Comments by Dr Benway

Comment #60678 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Riley:

The "Hate Crime" in this case is NOT the act of sticking the Qur'an in the toilet. A "Hate Crime" is a systematic attempt to intimidate and/or threaten; the Qur'an in the toilet is one important element of evidence in a case that may or may not establish a pattern of intimidation and threat.

This might be criminal threatening, which is usually a misdemeanor but may be a felony if a deadly weapon is brandished.

The hate crime part arises from the special status of the Qur'an, not from the attempt to intimidate. Were the object in the toilet an enemy's favorite baseball hat, and were it clear from context that the perpetrator did this to frighten the enemy, the charge would be criminal threatening.

Laws against criminal threatening seem to suffice, in my view. I don't see how society benefits by adding "hate crime" to the charges. In fact, I see added cost to sorting such cases out, due to defense challenges on the basis of free speech and on the categorical soundness of the "hate" distinction.

Maybe it's my water pressure. But there's no way I could flush any book down my toilet. At most, I could drop it in, flush, and watch the water spin around it.

So I'm guessing the "flushing" meme is an elaboration upon the facts. Probably the Qu'ran was put in the bowl and left there for all to see and admire.

Not a big deal, but I try to note when talk veers away from my basic sense of reality. More than once some tiny, out-of-place detail has pointed me upon a path of discovery.

This I have learned: you can never underestimate the layers of bullshit around you.

1702. The Out Campaign

Comment #60639 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 2:54 pm

weeflea:

And I do not want secularism to be forced on my children.

I'm sure you mean that you don't want atheism forced upon your children. Secularism, at least here in the US, is the principle of government not forcing a particular faith, including no faith at all, upon anyone. Secularism is not anti-religion; in fact, many religious people are secularists.

Things may be different your side of the pond.

Yorker: I've studied my downy self carefully. I've squinted. I've let my imagination go. Still, your samurai warrior eludes me. I fear you may be suffering the bod delusion.

Perhaps it's time to update my wardrobe.

1703. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60551 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 7:56 am

It is not clever to just assume that life goes nowhere when we can see perfectly well that it must have gone somewhere.

It's probably off with all those left socks that mysteriously go missing.

Peace requires respect for life.

At least until lunch.

1704. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60549 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 7:51 am

I am not talking about gaps in science which are all solvable, but about gaps in naturalism...

Bullshit. You want Jesus and the Resurrection. These are alleged physical, not metaphysical, facts.

Dr Benway may be an ontological agnostic in the question of God's existence (even though I see him criticize theistic belief systems much more than atheistic belief systems). But surely most of the other posters here are not agnostics in the question of God's existence.

More slip-sliding. With respect to metaphysics, you may have deism with no objection from me. But once you posit an interventionist God, you've moved from metaphysics to physicality and history. Reasonable people must demand evidential answers, not metaphysical answers, regarding an interventionist God.

Your metaphysical misdirection, to distract from your lack of evidence, is getting really annoying.

1705. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60535 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 6:50 am

weeflea:

Really? Have you ever seen me debate? Or is this yet another one of those FA (Fundie Athiest) moments – where you feel free to comment on something without ever having seen it?

What I've seen:

theist: Where is Dawkins' evidence that there is no God?
atheist: Teapot.
theist: But God's nothing like a teapot!
atheist: Evidence?
theist: You are close-minded!

After four or five rounds, one seeks to squeeze a drop of fun out of the game however one can.

1706. The Out Campaign

Comment #60525 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 6:09 am

Wow. Something interesting and useful from Henri. What next?

Will weeflea admit he's talking bollocks cuz he needs the paycheck?

Cats and dogs living in peace?

1707. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60411 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Been thinking about the strangeness of knowing your own thinking is flawed. Had to dig out Doug Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas. For no reason in particular, I'll share a bit of fun with sentence self-reference:

This sentence contains exactly threee erors.

I am the meaning of this sentence.

I am the thought you are now thinking.

I am thinking about myself right now.

I am the set of neuronal firings taking place in your brain as you read the set of letters in this sentence and think about me.

This inert sentence is my body, by my soul is alive, dancing in the sparks of your brain.

Disobey this command.

You and I, alas, can have only one-way communication, for you are a person and I, a mere sentence.

What would this sentence be like if pi were 3?

1708. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60403 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 7:18 pm

....just ignore him....

Killjoy!

