2001. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50393 by Dr Benway on June 17, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Ok, I see we're circling. New approach to make my point:

Objective statements are always in the indicative voice. Ethical statements are always in the imperative voice.

Some ethical statements seem to be indicatives, e.g., "torture is wrong." But there's a hidden imperative built into the meaning of the word "wrong." "Wrong" means, "one ought not do."

2002. A battler beyond belief: Review of 'God is Not Great'

Comment #50372 by Dr Benway on June 17, 2007 at 10:33 am

I'd prefer to distinguish state suppression of religion, which I consider a bad thing, from secularism, which I consider a good thing. I'd call the former, "anti-religious."

As a peddler of secularism, I've a more difficult time selling my product when it's presented as, "what they had in the USSR, where they could throw you in jail for talking about Jesus without a license from the state."

Do other people feel the distinction is moot?

Secularism in America is a dirty word in many circles, along with "liberal." Be happy if such is not the case in your country.

2003. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50358 by Dr Benway on June 17, 2007 at 7:08 am

steve99:

No. I really think you are confusing meanings here, and have a problem with what 'objective' means.

I agree. From Wikipedia:

Objectivity in science is the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them.

If I say the water's warm enough for a swim, that's a subjective statement. You might jump into the ocean and scream, "Jesus, it's cold!" But if I say the water is 62 degrees Farenheit, that's an objective statement. Anyone can check the temperature with a properly calibrated thermometer.

This is sufficient for progress. No one is required to take a stand regarding whether we're really swimming in the ocean, or we're really just brains in vats. Until someone proposes a test to rule out the brain-in-a-vat idea, it can sit there on the table as a possiblity.

You seem to be saying that if one adopts your worldview, one will experience the true nature of reality. The believer will realize that he or she is indeed a brain-in-a-vat, with God the mad scientist in control of all experiences.

Okey dokey then...

Afterthought: Dianelos, what's the diff between these two statements:
1. Torture is wrong.
2. Torture is objectively wrong.

2004. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50321 by Dr Benway on June 16, 2007 at 6:39 pm

SharrieG,

Yes, there are atheists who say they want to get rid of religion. But atheism, or lack of belief in God, isn't sufficient for collective effort. Groups form around positives, not negatives.

Love of science, a belief that secularism will insure peace in a pluralistic society, or a desire to find friends with similar experiences - those are the positives that can sustain a group. The few atheist groups out there give expression to things like this, important to some people. But most atheists don't think much about what they don't believe (a bit like thinking about what you didn't have for breakfast) and so they're not going to join any group.

What I'm saying is, although some atheists have an axe to grind, atheism alone isn't going to fuel political action against religion.

I've heard Hitchens and Dawkins specifically say they're not in favor of taking action against religion, but I've heard others who feel that's what's implied in their books. How can you call a belief in God delusional without implying you want that belief to go away? How can you say that religion poisons everything, without implying we ought to be rid of it?

Here's what I think: humans will always struggle to express their response to existence, but will never find the words to do it. Words like "God", "soul", "creation", "sacred", "transcendent" are inadequate, but are here to stay because they almost point to something we can't point to. Religion isn't going anywhere.

Faith in the sense of "I know this for a fact" has got to go, however. It's just wrong.

Addendum: If ever atheism becomes politically preferred, I plan to pretend belief in something, just to be difficult. I'm pro-secularism far more strongly than I'm pro-atheism.

2005. A battler beyond belief: Review of 'God is Not Great'

Comment #50320 by Dr Benway on June 16, 2007 at 6:10 pm

arildno:

Theirs (Stalin/Mao) was a SECULAR faith system, but a faith system nonetheless.

If I may nitpick:

The Religious Right uses "secular" to mean state suppression of religion, which is pejorative. Secularism is simply the legal separation of church and state. The US is secular by this definition. Both China and the USSR controlled and suppressed organized religion, and so neither can be described as secular, by the ordinary meaning of the term.

