1801. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55819 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 1:27 pm

steve99:

Sorry to confuse this even further, but Dianelos is also making judgements about others' maps, and territories.

A debate like this is always about our collective map of reality. We have no means to debate the territory, only the map. Strangely, reification of the map into the territory is a fairly common error during such debates. I think this is because we're magical thinkers at heart.

We can't allow individuals to change our collective map for trivial reasons. Imagine someone saying, "I don't believe in global warming because Bush says we don't know for sure it's happening." Should we let this person walk up to our common map to make changes? No! Thus our established evidentiary rules.

Stop a religionist from bypassing the rules and inking up the map, and you get the usual complaints:
- Hey you elitist eggheads are hogging the map
- We were here first
- Scientific evidence is just one kind of evidence
- We have an inner knowing
- What? I'm not drawing anything bad. You're being mean to me!
- One day you'll know you were wrong
- Look I drew a puppy.

1802. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55806 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 12:22 pm

J:

I can rephrase the same point, though, for Dianelos can (and probably will (hi, Dianelos, by the way!)) say that the atheist's map records masses of 'complexity' that his doesn't.

The theist and atheist physicists study the same map for their PhDs. But the theist adds "insert God here" to his map. The theist has more stuff on his map. See #1292.

An offering to the theist side of the table of something I find very beautiful:

Holy Sonnet XIV
Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
-- John Donne

1803. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55792 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 10:26 am

J:

…he'll say 'Yes, but my theistic actual territory doesn't include all that stuff. Only what we consciously experience'.

The parsimony rule applies to the map, not the territory.

1804. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55772 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 7:42 am

In all fields of knowledge people are supposed to test older ideas, to discover, and to learn. Are you suggesting that theists shouldn't do that?

I remind you that your ethical pillar is down. Once you have "We decide what is good" you no longer require "God decides what is good."

In the statement above you've subordinated divine reality to empiricism. Once you have "we test" you no longer require the authority of divine sources of information.

You claimed greater explanatory power. However, you admitted that you were using the "argument from ignorance," which, by definition, explains nothing.

I'm not sure I entirely convinced you of the failure of your complexity point. Your error is one of equivocaton between the map and the territory:

I understand your idea, but I never claimed that God instantiates every quark within the universe; I claimed that God instantiates every quale in our conscious experience. Big difference. And for doing that, God does not need to think of every quark in the universe: you don't need the information about the exact state of an atom in a planet around a star in a galaxy at the other end of the universe to instantiate our experience of the universe.

The theist and atheist maps of the universe likewise do not list every quark. But the theist has God. The theist has more stuff!

Your only remaining pillar is personal satisfaction. You're allowed to keep that one. But it affords you no authority.

1805. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55764 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 7:15 am

We are born, and we remain, magical thinkers. Dreams, fantasies, hallucinations uncover the magic, which never leaves us even for a second. Although we learn how to think rationally, reason doesn't stop the magic. Reason is the rider; magical thinking is the powerful horse that wants to go somewhere.

Thirst-->mental image of putting a glass of cool water to your lips and tasting the water-->slight decrease in sense of thirst (magic works!)-->thirst intensifies (magic fails!)-->muscles move to walk you into the kitchen for an actual glass of water.

Sensory deprivation in some form will uncover the river of magical or primary process thinking. The patient supine on the psychoanalytic couch conjures the doctor he cannot see, and thereby learns something of his own magical habits. The technical term is "transference."

To the extent that we're not barking our shins against the coffee table of reality, we are all magicians.

The plexiglass version of the "A not B" error evident around 9-10 mos suggests that mental representation (the virtual world where magic happens) arises out of elaborated motor schema moreso than sensory schema.

Here's how it works:
- baby on the floor
- adult has a toy and two occluders like two face cloths, A and B
- while baby watches, adult puts toy under A
- baby lifts A to find the toy
- the game is repeated a few times
- adult then puts toy under B while baby watches
- the silly baby lifts A!

There are many variations of the experiment. In one version, A and B are clear plexiglass boxes with doors that swing open, so the toy is never hidden from view. Babies at just the right stage of cognitive development still go for A rather than B. The babies can see the toy in B, but they reach for A. It's as though their sense of the actuality of the toy is bound to their memory of what they did to get the toy.

We act first in the magical realm before our true will is instantiated in the material world.

;o)

1806. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55660 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Dianelos:

But apart from the most primitive religious worldviews (read: the cases of fundamentalism or "literal scripturism" if you like), all other religious worldviews seamlessly and naturally absorb scientific knowledge by hypothesizing that the physical world that science studies is caused and sustained by the larger spiritual reality.

Guess I should have said, "Keep your cherry pickin' hands on your side of the table!

