201. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64559 by Riley on August 20, 2007 at 5:21 pm

If you care to move beyond the Christopher Hitchens atheist community inbred representation of the "believer" argument on morality in favor of being properly informed on the issue, read the following Christian position statement: "What Basis, Morality?" from "Answers In Genesis".

The Christian argument is necessarily focused on God (not the Bible) and credits God with providing all humanity (both believers and non-believers) with an objective sense of right and wrong along with the ability to choose equally among right and wrong actions. This is essential dogma. It is an absolutely necessary principle because it provides the rationalized moral basis for God to send some people to Hell and others to Heaven (i.e. people must be both aware of right and wrong and possess free will to choose between the two). The argument from Hitchens which requires believers to be able to perform acts non-believers can not is not only an argument not made by Judeo-Chrisitan-Muslim believers, but to make it would be heresy.

Yes this scenario posited by "believers" is shotty, it's not even internally sound, but that's their argument. Given that their argument is so shotty, why would anyone feel the need to resort to creating a straw man argument to attack the theistic position? There is a veritable banquet of absurdity for Hitchens to choose from!

202. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64550 by Riley on August 20, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Tanglewood,

The Hitchens challenge specifies an act that: " could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever".

If it's true that no one has ever relied on that argument (your argument number one) to support a claim, then this is a straw man argument and as such is worthless. There is no point in going any further with it.

But even if it were an argument made by theists, the best the Hitchens "masterful rebuttal" could hope to accomplish is confront that portion of the argument (that straw man argument) specifically; it does not challenge the underlying claim itself as you and others erroneously think it does. The underlying claim is supportable by a much lower standard, such as for example, more frequent good works.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never hesitate to respond harshly and swiftly to condemn theists who misrepresent atheist arguments, and the theists who do so knowingly deserve our justifiable contempt. It would be hypocritical of me and anyone else who feels the same not to similarly condemn Hitchens for his misrepresentations, question his credibility, and question his integrity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.

203. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64479 by Riley on August 20, 2007 at 7:45 am

hungarianelephant, your post is a perfect example of issue framing.

You recognize that most people value directness and generally shun indirectness, and so you have tried to frame this issue around the merits of being direct instead of the merits of issue framing itself. In other words, instead of trying to change someone's attitude about issue framing, you have attempted associate "issue framing" with Clinton and indirectness - things you believe people already have negative attitudes toward.

Issue framing can be either direct or indirect. Hitchens in this case has framed the issue around "good works" -- and he's done so in a very aggressive and attacking manner. Also, he may have done this intentionally or unintentionally, either way the framing effect is there.

204. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64339 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Notice that he has renounced that claim and removed it from future editions of the book.

Yes. The least a person could do is stop actively spreading misinformation on a massive scale. He did the least, and that's good. Now, as part of doing the least, it would be nice to see him take steps to limit future distribution of misinformation in his other publications. The guy has a historic and chronic problem with getting his facts right. Which ironically is what makes him so well suited to the religion debate in general -- there are so few relevant facts and everybody's an expert.

mikethebike wrote:
"Seems like a good argument to me. Simple, even. The religious claim that morality comes from the Bible. It doesn't. Perhaps you could explain why you think it's a bad argument and exactly how this would lead to 'luring the whole debate toward irrelevance.' Really, I would like to know."

First - the Hitchens challenge: "name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever"

Let's start by identifying the straw man Hitchens has created:
I've never heard a person of faith argue that believers perform good works that non-believers do not or cannot also perform. So to start off, it's a bad argument because it does not properly represent the other side. It would be helpful if we had a reference to someone who actually made this argument but Hitchens doesn't provide one. Hitchens apparently tasked several people directly with his challenge; do we have any evidence (quotes) of any one of his targets ever making such claims? I could be wrong, someone help me out.

Second: Even if Hitchens is not propping-up a phoney argument here (as I think he probably is, and doesn't it just piss you off when the "religious types" do that sort of thing?), such an argument is not even possible to resolve. At best I think such a debate is doomed (for good reason) to be mired in controversy over what is and is not considered moral behavior.

Third: The Hitchens challenge focuses squarely on posing the question: "Do believers behave better, or about the same?" A basically unresolvable question, but even if it could be resolved would not prove or disprove "God" as the source of all human morality (which is indeed the leading claim of theists) -- maybe you could make the argument for how answers to the question posed by Hitchens could prove or disprove this, but I can't see it - help me out. Just to be clear since there are a lot of theories being thrown around about what Hitchens really means, I want to specify that it's the debate over "who if anyone behaves better" that I believe to be pointless and irrelevant. Richard Dawkins has made similar comments to this effect as well. As I commented before, I think engaging this line of argument leads the debate to be framed around the topic of "good works" and "who does more of them" and "which works are the most worthy of praise", etc ... when the issue is better framed around winnable topics such as the credibility of the Bible.

.

205. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64286 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 11:50 am

NJS,

First Point: I agree that it would be another bad argument to say: "atheists are cold/dead inside/immoral". It's also an empty and bigoted claim. My point is that the challenge posed by Hitchens does nothing to counter that presumed argument - he just responds with another equally bad argument (implied by the challenge). Worse, provocation of his challenge contributes to framing the debate generally around this fundamentally irrelevant topic. A serious problem that's far worse than simply making a bad argument.

Also, I'm curious, how frequently do you hear the claim being made that "only theists do good works"? And can you name anyone specifically? I'm accustomed to hearing Christians argue just the opposite. A leading argument for the existence of God in fact relies on both believers and non-believers possessing an innate sense of morality (see: Moral Arguments for the Existence of God. )

Second Point: What argument did you think I made? I simply cite a study which indicates that church-goers on average give 10% more to secular charities than non-church-goers. My main point is that this is a perfectly valid response to his challenge. My second point is that even if such facts did not exist, this entire line of argument in general is flawed and pointless because it's unresolveable. The fact that Hitchens makes this prodding challenge when such a strong retort to it exists, makes his challenge even more tragic. But no doubt he'll earn many television appearances as a result - good for him; bad for anyone who cares about promoting reason.

Third Point: Accusations of church-goer "ulterior motives" is speculative at best, and bigotry mongering at worst. I hope for your sake it hasn't progressed to the latter.

206. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64276 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 8:52 am

Hitchens wrote on p.54 of "God is Not Great":
"Orthodox Jews conduct congress by means of a hole in the sheet"

What would compel Hitchens to write something like this to begin with?
To whom does he credit the source of such information?


How shallow is the level of critical thinking from Hitchens that such a conspicuously urban-myth sounding "fact" could rise-up to a level of credibility worthy of putting into print? In a book no less, which one would normally assume received his highest level of care and reflection.

...very typical Hitchens: sloppy, unreliable, and lazy - but loveable just the same.

-------------------------------------
edit: corrected Hitchens quote from "Congress" to "congress".

207. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64275 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 8:25 am

Hitchens wrote:
"Again I notice two things: the religious types are unused to debate and are surprised at how many people are impatient with them, or even scornful."

Is he joking?


Far from being "unused to debate" it's one of the activities that the fully engaged 'religious types' are most used to doing! The chief claim to fame of Jerry Falwell's Liberty 'University' is it's debate team! According to one rating system (albeit flawed), it's the number one debate team in the U.S. !

Likewise, enduring scorn for Jesus is first tier Christian dogma! It's even formalized as a rite-of-passage ritual for many Christian sects. What self-respecting fundamentalist hasn't conspicuously boasted about being attacked for defending Jesus?

Sometimes listening to a Hitchens rant feels like listening to a John Belushi rant: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

... never mind that his characterizations of the facts are patently wrong (as usual), don't stop him, he is on a roll.

208. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64273 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 8:19 am

Hitchens wrote:
"My challenge: name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever. I have since asked this question at every stop and haven't had a reply yet."



Why does he think this is a good argument?

It's not. Worse, he's actively goading a counter argument to his bad argument, luring the whole debate toward irrelevance. Worse still in this case, a powerful retort to his challenge exists. A recent study indicates that regular church goers are more charitable than non-church goers. Some "redneck" (to use Hitchens terminology) is going to cite that study and think they have won a great victory, and they'll be right. Thanks to Hitchens. His flailing rants are music to the ears of the choir, but they are ultimately counter-persuasive and they profoundly confuse good arguments with bad --- and isn't such confusion at the heart of the "faith" problem to begin with?

People are unlikely to change their attitudes (see sociology studies on attitudes and cognitive dissonance). Because of this the winning strategy in political debate is counter-intuitive; it does not involve direct attempts to change opinions (e.g. attitudes), but rather it attempts to enlist specific support by controlling how political debates (religious debates included) get framed. The rational side of this debate will suffer immensely due to the way such a prominent figure as Hitchens has decided to frame this debate; specifically in this case around the misguided topic of "good works".

.

209. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64054 by Riley on August 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm

I don't expect anyone to present "all the facts" ---
What I expect is that the facts be honestly represented.

Hitchens is not a reliable source if you care about getting your facts straight.

210. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64049 by Riley on August 17, 2007 at 12:12 pm

I'm referring to all the causes he supports Oliver -- again and again you will find him latching on to common misconceptions in order to support his own positioins. Even when I share his conclusions I resent his tactics.

I can think of good reasons to support the war in Iraq even though I myself don't think there are sufficiently good reasons to do so. I can respect someone who has a difference of opinion based on the facts and arguments. The problem with Hitchens is that he plays fast and lose with the facts and seems to intentionally exploit common misconceptions about the facts in order to support his positions --- and for that I consider him a media whore, and nothing more. What a waste of talent.

211. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64044 by Riley on August 17, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Even though I agree with most of his conclusions, I resent that he so frequently exploits half truths and untruths to make his arguments. For just one example, read here: My problem with Christopher Hitchens

He's really no friend of people who feel that championing the truth is as important as championing a cause.

212. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #61090 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Well, I think an Adenine molecule cooperates with other molecules to reproduce copies of itself. So my answer is, yes. What do you think?

Also, I didn't think that making "exact" copies was necessary. In fact I thought that inexact replication was the basis for evolution.

213. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #61052 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Just as our bodies are "merely survival machines that genes have built for their own purpose", could it also be said that genes are just the mechanism which organic molecules have built for their own purpose?

Similarly, but from the top down, could it be said that our bodies are merely survival machines that our social institutions have bred for their own purpose?



Are all these perspectives equally valid? If so, where does it end? If not, why not?

- very curious.

214. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #61043 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 12:09 pm

BicycleRepairMan wrote:
I can also post it on VideoSift, which by the way, is an excellent site, a sort of Youtube for mature people ...

I followed the link to http://www.videosift.com and the top video on the front page of the VideoSift site was:

"Penis lifts tombstone" !!!

LOL !!!

(but I do appreciate the site as an alternative to YouTube, thanks!)

215. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #61010 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 10:00 am

Bonzai,

Hate speech by itself is not a crime. The Qu'ran itself as a work of literature and/or opinion deserves the same protections that any other speech is provided.

If someone uses the Qu'ran to incite violence, then that person who incites the violence should be indicted - not everyone who shares an association with that person.

If someone uses the Qu'ran to incite violence against an individual due to the religious or political affiliations of the individual, then that someone should be indicted and a hate crime enhancement of the sentencing may apply. The "hate crime" legislation does not make criminal anything that was not already criminal.

If someone has the opinion that: "Islam is a universal religion and in addition, that everyone was naturally born Muslim", they have the right to voice that opinion without suffering any loss of other rights. Moreover, the hypocrisy that you imply in your post only applies to that person voicing this silly opinion -NOT- everyone who shares an affiliation within that group which the person belongs. At some point you might rightly question why a person chooses to affiliate with that group if they disagree with the majority held onions voiced from within it, but that is another matter entirely.

..

216. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60993 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 9:18 am

Dr Benway,

I definitely appreciate your perspective and think you have a fair argument for why the 'hate law' delineation of a crime may not be necessary. Laws against criminal threatening and harassment may in fact suffice. Here is my reason for why I think it is valuable to preserve the ability to tag an existing crime (like "criminal threatening") as a hate crime so that a more serious sentence can be served.

The ability to apply the "hate crime" enhancement to a case of "criminal threatening" (or other crime) is helpful and justified because intimidation due to group affiliation effects entire classifications of people and/or ideas, not just an individual or isolated group. The nature of the harassment invites mobbing on a much larger scale. The history of religious, political and race relations is a case study of violence on a scale that can threaten civilizations. Maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic, but given our undeniably bloody history related to bigotry, I think there is cause to have this type of enhanced penalty available. I'm not sure it applies to the specific case of the Qu'ran in the toilets; maybe it does maybe it doesn't.

Fanusi Khiyal, you're a person of great character.

--

217. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60976 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 8:21 am

Fanusi Khiyal wrote:
Oh come _on_. Play another violin, will you? "Harrassing someone for their group affiliation"? So, if I attend an anti-BNP rally chanting "Fascist Scum, your time has come!", that's a hate crime, yes?

And 'intent'? So you know what [someone] intended, do you? This is ThoughtCrime writ large.

First off ... learn to read.

Attending an anti-BNP rally is not a crime.

Chanting: "Fascist Scum, your time has come!" (or anything else you choose) is not a crime.

Intimidation by itself is not a crime.

The standard for escalating a given crime to the status of a 'hate crime' is no more arbitrary or subjective than the standards for elevating the crime of murder to the status of 'premeditated murder'.

The vulnerable group in this case was not Islam or CAIR or HAMAS. It was a small group of students who have the right to choose their affiliations without harassment.

"powerless" and "vulnerable" are not equivalent.

If spewing antisemitic nonsense is accompanied by a crime then the 'hate crime' tag applies.

Please do apply the same standards to everyone. If individuals within the Muslim community deserve to be indicted under this legislation, then do it.

218. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60969 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 7:58 am

David,

Why did the Free Church remove our exchange from their website?

and

Are you actively working to correct the misinformation that you spread with regard to Richard Dawkins' position on child abuse? and if not, why not?

--

219. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60941 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 6:46 am

Donald, assessing weather or not the students (the targets of the crimes) had justifiable reason to feel intimidated and threatened by the vandalism and thefts is a matter I think that has to be settled in court where the case will be made with (I assume) all the relevant facts. I agree that the acts by themselves should not be assumed to be a targeted threat.



I agree with your opinions of the Koran, but for all you know the students that were targeted with the vandalism and thefts may take the good and disregard the bad ... just like I do with the opinion literature I read (e.g. I support a lot of what Hitchens writes, but I don't support all of it). Either way, it's irrelevant I think to the case --- you can have an opinion about anything, so long as you don't commit a crime (or incite others to commit crimes) when expressing that opinion.