1709. The Out Campaign

Comment #60398 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Even straight sex has its quirks. It's not all cuddling to missionary position to sleep. Lift off the lid on anyone's head during sex, and you might be surprised at the freak that will jump out at you.

My guess is homosexuality is a side effect of human adaptability and horniness. The adaptability and general sexiness serve those selfish genes so well, that the small percentage who seek pleasure via non-reproductive sex actually don't slow the spread of those genes too much.

1710. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60345 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country.

I think a little bad faith can smooth the way sometimes.

1711. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60334 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm

maton100:

I feel a pee needs to be taken on the Wee Flea. What kind of pee you may ask? A Christian pee of course. A pee with lots of glee on the Wee Flea's rotten head. Not an Islamic pee or a Buddhist pee, but a pee in connection with the holy trinity...you see.

Don't be a dupe. Everyone knows that in a coop, one must poop! Whether all alone or with a group, you must let loose that great green goop!

And out the coop and with your troup, fly quite high in a loop-de-loop. Eye below the circus hoop, and spy that flea; now swoop to poop!

1712. The Out Campaign

Comment #60214 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 10:29 am

weeflea:

I am a Christian and I admit I could be wrong.

Cool.

1713. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60205 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 10:07 am

Henri:

I don't think we need distinguish 'muslim people' from 'practicing muslim' as we already have that proper distinction: muslim and Arab/Persian. That is why anti-islamism is not racism.

You mean Muslim and Turk/Chechen/Arab/Persian/Kashmiri/Afghan/Indonesian/Malaysian/North African. Where Muslims dominate, it's difficult to separate local tribal identities from Islamic culture generally.

Ayan Hirsi Ali, who is neither Arab nor Persian, makes the distiction between Muslim people and Islam. I can see how this distinction serves the cause of secularism.

1714. The Out Campaign

Comment #60145 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 6:06 am

...lapsang souchong is an objective and absolute wrong. I know this from personal introspection and from just knowing stuff.

LOL. That's my favorite part of Dianelos' argument: How do we know what is objectively good, as opposed to merely subjectively good? By introspection.

The mind boggles. How can an intelligent man not see this rubbish for what it is?

1715. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60140 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 5:53 am

Aragon, I agree that we need to think wholistically about our present cultural clash with Islam. Religiosity waxes and wanes for a reason. Still, I see value in a focused attack upon faith as a basis for knowing something about the world, and for acting boldly. Two reasons:

1. Religion is a knife in the drawer politicians pull out and use when convenient for economic or political reasons. Better a dull knife than a sharp one.

2. By attacking faith generally, we're not singling out Islam, Christianity, or any particular set of beliefs. We're not taking cultural sides. Moderate muslims can use the same anti-supernaturalist arguments without betraying their sense of community solidarity. In fact, I think the notion of "Muslim people" ought to be understood as something distinct from "practicing Muslim." Presently the separation is confusing at best. I see no way to support people who view themselves as culturally Muslim but not particularly religious, apart from an attack upon faith as a valid basis for political action. "Faith is private," is a meme I'd like to hear more often.

1716. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60048 by Dr Benway on July 31, 2007 at 4:42 pm

It's an offense against plumbing. Why are the plumbers not speaking out?

1717. The Out Campaign

Comment #60043 by Dr Benway on July 31, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Henri:

Thank you. You have not studied Nietzsche obviously. I have studied Nietzsche but I am not a Nietzschean.

No, I've not studied Neitzsche. Just read excerpts. I don't mind learning more, but there are only so many hours in a day.

You often talk like something out of a book. This makes me want to tease you. It's an evil pleasure I find difficult to resist.

You didn't pop a serious vein after that story where I pecked out your eye. So you're probably an ok guy. I'm sure the baby Jesus would cry if I pooped on your head. I will try my best to be good.

1718. The Out Campaign

Comment #60037 by Dr Benway on July 31, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Henri:

I agree with him that many of you are Dawkin ACOLYTES.

It's so touching how much you care, Henri. 'Neath that Nietzschean tough-guy front beats the tenderest of hearts.

1719. The Out Campaign

Comment #60024 by Dr Benway on July 31, 2007 at 2:15 pm

weeflea:

82. steve99 brings out the usual shibboleth, homosexuality.

I spy with my little eye... an effort to trivialize!

Best to face these things straight on, flea, rather than sweep them under the rug.

Surely you're not in favor of excluding or condemning homosexuals. I'll bet you feel that what happened to Alan Turing, for example, was awful and ought never happen again. You're happy to speak out in favor of civil rights for homosexuals, am I right?