So Mr. Moving Goal Posts, what bits of Christianity are fashionable, and what bits are hoaky? Lemme list a few standard Christian teachings off the top of my head, and you tell me what stays and what goes:

- Bible is "inspired" but not literal, word of God
- original sin
- trinity
- annunciation
- incarnation
- virgin birth
- walking on water
- have 2 coats, give 1 away to someone who needs it
- crucifiction
- resurrection
- gifts of the holy spirit
- believe Jesus died for your sins, go to heaven
- Peter is 1st pope
- girls stay silent in church
- don't be gay
- 2nd coming
- separating sheep from goats

Then please explain what your method is for sorting crap doctrine from non-crap doctrine.

1807. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55654 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 10:07 pm

MrEmpirical, "ownage" and "pwned" are so last year.

Get with the meme bus! Time to move on to: the best 5 seconds on the net.

1808. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55647 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Phil, approx 16 cm! Yeah, it's hard to believe that's right.

First time through the Monty Hall problem, not only was I certain, I was rather condescending toward my dear date, saying stuff like, "no, you're not getting it..." and "trust me, I've had a year of statistics..."

LOL. Part of me wants to give teapot a hint.

1809. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55606 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Is this web site on crack? Post kept hanging while I was posting it!

Dianelos 1265:

But reality is that from physics, to math, to business gaps have proven to be a good thing: they drive improvement, or, as they say, "paradigmatic shifts".

Note that the "good thing" vanishes once you fill it in with God. You can't enjoy your gap and fill it too.

...the physical phenomena that science studies are exactly the same in both worldviews.

You concede that the theist and atheist physics grad students study identical maps of the universe. Plus the theist has God. The theist has more stuff!

You will say, "but the universe is a manifestation of God's will; there actually is no "universe" plus God; it's all God.

Ok, let's accept that everything we think of as real stuff is actually God instantiating some phenomenon. What does this tell us about God?

1. God must be at least as complex as the universe, as he instantiates every quark within it.

2. If God is no more complex than the universe, He is, effectively, the universe. Theism = atheism.

3. If the universe is merely a part of the mind or will of God, then God is more complex than the universe.

The theist has more stuff! Your complexity argument fails.

1278:

Dianelos: Biblical fundamentalism contradicts well established scientific truths...

Benway: You've asserted that theism vs. science is a trivial concern, as an omnipotent God can set things up anyway He likes. The fundies use the same argument.

Dianelos: I don't understand your point. The context of our discussion here is the rationale for rejecting fundamentalism. Biblical fundamentalism does contradict well established scientific truths, surely you agree, so this counts as part of the rationale for rejecting fundamentalism.

Hey, keep your cotton pickin' hands on your side of the table! You lost your right to make that argument when you said this:

2. Theistic worldviews are trivially and entirely compatible with scientific knowledge, because God, being omnipotent and all, could produce all the phenomena that science studies.

Can't have things both ways.

1278:

We can judge Biblical morality by our standards of human decency, precisely because....

The social consequences of your statement are the same no matter what you put after that word "because."

We can judge. By our standards.

1810. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55582 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm

steve99:

Have you ever believed something to be self-evident and subsequently discovered it not to be the case?

Oh, those experiences are not to be missed.

Had a date once bring up the Monty Hall problem. Goes like this:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

I argued that it didn't matter if you switched or not. 50% chance of getting the car behind either door. My date argued that I'd increase my chance of getting the car significantly by switching doors. We spent the next 2-3 hours arguing our positions. I was 100% convinced I was right... until the lightbulb came on.

I married that clever titmouse, so it's all good.

1811. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55473 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 8:14 am

Dianelos:

Biblical fundamentalism contradicts well established scientific truths...

You've asserted that theism vs. science is a trivial concern, as an omnipotent God can set things up anyway He likes. The fundies use the same argument.

...its ethics contradicts basic notions of human decency

BINGO! You've insisted that theism "works better" because it provides a divine or objective basis for right and wrong. You just cut this pillar out from under yourself. If we judge divine morality by our standards of human decency, we don't need divine morality after all.

...and is self-contradictory to boot.

Smart theologans can fix apparent contradictions. See #1 above.

Not to mention it works worse than naturalism under all criteria I have suggested.

Your criteria not addressed by the points above are nothing more than personal feeling. Well, good for the goose, good for the gander. The fundies can appeal to personal feeling for their "works better" just like you. You've given them that right by claiming it for yourself.

1812. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55467 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 7:52 am

PaulEmecz:

It sounds like "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine". That's not morality, that's pragmatism.

