Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Dr Benway


151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168583 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 8:11 am

Remnant, any right you claim for youself you also extend to everyone else. If you are entitled to advocate for social policies on the basis of scripture, so is Osama Bin Laden.

If you'd like to declare certain holy writ valid and other holy writ invalid, you need a basis. Personal revelation won't work as a basis, as it repeats the same problem - i.e, if you are entitled to use revelation as a basis, then so is Osama Bin Laden.

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168549 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 7:43 am

MaxD: He will also come to hate Chickadees and Cardinals.
My neighborhood has become a grackle's world. I like them fine in small doses. But they and the bluejays intimidate the little ones.

I live on a pond in the woods. Lots of titmice, chickadees, goldfinches, nuthatches, mourning doves, sparrows; one pair of cardinals.

I like the variety of migratory birds this time of year. The warblers are here twittering away. Saw a loon last week, a wild turkey the week before. The dark eyed juncos have just gone. Looking forward to the orioles and hummingbirds.

Over the past 2 years, most of the woods around this pond have been cut down for housing tracts and big box stores. One large development is obviously built upon a wetland system. It's got a pump house to keep the swampy creek from getting too high and flooding everyone's back yard.

Humans.

Sucks to be a migratory song bird, I reckon.

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168498 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 7:12 am

Remnant: If man is "evolving" to a higher plane, as you believe...
You misunderstand evolution. Among a group of organisms in a particular setting, there may be a trend toward more refined, adaptive characteristics. But the environment will change unpredictably. Yesterday's adaptation might become today's useless baggage. For example, lizards pushed from above ground to a life in deep caves no longer need eyes. Any energy invested in vision is wasted below ground, and thus with each passing generation the eyes will become less refined.

Natural selection allows us to predict changes in gene frequency among a given population, provided we understand environmental conditions. Because we don't know what the human environment might look like over the next several thousand years, we can't predict which human characteristics will be most favored.

Remnant: If you want to start a truth-throwing contest, I can beat you 1,000,000 over, because God's Word is truth.
I invite you to peruse the scientific literature. You'll note it contains no appeals to scripture.

You are free to preach as you please. But you err when you assert your preaching as science. Before any claim about the world is allowed into scientific discourse, it must past four tests:

1. corroboration
2. falsifiability
3. logic
4. parsimony

You have posted much here. But you have offered no claim that passes these four tests.

Why do you pretend your preaching has scientific merit? Are you "Lying for Jesus"?

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168268 by Dr Benway on April 24, 2008 at 8:50 pm

I am drunk on La Fin du Monde. I can haz recap:

The Reverend Dark: I have noticed a trend in your posts, much in the way that a Rhinocerous would notice if you rammed an arm ups its arse and then gave the St Crispin Day speach in sign language.
lolol!
Tyler Durden: I will now pray to my God, Qwertyaszx the Almighty, that you return safely to this forum. I will also pray to this God, Jehovah/Yahweh, that you seem to think exists, asking that you never return to this forum. Let's see which God answers my prayers...
lolol!
al-rawandi: Jesus seems like a pussy. Muhammad would kick his ass and take his lunch money.
lol!
Tyler Durden: That Jesus dude made a lot of speeches, went walking a lot, and made some fish sandwiches, and was a fecking zombie - whereas Batman has a cape, ran a business, and had lots of cool gadgets!!!
lol!
Bonzai: C'mon, a BUTLER??!! Now that is comedy.
lol!
Quetz: Sure thing, l'il lady. -Tips imaginary cowboy hat-
lol!
Diacanu: If you want to figure out for yourself how meaningless a concept "bad words", is, here's a little thought experiment. Would you rather a burglar steal all your toys in the night, and never say a word, bad or otherwise? OR. For me to utter a string of profanity about how crummy your toys are, and then walk away?
hehe!
Cartomancer: What about if he prays even harder for you to stop praying?
I luvs all y'alls. Srsly!

Kthxbai!

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

Comment #167618 by Dr Benway on April 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

lol mahmood: ...I can't help but notice a sad trend for ad homs on the RD side, the side I would classify as mine.
Vague criticisms of the manner of debate stir the pot and derail productive conversation.

If someone says something that bothers you, quote what he said and comment on the quote specifically.

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

Comment #167256 by Dr Benway on April 23, 2008 at 7:28 pm

prospero811: One main issue I have with respect to this movie however is the fact that Stein never goes into the science. He starts out by saying it's not about whose right and whose wrong - just free expression - but proceeds to claim that evolution is clearly wrong, and evil.
Thanks for your review.