Hatred by itself is not a crime and "hate crime" legislation does not change that --- despite the way it gets presented.

220. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60917 by Riley on August 3, 2007 at 5:55 am

twblalock,

He could have thrown a party and invited everyone to see his opinion of the Koran at the party. He could have taken pictures and sent them over the Internet. These things would not only have been alright, but his rights to do them protected. But he didn't, he decided to commit a crime by stealing from a select target and then vandalizing their bathroom.

The difference to me is like the difference between wearing a swastika on your T-shirt (an act of protected expression) and spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue. The latter is a crime (vandalism) and there could be reason based on the intent of the crime to enhance the penalty served for the crime. All that the hate-crime legislation does is enhance the penalty handed-out for a standard crime - it does not criminalize behavior not already a crime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you get your facts from Christopher Hitchens,
it's understandable why you get your facts wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The act of flushing the Koran down a toilet is itself not a hate crime (it's not a crime at all), it's the act of committing a real crime with the intent of harassing someone for their group affiliation that's considered a 'hate crime'. If it can be shown that the intent of stealing and vandalizing the bathroom was specifically meant to harass that group of students because of their held beliefs, then hate crime legislation penalties apply.

There is a good reason for having this legislation: if the people being targeted by the crimes are a vulnerable group then there is a danger of the harassment becoming an entrenched community problem. In the case of an out-of-the-mainstream group, the offender is instinctively or knowingly using a bully tactic by exploiting the vulnerability of the other group to incite community animosity (aka mobbing ). If the problem is not dealt with swiftly and decisively, it could fester into an intractable problem -- I think the history of race and religious persecutions characterized by mobbing bear out the reality of this problem.

--

221. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60794 by Riley on August 2, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Donald,

Eugene Volokh did some fact collecting that I thought worthwhile: here




I think facts like:

1) Stanislav Shmulevich didn't do this in his own toilet but instead decided to vadalize a toilet near a Muslim Mediation room.

2) he didn't use his own Koran, but stole a Koran from the Muslim Meditation room

3) he committed these crimes on more than one occasion

these things lead me to suspect that directed hostility was the motivation for the acts -- not simply communication of an opinion.

222. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60673 by Riley on August 2, 2007 at 4:27 pm

I had a series of debates with David Robertson (aka the Wee Flea) on the forum of his church's website. The debates involved the content of his 'letters' to Dawkins which I assume are now in his book. Unfortunately someone at the Free Church web site decided to remove those posts entirely! why I can only guess.

Here is an excerpt from one of the debates I had with David and I post it here as an illustration of why I think David is intellectually dishonest:

David Robertson:
And Dawkins is claiming that teaching children about God is child abuse.

Riley:
No, he's not.

David Robertson:
Actually he is. And he devotes a whole chapter to it. Chapter 9. In this chapter he states "even without phyisical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessers of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?" (p315). I assume that having my children baptised is then a form of child abuse?

He quotes with enthusiastic approval Humphreys "So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible....[then] we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon".

The implication is clear. If I beat my kids up I will go to jail. Dawkins thinks that if I teach them the Bible is true I should be treated in the same way

Riley:
No. Again, you're wrong.
"teaching children about God" is not equivilent to "labeling children as possessers of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about"

Your presentation of this quote is dishonest. You completely ignore the very next paragraph. In page 326 of "The God Delusion", Dawkins writes immediately after the quote you cite:

"Of course, such a strong statement needs, and received, much qualification."

...he goes on to say..."If, having been fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence, [children] grow up and decide that the Bible is literally true or that the movements of the planets rule their lives, that is their privilege. The important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they shall think, and not their parents' privilege to impose it by force majeure."

Again, the emphasis made here, as it is made over, and over, and over again, throughout this chapter is that it is child abuse to impose upon children a belief such as by: isolating them from unflattering scientific evidence, using threats, and labeling them as adherents to a belief before they are old enough to decide for themselves. Dawkins does not liken "teaching children about God" to child abuse (as you repeatedly mischaracterize him doing) any more so than he likens teaching children about the Tooth Fairy to child abuse.

Why must you be dishonest? There's plenty to criticize Dawkins about without resorting to misrepresentation of his stated positions.

223. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60631 by Riley on August 2, 2007 at 2:16 pm

This comment from Tumara Baap deserves repeating I think:
"[the]Koran down the toilet issue should not be judged in light of the failings of Islam or Muslims, however tempting that may be. Jews have been brutally persecuted in Europe, and it must've been easy enough for those involved in the Spanish Inquisition to cherry pick violent passages in the Torah or use miscreant Jews to somewhat justify their own crimes."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 90% of the comments I read on this thread are straw man arguments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The reason hate crimes are not trivial is that by their nature they encourage the involvement of a larger community. Exploiting a vulnerable minority is a bullying tactic that results in "mobbing".