You may be over-consuming talk radio or Fox TV.

2006. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50318 by Dr Benway on June 16, 2007 at 5:42 pm

When a tourist I say "aren't the titles quaint and fun!"

But as a yank I say... "Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!"

I read about the IBM guy who set up a Lotus system for the Labour Party for "next to nothing," then was knighted. He later retired from IBM to work for the Carlisle Group.

Tony Blair is retiring to work for ... the Carlisle Group! Amazing coincidence, no?

Power corrupts, m'Lords.

2007. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50317 by Dr Benway on June 16, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Re #702: Dianelos, I think you and J are using the word "naturalism" or "naturalistically" in slightly different ways. Best to agree on a definition before going further.

From Wikipedia:

1. Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses

2. Methodological naturalism is the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural,

3. Metaphysical naturalism, a view whereby the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity.

When someone talks about supernatural experiences, that implies a supernatural realm interacting with the natural realm, as our experiences are part of nature. The distiction becomes moot, then.

If the supernatural realm doesn't interact with the natural realm, then we can't know about it. Moot again.

So I don't see the point in talking about the "supernatural" realm.

2008. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50294 by Dr Benway on June 16, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Dianelos:

...as many people believe that morality is objective that represents a problem for naturalism

There's no such thing as objective morality. Morality has to do with happiness, suffering, and survival. It might be possible to measure survival objectively, but not the other stuff.

If you disagree with me, here's how to prove me wrong: name one ethical imperative that doesn't have something to do with happiness, suffering, or survival.

2009. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50215 by Dr Benway on June 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm

steve99:

The argument can't be won, because it was never a serious argument in the first place; just an emotional appeal for reassurance.

It's ok to need reassurance, isn't it?

He said our worldview wasn't very good because it couldn't answer some tricky questions and it lacked ethical rules that wouldn't ever break or need fixing. He offered to set us up with WorldViewGod® from Ideal, Inc. He promised it would make our lives better. Whiter teeth, fresher breath, no unseemly underarm stains, I think, although I confess I drifted off in a few places.

It was a bit of fun. But now I'm off for a pint. I'm trying something new: McEwan's Scotch Ale. Prolly could serve it on pancakes, it's so sweet.

2010. In the know

Comment #50181 by Dr Benway on June 15, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Yet another wanker defending belief without evidence. How is questioning faith "selling certainty"?

2011. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50177 by Dr Benway on June 15, 2007 at 2:06 pm

SharrieG:

If there's one good thing that The God Delusion has done, it is that it has shaken up the church a bit and made the less vocal people sit up and say 'is that really how people see us?'

Tell the folks in your church the atheists recognize the difference between the fundies and the moderates. You guys are much cooler. I would be happy to invite you over for tea.

Nonetheless, I must criticize you lot for this: you speak of faith as you speak of puppies, butterflies, newborn babies, and warm summer days. Sure, it all seems like fun and games... until someone loses an eye.

The world needs you moderates to set clear limits upon faith, or belief without evidence. It's not difficult. You can keep your Sunday services, lovely buildings, music, and stained glass. You can use the word faith to mean optimism. You only have to lose the notion that people are justified in believing any nonsense they want by "faith."

Speak of a faith in God's goodness, or life's goodness, or the notion that things will work out for the best. But denounce over-confident, over-literal statements about the mind of God as hubris. Say, "faith must not outrage reason" or "we see through a glass darkly" or "any belief without evidence must be tentative and subject to doubt."

I have no problem with speaking of "a faith" to refer to a group of like-minded worshippers. I'm fine with using faith to mean keeping a positive outlook, as when a religious person might tell a sick friend to "keep faith in God." I'm specifically opposed to faith in the narrow sense of "belief without evidence," particularly when that belief translates into political actions that hurt people.

Please have a talk with your moderate friends and ask them to stop bashing the atheists. Explain that we, like you, simply don't want the nutters to bother us.