Freedom is defined by its boundaries. There is no "academic freedom" apart from the rules of academic discourse - e.g., independent corroboration of claims, falsifiability, logic, parsimony.

Freedom = rules. No rules; no freedom.

157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167238 by Dr Benway on April 23, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Remnant: The problem you atheists have is not that you cannot see evidence for a Creator in nature. You refuse to because of the implications.
You claim to see God's signature upon Nature. Now, before we allow any claim about the world into the realm of scientific debate, that claim must pass four tests:

1. Independent corroboration: You must be specific about your observations so that independent parties can confirm those observations, based upon your description but without your involvement.

2. Falsifiability: You need to imagine some way that your claim might be proven false. Then you must subject your claim to that test.

3. Logic: Your claim and its implications must not violate accepted rules of sound reasoning.

4. Parsimony: When more than one hypothesis can account for the observations, the simplest explanation is preferred.

Personally, I can't see how your claim might be falsified. But if you've thought up a method, I'd enjoy hearing it.

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

Comment #166380 by Dr Benway on April 23, 2008 at 7:55 am

Brian: I've got an assignment on Autism to complete soon. I have to critique the etiology, diagnosis and treatment controversies for the disorder from a neuro science/biological psychology perspective. I've found some stuff, but nothing that has set the dormant light-bulb alight. Any useful links to research articles or good summaries of the conflicts?
Whoa. That's enough for several books. You'll need a focus. Perhaps the apparent increase in the prevalence of the diagnosis? You then can posit a few possible causes:
- broadening of the definition in the DSM-IV
- the addition of autism spectrum diagnoses, Asperger's in particular
- heightened awareness among parents of developmental disorders
- legal developments, such as the disability rights movement, which motivates parents to seek a formal diagnosis now so that their child qualifies for special ed services

To add some spice, you can review the vaccine controversy.

159. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166362 by Dr Benway on April 23, 2008 at 7:41 am

Suggestion for Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al:

Future debates should be three-ways:
1. atheist
2. believer in religion A
3. believer in religion B

It's no fair pitting the atheist against a representative of woo generally. The biggest problem with woo is the lack of any reliable means of judging woo A better than woo B. We need a three-way, at minimum, to demonstrate this fact.

160. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166346 by Dr Benway on April 23, 2008 at 7:17 am

People here are too productive. Who can do more than skim all these interesting conversations?

remnant: You are claiming god does not exist, so prove it.
No, we don't know there is no God. We're saying that the proposition "God exists" has not yet been proven. The burden of proof remains upon you, the person claiming that God exists.
I said that an unbeliever cannot properly interpret Scripture without guidance from the Holy Spirit.
The logical consequence of this position is facism, with something like a priestly caste ruling over the unsaved and novice believers. The power of the priestly caste would be unchecked, as there exists no reliable method to corroborate degrees of Holy Spirit guidance.

By insisting that people reason from evidence others can corroborate, we preserve a means to double-check the claims of those in power over us.

Big Science is our best defense against Big Bullshit.

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

Comment #165576 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Hmm. The poster for the movie says, "Written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein."

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

Comment #165568 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Kenneth: The key should be to focus on the DEBATE.
Uhh. What debate? Over whether Dembski is a wanker or not? Think that's been settled.

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165564 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Associative minds are easy to control once you understand the power of good and evil as represented in the brain.

Certain words can trigger a sense of trust and fulfillment. I call that, "the Jesus feeling."

Other words are bad. They provoke an anxious sense of impending contamination. I call that, "the bad feeling," or "cooties."

Words like "God," "country," and "honor" can stir the Jesus feeling. Words like "communist," "fag," or "liberal" can provoke the bad feeling.

To manipulate an associative, pre-rational mind, all you need do is pair the action you wish to encourage with the Jesus feeling. You can intensify the effect by associating a contrary action with the bad feeling.

Would you like your army of navyjakes to vote for, say, the privitization of Social Security? No problemo. Have your TV faces pre-primed with the Jesus feeling say nice things about your privitization idea. Then have some unpleasant homos on the screen arguing against your plan.

Undermine science. Replace rational respect based upon genuine expertise with something more malleable, a kind of "gut feeling" basis for authority. This is how you can ultimately Do Great Things.

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165547 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm

gr8hands: You are aware that John Wayne never actually served in the U.S. military, right?
gr8hands, you buzzkill. navyjake95 is trying to get it up, can't you see that? A "happy ending" doesn't require any of your "reality" nonsense, thankyouverymuch.

