The God Meter

Allen MacNeill, well stated, indeed! But are you quite sure you are not of two minds about it? ;-)

For a purely naturalistic and anthropological explanation of why people believe in gods, demons, and so forth, check out Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained: the Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought" ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465006965/sr=8-1/qid=1145494245/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6496270-2592158?%5Fencoding=UTF8 ). I served on a panel at a conference with Boyer and found both his arguments and the evidence supporting them quite convincing.

You might also be interested in my own foray into this morass: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/capacity-for-religious-experience-is.html in which I elaborate on Boyer's explanation, grounding it in what I believe is the most likely candidate for the EEA in which the capacity for religious belief and experience evolved: chronic, low-level intergroup warfare (which archaeological evidence now indicates has been a feature of human existance since the mid-Pleistocene).

Forget about disproving God. By hypothesis God has the ability to remain scientifically undetectable. Take deism for example.

Humans naturally have complex personalities and are quite capable of being both scientific and religious. Being religious is not limited to obeisance to imperial deities, by the way. Saying as one comment does "science and religion don't mix" is 1) beside the point since some people do both, but separately, and 2) not true for all people - they are mixed in some people. Arguments against this based on a stereotype of religion are limited to the stereotype.

I would appreciate Prof. MacNeill's comments on the following:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away."
PHILIP K. DICK

Arguments against this based on a stereotype of religion are limited to the stereotype.

Could it be that ethnic groups that tend to be Catholic (Irish, Italians, Latinos) have some ESP healing power that we don't know about?

Dr. MacNeill, did you call William Dembski a "bald faced liar"?

Creationists claim that evolution and religion are incompatible (though they usually mean their version of religion).

Perhaps it should be rephrased 'Evolution contradicts their FUNDAMENTALIST interpretation of religion'.

Glen Davidson is wrong when he claims that if experiments proving the intercessory prayer of Catholics were answered they would have a "God" that does not reference anything --- it references the Catholic conception of God.

It touches on a specific claim (a prediction of their religious theory) and the book their faith is anchored in.

I still take issue with the "placebo effect."

Most placebo tests have only two groups: those with the 'real' medication and those with a placebo. For a correct test, there should be a third: those with neither.

Dr MacNeil -

I'm delighted to see you back here. It would seem that our relgious ideas are pretty similar. Which makes sense, since I'm sort of like a Quaker myself.

I do feel obliged to point out, though, that I made some predictions about the future behavior of ID advocates. Now, I'll grant that I didn't predict that Dembski himself would start attacking you, but it is rather consistent with my predictions.

On the good side, I have feeling that your course will teach a fair number of Cornell students about good, rational, skeptical thinking in an atmosphere of respect and tolerance. And within a few years, if ID is spoken of at all, it will be by Biology professors, as they quickly dismiss Lamarckism and ID as examples of bad science* (*hopefully with the caveat that of the two, Lamarckism has sometimes been expressed by people of good faith and intellectual honesty).

his reasoning does seem a little forced...

The problem with quoting Phillip K. Dick on the nature of reality is that Dick himself (or should I say, "Horselover Fat?") had an extremely tenuous grasp on reality himself. And in genuine psychoses, of course, reality (or at least part of it) does "go away", for the psychotic at least.

Dr. MacNeill, I hope your class is broadcast in some form. It seems you're very well informed about ID.

On the flip side, I don't know what's supposed to be heretical about comment #97450. Instead, I think most people here would regard it as trivial.

I'm with Andrea Bottaro on this one. Science cannot investigate the supernatural, including any and all gods. Science CAN produce replicable experiments that produce results science does not understand. But the leap from saying "I have no clue what's going on here" to saying "therefore goddidit" is a leap of faith and has nothing to do with science.

To be parsimonious about this, if in fact there ARE supernatural forces that can influence scientific experiments, then science is *permanently* sentenced to "cause not yet explained."

Let's say a Believer states that if his god is angry, his god will strike a nearby tree with lightning. Next storm, lightning strikes a nearby tree. Proof of God, right? Sorry, observed phenomena are NOT observed *explanations* for those phenomena. Stenger is wrong.

I know that many will say that we do "reference" this social construct by writing "God", but I'm afraid that "God" is not usually said, thought, or written by the devout in order to reference the mere social construct "God". If Norm means that, well and good, but anyone who does mean to reference a social construct when invoking the God term ought to indicate this in the doing (unless the others already know this about Norm).