2012. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50172 by Dr Benway on June 15, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Dianelos:

...I agree but would only like to suggest that it is more precise to say that scientific theories are used to predict what will happen in our experience of the world.

Why is this more precise? Is there some alternative? Might scientific theories be used to predict what will happen in our non-experience of the world?

I think your argument involving notions of "worldview" and "consciousness" suffers from an excess of word games and misdirection. That's why you need so many paragraphs to make your points.

I think your argument boils down to this: You see a gap for God in subjectivity. I see it too. I prefer to call it "personal conscience" rather that God.

2013. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50170 by Dr Benway on June 15, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Dianelos:

...theism and naturalism are both worldviews about reality, or ontological theories if you prefer.

This theism vs naturalism thing bugs me. Reminds me of the "alternative" vs "traditional" medicine split. There is no alternative medicine. There are proven therapies and unproven therapies. Once an unproven therapy proves itself, it becomes part of medicine.

Likewise, there is no "supernatural realm." There are claims about reality supported or unsupported by evidence. Saying God is supernatural means only that we've no evidence for God. Give us evidence, and God goes on our "naturalistic" map of reality.

There may be a God. It's possible this God provides some sort of subjective evidence meaningful to certain persons. But it's also possible that people who claim to have these experiences are wrong.

If it could be demonstrated that believers were different from nonbelievers in measurable ways, that would be interesting and might be soft evidence of God. But believers exhibit the same strengths and weaknesses as nonbelievers. Moreover, we see dire problems with authoritarianism in the world's organized religions. Well armed and sneaky authoritarianism coming to get us...

2014. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50131 by Dr Benway on June 15, 2007 at 7:29 am

Dianelos:

And incidentally, you haven't clarified what your position is: Do you think that gratuitous torture is wrong because of personal opinion and convention, or because it is objectively wrong?)

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

2015. The Great Mutator

Comment #50065 by Dr Benway on June 14, 2007 at 7:49 pm

denoir:

I must say that I'm a bit puzzled about the whole intelligent design movement. What exactly is it that they are trying to do?

It's largely a shibboleth, a means of declaring one's political loyalties.

Look here for proof: Link

2016. The Great Mutator

Comment #50057 by Dr Benway on June 14, 2007 at 7:30 pm

room101:

How about this: Jerry Coyne - the 5th musketeer.

I realize I'm going to get slammed for this. But I would propose Al Gore as the number five. He's a God botherer, but not a me-botherer. That makes him a rock in my book, for I'm far more invested in secularism than I am in atheism (if ever I were to find myself under an atheist ruler, I likely would proclaim myself a believer, just to be difficult).

Al Gore is on our team. Please, everyone read The Assault on Reason. Your response to this chilling indictment of the present powers that be, and their subversion of the democratic process and rational debate is required.

Dear Mr. Hitchens: You supported the invasion of Iraq, and I understand your noble motives. I adore you. Please don't break my heart with any form of slander against the man. Tell me, honestly, what you think of the evidence and arguments made in this book.

2017. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50034 by Dr Benway on June 14, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Maybe this is marketing. Hardcore positions are presently in fashion and everyone seems to want a piece of macho, rightist, Big Bro pie.

I say marketing, because I doubt Amnesty International relies much on the Church for support. If in the coming weeks the Church proscribes Catholics from donating to Greenpeace or the International Gay and Lesbian Association, I'll know I'm right.

2018. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50026 by Dr Benway on June 14, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Dianelos:

So, even if I am wrong on this particular (namely, that no normal human being can really doubt the objective wrongness of gratuitous torture) it does not all affect my basic argument which is that I am justified to believe that a theistic worldview is much more reasonable than a naturalistic one.

If by objective you mean endorsed by most people, you're likely correct with respect to torture, although I wouldn't bet the house on that. However it's my impression that by objective, you mean something true for all times and places. You mean something beyond argument.

In this, my nose catches the scent of an Orwellian rat.