1720. The Out Campaign

Comment #59934 by Dr Benway on July 31, 2007 at 7:07 am

weeflea:

But of course this is different - RD of course is the Truth!

It is different. Science is a complex project that depends upon a supportive social context. How much productive work in the biology of evolution gets done in Saudi Arabia do you think? What will happen to science in the US if our next president continues Bush's policy of appointing political cronies rather than recognized experts in relevant fields to scientific advisory and review boards?

People today have more access to factual information than ever before. However, there's a lot of confusion regarding the methods of science. This is proven by things like the ID movement, alternative medicine, and the politics of global warming and stem cell research. People seem to think that scientific hypotheses are accepted in the same manner that planks are added to a political platform.

In his efforts to educate, Dawkins could focus upon specifics about evolution, but I'm glad he's tackling the broader problem of rationality and the need to base our understanding of the world upon corroborative evidence. Without this foundation, everything else is moot.

1721. The Out Campaign

Comment #59925 by Dr Benway on July 31, 2007 at 6:13 am

savagemickey:

Well that little coming out party cost me about $100 a week in sales, because while he may be praying for me he sure isn't coming to eat at my restaurant anymore.

I'm sorta in the same boat, as I deal with the public. People who don't know me have to trust me with more that their lunch, so your experience gives me pause.

People get hurt a lot where I work, as nearly all the patients are violent. I order coercive interventions. I offer opinions to courts that can result in stripping someone of basic constitutionally protected rights. I prescribe meds that cause brain damage. Parents, who struggle with their guilt over wanting to be rid of a problem child, are naturally wary of entrusting care to others.

In short, I have to behave myself. Giving offense can create misunderstandings I haven't the time or means to correct, and which ultimately may harm patients who are the most vulnerable and alienated individuals in our society.

It's unfair that the memes "goodness" and "virtue" are nearly inseparable from "God." It's unfair that "atheist" connotes amoralist. That needs to change. But maybe the front line ought not be my workplace.

A mug with "Humanist" or "Got evidence?" might work. "Atheist" will likely freak too many people out.

Hey epeeist, how's the house moving going?

1722. The Out Campaign

Comment #59808 by Dr Benway on July 30, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Here's an idea: rubber wristband with "ATHEIST" on it, like those yellow wristbands with "LIVESTRONG" promoted by Lance Armstrong for cancer research.

I can't wear icons to work. But I'll get a mug if you got one.

1723. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59728 by Dr Benway on July 30, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Yeah, you gotta hope people are tearing bad research to shreds all the time. There's a constant pressure to cut corners, either because you can't get enough subjects, or you can't control for other factors, or funders have an agenda. No study is perfect, so it must be tempting to allow a little more imperfection here and there.

Somebody is trying to market oral testosterone for "male menopause." Send a guy for a testosterone level, and a percentage of the time it will come back very low, due to daily ups and downs. And if you read the symptom list, you'll believe you have it.

Capitalism + ignorance = somebody's ka-ching!

As I feel a moral duty to stand up to snake oil salesmen, so I feel we've got to stand against this new age drivel that pours from people like Dianelos.

Dianelos' gnosticism may have nicer packaging than Shariah law, but it's ultimately the same old self-serving lies. You can tell because you have to cheat to let it in. There's no legal way to admit Jesus, the resurrection, the weird community-created Matrix, the virtue scorecard, etc., into our discourse if we're following ordinary rules of evidence.

Reminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit with the landshark. Chevy Chase as a shark rings the doorbell. A woman answers, "Who is it?" He says, "Candygram." She has a reason she won't open the door. He tries again. And again.

Oh I found a way to put up pics of my homies. Go to http://www.flickr.com/photos/tuff_titmouse/show/

This flickr thing is pretty cool. I may take a Dawkins hiatus to figure it out.

1724. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59716 by Dr Benway on July 30, 2007 at 11:29 am

steve99:

I wonder if blood tests on people with beliefs like Dianelos would show an enhanced level of the hormone oxytocin?

Be aware that a lot of interesting research gets summarized in the popular press that's actually of no clinical value, as the results describe small differences between large groups.

Example (I'm making this up): men are 72" tall on average, and women are 65" tall on average. You measure the height of someone as 70". What does this tell you? Can you say that this person is male or female? Let's say the person is 64" tall. Probably female, but would you bet your house on that?