I can't resist: when my students ask me if I believe in "God", or (even better) if I believe that "God exists" (or doesn't), I ask them "Does the United States exist?" Almost always someone takes the bait and says "yes", and then I ask "Where?" Sometimes they describe the geographical boundaries of the USA, but usually at least one realizes what I'm driving at and says "Yes, it exists as an idea in our heads." And I commend them, and point out that the United States, like God (or, more properly, the "idea" of God) exists exactly where all ideas exist: in (and only in) the human mind.

The tricky thing about "God = the idea of God" is that, if you believe it, then that belief can make you do things up to and including blowing yourself up in a crowd or flying a plane full of innocent people into a skyscraper. Ideas, therefore, can have incredible --- indeed, "godlike" --- power. They can't create a universe (unless the first three sentences of the book of John are literally true, of which I have profound doubts), but they can extinguish it (by extinguishing the mind of the person in which the universe has been recreated).

And, he [Dembski] stated that "...ID still has much to accomplish in developing its scientific and intellectual program."

Flint, "...results that science does not understand." I would rather put it as "results which contradict current hypothesis". If one views scientific hypothesis as only falsifiable, in the Popperian tradition, then the current hypothesis is falsified and the scientist needs to discover a new hypothesis in the face of the new evidence.

But giving up and saying "goddidit" does not give any explanatory power regarding other evidence the scientist might collect which will tend to confirm the new hypothesis or else refute it. (By the way, notice the lack of symmetry in the 'or else'.)

Let's say a Believer states that if his god is angry, his god will strike a nearby tree with lightning. Next storm, lightning strikes a nearby tree. Proof of God, right? Sorry, observed phenomena are NOT observed *explanations* for those phenomena. Stenger is wrong.

The United States exists about as surely as I do, with as many problems and ambiguities in defining it as there are with the "definition" in my statement that "I exist".

While there's no doubt that "disproving God" is a wild and unscientific claim, I think it's also unscientific to assert that science can study the supernatural. Science can make testable statements only about phenomena amenable to testing: those for which actual predictions (not prophesies) can be made. Any phenomenon which is subject to the logic of prediction, testing and falsification is by definition natural. Anything supernatural is ruled by some inaccessible will, and is capricious, whimsical and arbitrary. (Not to mention at least in the traditional myths, a bit emotional, impulsive, and psychologically insecure.)

Comment #97474 Posted by Allen MacNeill on April 19, 2006 08:31 PM (e) The tricky thing about "God = the idea of God" is that, if you believe it, then that belief can make you do things up to and including blowing yourself up in a crowd or flying a plane full of innocent people into a skyscraper. Ideas, therefore, can have incredible --- indeed, "godlike" --- power. They can't create a universe (unless the first three sentences of the book of John are literally true, of which I have profound doubts), but they can extinguish it (by extinguishing the mind of the person in which the universe has been recreated).

... I think it's also unscientific to assert that science can study the supernatural. Science can make testable statements only about phenomena amenable to testing: those for which actual predictions (not prophesies) can be made. Any phenomenon which is subject to the logic of prediction, testing and falsification is by definition natural. Anything supernatural is ruled by some inaccessible will, and is capricious, whimsical and arbitrary. (Not to mention at least in the traditional myths, a bit emotional, impulsive, and psychologically insecure.)

Sorry if I gave the impression that most believers equate the "idea of god" with "god". I do, but most of them don't. However, I don't think that most believers in the "traditional" God have thought through just exactly what it is they believe in. Most have a vague idea of some "all powerful force" or "entity" (although if you take the Judeo-Christian bible literally, He's a big guy with a long white beard who goes out for the occasional spaziergang in the cool of the evening).

That said, ideas are clearly "supernatural" are they not? After all, you can't cut somebody's brain open and find "ideas" in there. If ideas have any physical (i.e. natural) reality at all they are simply patterns of action potentials in the central nervous system. Therefore, since ideas are "supernatural", then the equation

God = the idea of God

is perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell.

As to whether or not ideas can have physical consequences, of course they can. Try crossing the border between the United States and Canada without identification (at an official border crossing, not some creek in northern Vermont) and see if the "imaginary" US and Canadian border officials buy your story about how the two countries only exist in their minds.