Two humans talk long enough to create an understanding of their mutual needs and objectives. Two scenarios:

1. The two agree to compromise on a few matters of disagreement, and they agree to work together toward shared goals.

2. One party attempts to resolve the disagreements by appealing to the wishes of an invisible man in the sky whom he claims to know by virtue of an inner feeling and who, rather conveniently, happens to support that man's side. The other party is forced to capitulate, as any position that appears to go against the sky-man's wishes results in severe social consequences.

God might look good on paper. But in practice, He's a big stick used by bullies who really don't like people very much.

1813. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55458 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 7:10 am

PaulEmecz:

I would search for a meaning in life, and might conclude that the survival of my genes was the closest thing. My commitment to my wife would be less firm...

You mean, survival of your memes, which includes not only your genes but descriptions of your character, actions, values, etc., that propagate around the world in the minds of everyone affected by you. Cheat on your wife, and the meme "asshole" becomes eternally linked with your other memes.

As I said before, I only believe in one God...

You are mirror blind. Good for the goose, good for the gander. If you're allowed to assert things on the basis of "I believe" so is Osama Bin Laden.

1814. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55372 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 8:51 pm

kmr214:

One need only look at Ann Coulter to know that there's an audience for these ideas that can be milked into a very comfortable retirement.

Damn you, personal integrity! Damn you to hell!

Really, I feel I've a gift for prolefeed. Throw out the fact checking and need for coherence, and the words flow smooth as butter.

I could be the feel-good movie of the summer. I could be heartwarming. I could be rich. Shit shit shit.

1815. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55370 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Henri:

I'm an incredibly friendly, honest person.

If you reject the proposition that promises ought to be made in good faith, you are, by definition, not an honest person.

If you rejection the notion of a golden rule, you are, by definition, not a "friendly" person.

1816. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55368 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 8:13 pm

USA_Limey:

Only if it's **your** version of god and heaven waiting on the "other side" you complete loon. I hope it's Thor and he squishes you for eternity with his hammer.

Limey, I want to be just like you when I grow up.

1817. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55364 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 7:55 pm

I do wish we had an outline message board format, where each post was represented by a single line with number, author, and post title, so responses could be linked to specific posts. This scrolling around is a pain.

PaulEmecz 1202:

I know your game. It's the old "you have faith just like me, Mr. Science, therefore my faith is justified."

This is anything but tedious. I really like questioning my own beliefs. It is the only way to strengthen your beliefs.

The "you have faith too Mr. Science" argument is common and it is dishonest. Science keeps assumptions to a bare minimum. The minimalism is disturbing to the theist, who wants Jesus, Mary, the 72 virgins, and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer accepted as factually true without a shred of evidence.

With respect to the minimal set of assumptions, the theist is no different from the scientist. He pretends such is not the case for a few minutes during an argument, in order accuse the scientist of having "faith." Once the scientist agrees, in comes Jesus and all the rest. But if the car's running poorly, the furnace won't go on, or the wife finds a lump in her breast, the theist turns to the same inductive problem solving process used by the scientist (unless he's nuts of course).

Dianelos 1210:

I am not claiming that objective ethical propositions are true, just that they are meaningful.

What are your criteria for meaningful? Is this ethical statement meaningful to you: "Frodo was wrong not to give the Ring of Power to Santa."

Dianelos 1215:

Of course I am using God of the gaps: I connect the failings of naturalism and I find they form a remarkably precise God-shaped gap.

Just between you, me, and the lamp post: admitting you are using the argument from ignorance is akin to admitting that your position has been defeated. Thems the rules. Don't blame me; I didn't write 'em.

Dianelos 1224:

1. We experience illusions, as one would expect if conciousness were a function of software, which is never perfect. I wouldn't expect God to be so buggy.

Illusions are not caused by errors in our conscious experience, but by us wrongly interpreting our conscious experience.

We don't correctly interpret buggy perceptions until we're made aware of them. Ergo the entertainment value of books about optical illusions. Secondly, interpretation is a subroutine within the VR program, and thus vulnerable to its bugs.

Dianelos 1245:

Idealistic theism a la Berkeley claims an us + God map, which it turns out is much less complex than the simplest naturalistic understanding of the universe.

Grad students in particle physics aren't going to feel you've made their PhDs any easier to obtain thanks to your "simplicity."

And what know you of divine will? Sure, it seems like you just push a button and the TV goes on by magic. But have you looked inside the box?

Dianelos 1239:

Suppose that instead of handing Moses a pair of stone tablets [snip]

Sorry, I am not defending theistic fundamentalism here.

Oh yes you are, Mr. Theist. Fundamentalism is on your side of the table, and you've offered no rationale for exluding that particular flavor of theism. This is why I find your position so abhorrent.

Now you seem an admirable chap and your particular imaginary friend doesn't appear to be out for my blood. But look what's sneaking in behind you while you hold open the door of faith: suicide bombers, clitorecomies, and televangelists with bad toupees.

