagons? No. The bees only need to know how to push their heads into the wax while turning in a circle.

Some information is in the DNA. Some is passed on culturally. And some arises inevitably out of the interaction between organism and environment.

Love, being discriminatory, implies hate. It's likely that empathy and warfare compliment each other.

1053. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87077 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 6:35 am

Who do you think is to say which is right?
As you are claiming to know the truth, the onus is on you to explain yourself.

1054. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87072 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 6:26 am

Neither can you corroborate scientific propositions such as that all metals melt at some temperature.
You've said this a few times. It seems a simple thing, establishing the melting point of some metal. So I'm puzzled by your meaning here.

1055. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87066 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 6:13 am

D'oh! I got suckered into trusting a liar for Jesus.

Genesis, KJV:

22:6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid [it] upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where [is] the lamb for a burnt offering?

22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

1056. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87063 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 6:04 am

Good practical joke on Abraham, eh?

1057. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87058 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 5:52 am

krisking: God provided an animal sacrifice at the last moment, having seen Abraham's complete trust in God.
Good practical joke on Isaac, eh?

1058. Holy communion

Comment #86993 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 9:30 pm

I'm not sure there's any real anti-gay bias in the cartoon.
My gaydar doesn't work in the UK. Too many false positives. So I'll concede that you Brits might read Dawkins in that cartoon as joyful rather than totally queer.

1059. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86989 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Aren't the humanists our allies? Allies do friendly ribbing. They don't do "fuck you."

1060. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86985 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 8:58 pm

The cover of that new flea book by Tina Somebody was fun-poking. This cartoon is aggressive and mean.

I reserve fat jokes for people I truly despise. And the Dawkins-is-a-fag meme might work in Mad Magazine, but is frankly embarassing in any publication for grown ups.

No accounting for taste I s'pose.

1061. Holy communion

Comment #86980 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 8:48 pm

That cartoon is pretty angry. WTF?

My brain is visual. Long after I've forgotten who wrote what, that image will stick.

With friends like the "New Humanists," who needs enemies?

1062. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86978 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 8:38 pm

PZ, you've a right to be snarky about the "New Humanist" piece. That cartoon is vile.

Dawkins didn't have a stroke when that Southpark episode aired - the one where he's buggering a pre-op Mr. Garrison. So the drawing of him as girly-gay cheerleader with bad rosacia prolly won't kill him. Dawkins has likely figured out that pretending not to care scores more points than overt upset.

Southpark have to shit on everyone. But why would New Humanist take the piss from two strong allies?

My live-and-let-live attitude toward religion changed abruptly with 9/11.

1063. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86954 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I'll keep you guessing. But it seems you at least have already made up your mind. As have I!
Hi flea.

1064. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86932 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 1:05 pm

ADH: I have argued and will continue to insist that Atheism is a surrogate religion: "Happy band of Brothers"...
I recommend Andy Thomson's talk. "Band of brothers" has nothing to do with atheism per se, but refers to a general primate phenomenon termed "male cohort aggression." Dr. Thomson explains the relationship between male cohort aggression and the motivation of suicide bombers.

When looking at a gathering that shares features with religious groups - e.g., regular meetings, listening to talks, sharing a literature - it may be an error to assume that the gathering is religious in nature. Rather, both the gathering and the religious groups may be evidence of a more general human tendency.

Some believers claim special invention or ownership of certain human practices - e.g., morality, brotherly love, charity. Examples of these things may be found apart from their religion, but in their view, the secular examples are mere unreliable counterfeits of the real thing. In my view, this way of thinking is tragic.

Just as one can enjoy lunch without Jesus, one can enjoy love, common cause, friendship, learning, and humor, all without Jesus.
These guys don't seem to realise how much of their conception of duty and decency actually derives from the judeo-christian heritage within which they were brought up!
There is a better explanation: the basic pro-social behavior of both ancient and modern peoples arises from the exigencies of social living.

1065. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86854 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 10:18 am

On the other hand we all do methaphysics in the sense that we all have some beliefs about how objective reality is, even though, as you say, whatever these beliefs may be does not matter at all in many contexts.
I try not to accept propositions that go beyond the data, unless necessary for communication.

