1551. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65939 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 1:21 pm

I was glad to see so many calm, reasoned, thoughtful responses on the atheist side, over at CNN.

Put mine up under the name R. Sole. Funny it's not there.

1552. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65938 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Mr. Haggard received a salary of $115,000 for the 10 months he worked in 2006 and an $85,000 anniversary bonus before the scandal broke, The Gazette reported. Mr. Haggard's severance package included a year's salary of $138,000. He also receives royalties from his books, the newspaper reported.

Jesus. What does the average weekend of crack 'n BJs go for these days?

1553. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65905 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 10:01 am

steve99:

The quantum fluctuation would have to originate at precisely the right time and place so as to 'emulate' the action at a distance - an arbitrary fluctuation would not do.

I thought the spontaneous fluctuations were frequent and pervasive enough to jump in to any situation at any time. The reason we don't see the spontaneous particles as often as they happen is because opposite particles are constantly annihilating each other. I'm no doubt mistaken.

Dianelos:

Well, in post 1965 above I have asked you about your definition of naturalism and I notice you haven't answered.

I don't want to speak for Steve, but I'd like to point out: "I don't know" is compatible with methodological naturalism.

The philosophers here can correct me, but as I understand: materialism limits reality to matter and energy; naturalism leaves the door open for other factors yet to be detected or defined, but rejects alleged supernatural realities.

Neither materialism nor naturalism insist upon a specific definition of "matter." Those billiard ball atoms of earlier times are long gone.

1554. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65852 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 5:56 am

Yorker:

...he should be treated as a pest that needs eradication.

Your enthusiasm for the flea analogy carried you away. We're not interested in eradicating anyone. It's enough to convince people that foolish notions are foolish.

Cregaune:

Religion was simply a reliable indicator of underlying political affiliation....Nationalism or Unionism.

Funny how the political agenda correlates with religious affiliation.

1555. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65847 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 5:29 am

Steve, what do you think of Victor Stenger's explanation, in which he uses quantum fluctuations to explain apparent non-locality? http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

To me, a non-physicist, it seems reasonable and it removes the notion of spooky action at a distance.

Dianelos:

One really does not have to believe neither the religious fundamentalists on the one hand nor the recent populist atheist authors (Harris, Dawkins, et al) on the other, who all try to convince us that the Bible is central to theism.

You didn't actually read The God Delusion, did you. Dawkins describes "Einsteinian religion" early on, and makes clear he's not concerned with that sort of religious belief.

1556. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65843 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 4:19 am

How can you tell if the Christian product is working? Two ways:

1. You feel an inner peace and fulfillment
2. You're troubled by ceaseless doubts and misery

1557. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65807 by Dr Benway on August 26, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Don't you remember the unprecedented outpouring of public grief when she died and the power of Elton John's moving anthem "Sandals in the Bin"?

Oh, that's excellent.

1558. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65697 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 6:25 pm

If you make a big batch of chocolate chip cookies, you can end up with a couple of cookies that have only one or two chips. Happens.

1559. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65691 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Donald, religious people may claim some right to cheat ordinary rules of evidence, but they haven't got this right.

1560. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65686 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Donald:

They weight that evidence differently from most of us here.

No.

If an idealist's car stops running, he'll engage in the same process of ruling out possible causes that the materialist would engage in.

If I tell an idealist his wife is cheating on him, he'll want evidence - preferable photos of his wife in a compromising position. No different for the materialist.

Idealists don't get Jesus and the resurrection any cheaper than materialists. They may claim they're entitled to some sort of evidence discount. But they aren't.

It's not "thought/real world." It's thought/phenomenological world/real world.

Metaphysics is about reality in the ultimate sense. Science is about the phenomenological world as best we can represent it. The phenomenological world remains the same, regardless of the metaphysical position. The scientific method remains the same. Rules of evidence remain the same.

1561. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65681 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Donald:

For a total Idealist there is no material world.