You believe we're here for each other. How 'bout we stick with that? While we struggle to solve problems in the Middle East, global warming, poverty, etc., how 'bout we chuck the ill defined, unproven woowoo?

Dianelos 1245:

So what we really want is what is objectively good, because what is objectively good is instantiated in how God objectively is and we carry this image in us. The problem is to find out what we really want :-) but as the ancients wisely advised: Know Thyself.

If you believe we learn about God by learning about ourselves, you are, for practical purposes, a heathen humanist like most the rest of us here.

I would say "that which we really want" is discovered via our subjective or personal experience of life. You call this "objective." I find your use of the word confusing in this context. But I can agree to disagree about the semantics here, because I agree with the "that which we really want." bit.

1818. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55309 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 2:22 pm

GBile:

Does mr. Georgoudis suggest that we are just episodes in Gods latest wet dream ??

Yes. But God is us. We make up God's brain like this:
- You = basal ganglia
- steve99 = visual cortex
- J = hippocampus
- PaulEmecz = amygdala
- epeeist = motor strip (PBUH)
- Downunder = hypothalamus
- Dianelos = Wernicke's area
and so on.

Me, I'm just trolling.

1819. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55278 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Dianelos 1167:

So in short, idealistic theism trumps naturalism even in Occam's department.

I don't understand this argument. No matter how complex our map of the universe, the universe + God map will always be more complex than the universe map alone.

No one is required to accept the multiverse hypothesis until we can use it to make some prediction we can test. A lot of hard work, to be sure.

The theist wants us to accept God without a predictive test. Why give the theist a free ride?

Dianelos 1126:

That in the naturalistic understanding of reality the very concept of an objectively good or bad act is meaningless.

People who assert objective goodness do not like human beings. Objective goodness means human beings don't count. Human feelings, wishes, and perspectives are irrelevant.

Every time Dianelos says "objectively wrong," he is saying, in effect, "fuck you, stupid humans." On the higher plane of really real reality, this makes the baby Jesus cry.

Dianelos:

The presence of consciousness is not similarly observable or measurable (that's why no naturalist knows whether, say, cockroaches are conscious), so to suggest that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is to plead for a special exception to that rule.

We may not be sure about the consciousness of cockroaches, but we're pretty sure rocks aren't conscious. How do we know this?

There are many things we can't see directly that can still be studied by virtue of their effects upon things we can see. For example, we can't see the wind but we can see the leaves fluttering.

Dianelos:

There are no individual rewards beyond the intrinsic reward of being a good person and what it implies for the quality of one's experience. But we don't individually get any external rewards, no. The treasure is inside :-)

Spoken like a secular humanist. Who needs God after all?

1820. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55188 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 8:09 am

Dianelos #1179:

There is a more basic point to be made here: All evidence is in the end subjective – we only call objective a particular class of evidence which we have reason to deem reliable as a class.

I hope you aren't attempting to trivialize the value of corroboration.

Our feelings and perceptions are riddled with error, all the time. Without periodic corroboration from independent subjects, we become, well, psychotic to a degree. If we're surrounded by people who confidently assert that some bit of nonsense is true, we can be made to believe it, even when that nonsense contradicts our own direct experience.

Coding information into the DNA is expensive, and nature doesn't bother if some less expensive solution works. Language allows corroboration of direct experience by independent subjects. Not a bad way to clean up errors. Consequently, the error correction software in our heads can remain relatively crappy.

Dianelos:

Also note that if the only kind of evidence there is were scientific we couldn't ever decide whether naturalism or idealistic theism is more reasonable.

Exactly. Which is why no one is required to believe in either proposition.

1821. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55163 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 6:53 am

I think you've asserted many times that your worldview cannot be falsified.

Where did I assert that?

Here:

2. Theistic worldviews are trivially and entirely compatible with scientific knowledge, because God, being omnipotent and all, could produce all the phenomena that science studies.

Dianelos:

Well, as what goes for the goose goes for the gander, can you suggest any such falsification of naturalism?

Jesus returning in clouds of glory, surrounded by all the hosts of heaven.

I assume by "naturalism" you mean "metaphysical naturalism" not "methodological naturalism."

1822. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55158 by Dr Benway on July 10, 2007 at 6:19 am

Dianelos:

As for rational explanations of things – can you describe how those who don't believe in God rationally explain how our brain produces consciousness?

In a manner analogous to the way bees fill their honeycombs with hexagons. Consciousness is an emergent property of the virtual reality simulation software in our heads.

This hypothesis is superior to the "God did it" hypothesis on several counts.

1. We experience illusions, as one would expect if conciousness were a function of software, which is never perfect. I wouldn't expect God to be so buggy.