I stand by my claim that the human condition is such that we can't doubt the objective truth of some ethical precepts, such as that to gratuitously torture children is wrong. It's an intuition alright, but such a clear intuition that it's reasonable to expect worldviews to conform to it, and not vice-versa.

Any right you reserve for yourself you must allow everyone else. If you're entitled to assert ethical rules beyond question, on the basis of strong, personal intuition, you must allow others to do the same. Think about that for a few minutes. For a start, imagine the piles of dead homosexuals that such a world would produce.

2019. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49878 by Dr Benway on June 14, 2007 at 2:14 am

Dianelos:

"Gratuitously" is then a critical concept and should be explicitly mentioned. For example nobody would characterize as unethical (or indeed as torture) a situation where a surgeon has no alternative but to operate a child without anesthesia.

"Christopher Hitchens supplied the evening's most popular answer, to judge by audience applause, when he stated his view that the title of the war was of secondary importance. What matters most, Hitchens said, is that the war should be prosecuted with conviction and determination. 'We must be prepared to do this without apology and without masochism, and not necessarily completely without relish because it's sort of a pleasure as well as a duty to kill these people,' he said. "

from Link

Dianelos:

to gratuitously torture children is wrong. It's an intuition alright, but such a clear intuition that it's reasonable to expect worldviews to conform to it, and not vice-versa.

Clear to you with your naive powers of imagination. Have a look at the Abu Ghraib photos; see the sincere smiles on the soldiers' faces. Or perhaps take a look at the honor killing video on this site, of a girl stoned to death by her friends and family for dating the wrong boy.

2020. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49864 by Dr Benway on June 14, 2007 at 12:54 am

Dianelos:

...it's intuitively obvious for me that to torture children is objectively wrong ...Actually knowing how it is to be a human being I have trouble imagining another human who would disagree.

I had a conversation with Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, the Army's surgeon general until recently, about torture. He argued in favor of coercive interrogation techniques.

You realize that some of the people brought to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, etc., were picked up at 15, 16 years of age.

2021. The Great Mutator

Comment #49746 by Dr Benway on June 13, 2007 at 8:02 am

Veronique:

...I thought I read somewhere that some Africans have been shown to have a resistance to AIDS/HIV.

Watch this: Link

Steve Jones gives a brilliant presentation. HIV mutation over time is an obvious example of evolution in action.

Africa's present tragedy will one day be its triumph. In a few generations, Africans will have an enormous advantage over others, due to natural HIV resistance.

2022. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49738 by Dr Benway on June 13, 2007 at 7:40 am

Benjamin Michael:

My conclusion: I don't think Danielos has really thought this issue through fully.

He's a lad in his early 20s I would guess. At least, that was my thought when I read this amusing bit of instruction in #140:

As for how one is to know something, this is the subject matter of a major philosophical field called "epistemology".

A smart man merely lacking in a few trips around the block. I've high hopes for him.

2023. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49730 by Dr Benway on June 13, 2007 at 7:17 am

Dianelos

Similarly, if you could argue that theism is wrong then Cristianity would be wrong by implication of that.

Not necessarily. You read my post #495 because you responded to it in #547. But you missed my point.

But not vice-versa.

Duh.

You suffer from excessively categorical thinking. You imagine categories nested within more abstract categories like Russian dolls. Your highest level category is "worldview", a term you use repeatedly. Beneath that, you have "theism" and "atheism." Under "theism", you have "Christianity", "Islam", etc. You imagine a rule regarding the more abstract category will apply to all particulars.

However, it's often the case that we only have experience with a few members of a particular set. Example: A person meets several Scottsmen and notes they all seem frugal. He will associate frugality with being Scottish. But he will hold that view tentatively, as he hasn't met all Scottsmen.

You're working hard to keep the debate at the level of "theism." From my point of view, that's not an interesting level. It's trivial. Many atheists, including Dawkins and myself, will grant you that theism is no more reasonable, ultimately, than atheism. Dawkins argues that probability favors atheism, but reasonable people will allow that improbable doesn't mean impossible.