Materialism and idealism are different ways of accounting for the same phenomenological reality we experience. Science studies this phenomenological world, not the "deeper reality" behind it, whatever that might be. As scientists, idealists aren't allowed to posit magical causes for a given phenomenon anymore than materialists.

The scientific method remains the same no matter the metaphysics. If you're accused falsely of a serious crime, the court will weigh evidence in your case in exactly the same manner, regardless of anyone's metaphysics.

If I tell an idealist and a materialist that strawberry yogurt consumed in a certain way will make you invisible for five minutes, neither will believe me without evidence.

steve99:

All that matters is that you assume an objective reality.

And let's be clear about the meaning of "objective": observations are confirmed as objective by corroboration.

1562. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #65679 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 2:08 pm

The scenario "x is being victimized by y" may invoke one's duty to act. But if, and only if, one can be effective without causing excessive harm.

1563. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65631 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 7:48 am

Donald:

I think humouring him is a poor strategy in the long run.

The lie is in the assertion, implicit or explicit, that our method of weighing evidence is somehow a function of our favored metaphysical position. When you fight for materialism against idealism, you support this lie insofar as you imply that the argument is relevant to evidential claims for or against certain religious notions.

There's no better way to demonstrate the irrelevance of a point than by concession. Concede idealism, deism, or idealistic deism. Atheism with respect to an interventionist God is compatible with any of these notions.

1564. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65608 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 5:37 am

Once you concede belief in imaginary and evidence-free concepts, the door is open.

Yes, but you've got to leave the land of metaphysics to think and work within methodological naturalism for your point to apply. Dianelos will try to move the debate back to idealism vs. metaphysical naturalism, and we don't care about that. Trust me.

Deistic idealism is indistinguishable from atheism for all practical purposes. We need only be a-theists with respect to a God who intervenes in our phenomenological world. We can't reasonably accept an interventionist God without evidence of His intervention.

1565. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65604 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 4:53 am

And your point is?

I'm trying to save you from pages of equivocation between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Concede idealism, and you are over this tedious hump.

What Dianelos fails to appreciate: he's no closer to establishing Jesus et al if he presumes idealism rather than materialism. Either way, the method of establishing a shared representation of reality-as-we-experience-it is the scientific method, aka methodological naturalism.

The ultimate reality of the microphone is irrelevant to the phenomenon of the microphone, which can be corroborated by observation.

This debate is starting to feel like trying to explain the Monty Hall problem.

1566. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65599 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 3:57 am

Donald:

I agree with some of what you write, but, from my perspective (and that of others here), your commitment to Idealism far exceeds the evidence and is an irrational position, as irrational as religions, although less toxic.

I'm an idealistic deist Donald. And I've got a gun pointed at your head. You're an idealistic deist too. Say "yes."

Now, can we please move on, for the love of Christ, from this irrelevant debate over naturalism vs. idealism? The methodology of science is entirely independent of this debate. Further engagement only serves to cloud the waters.

1567. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65597 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 3:39 am

I read the article, which I found rather sad. Hallucinatory wish fulfillment can give you a brief love buzz, but it doesn't sustain and nourish the heart. If those many confidants had shared this fact with her, she might have escaped her austere, masochistic emotional prison.

On a lighter note, from near the end of the Time article:

And who would have thought that the one thought to be the most ardent of believers could be a saint to the skeptics?

Heheh. How timely.

1568. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65592 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 2:44 am

So the Trinity is some sort of metaphor for the human mind. Metaphors don't seem worth arguing over.

The evidence of the Gospels for Jesus is dodgy. If there were some contemporaneous Roman accounts of his deeds, his trial and execution, that would be more convincing.

The Golden Rule is fine. Masochism enables sadism, so I'm not fond of those bits of Christian teaching. Have to reject the anti-gay, anti-female bits also.

See? Metaphysics really didn't help.

