Comments by Dr Benway

351. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152984 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Well, there is room for clever lawyering above.

First, we must define the word "religion." If we can get that to mean, "matters of personal concience" that would include the position that no god(s) exist. Thus a respect for atheism would be included in the protections against "hate."

I guess we gave up on the UN a long time ago.

I'm afraid we're stuck with Larry, Moe, and Curley. We can't not talk to them. Over the past 20 years, our common flat has grown too small for isolationism to work.

352. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152931 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 6:16 pm

I'm waiting to hear from Steve, Stryer, and Phil Rimmer, as they were defending the hate speech laws on another thread.

353. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152913 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 5:41 pm

In other words: Don't exercise your right to freedom of expression because your opponents may become violent. For the first time in the 60 year history of UN Human Rights bodies, a fundamental human right has been limited simply because of the possible violent reaction by the enemies of human rights.

The hate speech laws have always made me nervous. Said this 10 minutes ago on another thread. My fears have been realized above.

We never should have classified any speech as illegal merely for provoking "hate." Hate is at times necessary.

We've had laws against overt speech expressing intent to harm, or encouraging violence against others. We've had laws against covert conspiracy to harm others. By going beyond that, by criminalizing talk that provokes feelings of hatred, we set a precedent we can't now revoke without enormous difficulty.

354. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152888 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Muslims have used anti-hate speech laws to challenge criticism of Islam.
Bring it on! Another challenge, another opportunity to make a reasonable case.

By "challenge" I meant suppress via threats of criminal and civil litigation. It's seriously no fun being charged with a crime. Legal fees can bankrupt you, even if you're innocent.

A Canadian magazine published the cartoons of Muhammad and now potentially faces charges under "hate speech" laws:

Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/13/cartoons060213.html

355. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152839 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 4:05 pm

...the anti-incitement legislation here in Ireland and in the UK...

Incitement to what? To hate? To riot?

Muslims have used anti-hate speech laws to challenge criticism of Islam.

356. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152824 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 3:37 pm

The term "hate speech" always makes me nervous.

For a long time we've had laws against criminal threatening, disturbance of the peace, and inciting a riot. What does a hate speech law add to this?

Power, like a mentally retarded child, requires clear, well-defined, concrete constraints. "Hate" is too elastic a concept for those in power over us. And the notion of crimes against broad social groups with fuzzy boundaries like "the Jews" or "the Muslims" is not workable.

Hate speech laws ultimately will erode our right to free speech.

357. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152795 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 2:50 pm

FightingFalcon, your post above to D'Arcy confuses me. You tag the "invaded Iraq for oil" hypothesis a conspiracy theory. But then you talk about how our survival depends upon keeping such a large oilfield in pro-western hands. Seems contradictory.

358. Beware the Believers

Comment #152513 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 7:28 am

Well it gave me the lulz, imagining a band of Scientology protesters wasting a weekend of their lives writing flash animations to cause a mild disturbance among an obscure epilepsy support group, "for the lulz."

Then it gave me the lulz again when I imagined that someone might think anyone would believe this.

359. Beware the Believers

Comment #152489 by Dr Benway on March 31, 2008 at 6:30 am

Brian, that Jesus video above was awesome. "And you guys! You think you can get into heaven by playing board games?"

Over on engadget you can read an article about hackers screwing with epileptics:

This go 'round, a group of griefers (which appear to be members of Anonymous) managed to invade a support forum established by the nonprofit Epilepsy Foundation and use JavaScript code and messages littered with flashing animations to effectively assault dozens of visitors who suffer from the disorder

Yes, you heard right: Anonymous, that gang protesting Scientology.

WTF?

Below the article I read this clever comment:

Anon E. Moose
@ Mar 30th 2008 3:55AM
@mike

We did it for the lulz.

Do you see a parallel with "Beware the Believers"?