So I grant you your theism. You don't need to defend it.

This "worldview" thing is tiresome. We're angels dancing on the head of a pin out here at this high a level of abstraction.

You don't need a grand unified theory of everything in order to boil an egg and make your breakfast. You don't need a map of the universe to find your house on a map of your neighborhood.

2024. PBS Revelation: Network's 'Wall Of Separation' Has Religious Right Genesis

Comment #49721 by Dr Benway on June 13, 2007 at 6:40 am

I've respected PBS for it's variety of sources and calm debate. If it becomes just another pawn of corporate and government propagandists, what's left?

I've just started Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason. He illustrates how mass media subverts rational thought by repeatedly associating ideas together without argument. Thus we have a majority of Americans who believe Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11. Most people don't think deeply enough about the link to develop a rationalization for it; they just feel the link is there.

He gives an example from a state-level campaign against a popular rival. His PR people studied poll results and recommended he put out an ad expressing certain ideas. They predicted his rival would respond with an ad saying certain things, and they told him if he bought so many minutes of air time for a rebuttal ad he would jump ahead 8.5 points in the polls. Amazingly, everything happened exactly as predicted.

Once associations are made on an emotional level, particularly if there's some anxiety involved, reason takes a back seat. We're all vulnerable to such manipulations. Smart people can invent reasons to justify their gut feelings, and so can fool themselves into believing they're above the groupthink. We have to be mindful of this.

It's quite chilling to realize that votes today are bought and sold. The US Senate floor has a lot of empty seats now. Fundraising to support 30 second ads does more for a senator's cause than reasoned debate among colleagues.

2025. PBS Revelation: Network's 'Wall Of Separation' Has Religious Right Genesis

Comment #49655 by Dr Benway on June 12, 2007 at 7:07 pm

This is the most depressing thing I've read in months.

How difficult is it to immigrate to Iceland?

2026. Baptists Warned About Islam, Atheism

Comment #49651 by Dr Benway on June 12, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Christianity is bad. Islam is worse. But Muslims aren't going to buy that comparison.

We have to target faith, or belief without evidence, to stand against Islam intellectually.

2027. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49497 by Dr Benway on June 12, 2007 at 6:25 am

From your link, Roy_H:

Hilton told Walters. "My spirit or soul did not like the way I was being seen and that is why I was sent to jail.

Don't listen to your silly, superficial soul, Paris. Go read a book.

2028. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49493 by Dr Benway on June 12, 2007 at 5:46 am

MIND_REBEL:

Al Gore is a creationist

As Dawkins makes a distinction between the Einsteinian God and the God of scripture, so we ought to distinguish poetic creationism from literal creationism.

How to tell the difference: Poetic creationism is vague. No details given regarding when, how, etc. Atheists look stupid when they knee-jerk react to poetic creationism as if it were Biblical creationism.

2029. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49485 by Dr Benway on June 12, 2007 at 4:53 am

Dianelos:

On the other hand we can safely assume that we all share the same experimental environment (including the subjective bits of how it is to see red, how it is to perceive beauty, etc), so there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to study it together. Only I think we shouldn't call such study "scientific", because to do so would be confusing.

I know several psychologists, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists who would disagree with you. For example, Sam Harris says that as people can become aware of their optic blindspot, they can learn to become aware of the oneness experience. Because human brains are more alike than different, these things can be repeated and studied using ordinary scientific reasoning.

Because human brains aren't exactly the same and because lives aren't the same, I like to leave a little room for unique information only one person may have access to. This of course can't be studied scientifically.

Individual uniqueness provides a gap for God you can always count on. But only an apolitical God, one unable to impose himself on anyone other than the individual. A believer in this God is either a secularist or an asshole.

Afterthought: A personal God implies secularism. When something personal is imposed on another unwillingly, that's a violence against the other's personhood. We ought to point this out to those who brag of a "personal relationship with Christ." Too many of them want their personal Jesus in the public square.