Likewise, you can measure someone's oxytocin level, get some value, but you can't say he's "in love" or "not in love."

Hormone levels fluctuate widely throughout the day. This will average out when you look at group data, but it won't when you take a random sample from an individual. You might need to take a sample from that person hourly for several hours in order to get an accurate overall picture of levels. Further, blood levels don't always correlate with brain levels, due to the blood brain barrier. You may need to do a spinal tap to get a meaningful measurement.

Due to parallel feedback loops with different set points in the brain, a high or low level of anything may simultaneously produce opposite symptoms. Because we've no time to tell people how things actually work, we create these half-truths just to get through the day. Example: psychosis is caused by too much dopamine; that's why grandma is prescribed a dopamine blocking agent to make her stop shouting at the windows at night.

Actually, psychosis is likely the result of too little dopamine in the frontal cortex. As a consequence of hypofrontality, frontal neurons sending feedback to the midbrain fail to inhibit dopamine activity there, which becomes excessive. Better drugs preferentially block mid-brain rather than frontal dopamine receptors. And just to confuse you more: some drugs both block and stimulate dopamine receptors.

Nothing is as straightforward as one might like. But I was never bothered by this sort of complexity. What made my head explode years ago, at least for a couple of days, was learning about g proteins. Turns out every neuron in the brain is itself a tiny little brain.

1725. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59683 by Dr Benway on July 30, 2007 at 7:13 am

Frankie1958:

When I can put my finger on why this bugs me, I'll get back to you.

That's how these things go. The brain is modular, and some modules are not well connected to language. The left hemisphere often tries to ride roughshod over the right, which it doesn't understand. It's good to know these things when developing a marketing campaign.

The many "it's just a t-shirt" and "united we stand" remarks are typical suppressive left hemisphere mantras.

Words are not always to be trusted. You get better poll results when you ask, "who will win this election?" as opposed to, "who will you vote for?" People aren't honest about the latter.

Bremas:

Big A goes on back of shirt. Maybe small A above left breast on front.

My reaction also. I'd make the A about 75% of the size presented for the back.

1726. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59675 by Dr Benway on July 30, 2007 at 6:24 am

Or that inductive method is reasonable. Or that the number 9^9^9^9^9 is larger than 8^8^8^8^8.

Give you an inch, you take a mile. Propositions accepted on the basis of intuition still must pass peer review before they get on our collective map. We've agreed intuition can be misleading, so we don't normally allow it. We grudgingly allow a few minimal ideas on the map without evidence. But that doesn't mean God, Jesus, and the resurrection are then allowed as well. Sorry.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.

I disagree with that definition...

You were nonresponsive to my point, so I'll repeat it with the small bit you don't like left out:

Atheism does not come with a holy book, creed, or policy & procedure manual. The Catholic Mass in Hitler's Germany included the words, "perfidious Jew." Prolly didn't give the Germans warm, fuzzy feelings toward all those folks they sent to death camps.

This was in repsonse to a point you were making above it, regarding atheism being responsible for more bad stuff than religion. If you want to be cruel toward someone, you'll have a difficult time finding a legal justification in atheism. But most religions will provide a legal basis for cruelty against certain other people.

Regarding Harris, he offers a thought experiment in his usual Socratic style in order to demonstrate most everyone's acceptance of torture under some circumstances:

If bombs seem too impersonal an evil, picture your seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse just five minutes away, while the man in your custody holds the keys to her release. If your daughter won't tip the scales, then add the daughters of every couple for a thousand miles—millions of little girls have, by some perverse negligence on the part of our government, come under the control of an evil genius who now sits before you in shackles.

To describe Harris as pro-torture is a misrepresentation of his argument. In fact, he says this:

While many people have objected, on emotional grounds, to my defense of torture, no one has pointed out a flaw in my argument. I hope my case for torture is wrong, as I would be much happier standing side by side with all the good people who oppose torture categorically. I invite any reader who discovers a problem with my argument to point it out to me in the comment section of this blog. I would be sincerely grateful to have my mind changed on this subject.

1727. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59602 by Dr Benway on July 29, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. This lack of belief does not come with a holy book, creed, or policy & procedure manual.

The Catholic Mass in Hitler's Germany included the words, "perfidious Jew." Prolly didn't give the Germans warm, fuzzy feelings toward all those folks they sent to death camps.

On the other hand by approving the torture of suspected terrorists Harris is certainly permitting such torture...

You are mistaken regarding Harris' views on torture.