Ridicule their beliefs all you want (and I do) ... but they have the right to believe what they want without fear caused by threat or intimidation. Looking at some of the facts of this case, there's reason to suspect that this is not a case of a person creatively expressing his opinion about the content of the Qu'ran, but rather an attempt to intimidate and threaten others for holding a different opinion.

--

224. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #60620 by Riley on August 2, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I tried to link to the audio file and got this message:

"We're sorry. The content you requested is available for UK users only."

blimey.

225. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60257 by Riley on August 1, 2007 at 11:57 am

The Wee Flea (aka David Robertson author of "The Dawkins Letters"),

I've read many of the 'letters' you pre-released for your book and was openminded about what you might have to say. After spending a considerable amount of time I found your critique of Dawkins' book to be almost entirely lacking in relevant counter-arguments. Worse, your counter-arguments unforgivably misrepresent the arguments you claim to be writing in answer to. Unforgivable I say because I had on more than one occasion identified a "straw man" in your critique and made you aware of it (for example, Dawkins' argument for why labeling children might be considered child abuse). Even after being made explicitly aware of your mistake, you choose to go right-on repeating it. How can you claim to be writing in response to Dawkins' arguments if you knowingly misrepresent them in your book?

More often than not in your 'letters' you avoid the issues all together choosing instead to kill page after page with attacks against atheists as a group, conspiratorial allusions and endless whining about secular culture (which you erroneously think to be synnonymous with atheism), veiled derision of Dawkins' character, and open derision of Dawkins' fan base. While I consider a fair amount of personal derision now and then to be healthy, it's completely irrelevant to an argument.

.
.

That's what makes you a flea in my book.

.
.

226. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #59123 by Riley on July 27, 2007 at 1:09 pm

The parameters of natural selection are at their core the function of constants and relative constants of our world such as the earth's distance from the sun, the earth's mass and density (its gravity), the sun's light and intensity, chemical/physical laws, and the mathematical laws governing sex ratios, to name a few. These constants determine what forms of life exist on earth, and as long as those constants are in effect, life should tend to converge on the same forms again and again. Shouldn't they?


If this is true, then given enough time in this environment why shouldn't we expect that the eventual emergence of life behaving and looking somewhat like ourselves is highly likely?

227. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59113 by Riley on July 27, 2007 at 11:30 am

"The Spaghetti Monster", starting with your axiom that: "God defined is a God dethroned", what you've written is utterly nonsensical. By wielding inexact terms like "truth" and "God" and "faith" in your nonsensical arguments, you've provided a great illustration of how ambiguous language can be intentionally used to obfuscate the logical basis underpinning an argument's conclusion. Your post represents perfectly the importance of clearly defining terminology before engaging in any argument. Thanks.

228. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59079 by Riley on July 27, 2007 at 8:12 am

"I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein

What word characterizes this above pronouncement of belief better than the word: "religious" ? -- and yet Einstein's/Spinoza's belief system does not include a belief in the supernatural.

229. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58663 by Riley on July 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

sorry gr8hands, your point is not proved. If you want to regard sociologists and anthropologists as being "in error" because they make use of a definition for "religion" and "sacred" inconsistent with your own, of course that's your personal prerogative and good luck to you with that.

230. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58629 by Riley on July 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm

gr8hands, I personally use the same common definition as you, but to make my point, here are relevant results from Google search "define: religion" supporting my point that it's not the only operable definition:



According to the Social Science Dictionary religion is a:
"System of beliefs and practices concerned with sacred things and or symbols uniting individuals into a single moral community."

According to the "Working Definitions" of a Harvard Divinity graduate teaching "Humanities II, Religions of the World", religion is:
"A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: i.e. Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering?, What is the meaning of death?, How shall we live?"
----------

Here are other non-theistic definitions (not from "define google") from prominent anthropologists and sociologists grappling to reach a useful definition for the word:

"a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, - beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them."
-- Émile Durkheim, 1915 (one to the founders of the field of Sociology and the study of religion)


"(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic"
-- Clifford Geertz, 1985.

----------
----------

gr8hands wrote: "those who try to hijack [the word] to mean something other than the common meaning are simply in error. (However, enough of them have made the error, that the error is now an accepted definition.)" ... and isn't that the inescapable nature of all words. So, on what authority do you and Hitchens claim to have the uniquely correct definition ?

----------
----------

231. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58615 by Riley on July 25, 2007 at 11:39 am

Here's one well established and accepted definition:
Religion: "a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices".

As soon as the "R" word gets brought up someone needs to define what they mean by it because (despite Hitchens dogmatic assertion) a belief in the supernatural is not (by broadly accepted definition) a required feature of a religion. Similar is the problem with the word: "spirituality".

I thought Hitchens was bringing up some nice points in direct response to the moderator's (and Ed's) challenge concerning the fairness of conflating all religions together. In response to this challenge Hitchen's bemoaned the fact that you can't consistently pin anybody down on even the most basic tenants of a religion (implicit: so how can you separate one religion from another?). This response was apparently seen by the moderator as not relevant to the challenge. In fact, the disintegrated and incoherent views held by members of supposedly united belief systems is exactly on point. Organized religion claim to be united in at least one well-defined belief of universe shattering importance: but in fact it seems that in the absence of centrally applied duress, institutionalized belief systems disintegrate into wildly divergent (or hopelessly ill defined) personal opinion.