360. Beware the Believers

Comment #152333 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 5:59 pm

have to say i'm pretty saddened at how closed minded so many of a group of supposedly open-minded folks are. making such harsh condescending judgments on a fairly affectionate (if not in your exact taste) parody just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I think the artist will be okay.

361. Beware the Believers

Comment #152301 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Postmodernism isn't popular 'round these parts. But some pomo art is quite good. Here's an example from Philip Roth's American Pastoral:

You fight your superficiality, your shallowness, so as to try to come at people without unreal expectations, without an overload of bias or hope or arrogance, as untanklike as you can be, sans cannon and machine guns and steel plating half a foot thick; you come at them unmenacingly on your own ten toes instead of tearing up the turf with your caterpillar treads, take them on with an open mind, as equals, man to man, as we used to say, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you're anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you're with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion. ... The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that -- well, lucky you.

And another classic: Love's a two-way dream

362. Beware the Believers

Comment #152279 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm

It is so typical of some people here, religion is only about making truth claims, love is "just" electro-chemistry; art is only about its "message" and whether it is "with us or against us"

Of course religion is more than truth claims. But it's the bogus truth claims that have to stop. The other stuff can go on.

363. Beware the Believers

Comment #152276 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 3:36 pm

There are two hypotheses on the table:

1. The video is a parody of the atheists.
2. The video is a parody of the creationist's hyper-evil representation of the atheists.

We're having some difficulty distinguishing which hypothesis better fits the data.

For the sake of discussion, assume #2 is the case. The video is a parody of a parody. Now, imagine taking the whole thing a step further: a parody of a parody of a parody. In other words, the Discovery Institute's attempt to lampoon the intent or message of this video. What might that look like?

Well, a parody of a parody requires deep immersion in some dialog. It might be the humor of the obsessed who never leave the house. So, to make a parody of this video, you might have Dawkins, Harris, et al, watching themselves represented on the video screen. Initially they're talking to each other about what's happening on the screen. But gradually, they shift to a conversation with their 2D representatives on the screen, at the expense of the actual relationships between the real people. Mental masturbation, basically.

But a triple-nested parody would be entirely unintelligible to all without some sort of explanation. Our brains can't do stuff like that.

Did humans living, say, 300 years ago, create parodies of an enemy's parody? Perhaps not, or not often. One hundred years ago, people sat at desks and wrote letters in long hand by candle light. By the time you might lampoon your enemy's misrepresentation of you, weeks likely would have passed. Other interesting things would have happened. Anyone who might hear your response to some troubling response, would probably have lost the plot of the original disagreement.

Rapid, electronic communication and mass media have made possible reflection upon the meaning and significance of a dialog while it's in progress rather than afterward. I don't know how humans are being affected by this development, but I imagine it must be changing us in a profound way.

The postmodernist is fascinated by such recursive aspects of communication. I think everyone has seen how excessive textual deconstruction can lead to a frustrating sense of unreality. No matter how pretty the maps we make, the territory is where it's at.

364. Beware the Believers

Comment #152158 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 9:28 am

^if they was daft.

OK right now I'm imagining a wide eyed Richard Dawkins surfing that pimp bling store I linked to above. Hehehe.

Now I'm imagining him imagining himself all pimped out, strutting up to the podium at some conference, then saying, "Yo yo, wuzzup, mah homies!"

365. Beware the Believers

Comment #152155 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 9:23 am

MPhil: What fish-sign? The one on Prof. Dr. Dawkins' cap?

Imagine Dawkins had the Christian fish on his hat instead of the Darwin fish. What would that even mean?

clearthinker is daft. And Generalissimo Franco is still dead.

366. Beware the Believers

Comment #152151 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 9:15 am

clearthinker:

Personally I thought it was hilarious! As for what it means - the 'fish' sign should be a big clue!

Again I wonder, would you bet your eternal soul on your particular interpretation of this work?

The interpretation problem is no trivial matter.