1569. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65544 by Dr Benway on August 24, 2007 at 5:27 pm

This doubt thing means nothing. C'mon, you ex-believers know the drill:

"My sheep, some of you have heard the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. You've read one of their books, and now feel worried and doubtful. Be assured, even the greatest of the saints struggled to hold fast to their faith. Even Jesus cried out to the Father, "My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?" The Lord said our faith would be tested. The testing is necessary to purify the spirit of earthly concerns, so we may one day draw closer to God."

1570. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65529 by Dr Benway on August 24, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Corylus: ...A nasty confusion between critical thinking and critical theory.

I think you're right. The student was wondering aloud why her teacher didn't like her paper. Either she'd developed a sense of "critical thinking" more in line with the notion of criticism, and so missed the mark, or there's some other communication problem with the teacher.

In a debate over textual interpretation, the person offering the most coherent and, well, sexy point of view dominates. But this approach is not appropriate to science. Science strives to be independent of particular subjectivities. You'll never read something like, "Analyzing these data from a feminist perspective, we find that..."in a proper scientific paper.

A lot of smart, powerful people running our government don't seem to appreciate the distinction between critical thinking and criticism. You might sell a social policy with a clever marketing campaign. But you can't establish scientific truth like this. You can't make intelligent design a more plausible hypothesis by pouring money into an MTV style movie. ID will remain bollocks no matter how many people vote to teach it in school.

Imagine being a shuttle astronaut. One engineering team wants to convince you that the foam hitting the craft during liftoff isn't a serious problem; another team is worried. In deciding whether or not to fly, would any of these factors make a difference: which team has more supporters, nicer Powerpoint slides, tastier finger foods at their parties, more attractive speakers, better funding, or a political party affiliation like your own.

Truth isn't always a function of the narrative. I'm sorry. No.

1571. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65469 by Dr Benway on August 24, 2007 at 10:48 am

hungarianelephant: A crucial part must be in teaching the concept of scientific method. I bet not one school-leaver in 100 would be able to give you a reasonable summary of it – even the ones taking science. Why? Because it's never properly taught, just like logic and critical reasoning. It's just assumed that we will pick up the method. Most of us don't.

I work with a bright young woman pursuing a master's degree in psychology. Her instructor asked for a paper demonstrating critical thinking skills. She wrote about competence and guardianship for people with serious mental disorders, and some of the practical problems for this population.

After a few minutes, it became clear to me that she felt "critical thinking" meant appreciating both sides of a controversy and being able to weigh competing values.

I explained how I'd judge a person's critical thinking skills:

1. can the person tell when a conclusion logically follows from certain premises?
2. can the person propose alternative hypotheses for a given phenomenon?
3. can the person describe ways to rule-out competing hypotheses?

I recommended she Google "logical fallacies" for a start. I'm also going to lend her a book, Rival Hypotheses: Alternative Interpretations of Data Based Conclusions by Schuyler W. Huck. It's full of short summaries of dodgy research, followed by a question or two. You flip to the back for answers. Lots of fun.

It genuinely surpised me that this intelligent, college educated woman didn't have a firm grasp upon what "critical thinking" means.

If Dawkins is thinking of topics for future TV shows, might I put in a request that he consider critical thinking? Someone needs to teach people that critical thinking is not the same as being critical, or being aware of controversy.

It's deeply troubling that the words "critical thinking" have become a shibboleth for "teach the controversy" right-wing political tactics.

I envision a two-part series: the first to define reason; the second to illustrate how easy it is to fool one's self, and therefore the high value science places upon corroboration and peer review.

Content ideas:
- Ramachandran is a good source for perceptual illusions, and he comes across well on camera.
- Comparisons between normal and autistic brains illustrate how normal brains constantly corrupt sense data in service to processing efficiency.
- The Monty Hall problem is a great way to show how our intuitions about probability go wrong.

1572. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65464 by Dr Benway on August 24, 2007 at 9:59 am

OhioAtheist, I'd never have pegged you as a teen by the quality of your writing.