2. Alterations in consciousness associated with head injury, drugs, etc., indicate that consciousness is a function of the brain.

3. The hypothesis is theoretically testable at a future date. Sufficiently complex VR software
ought to produce an awareness of itself.

1823. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55063 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 11:15 pm

PaulEmecz:

I experience morality - I know one thing to be wrong, another right. The multiverse doesn't account for the existence of morality.

I wish you theists would cobble together your apologetics in such a way as to leave out Osama Bin Laden et al.

Wake me when you're on to something. I'm off to bed.

1824. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55062 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Downunder

You, or whoever was your observer may have blinked their eyes just when life entered.

Perhaps. Back in the day when I caught babies, I focused primarily on not dropping the slimy things onto the floor.

Your idea is an ancient one. "Spirit" has the same root as "inspire." But there's no evidence for any life substance entering the body at birth.

No pulse, no breathing for several minutes = death.

1825. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55056 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Things went from bad to worse over at Henri and Tuffy's place. The night the shit went down, both had been drinking heavily so neither can remember exactly who started what. Neighbors heard yelling and the sounds of furniture breaking. Finally a loud scream prompted a neighbor to call 911.

When cops arrived, stuff was flying everywhere. A hardbound edition of Mein Kampf hit one of the officers upside the head, provoking a layered flowering of outrage and offense.

Finally an ambulance hauled the housemates off to the hospital. The titmouse's wing was obviously broken and Henri's eye bounced against his cheek like a paddle ball as it dangled by a cord of bloody tissue.

Once the wing was splinted and Henri was awarded a handsome black eye patch, the cops shuttled the two perps off to county lockup. The DA, a close friend of the African American officer hit by Mein Kampf, gave a self-satisfied chuckle as he announced, "We're gonna throw the book at those two loosers. Tit for tat! Hahaha!"

The list of charges was impressive: first degree assault, public drunkenness, disturbing the peace, criminal threatening, resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, etc., etc. Long story short: two years hard time at San Qentin.

Once on the inside, Henri decided to go by "Hank." Although amoral, he retained enough social awareness to realize that "Henri" was just asking for it.

Like many Nietzsche fans, Hank was into body building. This gave him a way to pass the time without having to talk very much. No doubt this worked in his favor, as he remained "Hank" for nearly two months before he became more widely known as "that Hitler quoting asshole who kinda looks like a pirate."

The titmouse casually built alliances with a few others who seemed to understand the value of friendship and trading favors. He hung around with a smart and reasonable guy named Hector, a leutenant in a latino gang known as "Los Lobos."

Los Lobos grew to like el paro crestinegro, who was never a rat, never took advantage, and did what he said he was going to do unless something serious came up.

One day Hector asked, "Paro, how your wing get so fucked up man?" El Paro described the problems he had had with his former flat mate. "Henri liked to say that morals were for pussies and suckers."

Hector said, "That Hitler quoting asshole must be the stupidest motherfucker ever. You get enough people, and a man will go down. Don't matter how big he is. Don't matter if the people going after him actually are pussies. Strength in numbers, Tuffy, that's how we roll."

A few weeks after that, Hank had a terrible accident in the shower. It's puzzling how he could have slipped and fallen in such a way that he suffered multiple contusions to both sides of his head, fractured pelvis, ruptured spleen, and a collapsed lung.

Sadly, there were no friends or family available to claim the body.

1826. Physician, Heal Thyself

Comment #54957 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 12:53 pm

When religious duties overlap with pro-social values, no one complains It's only when religious duties run counter to human decency that people are upset.

I wish it were generally accepted that ordinary human solidarity is possible without religion.

Sigh.

1827. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54862 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 7:05 am

Andrew Brown:

It's like saying there must be something north of the North Pole.

Oh that's very good. It illustrates an abstract concept with a concrete visual. Excellent meme replication potential. Yours, or has it been around? Mind if I steal it?

My updated response to the ol' "Why is there something rather than nothing?":

Physicists have a lot to say about the first few moments of our universe. I'm not a physicist so I'll leave the details to others more qualified. But in brief: it appears that the notion of "before" loses meaning at the moment of the Big Bang, just as the notion of "further north" loses meaning once you reach the North Pole.

Hitch, If Andrew doesn't mind, I certainly don't mind your stealing this wee retort.

I must agree with the several voices at this web site wishing to hear a tighter, TV friendlier reply to the first cause challenge.

1828. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54842 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 5:09 am

Dianelos:

Anyway, assume for a moment that my worldview is true. What kind of evidentiary rules should apply for it to become collective belief?

I think you've asserted many times that your worldview cannot be falsified. Thus it is not compelling.