Although I'm an atheist, I feel it would be improper for me to advocate for social policies favoring atheism over theism. That feels like a violence against the personhood of others also. I want everyone to have the elbowroom to sort these interesting and complicated issues out in their own way, in their own time.

Ironically, the gap I spoke of above which allows for a personal God vanishes in a theocracy.

2030. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49352 by Dr Benway on June 11, 2007 at 3:26 pm

chezzyd:

...biological 'norms' that men are stronger and therefore must be dominant/superior and can enforce such a position through violence and that this is echoed in societies throughout time - including today. I sometimes wonder if, as human animals, we will ever be able to escape this.

Dunno. In many animals, competitive violence is largely symbolic. Male strength is like the peacock's tail: more pretty than necessary. The difference between the sexes isn't so much due to Brutus' ability to overpower females. It's the females who are selecting strong male mates.

Vive la difference, non?

Brutus is easily murdered in his sleep, by the way.

2031. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49277 by Dr Benway on June 11, 2007 at 9:59 am

steve99

Theism is holding back your journey of discovery.

Agreed. In another thread, sgr79 shared this story:

In early spring I once mentioned to my boyfriend's mother (his father is a Baptist preacher) that a nice little bird was singing outside my window, and her answer was that it was Jesus saying hello to me...

Naturalism is criticized for being "reductionist." But this Baptist world view takes the cake on that score. All reduces to Jesus.

This little bird could teach us a thousand fascinating things. It has an expressive, emotional language we only understand in part. It likely travels hundreds or thousands of miles each year. It forms enduring bonds with others of its kind. It stands in relation to a network of other animals. It has a unique history. But all this hardly matters. For it's "purpose" is to serve as a prop in large, Christian opera. We're to feel happy the prop is here to cue Jesus backstage to make a friendly chirp for our benefit.

2032. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49257 by Dr Benway on June 11, 2007 at 7:32 am

chezzyd:

Is biology really destiny?

LOL. Mother nature plays her tricks upon us. Think of the poor bastards imprinted with a foot/shoe fetish. Many must say to themselves, "this is ridiculous." Nonetheless, a shiny pump on a well-formed foot... hot damn!

Mother nature plays her tricks, but we can play a few back. It's possible for a man and woman to live as equals, but to play games of dominance and submission when the mood strikes.

Problems arise when people believe the world at large ought to conform to their personal masturbation fantasies. We get comic book men and comic book women, and we have to pretend this is more real, somehow, than the way things actually are.

2033. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49251 by Dr Benway on June 11, 2007 at 6:50 am

Dianelos (to USA_Limey):

Sure, as long as you live as a good Muslim :-)

From the Quran:
Sura (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"

Sura (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

Sura (108:3) "For he who insults you (Muhammad) will be cut off."

From the Hadith:
Bukhari (59:369) - This recounts the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote verses about Muslims that Muhammad found insulting. He asked his followers, 'Who will rid me of this man?' and several volunteered. al-Ashraf was stabbed to death while fighting for his life.

Dianelos, I said something many Muslims would view as an insult to Allah and Muhammad. There's no pope or priesthood in Islam. Every Muslim has the authority to carry out Allah's justice. Should USA_Limey be a "good Muslim" and bump me off?

This isn't a joke to me. Good, sincere people are dying, or live under threat of death, because other good, sincere people believe God wants them to punish non-believers.

I can't watch The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, because I can't bear the faces of American soldiers killed in Iraq shown at the end of the program. Children now dead for my sake.

I want moderate religionists to depreciate faith as a basis for political action. Can you do that, Dianelos?

2034. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49243 by Dr Benway on June 11, 2007 at 6:09 am

Dianelos:

faith makes Dianelos and many others feel warm and fuzzy

I suppose you refer to the idea that the predominance of religious beliefs can be explained as wishful thinking.