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

Comment #165540 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 4:02 pm

So why do you believe in evolution?
You're starting off on the wrong foot. My "beliefs" are irrelevant. Settle the matter for yourself by reading about the evidence for evolution via the link eepeist provided.

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

Comment #165537 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 3:43 pm

iamb_spartacus, is the main thing about the Midgley matter the reading bit or the understanding bit? Seems to me the understanding bit is primary.

Now, if anyone wonders why Midgley didn't grasp the premise of The Selfish Gene, the most charitable explanation would be, in fact, her failure to read it.

167. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #165530 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 3:10 pm

MrStrayI love the post in the comment section:
"As Chuck Norris is to the roundhouse kick, John Rennie is to critical analysis."
Hehe. That was me.

Hey everybody, go dogpile the comments at SciAm with your love. Do it for the children.

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

Comment #165514 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Some people on these here webs say that we atheists give lousy customer service. We are not warm. Our tone is not inviting. We don't properly tart up our product. There are no free test drives. No home demonstrations. No complimentary cookies.

You explain to me the process.
Strange that someone I've never met might imagine I'm at his or her service.

Some advice for the new faces: think of this particular meeting place as more like a graduate seminar or continuing ed program than a church. You will suffer less disappointment when you do not feel the love.

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

Comment #165490 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 2:12 pm

TheTruthID: Please don't tell me to read a book or go to some gibberish website. You explain to me the process.
Some of us work for a living. If we are required to write an essay each time a creationist asks a question that has been well addressed elsewhere, we will lose our jobs and our children will starve.

So, please, read the link. Do it for the children.

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

Comment #165285 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

For those new to David Robertson and pressed for time, I'll provide a summary that works for the above and every post from him: Jesus good; atheists bad.

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

Comment #165279 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 9:39 am

Ugh. Just read Quine's link to the Hawaii Reporter review by Michael R Fox, who apparently schills for the global warming deniers. He thinks the movie is named "Excelled."

Ever notice how the various conspiracy theorists now back each other? It's not uncommon, for example, for a global warming denier to say something positive about intelligent design. Or an ID advocate to express skepticism regarding vaccines and Big Pharma.

A free press has been the proper antidote to propaganda. Isolated crackpots generally haven't been able to maintain a sufficient illusion of support in the face of real expertise. But the Interwebs might be shifting the way the fraud game is played.

Will Free Press save the day once the cranks merge to form Big Bullshit?

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

Comment #165252 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 9:06 am

sidelined, I'm with you. But I don't want to teach David J how to seem more authentic the next time he trolls us, so I'll say no more.

Galactor: If you could factorise the metrics "room for misunderstanding terminology" with "undesirable effect due to misunderstanding" I would not be surprised if the term "survival of the fittest" came out on top.
"Pediatrician" might make your list: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

Ignorance can be exploited. That's chiefly what frightens me about Expelled.

Clever lies incorporate a lot of truth. It's true that intellectual progress is aided by an atmosphere supportive of divergent opinion. But there are limits. Apparently Ben Stein's movie doesn't explain the basic rules that delineate science from non-science.

I have to wonder what's up with Ben Stein. He has a law degree from Yale. Granted, so does Pat Robertson. But still, he's an educated person who hasn't seemed frankly crazy or scary before this movie. And he's not a fundie Christian.

So what motivated him to write and star in this horrible flick? Worry for friends and relatives in Israel? Cynical manipulation of dumb Americans to support the 100 years war? Cashing in before retirement? Cramming for the final? Under the sway of some charismatic sociopath who knows how to manipulate Asperger types?

My wish to speculate suffers from a lack of info about the guy.

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

Comment #165211 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 8:17 am

Bonzai: I often wonder whether the contention that evolution only operates on the gene level is hard established science or just a particularly influential dogma.
Alternate hypotheses have a high hurdle to jump: positing the non-genetic mechanism of information transfer from one generation to the next. Sperm and egg are very, very tiny suitcases.

Dawkins' notion of the meme provides a more general model of information transfer, with gene replication serving as merely one form of meme replication. But typically, debates over group selection or more Lamarckian mechanisms of evolution do not invoke memetics.

174. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164222 by Dr Benway on April 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Remnant: Irreducible complexity, the language of DNA, something from nothing (Big Bang), abiogenesis, the dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles,the origin of morality, of consciousness, of the mind, fulfilled prophecy, changed lives, the list goes on and on. The evidence for God is overwhelming, you are just too blind to see it.
It was my impression that all examples of alleged irreducible complexity had been refuted (e.g., bacterial flagellum). If you are aware of examples that have not been explained via natural selection, I would be interested in hearing about them.

175. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163500 by Dr Benway on April 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm

...we're talking about things and beings outside of our universe, where this relation may not exist (or may exist in a weaker form).
Yes, but when you begin talking about things outside the universe, defined as the set of all things that exist, you bo[e vg 0ee]g jj ij eij'apa'g nalkdkvvm zzzzzzz....... kjf;i

176. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162124 by Dr Benway on April 16, 2008 at 7:48 am

Steve:I am not sure, but might it not be reasonable, if someone has concerns, to say "I feel that some posts here can sometimes be a bit too [mild/angry/whatever]", as long as they don't say "You lot are all...."?
I actually think that stirs the pot more, as it creates a triangle:

1. speaker
2. nice group A
3. mean group B

"You lot" is merely a dyad:
1. speaker
2. you lot

The dyad does not provoke the curious question, "which group do I belong in?"

Both sorts of group statements provoke the question, "what did I say?"

177. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162120 by Dr Benway on April 16, 2008 at 7:37 am

Steve: What I feel RM was after was a mentor - someone charismatic to provide comfort. He didn't find that here.
RM didn't like blunt criticism. I once said, "Don't be simple," in response to a rather simple comment of his. He described that as my having a "tantrum."

This "don't give the mentally ill a hard time" theme strikes me as wishful thinking: a wish that there might exist some rule prohibiting criticism under certain circumstances. It's a comforting wish. Who wouldn't mind holding a get-out-of-criticism-free card? What a great way to control the behavior of other people - e.g., "I'm (depressed/suicidal/afraid/certifiably mental ill/delusional etc.) so smiles and nice talk only!"

Matters of faith used to hold the do-not-insult card, but that's changing.

A kindly mentor, like mom, offers much praise and only muted criticism. It's rather nice when someone puts your artwork up on the fridge.

We all probably need havens where we can nurse our confidence until we're strong enough to face others as equals. But it's a mistake to assume we're entitled to the safety zone. Suppressed criticism doesn't lead to genuine mutual understanding.
RM: The first stage was the awareness that the vast halls of science and reason are no wider than the space between my ears! Bang! - the "prison walls" burst open. Second stage - the message of Christ seemed to light up
He's got it backwards. Reason provides a means for sharing the world outside our heads with others. Inner imaginings about Jesus are private dreams that can't be shared.

178. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162113 by Dr Benway on April 16, 2008 at 7:16 am

Star Spangled Eagle: I also think perhaps, some who post on here come off too strong and sling insults too early. I'm all for the anger that an ignorant person can provoke, but much of the time, it hurts much more than it can help.
I think these blanket criticisms of a group of people cause problems. Like an ink blot test, social reality on the Internets is ambiguous. To avoid stirring up projection and delusion, it's best to be specific. Quote the comment that seems over the line and address the person who made it directly.

179. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161845 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2008 at 7:26 pm

bringingithome4u: Is there an organized campaign within scientific academia to actively discredit the work or opinions of otherwise very well qualified professors and scientists simply because they hold that intelligent design theory is creditable in conflict with pure Darwinism theory?
No. And here is the proof: there are no scientific papers in support of intelligent design denied publication due to bias.

Science is much more about papers than people. The focus upon a handful of individuals with co-worker issues is a misdirection.

All hypotheses must be subject to some test before anyone takes them seriously. The ID advocates have not been able to devise a method to test the design hypothesis. This is why the ID hypothesis is not science.

180. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161318 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2008 at 6:51 am

Why am I a chicken wing uncald? It's not Cleveland, mutherfucker! Get off of me, bitch!

181. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161301 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2008 at 6:23 am

Ugh. Me sicka wooter/clearmind.

Please everyone, don't bother learning wooterese. Insist that wooter speak English before engaging with him.

phil rimmer:

Posts #160509, #160594

You're a traitor to your Hippocratic Oath. Currently I have a bad chest infection. I discovered that I had lost the ability to breathe more readily than I lost my sense of humour.

You have been warned!
That nasty bug seems to be going around. Last week they closed a local school; too many were out sick.

Laughing at your own jokes is like saying, "Hello I am a dork." But I confess some pride at, "16% of the time, I just like the sound of statistics." Next time I give a talk involving a list of stats, I must tack that on the end. Hopefully the joke won't grow stale out in the memeplex beforehand.

182. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #161291 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2008 at 6:01 am

Julius Morche: The day I receive my knighthood, I will also kneel down before the Queen and not spoil it by telling her that we are both the product of evolution, that her ancestors most likely never received their sceptre from the hands of God, and that the social hierarchy which separates us cannot be justified on rational grounds.
Ritual is a means of making the unreal real to certain parts of our brain. It's a neat trick.

So long as you recognize the difference between fantasy and reality, you can enjoy both.

I remember as a little kid how easy it was to slip into pretend play. When I was ten I had a horse. I spent a summer riding through a canyon of rolling walnut and apricot groves. If I thought of myself as an indian scout, I was one. The occasional cars along the nearby road were the white man I had to cleverly evade. I imagined that my sense of smell, my hearing, and my stealthy skills were more acute, and they seemed so.

Years passed without much riding. Then one day when I was about sixteen I was on a horse again. I thought back to the pretend games I used to play. But the magic was gone. I'd changed. Fantasy could not take on the vivid, enveloping power it once had.

Puberty does something to the brain that robs it of the delightful intensity of pretend play. Seems to do this to puppies and kittens as well. But humans have learned a few tricks to reawaken those old pleasures. Ritual is one of those tricks.

183. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161280 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2008 at 5:37 am

I've shared the story before, about the guy who believed he had a radio transmitter in his head. An over-achieving med student got an x-ray of his head, put the film up on the light box in front of the patient and said, "Look, no radio!"

The patient replied, "Ah, but I can see the wires..." and he pointed to irregularities and suture lines in the bones.

Moral of the story: these "fixed, false beliefs" serve an emotional need. That need must be met in some alternate manner before the belief will change.

Q: What is the need?
A: It is the Jesus feeling.

184. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160686 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 9:26 am

sschaller, the premise of "Expelled" is dishonest. There are no peer-reviewed scientific papers written by ID proponents that have been submitted to journals for publication that were rejected due to bias.

The emphasis on a handful of individuals who felt hassled by co-workers is a misdirection. Science is about papers much more than people.

If Ben Stein could reference papers inappropriately suppressed, he would have a point.

185. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160673 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 9:12 am

I think I should wait for a quieter time.
No worries.

I'm not having you on. I'm translating my current inner experience of God's absence into the language I'm familiar with from my more religious past.

Although it seems paradoxical, I feel the same sense of rightness or goodness I once felt when I was a believer seeking to be truly guided by God, urging me toward a life without this idea of God within me.

186. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160646 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 8:53 am

If God asked me to kill Him, I would not do it. I don't have it in me. The only way that i could kill is in defense of myself, my family/friends, or an obvious innocent.
For now we see through a glass darkly, no? For now, our idea of God is imperfect. You don't have to look far to see others expressing an idea of God that is self-serving.

I think we are called to put our idea of God, the incarnation of God in our minds, upon the sacrificial alter.

187. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160624 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 8:40 am

kardashovel: I have a son. If God told me to slay him, I don't think I could do it regardless of any perceived pay off. I would sooner kill myself, and I would tell God to choose another with more faith.
What if God asked you to place your God upon the alter and slay Him, might you have faith enough for that deed?

188. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160594 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 8:12 am

kieth: Could you fill in a few details for me because I enjoyed the outline of your story
Well. Studies show that 36% of the time person A knows someone at the Templeton Foundation. 22% of the time, person A holds a seat on a grant review committee. 46% of the time, A is built like a brick shit house, but has a head filled with woo. 16% of the time, I just like the sound of statistics.
Do you have B's telephone number?
B is not very sexy, apparently, else C would be chasing B rather than A.

B', like most straw persons, is not at all attractive.

Now B'', ooo la la!

B'' is the strawman anyone would love to hate.

However straw persons have trouble answering phones, I'm afraid.

189. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160563 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 7:49 am

Pintoman: Why isn't Hitler right? Dawkins cannot say Hitler is right or wrong. How is helping the poor right or wrong. Dawkins can't say.
Forgive my presumptions; just trying to fast-forward a bit through a familiar dialog.

You believe God establishes right and wrong.
I point out that we don't get God; we get His self-appointed spokespersons.

You say the Bible is true.
I say the Bible requires interpretation, and there are many interpretations.

You say the Holy Spirit helps guide us in our understanding of the Bible.
I say, people offer contradictory claims regarding God's will. Some say we must shun homosexuals. Some say that's not required. How are we to sort which is correct?