1728. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59598 by Dr Benway on July 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Has anyone heard the phrase "United we stand, divided we fall?"

Yes. Just before the Iraq invasion, I heard that a lot. It was code for, "shut the fuck up," as I recall.

I recommmend James Surowiecki's book, The Wisdom of Crowds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_crowds

1729. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59578 by Dr Benway on July 29, 2007 at 6:50 pm

bluebird:

Inserting "dance" into church/gatherings has become popular the last 10-20 years as a way to entice young adults to attend. Also, "it's a way to use your whole to worship the lord".

Oy veh! That's so horrifying. How might we encourage it?

1730. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59574 by Dr Benway on July 29, 2007 at 6:19 pm

I did not consider such an in-built problem of understanding one's own mind and its functioning and weakness...

The brain isn't the product of rational design. It's a collection of sub-systems and heuristics developed without a vision of the final product. It's a bag of tricks saved because they worked well enough to get our ancestors out of some jam.

Ancient fish came up with a food-straining seive which happened to be handy when gas exchange became important. Gills are great, but only when water moves across them. Not so great otherwise. Maybe if the fish could have put their two cents in at the start, they'd have done gas exchange differently. I dunno.

The brain is likewise a hodge-podge of clunky systems. Note the retina, which is in backwards. The light sensitive cells are buried under a buncha wiring and supports. This screws up our image resolution, but no so badly that we're not here. And there's no going back to the drawing board now.

Image processing starts at the retina, with its signal-surround organization that helps us see edges. But this system introduces false contrasts that don't actually exist, which you can learn about in books on optical illusions.

Visual data are split into several channels, with separate systems for color, form, texture, motion, and faces. Faces? Who builds a TV set with a separate system for faces?

Many times I've walked into a patient's room and found tiny bits of paper sticking out of wall sockets. Why wall sockets of all things? And do these people all go to schizophrenia school or something? How do they independently come up with the same weird ideas?

Take a look at a 3-pronged US wall socket now, if you can, and you'll understand what's going on (don't know if you Brits/Europeans have the same thing). It's a face, is it not? Keep looking, and you'll see it's not only a face, but an unpleasant cunt that's not at all friendly. Bastard! Apparently when schizophrenics are in the room, it won't shut the fuck up. Ergo the paper.

Bitbutter's avatar might be the face on Mars. I'm not sure. But it's a good example of our habit of projecting faces onto the world where no faces actually exist. This is a byproduct of our face processing system. We've learned to live with this little quirk.

1731. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59555 by Dr Benway on July 29, 2007 at 3:04 pm

PZMeyers:

Everyone is getting stuck on the shirt, which is just one outlet for getting the message out. Seriously, you don't have to wear it. But find some way to help the cause instead of carping pointlessly.

Damned atheists. You can be so self-defeating.

I think "if you like it, wear it; if you don't, don't" kinda goes without saying.

Some here are talking about whether one is reacting in a rational way to the shirt campaign. Some are speculating upon presentation formats likely to spread the atheism meme in a successful way. The former is of no interest to me; the latter is.

In service to the latter objective, every reaction on this board is valuable. Every reaction is data, and the more data, the better.

If we could create a spirit of curiosity and acceptance for everyone's opinion, justified or not, stupid or not, crazy or not, we'll get the best sense of how our communities are likely to react to this "out" campaign generally. We then can tweak the message so it's understood and accepted most broadly

Naturally, people who love the shirt will feel defensive when people criticize it. And critics will feel they're being told to stuff it when lovers dispute them. But let's not get stuck at this level of discourse. Let's appreciate how our diversity serves our purposes.

Years ago, market research was dominated by a few geniuses with some appreciation for psychoanalysis. Large campaigns today rely upon consumer focus groups. Group data has more predictive power than expert opinion. Groups can capitalize upon the "wisdom of crowds," so long as members are truly independent, have access to information concerning the topic under study, are capable of selecting from competing options, disagree about which options are best, and have some stake in the quality of the prediction being made. Predictive power doesn't get any better than this.

Does RDF have a marketing company on retainer? If so, why are they not chatting with us?

1732. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59546 by Dr Benway on July 29, 2007 at 1:31 pm

steve99:

You use as part of your ideas what feels right to you, when any reasoning person knows that such feelings are deeply problematic and not to be trusted.

Agreed. Note that medicine didn't begin to make good progress until the development of the double-blind, placebo controlled trial.