My latest daydream: Western teens connect with teens in Indonesia, Arabian penninsula, Palestine, Africa, etc., over the Internet. You ask each other, what do you think of us? What do you care about? What's cool in your country? You start talking about how the generations before you have fucked up a lot of the planet. You talk about working together across old tribal boundaries. You plot and scheme for money and power.

Create a new international music and video art form. Mix up Arabic, Farsi, etc., with English. Upload your stuff to YouTube, and offer higher res stuff for download through iTunes for a fee.

Form a band over the net. Guitarist, drummer, vocalist can upload tracks where they can be downloaded and mixed. Same with video material. You really can make short movies for almost nothing. If you have something important to say, and your lead singers/talkers are real, confident, and attractive, your memes can take over the planet.

1573. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65317 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Hi Steve,

Neither money nor voting will make atheism catch hold like the Beatles. To spread far and fast, the godless meme must hit the nerve on the edge of what's next. The 20 somethings hang there, and they generally don't tell the 40 somethings where that rave is happening.

The best that could happen: high school kids and twenty somethings wake up to the danger of tactical nukes pulse God, and perpetual warfare in the name of fighting "terror". They see how numb adults have become to the bullshit around religion, and they start forming rock bands in earnest.

You Brits have a genius for this sort of thing. Go on, figure out how to invade us one more time.

1574. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65309 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Rights to intellectual property get bought and sold all the time. Maybe the interview was legit initially and only later someone saw the chance to sell the material to another production with a different agenda.

Having the same ass-prod in both productions does raise an eyebrow.

I wonder if PZ signed away control over subsequent use of his interview. That ought to be worth more that $1200, considering.

1575. A Matter of Faith

Comment #65301 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Those who listen to right-leaning talk radio know Europe is not as religious as the US. You lot promote the antichrist to head the EU in the near future, so your secularism is no surprise - you cheese eating surrender monkeys!

1576. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65294 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Crap. I agree with everyone, which means now I'm obligated to shoot myself for being so fucking wishy-washy.

When you read something you put a little of yourself in, particularly if the writing is vague. Shermer's piece hints at excess from the A-team, or maybe just the potential for excess if we're not careful. But he doesn't give any concrete examples of what he means. This leaves the door open for people taking his words in different ways.

The past few weeks I've been struggling with the word "atheist." Why is it so hard to use that word in describing myself to friends and family? I've concluded that my hesitation is due to the negative meaning - the objection to the notion that God exists. But what am I proposing as a better position? And am I trying to sell my better position?

I've concluded that I'm not interested in selling materialism, naturalism, or any particular metaphysical stance. I'm happy advocating for secularism, which is a practical, political objective that I believe is necessary for peace in the world.

Working through these feelings has made me sensitive to the problem of opposition without positive assertion. That's the part of me that resonated with Shermer's article when I first read it.

But I admit I'm uncomfortable with Shermer's advice to avoid excess without clear examples of what he means. Is the "A" campaign making him cringe? Was someone too scornful toward some theist or apologist recently? What?

Gotta be able to dump scorn when it's deserved. Ridicule is the weapon of civilized, peace-loving people, no?

In the end, doesn't matter what old farts like me think. Revolutions are decided by the twenty-somethings.

1577. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65202 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 6:53 am

Oil companies and related industries use the "academic freedom" meme a lot in their disinformation campaigns re: global warming. I wouldn't be suprised to see moments of common cause between oil related interests and the ID crowd.

Ignorance is strength.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
God is love.

Always record interviews with journalists or media. Always. You can't trust any of these characters.

1578. A Matter of Faith

Comment #65198 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 6:32 am

sbooder:

When will people understand that Joseph Stalin (who seems to be the one every believer brings up as did Stephen Prothero) did nothing in the name of atheism, he did what he did because he was a twat!

We ought to pull out the Big Holy Book of Atheism, show them all the teachings and rules, and point out that Stalin wasn't following any of them.