367. Beware the Believers

Comment #152144 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 9:03 am

A "grill": WE SELL 'BLACK BOX, BEST GRILLZ' ONLY!!!
An allusion to that thing at the front of a car. Shiny.

Yer basic pimp hat.

368. Beware the Believers

Comment #152141 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 8:56 am

William Wallace:

The funniest aspect of this is the fact that so many evolanders think the video is on their side.

Are you willing to bet your eternal soul on your particular interpretation of this bit of modern scripture?

369. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152133 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 8:29 am

I have a slightly different theory. What if, in the back of these parent's very small brain, they knew that by taking their daughter to a doctor, she would be cured?

Bingo. Before this girl died, she was sick enough for long enough that even a child would have known to call a doctor.

And who ever assumes a child won't be cured? They nearly always are cured.

If this happened, they would have to acknowledge that their faith in prayer and the sky fairy has been completely misguided and that they have been wasting their lives on this shit as well as passing it on to their children.

It's impossible to believe until you've seen it with your own eyes a few times. But there are humans among us who behave thus, covertly screwing others to preserve their own sense of godliness, honor, reputation, etc. I reserve the word "evil" for these people.

They're often pillars of the community, people admired for their "charity" and "self-sacrifice." Woe to you if one of these creatures happens to be your mother or father.

You won't see them if you fail to imagine that they exist.

I'd vote for tatooing the word "run" on their foreheads, once they've been identified. But for the most part, there's nothing to be done with them.

370. Beware the Believers

Comment #151967 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 7:17 pm

371. Beware the Believers

Comment #151962 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Frankus1122:

I also found that funny ("...and then he stamped her passport... twice")

Yes! "passport...twice!" was THE MOMENT of max funneh. I really don't know why.

I love knowing something and not knowing it at the same time.

Corylus, you often pull up stuff that makes me laugh. But I thought the goofy zoologists were merely fun as opposed to funny. Not enough novelty for me, I think.

Ok another LOL for me: Dramatic lemur (but it's not really a lemur)

372. Beware the Believers

Comment #151868 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Richard Dawkins: My problem with this video is that I can't find anything funny in it. It doesn't even make me smile, let alone laugh. I'm sure it must be an age thing.

We need a few reference points for this phenomenon termed "funny." I propose a poll. Link to the last thing you remember reading or seeing that made you laugh out loud.

Here's mine: Signing for the deaf (with translation for the dumb)

373. Beware the Believers

Comment #151813 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Heyyyy Catz....Chill bros...iz juzlike obzervashun ov da kontempry poplar kulture today.

LOLspeak. You no haz.

SF:

*snip*

D'oh! Atheists are evil.

374. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151807 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm

nshowalter:

We should accept the logic of natural selection everywhere except among ourselves. What am I missing here?

The law of gravity describes how things tend to fall toward the earth, and how fast. However, in my closet I prefer they not do this. And so I have installed shelving.

Christopher Davis:

Tomorrow I will roll out in a convoy of up-armored HUMVEES heading to a small town in Afghanistan to witness the opening of a school constructed by the Afghan government along with the help of coalition forces.

Stay safe.

375. Beware the Believers

Comment #151774 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 11:10 am

I asked my husband what he thought of the video. He said it was funny, but not enough to see it twice. And he thought it was lampooning atheists, not Expelled's hyper-evil representation of atheists.

I can see his take on it, which is more straightforward than the parody of a parody I imagined. But then I go, "But surely the ID crowd sees this doesn't help their side...do they feel their audience is that dim? Is it that dim? Naw... Maybe?

Then my overtaxed irony meter exploded.

Whenever Herr Benway and I disagree, nine times out of ten, he's right. This annoys me, as I am smarter than he is.

**overdramatic shaking of fist**

Damn you, Poe's Law! Damn you to hell!

376. Beware the Believers

Comment #151733 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 9:18 am

Will it ever be possible to build a machine capable of language? At first glance, the problem doesn't seem that difficult. Word are symbols. Machines can process symbols.