This is wisdom: in recognizing that you, yourself, are the easiest person to fool.

Imagine using a dodgy tool to measure something. Nine times out of ten it's accurate but a tenth of the time it gives readings that are off in unpredictable ways. You'd have to take every reading with a grain of salt. You'd find ways to double-check and corroborate your results.

Our brains are a dodgy instrument. I think most of us catch on to some of its quirks early in life. We're often tentative about uncorroborated first person data. We don't believe or disbelieve in binary fashion. Rather, we feel a nuanced confidence in a range of views, and we recognize that everyone else is in the same boat.

This debate with Dianelos reminds me of conversations I've had with a number of narcissists. I see a lot of people with brain injury, developmental disorders, and conduct disorders, who share with the narcissist a deficit in theory of mind. But high functioning narcissists who seem intact in every way except for that special something that makes a genuine relationship possible are most puzzling to me. I'd love to understand how the self-other cogs can slip in isolation from most other cognitive abilities.

Theory of mind, or one's ability to conjure and make use of a reasonably accurate representation of another's mind, includes an awareness of how minds mislead, how to corroborate subjective impressions, how to establish when self and other have reached genuine agreement, and how agreement can be illusory. We might call these processes self-other reality calibration schemas. And it's my feeling that this is where narcissists have a particular screw loose.

I say this and then I wonder: what if I'm wrong? What if my sense of frustration in seeking mutuality with a narcissist arises from a loose screw inside myself? Perhaps narcissists actually have a better grasp of the paradox of self-correction, and I'm deluding myself with this feeling that self-correction is even possible.

Well, I may not be able to resolve the self-correction paradox formally, but I can go on in spite of it, for now.

Conversations with narcissists follow a familiar pattern. "Sliding of meanings" is one phrase coined to describe them. Feelings of agreement may come and go, but the firmness of mutually established and remembered agreement seems elusive.

Let me put my point another way. Perhaps I have given offense. Allow me to say something flattering or reassuring, so you may consider my words in a friendlier light. Allow me to join with you on your earlier point, which I do not dispute. From there, can we step over to the point I'm trying to make? See how A follows logically from B. No? Well let's reflect upon our conversation itself. See how we are having a difficult time here? Might not this difficulty tell us something interesting?

I think I've been trying to make a single point in various ways in this thread, which Dianelos has not refuted and which I'll make again: Appeals to God as a basis for action are immoral, as this basis does violence to our collective need for corroborative evidence.

1733. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59391 by Dr Benway on July 28, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Yorker:

I wouldn't wear one either but I recognise that some people would, that's why I wouldn't make a comment like yours!

Why wouldn't you wear it, Yorker?

Obviously people who like the shirts will wear them with pride. It is just a t-shirt and not a symbol of blind faith in some leader or some group.

But isn't the whole point of the shirt one of marketing the notion of atheism to our communities? If people are advocating buying the shirt because you've a right to do that if you want no matter what Henri says, or because it's good to give RDF money, or because one might need something to wear while cleaning the oven, are we not forgetting the goal, which is selling godlessness?

Let's find out what percent of people here:
1. love the shirt and plan to wear everywhere
2. like the idea of the shirt but won't wear it
3. feel the shirt is like a fat guy with a comb-over on a Harley.

If the negative reaction is more than a small percentage, let's find out what that's about. Then let's use this valuable information to tweak the presentation of the message so that it hits home in a positive way.

1734. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59327 by Dr Benway on July 28, 2007 at 8:02 pm

The solution to the herding cats problem is simple: ten different shirts with similar messages. Thus you can be a group member and an individualist at the same time.

Personally, I'm not fond of the big A. It might be the juxtaposition of the 20-something in-your-face boldness of the design with a font that suggests 45-year-old corporate sensibility.

Maybe a lowercase Times Roman "a" with a stamped roughness would work better. But then you'd lose the Hawthorne reference. And that's a shame because Hawthorne is really in with the kids these days.

Someplace around here people were brainstorming T-shirt slogans. Can't recall which thread. It's not a bad idea. And it might be fun to round up the best ideas for a vote.

Here's one: "We've no holy book. We can't reach it anymore."

1735. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59178 by Dr Benway on July 27, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Studies show: four out of five men prefer introspection to dialog. This is understandable, as dialog involves other people, who are often annoying.

However, introspection may not be as helpful as simply asking a woman to point out where her clitoris is located.

Speaking of dialog: I think there ought to have been a thread for some discussion about those "A" shirts I see are now on sale. I predict they will be as popular as the "brights."