1579. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65160 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 4:10 am

I concede idealism. I declare myself an idealistic deist.

So, Dianelos, where is your evidence for Jesus and the trinity?

1580. Rational Atheism

Comment #64894 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 8:22 am

J.C. Samuelson:

Freedom is a greater principle than is rationality, in my opinion.

I take a yours-mine-ours approach to truth. I have my personal experience; you have yours. We can create a set of shared, corroborated experience between us, so long as we agree upon some evidentiary rules.

One is free to embrace any hypothesis about the world personally. But our shared understanding of the world isn't free; it's entirely subject to a rational process of corroboration and debate. It's subject to evidentiary rules.

I do feel there's a place for pooping on religionists sometimes. Early in a conversation, when a religionist asserts first person data as equal in evidentiary status to third person data, I chalk that up to a bit of wool between the ears. I point out the rules and why we need them.

If the religionist tries to cheat the rules again and again, at some point I have to call them on their sadistic attempt to dominate me. I scorn them for their arrogance, cruelty, and egocentrism, with the hope they'll see the reality of their narcissistic position thinly veiled behind loving platitudes.

1581. Rational Atheism

Comment #64879 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 7:15 am

I agree with you Elli. Drop the "an open letter" line and the essay is much better.

1582. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64875 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 7:05 am

PaulEmecz:

Please, everyone, could we stop discussing the theistic response to the 'problem of morality'.

Concede that the "problem of morality" is not solved by positing a creator-God. Once you do that, we can move forward.

1583. Rational Atheism

Comment #64869 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 6:07 am

Can anyone help me provide a snappy response to this?

I thought there was only one response allowed: "Yes, dear."

We have to attack bad ideas. But we ought to be mindful of what we might be asking people to give up. If we seem to be asking them to chuck their community, friends, family, that's too much.

I don't exactly know how to separate the baby from the bathwater. My weak answer, "Maybe the churches can evolve, so less emphasis is placed upon faith and supernatural ideas no one can prove."

1584. Rational Atheism

Comment #64858 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 5:23 am

Thank you Mr. Shermer for reminding me of stuff I already knew, but had back-burnered a bit.

It's true: positive assertions are more powerful than opposition. When you oppose something, people will ask, "what's to replace the value of the thing discarded?" So you have to address a positive value, no matter what.

Religion provides a set of small communities of mutual caring, reassurance, and optimism. Rituals reduce anxiety, by making community meetings predictable.

We have nothing to replace all that.

So I say, let's reassure religious people that we appreciate the many valuable social functions religion provides. There's nothing wrong with getting together with others in a beautiful building for music and inspiring talks. Keep all that.

Our beef is with unchanging dogma that's come unglued from reality. We think dogma, like other assertions, has to change as we get new evidence about the world around us.

When I first starting coming to this site, I said more frequently that I view myself as a secularist more than an atheist. Secularism is really a higher goal, as it supports a diversity of first person data, so long as all personal data bend the knee to our collective need for corroborative evidence.

1585. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64775 by Dr Benway on August 21, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Attorney Little composed and signed the filing, and served as notary for Pivar on that same filing: http://www.overlawyered.com/files/pivar/complaint.pdf

Is this kosher? I thought the notary couldn't be a signatory on the document.

As I understand, Federal Court is all about the rules. Tiny shit can get stuff thrown out.

1586. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #64666 by Dr Benway on August 21, 2007 at 8:08 am

seingalt:

However, why criticise loose ideas? Why make an issue out of ideas that are not being put into practise?

I used to think the same way. Live and let live. What do I care about the batty notions in some people's religions, so long as hypocrisy thrives?

Then I had a Muslim apostate friend who still went to Friday prayers and feared for the "one or two nutters" who might enforce Allah's justice. I didn't believe him at first. So I read the Qur'an and some Islamic web sites. I was appalled. A few months later, 9/11 happened. Since then, much of the modern, progressive Islamic world has retreated behind the veil.