Downunder:

...the baby comes out into this world, watch it closely, heart is beating.......but......nurses and doctor can see that LIFE has not entered yet, until after a moment all present can see and may hear that a new human individual is in their midst. If LIFE had not entered soon enough the heart will stop. (Unless other action is applied to prolong the opportunity for LIFE to enter as yet, but that is digressing). I would like you to evaluate the common scenario.

You're defining "life" as the inspiration of air? Guess that leaves out the fishes.

1829. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54838 by Dr Benway on July 9, 2007 at 4:42 am

Dianelos:

For example a famous piece of scientific evidence is that when one measures the speed of light in different frames of reference the result is always the same. Even though I believe this is true with a high degree of confidence, such belief is strictly speaking based on hearsay.

But it need not be based upon hearsay.

To be precise, I am not saying that gratuitous torture is objectively wrong, only that the proposition "gratuitous torture is objective wrong" is meaningful.

Nice bit of equivocation there.

I know your game. It's the old "you have faith just like me, Mr. Science, therefore my faith is justified." How tedious.

1830. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54763 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Henri:

But I never defined morality as agreement.

I realize that you are invested in defining the word "morality" as something absurd, so that you can continue to assert that it doesn't exist. But my proposed basis is not absurd. My proposed basis is our mutual agreement regarding three fairly ordinary values from which I believe most everything else can be derived. This basis requires no faith, Bibles, or gods.

And this basis is not arbitrary. The agreement is, for all practical purposes, inescapable. In the words of Eddie Izzard, "cake or death?"

Sure, a person may say, "but I don't like cake!" However, option #2 is the end to all discussion. We might as well not discuss it.

You may say, "But I didn't select cake and I'm not dead yet!" I assure you, you won't have to wait long. Tomorrow I may explain, time permitting.

Before we all bid each other goodnight, the wee tit will share a tiny bedtime story to help the Dawkinsians off to sleep:

The rules of men are indeed about games of power, violence, dominance, and submission. Close your eyes and drift back to the dawn of our history as a species together. Hear the great fugue of our political cycles endlessly repeating.

First theme: "Father knows best."
Short counterpoint: "You can't make me"
Second voice: "We band of brothers."
Short counterpoint: "Corruption!"

1831. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54755 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Henri:

I want no agreement with you, thus no morality.

Then we agree.

1832. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54752 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Henri:

I already wrote that I do not want to live with you harmoniously.

I would interpret this statement to mean we are at war. Kill or be killed. I would assume, then, one of us is successful in murdering the other.

With only one person alive, no agreement is possible. The debate regarding our morality has become moot.

Now, if we did seek to define behavioral rules that would allow us to get along, that agreement between us would be our morality.

1833. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54746 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 8:27 pm

Henri

No I wouldn't! Harmony is boring and stunts development.

Now let's turn the tables. I've just told you that my word is no good. Still want to live with me?

1834. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54743 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Henri:

We could agree on house rules (e.g. keeping promises, no debates), but this ASSUMES that we want a harmonious flat.

There's no need to make assumptions with my flat mate across the table from me.

Would you like a harmonious flat?

1835. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54732 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Henri

If you DID value promises, you would have to agree on their definitions to make them valid. However, and please note this Benway, to value promises is your ASSUMPTION.

I'm not "valuing" promises per se.

Imagine you and I are going to share a flat. We want a few house rules, so each knows what's expected.

I propose the first rule:
1. We only make promises we intend to keep.

Does that seem like a reasonable rule?

1836. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54698 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 2:45 pm

darwin2:

Tangential thinking has its good points.

...titmouse glances at low-flying plane passing over darwin2's head

1837. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54697 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 2:38 pm

rationallady:

Shouldn't we recognize that religion for many has a palliative placebo effect? I know religion is "a sugar pill" so it can't help me, but I don't think I should keep it from helping others.

Watch the video. Dennett comments on your point near the end.

Dennett feels we shouldn't make assumptions about religion. Rather, we ought to study how religion is helpful and how it is harmful, to individuals and groups of people. We need data.

1838. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54694 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 2:23 pm

PaulEmecz:

So, was Hitler wrong to commit genocide? Shall we take a vote?

That would be two votes against Hitler, zero for. The motion carries.

If you and I do not base our behavioral rules on some form of agreement between us, what do you propose as an alternative?

Actually, we don't need a vote to condemn Hitler. Once we agree on the three values below, we can derive a rule against genocide from them.

1. Promises ought to be made in good faith.
2. Some form of the golden rule (mutuality, equality, universality)
3. Strive toward a sustainable future for humankind.

Genocide violates #2, and threatens #3.

1839. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54676 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 12:41 pm

PaulEmecz:

You can continue to believe in intelligent, non-terrestial life without fear of being called unreasonable.

I make a distinction between private belief and mutual belief.