1066. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86819 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 8:09 am

Dianelos, you're too hung up on the distinction between phenomenal world and objective reality. Try this: pretend that we're all talking about the phenomenal world. We're all judging hypotheses by virtue of how well they explain phenomena. Pretend no one is talking about "reality" as you imagine it. Do this for one week.

You are closer to atheism than theism, with respect to explanations for phenomena. You're on our team. Trust me, we're more simpatico than those Christian Embassy blokes. Read this article:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071107_the_cancer_from_within/

1067. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86801 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 7:13 am

ADH: By your reckoning, does this not disqualify him (Freud) from saying anything meaningful with regard to God's existence?
I actually was expressing a feeling of admiration for CS Lewis in my post. He had moments of great insight into the human heart. But he seemed a man apart, a man who found intimacy a little scary - an endearing trait from my vantage point.

Of course, an author's particular psychology is a matter separate from the accuracy of his writings.

Could we not say that atheists have repressed their instinctive awareness of the Divine because of a deep seated fear that there might actually be Someone there to whom they will have to give account?
A common theme in Lewis' writings, particularly Till We Have Faces. For centuries, religionists of all sorts have been offering the same explanation for why so many do not believe as they believe. It's a dangerous thesis.

Here's my indictment of Christianity: you cannot trust me as you would trust a brother in Christ.

1068. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86772 by Dr Benway on November 10, 2007 at 6:05 am

steve99: We know that these feelings can be produced (correct me if I am wrong, Dr Benway) by minor seizures for example.
Some epileptics skip their meds just to enjoy a visit from God. God visits are often better than sex.

But ADH is correct. God may actually visit when the anti-seizure med blood levels are low. The possibility can't be ruled out.

But you also are correct. When considering two explanations for some phenomenon, we ought to place greater confidence in the more parsimonious explanation.

1069. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86608 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Non-believers do disorganized charity, which is more difficult to measure than the organized group charity of churches. I'll use my husband as an example: regular NPR doner, volunteer track coach, volunteering at local races, supporting the Leukemia Society, informal tutoring, helping friends move, visiting sick friends in the hospital, and so on.

1070. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86599 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Steve99: No, Dianelos, strictly speaking science studies objective reality.
Just to riff on your point: "objective" being operationally defined as "that which can be corroborated." Mathematical proofs can be corroborated just as physical events can be corroborated.

We don't need to take a metaphysical stand regarding the ultimate nature of reality in order to corroborate evidence. The world may be "physical" or it may behave as if it were physical. No matter.

1071. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86585 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 4:52 pm

If I recall correctly, CS Lewis lost his mother at a fairly young age. For me, that helps to explain how he can be both psychologically insightful and yet formulaic at the same time. Early loss can make one feel deeply alienated from peers, and so curious to figure them out. But from too great a distance.

A snip of one of his poems that's stayed with me (from memory, so error-prone):

All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you
I never had a selfless thought since I was born
I am mercenary and self seeking through and through
I want God, you, all friends merely to serve my turn

Peace, reassurance, pleasure are the goals I seek
I cannot crawl one inch outside my proper skin
I talk of love -a scholar's parrot may talk Greek
But self imprisoned always end where I begin

Only that now you have taught me - but how late! - my lack
I see the chasm
And everything you are was making my heart into a bridge
By which I might get back from exile and grown man
But now the bridge is breaking

For this I bless you as the ruin falls
The pains you give me are more precious than
All other gains

1072. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #86461 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 9:58 am

Dianelos: But if you think that the strong party ought to negotiate with the weaker party even though it doesn't need to, then on what standards do you base this ethical precept?
Moral behavior supports the social and environmental conditions necessary for relationship between independent, informed, consenting agents.

Coercive interventions in one relationship can be justified by appeals to the future of that relationship or by appeals to other relationships. Parents force children to do many things in service to their development toward independence. Communities force criminals off the streets to limit their destructive influence upon others.

Dianelos, you value your relationship to God above your relationship to me. You'd rather ask God how you ought to behave toward me, rather than ask me how to behave toward me. We doctors call this "wanking."

1073. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86451 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 9:01 am

ADH: But looking back over my life, the experiences of God have been so real that I cannot gainsay them, and nor can anyone else.
Personal experiences count as evidence. But insofar as they leave no traces a third party might see, they're only valid for the person having those experiences. Uncorroborated reports carry less weight than corroborated evidence, for good reason. The brain plays a few tricks on all of us.