Bad rules on the books are ticking time bombs. Their ambiguous status is convenient only to political leaders who might want to stir up trouble for a self-serving end.

What is irrationality essentially? Isn't is typically some form of trying to have your cake and eat it too? When trying to have things both ways is normalized everywhere around us, our critical thinking skills must suffer.

People ought to feel responsible for the stated doctrines or policies of their organizations. If they disagree with a written rule or objective, they ought to go on record against it somehow. I don't mean necessarily campaigning for change. Speaking up where appropiate might be enough.

I don't expect all stupid and largely ignored rules will go away over-night. But I think it's wrong to shrug off the duty to clean up the anachronisms on the books.

Where there's resistance to remove a teaching allegedly nobody really believes or follows, you have to wonder what that's about.

1587. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64656 by Dr Benway on August 21, 2007 at 7:00 am

PaulEmecz:

In the modern world, is empathy always going to be a tool for survival?

Probably. Two weak individuals can overpower one strong individual. The capacity to form alliances provides tremendous survival advantages.

1588. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64646 by Dr Benway on August 21, 2007 at 6:07 am

PaulEmecz:

I think my bridge was something like what Searle trying to achieve. He argued something along the lines of that if you are a builder, you ought to build walls solidly etc. You could get at ought simply from the role that people had. It becomes objectively true that a childminder who lets children be snatched is a bad child-minder.

Is it possible to apply this thinking to the 'role' of person? The problem is deciding what a person is for.

Objects with one identified purpose get used for other purposes all the time. Over time the object's morphology may change to better suit the second purpose, and the original purpose may be lost. An example might be fish fins which evolved to become amphibian legs, or legs which evolved to become fins in marine mammals.

I don't see how something's purpose, or the manner in which it is used at a given point in time, provides an obvious and immutable bridge from "is" to "ought."

Note that "purpose" is an "ought" word. You're again arguing that God's purpose ought to be our purpose. You haven't provided a reason for this.

1589. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64633 by Dr Benway on August 21, 2007 at 4:22 am

Assault?

1590. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64578 by Dr Benway on August 20, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Paul, it clearly doesn't matter what I say. I can bring up problems with the word "objective" in the context of morality. I can remind you of the is/ought problem and the need for a bridge, whether God exists or not. You won't respond to these concerns. You'll just repeat ad nauseam, "there's no reason to be good without God!"

You don't give a shit about having a relationship with me or any other human being. We are poop compared to the Big Guy Upstairs.

1591. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64517 by Dr Benway on August 20, 2007 at 11:24 am

V you've eated way too much spam today. You've posted the exact same thing in 1891, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1898, and now 1905. Maybe you could delete the contents of the repeats?

The annoying thing about a thread over 30 pages: 30 isn't the last page. You must click on page 30 to see the later pages. I've bookmarked the last page, and just change my bookmark as needed, to keep up.

1592. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64515 by Dr Benway on August 20, 2007 at 11:10 am

Caregiver, friendship, and community attachments are all important. I agree that caregiver attachment is most important.

I'm arguing that all things being equal, we ought to respect a child's bonds of love and attachment. These things aren't trivial. Friendships mean as much to kids as they do to adults.

Certainly other concerns may outweigh the value of the attachment. For this family, religion isn't one of those concerns. I don't fault them for that.

1593. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64503 by Dr Benway on August 20, 2007 at 9:47 am

If the only reason they want her to go to this school is because "she is upset and wants to remain with her friends" then that is weak parenting.

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Attachment bonds provide the environment for ethical and cognitive development. There's an ample literature illustrating how disruptions of important relationships early in life correlate with mental disorders later, including conduct problems, depression, and anxiety disorders.

1594. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64494 by Dr Benway on August 20, 2007 at 9:15 am

Thoughts about the word "objective" with respect to morality:

We can weigh the objectivity of claims about the world by noting how well corroborated and established the claims happen to be. We can test statements of what "is" by seeing how well they correspond to actual bits of reality. The more testing, the greater the objectivity.