RE: "God = the idea of God"

Maybe Dembski isn't a bald-faced liar; maybe "ID = the idea of ID".

I had a similar theory about Santa Claus when I was about 6. But eventually I decided that was just sophistry.

That said, ideas are clearly "supernatural" are they not?

That said, ideas are clearly "supernatural" are they not?

If ideas have any physical (i.e. natural) reality at all they are simply patterns of action potentials in the central nervous system.

Dr MacNeill, would you please answer the following question: Say, a few years ago a guy named John went to a remote area in Australia and came across a fancy stone half-buried in the ground. Having seen it, he believed that it existed, and, if I understand your thesis, this means the stone in question indeed existed to the extent it existed in his mind. Yesterday John died. There is nobody any longer who ever believed in the existence of that stone, so, according to your thesis, it does not exist as it does not anymore exist in anybody's mind. I am confused - does that stone exist or not? Say, it does not. If tomorrow some girl by the name of Mary travels to the remote area in question and discovers the stone still in the same place, it will suddenly come into existence, right? So, it existed between the time John saw it and the time of his death, then it did not exist for a while, and then it again came into existence when Mary saw it? Do I misrepresent your thesis? Thanks for clarification and apology if I distorted your thesis.

PS. Lenin, in his book "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" defined the matter as "objective reality existing beyond and independent of our consciousness and given to us in sensation" (sorry for an awkward translation). In this he tried to rebut Mach, somehow not noticing that his definition meant that parts of "objective reality" which are not observed and thus not "given to us in sensation" are not matter. Do you agree with Lenin's definition?

I will once again post my standard response to all the "science unfairly rules out the supernatural boo hoo hoo" BS from the IDers:

The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.

To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God --- uh, I mean, An Unknown Intelligent Designer --- created both but used common features in a common design.

Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products."

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see ... ?

IDers, please fill in the blank.

And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to point out some negative predictions --- things which, if found, would FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then --- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the "common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified through experiment.

Take note here --- contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â€"- just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that God --- er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â€" just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions.

Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis "genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID hypothesis, to the scientific method.

And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science that stops ID dead in its tracks ---- it is the simple inability of ID "theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design "theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method.

Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed "supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position â€"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so, that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism" or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they want to call it) boils down to.

There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be "science". Period.

Dr MacNeill, would you please answer the following question: Say, a few years ago a guy named John went to a remote area in Australia and came across a fancy stone half-buried in the ground. Having seen it, he believed that it existed, and, if I understand your thesis, this means the stone in question indeed existed to the extent it existed in his mind. Yesterday John died. There is nobody any longer who ever believed in the existence of that stone, so, according to your thesis, it does not exist as it does not anymore exist in anybody's mind. I am confused - does that stone exist or not? Say, it does not. If tomorrow some girl by the name of Mary travels to the remote area in question and discovers the stone still in the same place, it will suddenly come into existence, right? So, it existed between the time John saw it and the time of his death, then it did not exist for a while, and then it again came into existence when Mary saw it?

Therefore, I strongly disagree with your analogy between a hurricane and the United States. A hurricane will exist regardless of whether anybody believes it does so, but the United States (like the USSR/CCCP, and IMHO "God") only exists for as long as at least one person believes that it does.

Anything supernatural is ruled by some inaccessible will, and is capricious, whimsical and arbitrary. (Not to mention at least in the traditional myths, a bit emotional, impulsive, and psychologically insecure.)

Sorry if I gave the impression that most believers equate the "idea of god" with "god". I do, but most of them don't. However, I don't think that most believers in the "traditional" God have thought through just exactly what it is they believe in. Most have a vague idea of some "all powerful force" or "entity" (although if you take the Judeo-Christian bible literally, He's a big guy with a long white beard who goes out for the occasional spaziergang in the cool of the evening). That said, ideas are clearly "supernatural" are they not? After all, you can't cut somebody's brain open and find "ideas" in there. If ideas have any physical (i.e. natural) reality at all they are simply patterns of action potentials in the central nervous system. Therefore, since ideas are "supernatural", then the equation God = the idea of God is perfectly reasonable as far as I can tell. As to whether or not ideas can have physical consequences, of course they can.