Private belief can be and ought to be free ranging. Collective belief must be limited by evidentiary rules.

Example: A man says he saw a ghost. I'd welcome his account, but I wouldn't take it at face value. I'd need some way to corroborate his story first. I'd expect the man to recognize my need, and if he were to insist I believe him without evidence, that would cause me to wonder about his character.

An individual is free to entertain any number of hypotheses about the world. But he can't take the rest of us along for a ride without evidence.

1840. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54664 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 11:51 am

Henri:

there 'is' agreement in society, therefore one 'ought' to follow

We're talking about the foundation for our agreement about what we want to value. You are a party to that agreement. You're at the table. What must we put on the table between us?

I've offered, for a start, the notion that if you make a promise you ought to do that in good faith and without an intent to defraud. Do you agree with that?

1841. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54660 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 11:36 am

Most of us don't have time to examine the evidence for or against many scientific claims. We have to rely upon a peer review process that we don't directly witness.

For the most part, in spite of the crazy politics that goes on in most academic departments, institutional science works pretty well. Good scientists crave genuine respect from talented peers. No one wants to be seen as a hack or hired gun for some corporation. Integrity is prized. Anyone caught tweaking data is humiliated and utterly ruined.

The Bush administration has actively sought to control scientific output using old-school politics: cronyism, intimidation, stacking oversight bodies with loyalists. All well and good when we're talking pork bills in congress. But less good for science.

Corrupt the peer review ecology upon which science depends, and democracy is over. Global warming? Drilling in the arctic? Ethanol in gas? Pesticide use? These things will be sorted by the public relations teams working for the power in-group.

1842. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54649 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 11:07 am

Henri:

We should, at the very least, not take for granted that morals are true.

Factual statements are in the indicative voice. Ethical statements are in the imperative voice. When people say that a statement is true, they are usually referring to a factual statement. Truth in this context means the statement corresponds to reality.

"Ought" statements do not correspond to reality and can't be tested as true or false in the same manner. This is the "is/ought" problem described by Hume.

Morality rests upon agreement. Whether or not agreement exists is something that can be verified as true or false.

Certain agreements are inescapable, e.g., that we must accept common definitions of our terms, and that one ought to keep one's promises. Once you get these basic agreements on the table, quite a lot can be derived from them.

If I were asserting that morality rested upon the will of God, then I would agree with you that morality is a matter of faith.

1843. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54643 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 10:44 am

PaulEmecz:

How do you reach SHOULD?

By agreement.

1844. Evangelicals See Dilemmas in G.O.P. Field

Comment #54635 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 9:05 am

No mention of Ron Paul. I saw him on YouTube for a few minutes and thought he was interesting. He's probably toast.

I could almost be a libertarian. But the notion of getting rid of the income tax seems nuts. We have to pay for our infrastructure one way or another, either via taxes or user fees. Sure, we can contract the work to private corporations. But corporations can be just as bureaucratic, uncaring, lazy, and corrupt as governmental agencies.

The issue isn't "government bad"; it's accountability. How do we hold those entrusted to do something accountable? How do we build in natural checks and balances, to prevent abuse and corruption of power?

1845. Scientists Urge a Search for Life Not as We Know It

Comment #54580 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Sustainable self-replication seems theoretically possible in some manner not involving nucleic acids and proteins. It's an interesting thought experiment.

Think of creating a plaster cast of an item, then using that cast to make more items. Some collection of the items then combine to create another cast...

Now what chemical substrates might serve? Hmm.

1846. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54578 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Are you fucking kidding me?

Amen brother.

For a minute there I was a very nervous titmouse. Nice to know at least one human's got me back.

US songbird populations have been dropping steadily and rapidly over the past 30-40 years.

1847. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54565 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Dianelos, per your request, a more specific response to #1041 (some re-formatting of #5):

1. There are many realities that could produce all the phenomena that science studies. (For example only within naturalism, if one counts all the combinations of naturalistic hypotheses related to quantum mechanics and to consciousness, there are dozens of different descriptions of reality.)

I would say this: stuff happens. We develop causal hypotheses to describe this stuff. We seek ways to challenge the explanatory power of these hypotheses, and thus we sort them into two types: failed hypotheses and working hypotheses. Full stop. No "many realities," whatever that means.

2. Theistic worldviews are trivially and entirely compatible with scientific knowledge, because God, being omnipotent and all, could produce all the phenomena that science studies.

Saying, "God is not incompatible with science" is a dishonest trick theists use to appropriate the level of public esteem science enjoys, without all the hard work that scientists must do.