We can't actually stand in someone else's shoes. But we hallucinate agency as a means of predicting the behavior of another person. To jump-start this hallucination, our brains come with two other-mind templates hard-wired: one all-good and one all-bad. Detailed shading is then added to these basic schemas as needed.

When the all-good other schema is activated but not localized, we feel God's presence. Thus we explain much religious experience without invoking any miracles.
There have been other times since then when I have seen the transformative love of God bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.
Our mental schemas for other minds evolve with age and experience. Abrupt shifts in feeling toward another can and do happen fairly often, for many reasons. Thin line between love and hate, as they say.

1074. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86445 by Dr Benway on November 9, 2007 at 8:43 am

ADH: Why should we then sit back and let parents abuse their children ideologically?
We can raise consciousness regarding the problem of childhood religious indoctrination. But we can't use brute force to control what people think and say to each other. We're selling reason, not atheism. Atheism is merely reason's conclusion. Atheism is what you get when you do the math.

I will allow that the math has a margin of error that permits deism, idealism, and perhaps some personal speculation regarding an interventionist God. But to date, the corroborative evidence for God is not compelling.

The notion that non-believers willfully reject evidence for God has led to much evil in the world.

1075. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86249 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 8:14 pm

LOL. Had me going for a minute.

1076. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86241 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Dianelos:

I have read "Man are from Mars, Women are from Venus" and I know that a typical male mistake is to question a woman's feelings.
Perhaps you are female, then, as you make the opposite mistake: you do not ask questions of the party across the table from you. You prefer monologue to dialog.

BTW, the guy that wrote the Mars-Venus book: an exposed charlatan.

Sex, sexual identity, gender identity - none of these are binaries among humans.

My sex is irrelevant to our conversation, as should be evident in the many months it was presumed one thing before it became another.

Shall I declare my skin color?

1077. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86200 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Dianelos: Should you answer my question above saying that you think the moral Zeitgeist is not improving I would seriously worry about your cognitive faculties.
It took a step backward on 9-11-2001. I'm here to speed things along.
For me it's not a matter of personal taste like saying I like this type of coffee more than another. This is not a trivial difference...
Don't knock matters of preference. They provide us with opportunities to behave virtuously.

I can measure the mass of a rock without asking the rock any questions. My relationship with a rock demands little from me.

In contrast, I can't measure what you'd like for dinner without asking your opinion. You stand sovereign over your own experience. I can guess at your feelings, but you remain the expert and final judge.

By treating you as a person rather than a rock, I demonstrate my respect and consideration for your experience, which I hold as equal to my own in value, so long as you extend to me the same consideration.

Your hunt for "objective morality" is akin to treating me like a rock. "Objective morality" is your effort to moot my subjectivity.

Jesus left a note for you which I have here. It says: "Please don't moot Benway's subjectivity. It makes me cry."
Actions change the person who makes them: good actions make them better and bad actions make them worse.
Agreed.
So, better how? Against what criterion?
How do lovers determine that their lovemaking was good?

1078. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86140 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 8:46 am

Theists posit an alternative understanding of reality, not reality as atheists understand it plus a supernatural being.
Some theists believe in god(s) that exist in the material world - e.g., Jesus, Elvis, Cesaer, Kim Jong il. Some theists are materialists.

I think you mean to say that idealists have a different understanding of reality as compared to materialists. However, you make too much of this. Idealistic poop smells just as bad as materialistic poop.

1079. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #86080 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 4:50 am

Which brings me to the question: what are we going to do about it?
Run this ad.
Or this ad.

1080. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86068 by Dr Benway on November 8, 2007 at 3:55 am

Dianelos: The moral Zeitgeist is clearly improving.
Those who agree with you would agree with you.

A well roasted Columbian coffee is better than any flavored coffee.

Antony Hegarty is a better singer than Britney Spears.

The statements above, including yours, are objective facts about the speakers. They are not objective facts concerning the moral zeitgeist, coffee, Antony and the Johnsons, or Britney Spears.

1081. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #85999 by Dr Benway on November 7, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Know what else rocks? These Christmas cards:

Stop the lies
Evolve your beliefs
Heathen's greetings

1082. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85784 by Dr Benway on November 7, 2007 at 5:27 am

Dianelos: 1) Even in order to negotiate one needs some a priori standards, unless it's the type of negotiation governed by "might makes right" kind of maxim, which is probably the very antithesis of morality. 2) Many if not most ethical questions are not related to behavior towards other humans.
This is an example of concrete thinking.