The moderator could not let go of this idea that everyone interpreting the holy books in different ways was a defense for religion. It's too bad the moderator couldn't understand the relevance of the point Hitchens made.

note: remember this when arguing with Unitarians.

232. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58561 by Riley on July 25, 2007 at 7:33 am

In this interview, Dennet does a great job of summarizing the nature of the problem facing scientists trying to better understand consciousness and the nature of the "faith-head" (i.e. intuition-locked / auto-psychological theory-based) mind-set that is hindering progress in that regard.

Dennett is very precise and careful about his choice of words. It might be confusing to hear "discernment" instead of "consciousness", "intuition" and "auto-psychological theorizing" instead of words like "spiritual"/"faith"/"religion", but Dennett's choice of words actually reduce confusion if you take the time to think more carefully about what he's said.

Dennett is I think appropriately trying to raise our awareness to the problems associated with the use of the term: "consciousness". "Consciousness" is a term that artificially separates human discernment from other forms of natural discernment, and as Dennett pointed out: we have every reason to believe that there exists incremental steps between our level of discernment and the level of discernment of every other form of life on earth and that natural selection provides a mechanism through which these steps can be taken (simple things can create more complex things). It's an enormously important point to make and reiterate given the number of publicly vocal scientists in this field promoting the idea that consciousness may represent a disconnected jump from the rest of natural discernment. There are even scientists promoting the idea that consciousness was the cause of nature (see Paul Davies). It's not unlike the Intelligent Design crisis in science: people are desperately motivated to preserve their spiritual beliefs and Dennett is ahead of the game trying to clarify issues surrounding the problem before it gets out of hand in the public debate. His expertise is appropriate to this task I think.

233. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58284 by Riley on July 24, 2007 at 8:45 am

Cregaune -- I think you should cry out, but make a point, not just a vague analogy.

234. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58253 by Riley on July 24, 2007 at 6:43 am

Daniel Dennet is a phenomenal thinker and communicator.





Dennet gave a fantastic lecture on Religion at the 2006 TED Talks that is very much worth listening to:
Daniel Dennet: a direct rebuttal to Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life at TED Talks

The TED Talks are a treasure-trove of insightful lectures. If you are unaware of the resource, you should definitely visit and explore:
TED Talks

For a clearinghouse of Dennet's lectures and interviews go here:
Daniel Dennet Multimedia

235. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #57655 by Riley on July 20, 2007 at 12:48 pm

sss wrote: obviously some chance played a part but it didn't just poof into the world by accident.

In the context of that "Root of all Evil?" conversation, I think it's hard not to see that: "accident" and "formed by itself" was meant by Haggard to mean roughly: "formed without intelligent intervention and/or help from outside the realm of nature".

Dawkins' angry response to that comment creates the impression that he thought the comment was not only mistaken, but wildly and unforgivably off the mark. I don't think it was wildly off the mark, in fact it seems like a fairly reasonable description of evolution to me: it happened by accident and without intelligent intervention. The process of evolution is not random - but it is accidental (i.e. there's no intention to it).

Am I wrong?

236. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56876 by Riley on July 17, 2007 at 3:41 pm

I'm not sure what "bleeding-heart liberals" and "leftists" have to do with it, but otherwise I agree with Morro's smurfy comments.





also worth repeating:

Lagomort wrote: Our great fear is [American Right wing Christians] could begin, one day, to start to have as much influence as Islam does in the most liberal of Islamic states.

doodinthemood wrote: People here have been watching too many Hicthens debates. She didn't thrash him, or beat him, or anything of the sort. This was an interview. He was asking feeder questions to give her a basis on which to explain her views and possibly iron out any problems the general public may see with them.

237. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #56813 by Riley on July 17, 2007 at 11:41 am

"Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection"
Richard Dawkins: "accident of course plays an enormous role in the kinds of animals that populate the earth ... we probably wouldn't be here if the third dinosaur to the left hadn't sneezed at a particular time... we are here by the thinnest threads of luck".

Isn't this an absurd thing to say? One dinosaur sneeze?!?!

How do the tiny event ripples emanating from an infinitesimally small and common occurrence (like a sneeze) emerge and compute with any significance within the massive ocean of events driving evolution? Even in the case of a large and rare event like an asteroid impact, aren't the still larger and relentlessly persistent forces that have underpinned the determination of fitness and survival for trillions of years still intact ? (e.g. physical laws, chemistry, the existence of light waves, the existence of liquid water on earth, etc) and wont they reproduce (haven't they already reproduced) essentially the same adaptations over and over again? (e.g. photosynthesis, eyes, ears, etc).