No, that would be missing my point entirely. Let me remind you of the full quote, which I would not have made aloud in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Sexiest Titmouse Ever:

There's an awful lot of hard work going on here. Is faith really worth the effort? Sure, faith makes Dianelos and many others feel warm and fuzzy. But it also justifies the worst stupidity and cruelty. Allah this; Muhammad the effin' that. Bah.

Let's get to the point: What are the political implications of your supernaturalist world view?

2035. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49240 by Dr Benway on June 11, 2007 at 5:55 am

Dianelos:

I presume you think that the objective existence of the moon is science. How do you suggest we test this belief?

Imagine the set of observations about the world we would expect if the moon exists, and if it doesn't. Select an observaton from the "moon exists" set that isn't also in the "moon doesn't exist" set. Describe the methods you plan to use to make your observation, so others can repeat your work. Observe. Serve your results piping hot, glazed with savory creme sauce and a fine Merlot.

Science is delicious.

In other words, how do we test that the moon would exist even if nobody were around to observe it?

*Scratches head* You asked how science can establish the moon's existence. Then you say this must be done without observation. Can't have it both ways, mate.

2036. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49161 by Dr Benway on June 10, 2007 at 6:07 pm

BDSM. Yawn.

When you're able to distinguish fantasy from reality, you stay in touch with reality most of the time, but you enjoy your playtime. When you confuse reality and imagination, you waste a lot of time trying to make reality conform to your favorite fantasies.

I feel sorry for the poor sod with the new baby. He's clearly doomed.

2037. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49108 by Dr Benway on June 10, 2007 at 11:04 am

Dianelos, your distinction between natural and supernatural isn't satisfying. If the supernatural realm is orderly and comprehensible, we ought to study it. What we learn about it can then be added to our body of scientific knowledge.

Jerry Fodor put it, "Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious."

Nonsense. We know a lot about brain functions involved in consciousness, but we don't know everything.

2038. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49088 by Dr Benway on June 10, 2007 at 9:04 am

Dianelos:

My point here is that one arrives to Christianity via theism and not vice-versa...

That seems logical. Christianity is a particular example of theism. If one rejects an abstract idea, any particular example of that idea ought to go as well.

But I don't think people actually work things out like this. We're always reasoning from incomplete understanding. We rarely see all members of a set and so we hold generalizations about the set tentatively. Analogy: a man concludes he doesn't like cats because they have claws and tear up furniture. Then he meets a kitten that gazes adoringly into his eyes, and his original prejudice, at least for the one case, vanishes.

Holding Occam's razor, I might reject theism in principle as an explanation for why the universe exists. However, one day someone may propose a notion of God that's appealing for reasons I've yet to imagine, so compelling that my original objection hardly matters.

Particulars frequently trump abstractions. Think of Zeno's paradoxes. I remember years ago reading the argument explaining how Achilles can't win a race with a tortoise. The abstract argument seemed sound, but from living experience I knew it must be wrong.

I boil your position down thusly: you're saying, essentially, that solipsism can't be falsified. A person has no rational reason to prefer naturalism over solipsism. Here we agree, although I must admit I'm drifting off to sleep. My powers of attention fade fast in abstractoland.

Added: I'm happy that your worldview provides you with some solice. Life has moments when it's nearly unbearable. Sources of consolation aren't trivial. Do people remember seeing that Iraqi boy on the news at the start of the war, the one who lost his family and all his limbs from a bomb blast? Don't think the memory of his tearful, frightened face will ever leave me.

2039. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #48971 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 7:10 pm

This poll shows that at least 25% of Americans find phone calls interrupting their dinner with a bunch of stupid questions annoying as hell.

2040. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48962 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 6:16 pm

phil rimmer :

It is hugely important to get people to see that Atheism, for whatever else others are calling it, is , in actuality, the ONLY possible basis for public life.

I think you mean secularism, or the belief that matters of faith ought to be kept out of politics.