Hey, I discovered you can upload photos to this site. Go to the link below and click the photo album to see my posse: http://www.richarddawkins.net/social/?tuff.ted.titmouse

Added: Crap. Guess you can't see pics unless you start an account and login. Sorry.

1736. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59171 by Dr Benway on July 27, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Ever notice that the words, "we are under attack" can be strangely comforting? It's the orienting response. Rather addictive if you've got ADHD.

The military isn't a bad option for young men like the ones in this video. Pre-Iraq, the armed services were fairly picky. They wouldn't take you if you'd been on Ritalin, for example. But that's changed.

I wouldn't want these kids in Iraq. But they'd probably be fine as non-combat support crew. The pay is lousy, but the federal benefits program is excellent. If you work for the postal service or another federal program afterward, you can apply your years in the service to your retirement.

And girls like guys in a crisp uniform.

Confused young men who need some structure can get a lot from the military. The work is a lot more meaningful than fighting virtual battles on the Internet, where virtual victories do nothing to actually change the world.

Seriously guys, if you're reading: don't live in a comic book. You can do better.

1737. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58994 by Dr Benway on July 26, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Yeah Hobbit, you gotta laugh or you'd cry. What kind of life will boys like that ever have?

Trying to believe six impossible things before breakfast causes lasting damage to the brain, I'm afraid.

1738. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58990 by Dr Benway on July 26, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Their own stupidity seems punishment enough. Is "Torah" really that hard to pronounce?

1739. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58986 by Dr Benway on July 26, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Silly gits with their chicken little hysterics. Why jump to conclusions about stuff on these Interwebs, when you can message or email someone for clarification?.

That's what I'd do anyway. That way, if I read something that was mere reductio ad absurdum, or parody, or silliness, that I was in danger of taking the wrong way, I'd be saved the trouble of a needless freak out.

There's a reason journalists check hearsay before quoting it.

As far as I know, if you buy any book with your own cash, you can burn it. You can't take someone else's book and burn that. These boys alleged that "the atheists" want to take other people's Bibles. But that wasn't my impression from the post they quoted.

Enough wool in those heads for a couple of sweaters.

1740. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58977 by Dr Benway on July 26, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Good on ya, Rieux, blueollie. I've never met a Unitarian I didn't like. However, the presumption of left-leaning politics I've encountered in some UU groups has put me off on a couple of occasions.

I'm generally in favor of liberal social policies, but I don't like taking sides on issues I don't understand very well. Once when I was still a teen, I went to a UU service. There was a collection for something in Guatemala that seemed political. Kinda made me feel awkward.

Confused, uncertain people like me aren't loyal group members. Ah, well.

My patience for New Age solipsism ended with 9/11, I'm afraid.

1741. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58869 by Dr Benway on July 26, 2007 at 1:32 pm

But all ingroups need an outgroup and every faith defines itself by its heretics.

Ooo. Selecting the out-group and out-thingies is just about the best part of any religion. Take some time mulling this over. Start a list of candidates maybe. Above all, savor the moment. Fun fun fun!

Allow me to propose something for That Which is an Abomination in the Eyes of Quetzalcoatl:

1. Products with excessive packaging (e.g., individually wrapped candies in a plastic bag, in a crush-resistant plastic holder, in a box, paper-wrapped, then shrink-wrapped).

1742. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58774 by Dr Benway on July 26, 2007 at 4:33 am

By introspection.

How narcissistic.

1743. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58682 by Dr Benway on July 25, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Last I checked, hardly anyone was a Unitarian. The way Hitch's critics speak, just about everyone is.

We need to refine our terms. Maybe "religion with a creed" and "religion without a creed." The latter is atheism, effectively. The latter is a social club concerned with good deeds, passing as religion so as to avoid those awkward social moments, as when one is asked, "what church are you getting married in?"

Too often it seems the liberal religionists want to have it both ways. They want to be friends with the Catholics, Presbyterians, etc., and they want to talk like deists or atheists. Their vagueness leads to misunderstanding. So I think it's up to them to come out frankly, either for a religious creed, or no creed at all.

Let's take up a collection for a set of backbones to send to all those poor, misunderstood liberal religionists.

Or maybe we could send some courage certificates, like the one the Wizard of Oz gave to the cowardly lion, so they might boldly proclaim the courage of their lack of conviction.