I'm having trouble understanding the science of this topic and in this rare case Dawkins is making it more difficult for me to understand and I think probably making it more difficult for the public in general. The way that Dawkins characterizes the "enormous role" accident plays in evolution makes his lambasting of Ted Haggard in "Root of All Evil?" seem a bit unfair:

"Root of All Evil?"
Ted Haggard: Sometimes it's hard for a human being to study the ear, or study the eye, and think that happened by accident.

Richard Dawkins: I beg your pardon, did you say by accident?

Ted Haggard: Yeah.

Richard Dawkins: What do you mean, by accident?

Ted Haggard: That the eye just formed itself somehow.

Richard Dawkins: Who says it did?

Ted Haggard: Well, some evolutionists say it did.

Richard Dawkins: Not a single one that I've ever met.

"Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection"
Richard Dawkins: "accident of course plays an enormous role ... we are here by the thinnest threads of luck".

238. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51380 by Riley on June 22, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I have respect for Hitchens as a creator of prose and expounder of philosphical ideals -- but I have no respect for his "journalism". Too frequently I've discovered Hitchens blathering with certitude about issues only to find after checking-up on his claims that he got his facts dead wrong. He's apparently too lazy to get off his duff and do the research I expect from a professional.

So all in all, I would say that taking-on the theists is perfect role for him. There are no facts to argue -- just rhetoric prose and blather. Good for him, he's found his place. Ayn Rand and hitchens have a lot in common actually -- both are worth reading and thinking about as long as you're careful to not take them too seriously. They have no more claim to expertise in the areas which they write than Jerry Falwell had in his area of "expertise".

239. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50813 by Riley on June 20, 2007 at 4:21 am

ramboner32x said:
This doesn't really translate if you're working under the assumption that "act y" is something morally reprehensible to ordinary people ... Also, if I remember correctly at one point in the debate Harris did say that poverty/opression is a variable in the equation, so I don't think he discounts it altogether.

The perceived morality of the act isn't relevant to my point that Harris made a bad argument.

MrEmpiracal and ramboner32x - I'm not bashing Sam, I'm simply pointing out a bad argument made by Sam. Sam said we know A because of B, and my point is that we simply can't draw that conclusion based on the information Sam presented during this debate.

MrEmpiracal, your points 1,2, and 3 support Sam's idea that "beliefs have consequences" and that the Muslim belief system is a significant factor. But these points are not reasons to decisively conclude that "we know" poverty/oppression can be ruled out as an additional factor - nor even that it can be ruled out as a complimentarily decisive factor. That's my only point.

ramboner32x, Whenever I hear someone say "we know" something my ears perk-up. I must have missed Sam's later comments where he accepts poverty/oppression as a possible factor. This would explain his "we know" statement as probably just a poor choice of words - not his actual position.


-------------------
unrelated:
scooternyc, to discount United States foreign policy as a possible factor is similarly stupid.

240. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50725 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 5:22 pm

krogercomplete wrote:

Riley wrote: "It really does seem like Sam's arguing here that because we observe a disproportionate number of "well off" suicide bombers we "know" that poverty is not a factor in these attacks. It might in fact be true that poverty is not a factor in these attacks, but he is making a poor argument. The American Civil War provides us at least one example of non-Muslim people sacrificing their lives to correct a perceived injustice even when they themselves are not the ones suffering from nor even threatened by the injustice they are fighting to correct.

Is the suggestion here that suicide bombers are benevolent freedom fighters, giving their lives to correct social injustices that they themselves do not experience but rather perceive to be affecting others?

I imagine that something close to that would probably be their perception of themselves, yes.

Also, I think the civil war analogy is going to need some fleshing out.

It's not an analogy, it's an example.

What I'm saying is this:
The claim made by Sam was "we know" that condition x can not be a cause for act y because the people doing act y are not themselves subject to condition x. My point is that regardless of weather this is true or not, the argument is flawed.

The Civil war is one example where condition x (slavery) was the cause for act y (sacrifice of ones own life) by people (Northern volunteer soldiers) who were not themselves subject to condition x (slavery).

241. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50689 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 12:52 pm

MrEmpirical wrote: "Sam didn't deny that poverty and despair are important variables."

MrEmpirical, I could be wrong, but when Sam says:

"... [moderates] seem to believe that [the cause of suicide bombing]it is poverty and economic desperation and lack of education. The reason why we know that can't be true is that everything we find out about these people is that they are dis-proportionally well off ... It would be nice if it were [a movement of the poor and uneducated] then the remedy is just spread the money around ..."
from around 13:10 in part 3 of the debate

It really does seem like Sam's arguing here that because we observe that there is a disproportionate number of "well off" suicide bombers, that we can conclude (that "we know") that poverty is not a factor in these attacks. It might in fact be true that poverty is not a factor in these attacks, but he is making a poor argument. The American Civil War provides us at least one example of non-Muslim people sacrificing their lives to correct a perceived injustice even when they themselves are not the ones suffering from nor even threatened by the injustice they are fighting to correct.

"And sure, the Northern soldiers in the Civil War were not slaves, but it's kinda hard to fight a war when you're enslaved ... it is easy to participate in suicide bombing even if you're impoverished."