You'll agree with me that faith is a terrible justification for killing or oppressing people. I'd like to see less faith in the news. But the word isn't going away. We need a term for matters of personal conscience that can't be subject to scientific scrutiny, and "faith" is likely to be that word.

We can't eliminate faith anymore than we can eliminate subjectivity. We can set limits upon it, however, with secularism.

Atheism (if we agree on the "no belief in god(s) definition) is no guarantee of civility. All mass murderers, kid diddlers, and morons are atheists with respect to the n+1 Gods under my bed. Don't know their stand on secularism, unfortunately.

2041. We of little faith

Comment #48958 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Déjà Fu:

I'd be curious to read your proof that myth actually *does* have any useful
current role.

I couldn't do without the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

2042. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48916 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Bonzai:

This is surreal. She doesn't like HP because what another fiction says about magic.

Supersurreal, as magic is a load of poo.

2043. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48913 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Enlightenme:

Torture of children of the out-group is theoretically logical.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

2044. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48879 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 10:11 am

Very naughty queer Catholic SWM slaveboy seeks powerful Master for LTR. Slaveboy suffers because he's a worm of a man into public self-abasement. Master's firm discipline needed to apply brakes to slaveboy's monstrous excesses.

2045. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48855 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 7:51 am

teapot:

I believe there is no god. What am I?

This came up in the McGrath thread. I think you're an atheist. I like the definition "lacking belief in god(s)," which you fit.

Sometimes people want to divide atheists into those who don't believe by default, and those who've examined theistic propositions and found them wanting. I'd use the term "naive atheist" for the former, if context makes the distinction necessary.

Theists often argue that atheism is an active belief. Thus they don't want the term "atheism" to include default non-believers. But the burden of proof rests upon the theist. The default position must be atheism.

As a negative, atheism logically can't champion social causes. It can't serve as a philosophy of life or politics. Secularism fits the bill, although secularism doesn't require or promote atheism per se. Many atheists wish others were atheists and find mere secularism uninspiring.

Organizationally, we're in a bit of a pickle. I think that's why this web site has been busy. People are trying to figure out how to translate our many shared values into something with political impact.

2046. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48825 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 6:27 am

Jihadism is provoking atheists to speak out against faith. Most, including myself, do this reluctantly. I'd rather spend my time birdwatching, frankly. But enough is enough. We've got to disarm these people who believe God wants them to bully non-believers.

Moderate Christians like McGrath could help us out. There are a lot more of them than us. It would have a huge impact if the moderates would add their voices to ours. I wish they'd stand beside us as we reasonably point out that faith is a loaded gun. If only they'd face the fundamentalists, hand outstretched, pleading, "let go of that gun before more people get hurt."

Instead I hear the moderates bawling, "Waaah! Don't take my binky! Don't take my binky! Waaah!"

2047. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48811 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 5:42 am

the great teapot:

If conciousness is supernatural why does it follow my body around like a stalker?

LOL. That's worthy of a signature line.

There's an awful lot of hard work going on here. Is faith really worth the effort? Sure, faith makes Dianelos and many others feel warm and fuzzy. But it also justifies the worst stupidity and cruelty. Allah this; Muhammad the effin' that. Bah.

And for that little remark, now USA_Limey's duty bound to chop off my blasphemous head. If epeeist ever converts, I'm truly in deep shit.

2048. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #48731 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Falwell's law: parody fundamentalism and someone will believe it's not a parody.

2049. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48730 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Stepford wife:

If I have a father or a husband, why do I need to vote?

Because sadists exist and power corrupts. You must retain and excercise your power, as must everyone else. When people abdicate their power, over time power becomes more centralized and more oppressive.

Sadists stand accused for hurting people. Masochists stand accused for feeding the sadists.

2050. Chimps Spread the News

Comment #48728 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Modelling is often overlooked as a means of communicating or teaching, but it's powerful.

How to spread doubt rather than faith? More living examples of non-believers behaving ethically and rationally.