Mr. Sandefur (Comment 97416) has misunderstood my position. He, Professor Stenger, and I think that there is no evidence for the existence of God or, at least, for an omnipotent, benevolent God. I freely admit that, have written a book to that effect, and do not think we should refrain from stating our conclusion forthrightly. We should, however, refrain from overstating that conclusion so as to link science with atheism. Some very bright people believe in both science and God, and they are on our side of the evolution-creation "debate." They are experimental evidence that science and religion can coexist. We should not risk alienating them by falsely telling them that science proves them wrong. We may think they are wrong, but science does not and cannot prove that contention. I am sorry if I was not clear enough on that point. I have no intention of fooling anyone into falsely thinking that science and religion are compatible.

For whatever it's worth, I've personally gone beyond agnosticism to atheism for several reasons. I discount the idea of the "Metaphysical God" that Glen Davidson describes, because if an intelligence is the answer to how our wondrous universe came into being, then surely there would be some evidence of this being, posessing, as it must, power beyond any human comprehension. This should be reflected in some example of what we would see as arbitrary (reflecting an intelligent agent) behavior in some physical process. Such an effect has never been seen through any scientific observation in our history. The alternative explanation permitting God(s) is Deism, which to me can make no practical difference on our material plane. The God of Deism is certainly a God of the Gaps who could some day be replaced by a non-intelligent alternative.

Now contrast this invisible God, who if he exists interacts with matter far more weakly than the neutrino, with the God of the Bible, also discussed by Glen, whose existence could hardly be questioned in light of the miracles he performed in plain view, easily observable using only our earthly senses. Why does the Bible insist on the fundamental importance of faith, yet at the same feel it is necessary to justify its claims through exhibitions of power requiring no faith whatsoever to believe in, if you happened to be present at the time? And this God, who admittedly is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, has spent a lot of one on one personal time with the inhabitants of our planet, who have existed for a minute fraction of the Earth's existence, which itself in comparison to the universe represents less than a grain of sand on a ten mile long beach. If the authors of the Bible had ever seen one of the Hubble Deep Field images linked to above, and understood the vast reaches of time and space that it portrays, would the text have been changed at all? I think so... I would happily change my mind about all this if a scientific observation did show some evidence of a supernatural effect pointing to any existence of a godlike intelligence. Something, for instance, that would win a cool million from James Randi. Doesn't have to be nearly as flashy as many of the things portrayed in the Bible.

All of the hundreds if not thousands of religions that have existed are for the most part mutually contradicting, and clearly of human origin, just as our languages and other cultural developments are. I agree that unfortunately in the United States at the present time, it is unacceptable in many arenas to declare yourself an atheist. It is frowned upon for the same reason that infidels can be condemned by a court and put to death in Afghanistan - the inchoate feeling by believers that a single crack in the dam could cause the whole edifice to collapse. The difference is only one of degree. Yet, there are certainly many more atheists and agnostics than the polls reflect. I truly doubt that European countries, with much the same culture as ours, really have such different patterns of belief. Hopefully, the resurgence of the "reality-based" community that I optimistically see coming at some point will allow Americans to be more open in this area.

Say, a few years ago a guy named John went to a remote area in Australia and came across a fancy stone half-buried in the ground. Having seen it, he believed that it existed, and, if I understand your thesis, this means the stone in question indeed existed to the extent it existed in his mind. Yesterday John died. There is nobody any longer who ever believed in the existence of that stone, so, according to your thesis, it does not exist as it does not anymore exist in anybody's mind. I am confused - does that stone exist or not? Say, it does not. If tomorrow some girl by the name of Mary travels to the remote area in question and discovers the stone still in the same place, it will suddenly come into existence, right? So, it existed between the time John saw it and the time of his death, then it did not exist for a while, and then it again came into existence when Mary saw it? Do I misrepresent your thesis?

Here's a question: Why is god important?

What possible difference can god make if god does not interfere in our physics. Heaven and hell are meaningless - we are talking about eternity. We can make enough observations about natural explanations for natural phenomena that we can rule out a god that intervenes. So, why are folks so hung up on god?

(I am, in fact, religious but my religious beliefs are in no danger from any science because sunsets are still beautiful, salt air still makes me calm, whiskey still tastes good, sex still feels good and I am gratefull to be alive.)