But "ought to be" isn't the same as what "is." You can travel to the land of "is" to check a fact; you can't travel to the land of "ought to be" to check an ethical assertion.

It's misleading to appropriate the connotations associated with the word "objective" in a factual sense for the purposes of moral argument.

When people say that some action is "objectively wrong," they generally mean that the action is wrong regardless of anyone's opinion. Yet the essence of morality is respect for the personhood of others. Anyone who says, "Doesn't matter what you think; X is wrong and that's that" is behaving in a manner contrary to this very essence.

So why do many wish to use the word "objective" when discussing certain ethical imperatives? I think this wish arises from the problem of naive moral relativisim, or the notion that what's right for some might not be right for others - e.g., clitorectomies might be fine for North African Muslims although not fine in the United States.

However there's a better way to set constraints upon moral relativism:
1. By using bridge statement(s) or axioms at the foundation of moral reasoning which are inclusive of all persons.
2. By appealing to an evidence-based understanding of reality when calculating the risks and benefits of a given action.

Note that everything above concerns language-based ethical reasoning. There is an innate moral sense analogous to our other senses, like seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, etc. The two systems are not entirely congruent.

Listen to the short intro to Hauser's work shared on This American Live 7-6-07, if you've not heard of it before. Harris touches upon this work in "The End of Faith." Dawkins also in TGD, if I recall. Click here: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1196

Dianelos and Paul use examples of immoral behavior that provoke strong feelings in many of us: child torture and rape. They're not satisfied with dry, ethical reasoning about "is" and "ought" and all that, as a basis for something so palpably, obviously wrong. Ethical systems seem somehow unable to account for this emotional reality. And the process of ethical reasoning itself, which doesn't begin with statements like "particular action X is always wrong," implies that perhaps, for someone, somehow, somewhere, action X might be permissable.

The theist's answer: thank God for writing His law upon our hearts.

Another answer: thank our primate ancestors for developing empathic feelings that allowed them to out-compete rivals who lacked these feelings.

I believe that the universe was designed with a purpose...

Why I'd rather be trapped on a desert isle with a non-believer: The theist begins his moral argument with "I believe..." The non-believer begins with, "Do you agree..."

1595. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64471 by Dr Benway on August 20, 2007 at 6:55 am

PaulEmecz:

So, Dr B, what's the alternative? If we don't accept that there's an intention behind the universe's existence, why should we be moral?

Remember: to get from the "is" of God's will to the "ought" of the rules we accept for ourselves, we need a bridge. Your bridge: We ought to act according to God's will.

My three-part bridge, offered in a few earlier posts:

1. We ought to make promises in good faith.
2. Some version of the Golden Rule, expressing the notion that rules ought to apply to everyone and everyone's needs are of value. Relationships require reciprocity, and humans are all about relationships.
3. We ought to avoid actions which threaten the survival of humankind.

Whatever the bridge, it must be accepted axiomatically, as "oughts" can't be derived from "is."

You have your bridge; I have mine. I like my better. A couple of my reasons:

1. I'm saved the hassle of trying to determine God's will.
2. Appeals to authority cheapen one's sense of honor.

1596. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64357 by Dr Benway on August 19, 2007 at 6:14 pm

We have two ways of sorting right and wrong. There's an immediate, intuitive moral sense, and there's language based ethical reasoning. Most of the time the two systems work together, so you're unaware of the split. But researchers can set up situations where people will say "x is wrong," but can't explain why. That's when things get interesting.

This American Life had a show 7-6-07 about Hauser's work at Harvard (click for link to the show):

Say there's a group of five people standing on a train track, and you're on a train coming toward them. You can save the whole group by pulling a lever and switching to another track, but the catch is that you'll kill another person who's standing on that other track. Do you pull the lever?