But words have countless shifting associations that can't be mapped, as there's no authoritative map out there, in the world. Only billions of maps in our heads overlapping more or less with a world out there.

What would you have to put into a machine in order for it to comprehend a sentence like, "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day"? First, it would have to understand what it means to have a "day," a day that can be "ruined." It would require an appreciation of understatement, which often has a "guess you just had to be there" quality of humor about it.

I think you'd have to get the entire world into the machine first before it could parse such a bumper sticker.

377. Beware the Believers

Comment #151730 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 9:09 am

I've been accused of being humourless because of my interest in analysing the intention and the message behind it.

LOL. I remember a seminar during my residency with a senior faculty member, in which we spent an hour discussing the difference in meaning between "tell me more about that," and "go on," and "can you say more about that?" To each his own.

"Dawk" is a shiboleth indicating an inside job.

378. Beware the Believers

Comment #151726 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 9:00 am

Well, thank you, I'm learning something today. At least, this is the closest I have ever come to understanding that "Post Modernism" means anything at all.

I hear a tongue in a cheek.

We're contemporaries speaking the same language and still it's a struggle to understand each other. Given this, clearly there can be no written document from God thousands of years old that is "literally true."

379. Beware the Believers

Comment #151718 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 8:50 am

Good art, in my view, is always a little ambiguous so that the artist doesn't appear to shove a message down your throat.

Artful ambiguity is like strumming a chord of many notes at once. Bad art hits too many off notes at once, so the message is more confusing than layered.

It's not always easy to separate bad art from merely challenging art. A few albums I hated at first listen grew on me over time.

380. Beware the Believers

Comment #151707 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 8:36 am

I don't know. I think the image of the machine is ominous, sinister and foreboding and it has a money sign hanging on it. It tramples everything ruthlessly under its feet, flatten everything wherever it goes.

Yes, I had the same reaction to that. I read it as part of the "science works, bitches!" message - a symbol of pwnage. But I didn't like it.

The guy wearing the bikini doing Eugenie is funny in a slapstick way. Guys in drag, like farts, are reliable jokes.

Well, whoever did this has talent and they should keep at it. Hopefully the feedback will help this person refine his/her voice.

381. Beware the Believers

Comment #151698 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 8:20 am

"I believe palmistry is 100% true but I don't believe it because my religion doesn't allow it."

There's more than one person living in that head. That's where some neuropsychology can help move the discussion forward.

382. Beware the Believers

Comment #151695 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 8:10 am

Maybe it's postmodern. Would that account for the fact that even people who purport to like it don't know what it means?

It's technically well made. It has some funny moments. But it's an outsider's voice. Wigger rap. A little embarassing, like when your dad says, "word up" to your friends.

And I'd guess the line is "Dick to the Dawk to the P-H-D."

Edit: I'm likely wrong about "outsider's voice," now that I think about it. If you're too young to remember when wannabe gangsta took off (boys getting out of their mom's SUV wearing droopy pants, dreads, and a sullen expression), rap is old. All old things are equally old. Rap, punk, metal, reggae, alternative - all equally old.

383. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151689 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 7:59 am

Frankus1122, your global warming example is great, because you take the kids down one road and then provoke them to question their initial impressions. It's an edge-of-your-seat drama the kids won't forget.

I sometimes daydream about teaching and envision situations like that. I'd like to then teach a little neuropsychology, to illustrate brain quirks that get in the way of seeing things clearly.

Then I'd talk about the system of checks and balances among professional scientists to screen out as much bullshit as possible. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've come up with so far.

It's very alarming that politicos and business people have been put in leadership positions in the sciences under president Bush. When non-scientists censor and re-write scientific work, we're all in serious trouble.

We have to fight this idea that science is just another special interest group to be managed and used to some political party's advantage.