Similarly, it's very hard for someone who can't read or write to be trained to make bombs, fly airplanes, get passports, operate effectively in a decentralized organization, function socially among other educated people in order to gain access to targets and resources, etc.

Overall, I don't find it very surprising at all to see that a disproportionate number of the attackers are people selected from the well educated, resourceful, technically skilled population of Muslims. The very nature of these organizations and their activities necessitates it, and it's natural that the suicide volunteers are then disproportionately selected from within those organizations of people.

I certainly agree that religious texts provide an added personal justification in the minds of suicide attackers and that belief in an after life serves to lower the emotional barriers to suicide; both are important additional factors worthy of note. I could even accept the possibility that poverty may not be a factor (although I think it is). But to argue that we know poverty is not a factor because a disproportionate number of attackers are not themselves impoverished is a fatally flawed argument.

242. Richard Dawkins on his online alterego

Comment #50673 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 11:03 am

I'd like to see some serious experiments conducted using simulation-games in the field of economics.

The latest New York Times Magazine had a great article relevant to this topic of games and real world/virtual world economics:
"The Life of the Chinese Gold Farmer" By JULIAN DIBBELL, June 17, 2007

243. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50639 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 7:20 am

I think Sam's argument that poverty is not a factor leading to suicide bombing is overly simplistic.

It's not uncommon for people to act out in response to a perceived injustice even when the injustice is to a person other than themselves. Would Sam argue that slavery was not an important factor motivating men to voluntarily take-up arms during the American Civil War because a dis-proportionate number of the Northern volunteer soldiers were not themselves slaves?

In cases where there is a strong sense of group identity (weather that identity be Islam or some other religion, or a nationality, or an ethnicity) it's even easier to account for why educated members of a group would dis-proportionally be the responders to a perceived injustice (i.e. impoverishment).

244. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50631 by Riley on June 19, 2007 at 6:39 am

Chris Hedges - "Religion is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people. You can find anything you want in the Bible."

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.

245. The Great God Debate

Comment #50482 by Riley on June 18, 2007 at 11:45 am

Also worthy of note is the number of times Roberts uses the term "we" when discussing Christianity - implicitly suggesting that there is a singular truth that is Christianity. Most noteworthy is his dismissal of the immoral acts of Christianity as acts done by people who were "misguided Christians" (not his words). The implication is that there is a "true" Christianity and that such misguided Christians would not be able to find justification for their acts in biblical scripture; I would have loved to hear him try to defend that.

I've been around enough Christian communities to know that Christianity is closer to being all things to all people than it is to being a clear unifying message to all. This perhaps is to me the most intuitively obvious flaw in the Christian theory of the universe.

246. The Great God Debate

Comment #50471 by Riley on June 18, 2007 at 10:38 am

Totally agree on that Tyler -- a great highlight (begins at about 7:15 in Part 2).

Roberts replies in classic circular style. When challenged by Hitchens to support the claim that the Christian account is an accurate representation of "God" given that the circumstances surrounding the bible account are so capricious and suspiciously parochial (both geographically and temporally), Roberts replies that this is explained by the Christian account of god ! (acting mysteriously)

It's like debating with jello.

247. The Great God Debate

Comment #50459 by Riley on June 18, 2007 at 9:33 am

Hitchens makes the comment that envying our neighbor's property is a "great spur to innovation" implicitly suggesting that innovation would necessarily be hindered if not for the driving motivational force of envy. The claim is a "truism" that too often gets accepted without challenge.

Plenty of the world's greatest innovations have been discovered and developed by people who showed little if any sign of being motivated by envy of their neighbor's property (e.g. Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, etc). While, no doubt envy of a neighbor's property has been a motivator for many great innovations, but who's to say that such innovations wouldn't have been even more impressive and/or more useful to society had envy not been the motivator of the inventor? The development and production of the aerospace industry in the U.S. was crippled for decades by innovators who were perhaps overly motivated by envy.

This belief that envy is a trait to be harnessed and promoted gets preached too often.

248. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47852 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Put more succinctly:
religions make scientifically testable claims. The efficacy of prayer is just one such claim. There are many, many, many others.

Pointing out this fact does not mean that making scientifically testable claims is what religions are all about. Obviously they satisfy (or prey upon) emotional needs.

249. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47684 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 9:19 am

I'm talking about common people in the mainstream of Christian faith who both go to the doctor and at the same time believe that their survival crucially depends on God's intervention. Christians commonly believe that prayer can be credited for being the crucial difference-maker accounting for recovery to health that can not be (in their estimation) otherwise explained. The Catholic church officially sanctions this claim.

It's simply a 'bad science' claim, and one of many such claims predominant among believers - at least in the Christian faith.

250. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47679 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 9:00 am

Anyone claiming that prayers can heal the sick, that miraculous interventions happen, etc. etc. are making 'bad science' claims. Eliminate all these claims and you aren't left with much religion. Religion becomes more like philosophy.