Scientific work requires evidence. Produce evidence of God, and scientists will get busy studying that evidence. Until that time, you ought not seek any ruling from science regarding the truth value of your claims about God. Until that time, you must admit that the "truth" of religion is like the "truth" of art. It's a truth about how people feel. It's personal, existential, and expressive. It can help us understand our values, and it can help us experience life from another person's perspective. But it's not objective in the way science is objective.

3. As there are many worldviews about reality that are exactly equivalent from science's point of view, we can't use science to sort them out, but must find some other method to decide which worldview is more reasonable to adopt.

It's perfectly reasonable to say you don't have all the answers. No one is required to develop a grand theory of everything. No one needs a "worldview."

4. Reason requires that this method specify a list of criteria, each one of them reasonable by itself and as far as possible objective.
5. The list of criteria (for testing a proposed worldview) I have suggested is basically this:
a. explanatory power (beyond the explanations of science and touching on our subjective data)
b. absence of conceptual problems
c. internal coherence,
d. experiential gains
e. ethical empowerment for those who adopt them
f. some subjective evaluation such as elegance/plausibility/economy
g. some meta-criterion such as degree of agreement between those who hold a particular worldview.

Without evidence that can be corroborated, there can be no "explanatory power," so "a" is moot.

"b", "c", and "f" all boil down to mean the proposition is not gross horseshit (e.g., "dilithium crystals"). These are reasonable criteria for works of fiction as well as non-fiction.

"d" and "e" mean essentially that the proposition is pleasing as works of art can be pleasing. Important for fiction; less so for non-fiction.

"g" I don't understand. Without objective corroboration of some phenomenon, what does agreement mean?

6. When applying these criteria I personally find that in each case idealistic theism (my worldview) works better than any naturalistic worldview I know of.

Unicorns are faster than dragons, fair enough. But could Darth Vader defeat Frodo, if Frodo had the Ring of Power?

In comparison to idealistic theism naturalism does have problems, is kind of incoherent (what with its explanations of nature here, ethics there, esthetics beyond that still, mathematics somewhere else, etc)...

Again, you appear to demand the Grand Theory of Everything. You actually do not need this. You really can find your house on a map of your neighborhood, without that map including Alpha Centauri. Big maps take time. Be patient.

...cannot offer any explanation at all about why our subjective experiences are like they are, etc.

We're learning more daily about how nature and nurture shape our feelings and perceptions. Neuroscience is in its infancy, but has already discovered tons of fascinating things. I recommend Ramachandran's talks at "Beyond Belief."

Even subjective criteria in my list, such as the experiential gains and ethical empowerment, are either widely accepted to be true (and hence all the talk of wishful thinking, feel-good factor, etc) or else in the case of ethical empowerment easily justified on really basic human psychology and, in some cases, evidenced in laboratory research (see post 929 or #53173).

Ethical empowerment is probably a very bad thing. Doubt is good.

7. I am not claiming that any other reasonable person must find the same I do when applying the same criteria. After all, a naturalist may find that Dennett's arguments are valid and that the problem of consciousness is illusory. Or a naturalist may find, as you do, that all objective ethical precepts are meaningless...

Your lack of response to my arguments against using the term "objective" in this context rankles. You can't claim something is "objective" on the basis of personal feelings, which are subjective.

Are you suggesting that I feel strongly held ethical precepts are meaningless? That would be a straw man, and straw men make the baby Jesus cry.

But my final and main claim is this: That's it's reasonable for me to believe in theism. That by itself is an important claim, because many naturalists believe that theistic belief must be irrational in all cases (to believe in God is like believing in fairies, and so on). And that's where I want to make my stand: my argument shows that this is not the case; theistic belief can be entirely reasonable.

Einstein's God is reasonable. Paine's God is reasonable. Yahweh is not reasonable. Everything depends upon the specific claims being made about God.

1848. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54560 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 7:02 pm

darwin2:

Many atheists have a scientific approach to life. Scientific people like to speculate on the unknown. One of the unknowns in life is whether or not intelligent life exists outside our planet. Many atheists have speculated on what this extraterrestrial intelligent life would look like if it actually exists. What happens after death is unknown. I wonder if atheists speculate on what consciousness would be like if consciousness indeed does survive after death.

I wonder what tangential thinking would look like if it weren't so tangential.

1849. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54559 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 6:54 pm

alvorin:

Jimi Hendrix, Steve Winwood ...

Dinosaurs do walk among men.

1850. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54558 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 6:47 pm

steveroot:

Why... that would mean... Dan Quayle is the Messiah!

The Bible speaks of "the sin against the Holy Spirit," but without giving any details. How unfortunate because Jesus is quoted as saying that this particular sin, unlike all the others, will never be forgiven. Ever.

Now we know what this is about: putting an "e" at the end of "potato."

Verily, Quayle is eternally fucked.

Seeing the grammar theme here, just thought I'd mention.