384. Beware the Believers

Comment #151680 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 7:36 am

...the way "we" are presented is as supremely arrogant know-it-alls.

In the rap genre, over-the top self-promotion is de rigueur. Part of the fun.

What's going on? How does an old white lady in the woods catch on to the slim shady thing ahead of the kids? It's so, like, 2000. Hardly cool anymore.

385. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151630 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 5:04 am

Kagehi:

What we need is a "sufficient" solution. Such solutions do not exclude differences, do not presume optimal results, and work by excluding behaviors that tend to have a net negative impact, while allowing those that may have some short term negatives, but which *allow* for variation, including variations that make some people uncomfortable.

Well said.

386. Beware the Believers

Comment #151628 by Dr Benway on March 29, 2008 at 4:51 am

Richard, I think this is a compliment.

Young people can't express their admiration toward you as they might toward a rock star or sports hero without feeling conflicted about that. Being a fan is a little too close to playing the syncophant, which you just can't do if you view yourself as an independent thinker.

So the admiration must be tempered with a bit of humiliation. All the best teachers get this sort of treatment from each new generation of students.

387. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151497 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 9:07 pm

After I graduated, there was a "back to basics" movement, and the cool classes I took which were created by the teachers themselves vanished.

388. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151459 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I had one really great high school teacher. In his class, we covered basic logic, logical fallacies, rhetoric, and a little psycholinguistics. We would bring in adverts from magazines, news articles, and examples of things on TV, illustrating tricks of persuasion. It was a lot of fun.

Very few kids seem to get a class like this in the US.

389. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151455 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 6:18 pm

There's a hymn book, talks that sound like homilies...

Do normal people use the word "homilies"? Or just practicing Catholics?

I can understand humanist/atheist/skeptic gatherings for a variety of reasons. But it's hard to imagine attending a weekly service as described above. What's the content?

I'd go birdwatching. I'd enjoy learning about things people are doing in my community. I'd like to see displays of local artwork. I dunno. Stuff.

Atheism by itself has no stuff.

390. Iowa county board gives initial OK for ghost hunters to investigate asylum

Comment #151372 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 3:00 pm

At first I figured the Historical Society's plan was to use the ghostbusters as PR for their tours.

But at the end, they mention that disabled people are living in the building. You can't have a sight-seeing tour in such a place. That's a set up for recurrent HIPPA violations.

Sos weird.

391. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151332 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Riley: ... thank you for freeing me from Dr. Brenways typical obtuseness.

Hey it's not my fault you learned biology from Ken Hovind.

Ignorance is no shame. But throwing monkey feces instead of admitting ignorance is shameful.

You threw the first ad hominem here. Strike one for you.

392. Fleabytes

Comment #151323 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm

The new fitna movie.

Death to all who accuse Islam of saying "Death to all who accuse Islam of saying, "Death to all who accuse Islam of saying"...

393. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151320 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Really, a few thousand complete sets?

More like many millions. But, not wanting to get bogged down in a quibble, I underestimated.

Each epithelial cell contains a complete set of chromosomes.

394. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151303 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 1:05 pm

a complete set of human DNA within a distinct body of cells is all that's needed to define a person as a person.

I just dropped a few thousand persons into the toilet.

395. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151295 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Bonzai: You keep asking for corroborating evidence, but this is a meaningless question unless you agree on what should be considered admissible evidence, Most evidence that the religious people consider as admissible would not be admissible in science, it can be because it is too vague or not easily interpreted in a straight forward, third person way. But it is a kind of evidence nonetheless, for the person who see meanings in it, and is relevant to questions relating to first person experience to which science has no answer,

Bonzai, I dont' think we disagree. Here's what I wrote in #151175:

Claims about one's subjective experience are still evidential claims. They're just claims that are often impossible to corroborate. Consequently they deserve less confidence than claims that can be corroborated.

Bonzai:

Whatever your criticism to this approach, it is methodical, it does seek to incorporate "evidence" and it is not solipsism .