If the conversation goes well, you will concede that we must use our judgment regarding what is good and what is not good, to sort these claims. Which puts us where we started: using our judgment.

If the conversation doesn't go well, you will say that you "just know" what God wants. If only I would pray and accept Jesus, I would "just know" in the same manner as yourself.

I then will feel sad that you cannot recognize that there is no magic to guide us.

190. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160553 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 7:38 am

thisisme, have you ever shared a flat? Carpooled? Had a friend? Dated? If so, you know that people negotiate the rules of fair play.

191. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160544 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 7:33 am

thisisme, you seem to assume that we need a Big Daddy to give us the right to speak out against something we feel is wrong.

192. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160532 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 7:27 am

And if I don't think there is any true ethical value to society surviving (after all why should there be? It's just another is/is-not) then I can theoretically just ignore society's norms, and as I've said above, how can anyone criticise me?
Imagine a group of monkeys with no interest in survival and another very interested in survival. Over time the survivalists will out-number the anti-survivalists.

There's no need to argue against an anti-survivalist. That point of view will never catch on.

193. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160522 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 7:17 am

laphroaigman: If you dismiss the potential existence of anything you (as an individual) have NOT perceived (or cannot imagine), then how can you communicate intelligently upon it?
It's good to imagine a wide range of potential explanations for any phenomenon. But that's merely the first step. Then you must develop ways to test your hypotheses. No one takes any hypothesis seriously that has not been tested.

This simple requirement, that an hypothesis must be tested, is how we filter out delusions, lies, and wrong-headed ideas. Even religious scientists recognize the need for this.

194. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160509 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 7:03 am

To describe this article, I must invent a new term: the sexy strawman. Here's how it works:

Person A is arguing against person B.
Person A misrepresents B's argument with a strawman B'.

Person C largely agrees with B but wants to get into bed with person A.
Person C creates a sexy version of B', B'', hoping to impress A.

195. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160473 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 6:23 am

Here's the video:
The Blind Watchmaker

Around 13 minutes in, Dawkins offers a combination lock analogy which might prove useful. He then goes on to the famous monkeys typing analogy, to illustrate cumulative selection verses random chance.

This is the vid with a few frames of a younger Dawkins in shorts showing off his sexy legs.

196. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160450 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 5:44 am

yussell123, The Selfish Gene is very good.

For a quick intro, I'll hunt for a YouTube... BRB

197. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160446 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 5:38 am

Hi thisisme.

The golden rule is a good place to start for an ethical system. For any society to survive, the majority must embrace the idea that others should be treated as we would like to be treated.

A small percentage of any society will be freeloaders. Thus the need for police.

There's a branch of mathematics called "game theory" that effectively models the distribution of altruistic and selfish strategies in populations under various conditions.

198. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160440 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 5:24 am

Kardashovel: I believe that I am correct, and I am responding to dialog as if that were so.
With respect to your inner experience, I accept your description of what it is like. I can't contradict you.

When you use your inner experience to develop hypotheses about the world outside your inner experience, particularly about the inner experience of others, you err. You go beyond the data.

It's one thing to say, "I heard the voice of God saying X."

It's another to say, "I heard the voice of God saying X, and therefore you ought..."

I have thought through the implications, but I cannot embrace your notion that I should retreat back to agnosticism (which is effectively the view that you are endorsing).
Now I might accuse you of too many preconceptions. I ask only that you try to be honest in bearing witness to what you see within yourself and around you. I will return the favor.

Think of me as a closet Quaker. That might help.

Now I will accept that my religious beliefs should not be the basis of laws that govern you; but if you intend to silence me from stating my beliefs because it might intrude on your personal space, then all I can do is ask why are you talking to me?
There are ways to talk about the inner voice without conveying the notion that this voice has some relevance to what others ought to do. Imagine trusting God to guide others as he guides you.

Imagine that God's guidance is gentle and subtle, like a radio station you can hardly hear. A charismatic, dominant personality claiming to hear God's voice can seem louder than the still, small voice within. And so people listen to the other human being rather than the Holy Spirit. Thus they become spiritual slaves to another human being.

199. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160254 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Because it explains my comment to PBUM that you questioned.
Your "one day you will see" statement means, effectively, "my inner voice of God is better than your inner voice of God."

You likely will say I'm reading things into your words. I would say that you haven't thought through all the implications of your position.

200. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160245 by Dr Benway on April 13, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I am saying that I believe the day will come when there is no denying that God is real, and that there will be plenty of scientific evidence to back it up, in the form of His presence before you.
Why speak of this?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next