1744. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58646 by Dr Benway on July 25, 2007 at 2:46 pm

The only modification I'd suggest is that religious people tend to let their chosen authorities stuff their arms into the sock, too.

Problem is the limited selection of approved puppets at one's local supplier. Customization is frowned upon; buying off the rack is standard. But if you watch the old timers, you'll learn how to make do with even the frumpiest of puppets.

Quetzalcoatl: Perhaps you should tell me what sort of divine messages you are looking for...

Hmm. A god we can make into our image. Well, that's about par. Best to feign that you can be ill tempered, and your favors never come cheap. Otherwise the jig's up.

BTW, my safeword is "cinnamon."*

*okay, I stole that from the Daily Show

1745. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58639 by Dr Benway on July 25, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Dianelos:

Why not? Because by doing so one decreases one's own virtue.

How do we measure virtue?

1746. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58571 by Dr Benway on July 25, 2007 at 8:02 am

I'm all for re-defining religion. Let's do it. Let's carve away the needless certainties, yet leave the places of communion and celebration of kindness toward others.

I agree that it's dishonest for religious people to behave as pantheists in debates with atheists, then behave as believers in an interventionist God when talking to theists. We ought to call them on that.

In preparing for a debate, I'd review anything written by the religionist indicating a real, traditional theist position. If they're on record claiming a belief in the resurrection, or in God's response to prayer, etc., yet while debating me they define God as "love", I'd make them take a stand: interventionist God, yes or no. I'd point out that trying to have things both ways is hypocritical.

If "yes", I'd ask:
- How does God intervene?
- What evidence do we have of this intervention?
- How do you know you're not indulging in wishful thinking?
- If you are allowed to make claims about the mind of God without evidence why can't Osama Bin Laden do the same?

If "no", I'd say, "Great! we agree. Let's see how far this agreement goes."

Exploration of agreement might entail shooting the moderator. But I digress.

I'd try to get the liberal theist on record for the following:
- the Bible was written by men and is no more holy or infallible than Shakespeare
- expecting people to believe you when you say something like, "I just saw a ghost" without offering any evidence is disrespectful of the ordinary need we all have for genuine evidence
- personal religious experience, like an orgasm, is valuable and meaningful to that person, but provides no basis for making claims upon others
- as a group deciding upon social policies, we need evidence that can be corroborated
- we must set limits upon appeals to faith in public discourse
- the word "faith" too often means "I don't need evidence and you're being militant/muscular/arrogant/fundamentalist/rude to question me"
- 20th century scientists learned that self-deception is the rule rather than the exception; hence the double-blind, placebo controlled trials in medicine
- self-skepticism is a greater virtue than faith
- we are right to challenge faith

Once on record for the above, I'd invite them to join me in saying these things to more traditional believers.

1747. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58539 by Dr Benway on July 25, 2007 at 6:36 am

Although, having any gods means getting over myself a bit, and I just don't know if I've got it in me.

I'll let you in on a secret: God + cherry picking = undercover über-you. Many opportunities for boundless self-importance. All while appearing "humble." Pick a couple sour cherries to keep the game from seeming obvious. With practice, you'll fool even yourself.

Quetzalcoatl is a cut above other deities, in that he'll chat back at you. However, this may interfere with the cherry picking bit.

1748. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58434 by Dr Benway on July 24, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Yes, Zaphod. The opposition to the notion that something infectious might affect sexual orientation is ostensibly based upon the feeling that the proposition is self-evidently false.

I'm merely challenging the self-evidently false bit. Not because I have an opinion. Being contrary is a hobby.

1749. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58429 by Dr Benway on July 24, 2007 at 7:19 pm

...if it is an infectious disease, then it has infected every mammal species on earth -- unlikely, according to modern medicine.

Not necessarily. Immune factors may be more or less relevant in various species, and may be triggered by a range of agents within a given species, and across species.

Anything causally connected to homosexuality has some role in heterosexual expression also.

Some infectious agents are relatively benign and only result in mild or no symptoms. Playing host to a bug that doesn't hurt you can give you a competitive advantage over others who do suffer from the same bug. So "disease" can be good.

Crowding in some species affects sexual development. Infection might explain this, as rates of infection increase with crowding.

BTW, Strep infections are fairly universal (it's living at the back of your throat right now), and have been implicated in OCD, sorta. Paraphilias overlap with OCD, so sex is in there somewhere.

Any environmental factors you like better?

1750. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58427 by Dr Benway on July 24, 2007 at 7:09 pm