If I let off a long fart into a crowded elevator without even trying to hold it in, what's that called? And if the Lord Jesus commands me to take the last piece of pizza on the table between us, even though you haven't had any and you're really hungry, what's that called? And if the Holy Spirit moves me to vote for social policies in accord with His righteousness, what's that called?

When I elevate my first person data to the status of third person data, your first person data don't count. Seems a rotten way to treat you.

396. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151223 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

Let's just say that holding any belief strongly based on personal intiution and without corroboration in ways that we would expect for most things in life is a bad idea, no matter if someone wants to call themselves "moderate" or not.

Agreed. Solipsism is mean to other people.

*my definition of belief: claim about reality

397. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151207 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 9:12 am

I wonder if Collins believes that non-Christians are going to hell. I wonder if believes that God has strong opinions about human sexual behavior.

Or perhaps he reasons that most of the old moral rules have naturalistic explanations. Maybe he feels that God's left it up to humans themselves to decide how best to live together. Maybe he's more of a transcendentalist than a traditionalist.

I can live with the neo-Christian who rejects scripture as a source of social authority.

But I remain morally opposed to any version of Christianity that claims God's pleasure for me is one thing rather than another. To these Christians I say, "Let's get God down here to speak for Himself. Until then, STFU."

398. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151175 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 8:36 am

Steve: Absolutely. But this raises the question of how we label believers (assuming we need to). Do we say someone is (say) a homosexuality "moderate" but a stem-cell "fundamentalist"?

In some ways the labels "religious," "belief," "moderate," and "fundamentalist" *are* the problem.

Analogy: The term "alternative medicine" implies that there are two sorts of medicine: boring old ordinary chemical stuff that doesn't work for everything, verses friendly, safe, feel-good "alternative" stuff that Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about.

But in fact medicine is simply this: a set of treatments with degrees of evidence to support their use. Some treatments are well established; some are new and partially established; some have only very shaky support, such as a few anecdotes of partial improvement.

The term "religious claims" or "religious beliefs" implies that there are at least two sets of claims or beliefs about the world separated by some meaningful epistemic divide: "religious" and "non-religious."

But again, what we have are simply claims that are more or less supported by evidence.

Claims about one's subjective experience are still evidential claims. They're just claims that are often impossible to corroborate. Consequently they deserve less confidence than claims that can be corroborated.

By placing a lower confidence in uncorroborated claims we've discovered a method for separating fact from wishful thinking and delusion. And as an added bonus, the corroboration rule prevents the totalitarianists from telling us what we think and feel inside our own skins.

The person who says he prayed to Jesus for forgiveness and then felt an amazing, euphoric sense of God's loving presence, is providing evidence regarding his inner experience. And no claim that I might make about his experience could ever be corroborated, so I cannot contradict him.

There's nothing wrong in reporting the sense of God's presence or something like that. Where these believers typically err is by insisting that I ought take such claims as seriously as I might take a claim I can double-check for myself.

Labelling a claim "religious" strikes me as a sneaky way to bypass the ordinary rules of evidence we use for all other claims.

399. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151132 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 7:34 am

The difference between "moderates" and "fundamentalists" is not so much what they believe, but the certainty with which they believe it. "Moderates" are by definition "moderate" in their beliefs because they aren't certain - they revel in the mystery and discovery of faith.

Some, as you say, use "moderate" to describe those uncertain about the teachings of their particular religion. Some use "moderate" to describe the content of belief: for example, those who reject extreme actions like honor killings or pseudoscience such as young-earth creationism, are "moderates."

The doubting moderates share a lot of common ground with atheists. But those who are moderate by virtue of the content of their beliefs remain a world apart. They're the ones who, for example, believe in moral absolutes grounded in God's nature or personality. So when they think they're right about stem cell research or civil unions or something, there's no talking to them.

400. Fleabytes

Comment #151101 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 6:56 am