Young children go through a "concrete operational" period when they can compare things according to some variable, but can't appreciate all the relevant variables for a proper comparison. Example: water from a cup is poured into a tall cylinder. The kid thinks there's more water because it's taller, failing to appreciate width.

Dianelos sees aspects of comments that give him a foothold for response, but loses the big picture. He seems too smart to be making these kinds of mistakes, suggesting "liar for Jesus" or "self-deluded fool" rather than head injury.

Back to #1: Negotiation works like this: I say what I want, you say what you want. Where we're in conflict, we look for compromises. "Might make right" means you do what I say. No negotiation necessary.

#2: We can negotiate our concerns regarding animals or the environment just like anything else.
Come to think of it, even when the question is how one should behave towards other people the moral behavior is one of self-transcendence, of going beyond what may be previously negotiated.
That's called "renegotiation."

This may come as a shock: there are other people in the world who are not Dianelos. They matter!

Timnea's question in 216 is a fair one.

1083. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85707 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Dianelos: If by "evidence" you mean "objective evidence" then I would say that the fact that the moral Zeitgeist is improving evidences that there is an objective standard towards which it is moving, or which it is approximating.
Orgasms are good. But you are neither moving me toward, nor are you approximating, my orgasm.

1084. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85672 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Tina:

...the oppressive effects of a debate dominated by the opinions of a small clique of white English-speaking men staging a mock battle about rationality and God, which fails to address the most significant humanitarian questions of our time.
Ok, I'm gonna have to call time out on the vagina monologues. Turn off that Indigo Girls CD. Put away the aromatherapy. Look out your window. See those white dudes in dreds? See them? They are the voice of our Mother Earth crying out to us in pain.

I have seen the freezer of the Goddess. It is filled, top to bottom, with Ben & Jerry's "Yummy Yin New Age Cat Lady".

There she stands, door open, unmoving, sighing. She is feeling bloated. And sad. That boring old flava just ain't kickin' it no mo.

Channel surfing past the late late show she caught a glimpse of something interesting. Was it James Bond crushing out a cigarette? Gregory Peck looking scowlish? The Rainmaker smiling and charming his heavy hands into Kate Hepburn's tiny tiny pants?

Momma's itchin' for Old School. Nothing battery powered will satisfy. She wants a man. A mighty mighty good man.

Tina, when you're ready, Reverend X gonna show you the way home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkACsmRHJx4

1085. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85556 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 6:47 am

Dianelos: Assuming, and hopefully, your moral values are better than those, how do you manage to transcend them?
Dianelosity, the condensed version:

1. Morality is objective, as it is instantiated in the person of God, who is perfect virtue.
2. We perceive God via introspection, in a manner mindful of "the whole of our experience."

In sum: Dianelos' subjectivity is actually objective reality. He smells a bad smell, we all smell it. He dislikes a movie, we all dislike it. Unless we're being bloody minded or daft, of course.
M_Roche: Evidence-based opinion: 158 of you don't have one.
I hope you now see the errors in your post:
1. 158 comments do not equal 158 people.
2. The vast majority of comments are tangential to Ms. Beattie's book.
3. The few reactions to the cover design, title, and apparent thesis of the book are perfectly justified.
4. Specific reactions to the arguments in the book are pending.

The God test isn't a Scantron. You don't get points for answering "no God" without showing your work. How do we know you didn't just copy that answer from the smarter guy sitting next to you?

1086. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85540 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 5:59 am

Dianelos:

This sounds fine, but it seems atheism does not offer any standards for deciding which way is up in the first place.
No a priori standards doesn't mean no standards at all. Humans still can negotiate behavioral standards and can set mutual goals for the future.

1087. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85416 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 7:22 pm

walk: Does anyone agree?
Yes. You can agree to disagree, so long as you don't feel harmed or in any danger because of her beliefs.

1088. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85404 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 6:40 pm


Evidence-based opinion: 158 of you don't have one.
Eh? This isn't a thread about David Rubinstein, the notorious Dawkins stalker, aka the wee flea?

Do forgive please.