According to Harvard scientist Mark Hauser, who posed this question to hundreds of thousands of people on the Internet, nine out of 10 people say yes, they would pull the lever. But then, the questions get harder—and the answers much more confusing. It turns out that different parts of our brains make different moral decisions.

The intuitive system can be seen in other animals - e.g., chimps are reluctant to use another as a means to an end. Language based moral reasoning is likely a later addition.

As you can deaden your ears by exposure to intense noise, you can deaden that intuitive connection to others, by doing something cruel in spite of the feeling of empathic hurt. Not a good idea to go overboard here, as the sweetness of life arises from a sharing of mutuality. People lacking a conscience are nothing you'd envy. Small-minded and frequently, painfully bored.

1597. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64240 by Dr Benway on August 18, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Thor:

Many of them simply say that evidence-based reasoning doesn't apply to god in the same way as it does in other areas.

Atheist then says, "Why?"
Theist: God is outside reality.
Atheist: OK fine. But getting back to the resurrection - that happened around 30 AD right? Now, like any alleged historical event, it's up to us to weigh the evidence. If I say that yesterday I was abducted by aliens, I know you won't believe me unless I can come up with some pretty convincing evidence. So what evidence do we have for the resurrection?
Theist: Uh...

Give 'em the metaphysical deism or idealism that they want. Then turn to the alleged interventions or miracles. Point out that nutty people make similar claims. We have to reject extraordinary claims unless we've got some amazingly good evidence.

You will go round and round and round, because these people have been led to believe that the God outside reality is off the hook entirely when it comes to evidence. It's like Obi Wan waved his hand and said, "These are not the droids you were looking for. And God is outside reality; evidence is inside reality, so God doesn't need it."

But maybe the repetition will help.

Same phenomenological world no matter the metaphysics. Science is concerned with the phenomenological realm, not the metaphysical realm.

1598. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64121 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Thanks for the invite, Neil. I'm not a metaphysician either. I go there only to figure out how not to go there.

I predict we'll see this equivocation trick more frequently from the theists. One minute you're talking metaphysical God outside reality; next you're talking interventionist God there to give you a good feeling buzz, and to keep an eye on your sex life.

Change in the zeitgeist? Maybe a virus is making the rounds.

If you told the theist his wife was having an affair, would he ask for evidence, or would he say, "what do we actually mean by 'evidence'?"

1599. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64120 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 8:12 pm

PaulEmecz:

It is a fact that raping infants is wrong, just as it is a fact that pure water boils at 100 degrees at standard pressure.

Hume's guillotine again. "Wrong" means "that which one ought not do." It's an "ought" not an "is." Temperature is an "is." The two statements are not at all parallel. As you know, you can't derive an "ought" from an "is." You need a bridge.

The bridge must be accepted somehow without derivation, like an axiom. Let's leave aside that problem for now.

Once you have your bridge statement(s), you can derive more detailed moral imperatives using facts about how the world is, and what's required to act in accord with the "oughts."

If your bridge is, "We ought to act according to God's will," and you can establish that God is not in favor of rape, it clearly follows that rape is something one ought not do.

1600. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64117 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Well, I was anxiously supportive of the war initially, when Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, et al, said we can't tell you everything, but trust us, the WMDs are there.

When the 4th Army couldn't get into the theater, then when the mass looting of antiquities happened, and then when those WMD failed to materialize, I realized my mistake.

You can't impose democracy from outside a country. The people within the country need to find the will and means to revolt. When that's happening, you can help, so long as the insiders retain power over their own country and resources.

Iraq is complicated, because it's three countries in one. The Kurds and Shiites in exile clearly wanted Saddam out, but there was no clear plan for how to include Sunni interests before the invasion. Breaking up the Ba'ath power structure immediately after the invasion was likely a huge mistake, making civil war inevitable.

Early on if there had been enough men on the ground to insure security and order, there might have been a chance to make a new government work.

What an awful clusterfuck. If we could roll back the clock, I think we'd not be there now.