1089. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85367 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 3:14 pm

phil rimmer: But, Dammit, Dr B, how are we newbies ever going to learn to hunt if the prey don't come near us? We're big boys...and girls, and we've got our mates round us.....
Oh I'm sure you'll get your chance to argue with Robinson, either as himself or a sock puppet. Check out his web site if you can't wait. He will enjoy the attention from a Dawkins token - particularly if he can imagine Dawkins reacting in some manner to your dialog.
Maybe he's just done awful things I haven't seen. I'll shut up.
Robinson is a slow, insidious awful rather than an obvious awful. Like bad acting. Or cheese in a can. Or polyester suits. Slow toxins don't kill quickly. But this isn't necessarily a plus.

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/076791581X

1090. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85293 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Good man, Josh. You run this site with a light hand generally and are well within your rights to set some limits now and again.

Dawkins couldn't function at the high level we enjoy if he didn't have several people keeping an eye out for trouble. I hope he's smart enough to recognize genuine loyalty and good sense among his staff.

Too bad A. Flew didn't attract a circle of people capable of sniffing out the users and takers crossing his path.

I like the way PZ Myers handles trolls at his site. Worth stealing for this place, perhaps.

1091. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85153 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 6:29 am

steve99:

Yes... "How to deal with Dianelos"! I think the thread would need some kind of counter, showing the number of times DG presses the 'reset' button for each point.
Do narcissists require hitting upside the head, or do I merely feel the need to hit them? In other words, does God instantiate "please hit me" as an objective ethical fact concerning the narcissist, or does God instatiate "go slap him" as an objective fact about me?

1092. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85150 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 6:11 am

The transcendental argument assumes that nothing is meaningful unless the universe has some ultimate meaning or purpose. We doctors call this worldview "narcissism."

keith: Could someone explain to me what a non-rational force is? For example, is gravity rational or non-rational?
Rational forces are teleological or goal-oriented.
Elentar: The argument against the TAG is to found reason in Metaphysical Naturalism, making God superfluous.
I'd replace the "metaphysical" with "methodological."

Reason is synonymous with methodological naturalism. Metaphysical speculations about "ultimate reality" immune to independent corroboration are not compelling and can be rejected.
35bluejacket: Can an atheist claim that math and logic are just an invention of man or evolved? ...Do these pregnant systems of thought, that are worlds within themselves, stand independent of man and if so, how did they get there?
Reification error. The map is not the territory.
35bluejacket: Are the laws of physics independent of man?
Relatively independent. Facts which have been repeatedly corroborated are more independent of any hypothetical observer than facts less well corroborated.

1093. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85067 by Dr Benway on November 4, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Is the God test a Scantron now? A simple "yes" or "no" is enough, without having to show your maths?

1094. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85062 by Dr Benway on November 4, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Hi monkey!

1095. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83032 by Dr Benway on October 28, 2007 at 4:23 pm

My perfect cock will survive.

I've got 36 minutes, give or take, to drink myself silly. Then no food or drink allowed.

1096. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83029 by Dr Benway on October 28, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Hi mates,

I might or might not disappear for a time - having a hysterectomy tomorrow morning.

Yes, some assumed I was male and I never bothered to straighten things out. A sin of omission I'm correcting now.

Cheers!

1097. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82463 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 11:38 am

Vioxx caused vascular events in fewer than 0.1% of people taking it, yet it was removed from the market. We have other drugs for arthritis.

Perhaps it's true that most of the time religion inspires more good than evil. But we can be good without making claims about supernatural realities no one can verify. Therefore, any harm done in the name of these beliefs gives us reason to abandon them.

Individuals ought to be entitled to their opinions as private citizens. But collectively, we are safer if we base our social policies upon corroborative evidence rather than faith.

1098. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #82448 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 11:00 am

Science owes its origin to religion in the same way penicillin owes its origin to syphilis.

1099. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #82442 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 10:47 am

It's not atheism but my respect for your right to double-check what I say that compels me to admit that I've no evidence for God's existence. I expect you to allow me the same right to double-check any of your claims, particularly where they have some bearing on social policy.

Corroboration is how we, together, stand against the likes of Hitler and Stalin, who no doubt inhabit our future as well as our past. The temptation to let political leaders do our thinking for us is a weakness we all share.

1100. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82415 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 8:56 am

Power corrupts. Pretending to know the mind of God, the absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

More Pages: Previous | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 | Next