If Mr. MacNeill really doesn't know the difference between a thing and the idea of a thing, he has no business teaching school or, at least, we can only hope he's a hockey coach. His confusion is an elementary error that logic profs have been trying to exorcize from Freshmen for a couple of hundred years--there's a famous bit about in the White Knight chapter of Through the Looking Glass.

Very briefly: it doesn't matter what the actual status of God is. The idea of God is one thing, the reference of that idea quite another and that's true even if God is 100% imaginary. God almighty is the maker of heaven and earth. An idea in my head is simply a mental representation. Chalk and cheese are less alike. Similarly, a unicorn is not an idea. It's a horse-like animal with a single horn that likes to lay its head in a virgin's lap. The fact that there are presumably no such animals doesn't make them into ideas. Ask a computer scientist if you don't like philosophy types. They operate with this sort of distinction as a matter of course.

If you can't figure this out, one of these days you're going to get indigestion from trying to eat a menu!

Is Jerry Falwell a stereotype?

As I have argued in my paper "The Capacity for Religious Experience is an Evolutionary Adaptation to Warfare" (Evolution & Cognition 10:1, pp 43-60), I believe that "gods matter" because the human capacity to believe in them facilitates warfare. This has certainly been true in the recent past, and I believe that it actually provides an explanation for the curious tendency for the vast majority of people to believe in something they can't see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or in any other way perceive with their senses.

In a nutshell, my hypothesis is that "warfare facilitates religion, which facilitates warfare," in what amounts to a coevolutionary spiral. According to this hypothesis, chronic episodic warfare furing the Pleistocene provides the most likely Evolutionary Environment of Adaptation (EEA) for the evolution of the capacity for religious experience. As I point out in the full version of my paper/chapter (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/capacity-for-religious-experience-is.html ), to qualify as a genuine evolutionary adaptation (i.e. embedded in the neurochemistry of the human brain/mind), the capacity for religious experience almost certainly goes back to our long prehistory in the Pleistocene, rather than having evolved during the wars that have punctuated recent human history.

As recent archaeological research by Keeley, Kelly, and LeBlanc has shown, warfare goes much further back into our evolutionary past than was formerly supposed - perhaps as long as 100,000 years, and certainly before the invention of agriculture 40,000 years ago. Indeed, agriculture seems to have jump-started organized warfare, as it provides the kind of concentrated, defensible/stealable resource base that makes war profitable.

The kind of warfare that I believe provided the context for the evolution of the human capacity for religious experience is the kind of tribal "hit and run/raiding" that characterized our hunting/gathering ancestors (and still characterizes our closest relatives, the chimpanzees). For many tens of thousands of years, our ancestors lived in circumstances in which occasional, upredictable, but fairly chronic warfare provided perhaps the most significant differential in survival and reproduction. That is, the survivors (and especially the winners) of that kind of fitfull, but periodic (and therefore chronic) warfare would have had an edge if they could overcome their innate fears and fight with less restraint and more confidence.

This is the context in which the capacity to believe that one's "essence" is immortal, one's tribe is the "chosen people", and that "a higher power" controls the destinies of winners and losers in one's favor can tip the balance toward aggressive war. Defensive war, on the other hand, is self-preservation pure and simple. But every defensive war includes an offensive aggressor, and I have proposed that such aggression is facilitated by the human capacity to believe in god(s), especially war gods.

Yeah, it's a "likely story", but is there any empirical proof? I have none at the moment, so my "Mars Hypothesis" is just that: an hypothesis. However, there are some specific predictions that flow from it that can be tested:

* Since agriculture is tightly associated with the tendency for warfare, agricultural cultures/societies would be more likely to have deities associated with warfare (such as the Roman war god, Mars, who was also their god of agriculture)

* There should be an observable upswing in religious activity preceding the outbreak of warfare, especially among agricultural peoples

* "There are no atheists in the foxholes": that (contrary to what your personal experience may have been) there is a tendency for people about to take part in battle to have an increased capacity for religious experience

There are a whole lot more, but I think you can get the picture from these. Digging deeper, there is a concept in cognitive anthropology called "agency"; that is, "agents" are intelligent entities that can plan, carry out plans, and (in particular) have potentially nefarious designs on others. According to Pascal Boyer (author of Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought), natural selection has resulted in humans having an "agency detector" in our minds, which makes it possible for us to detect and accurately infer "agency" (especially nefarious agency) in other humans. However, he doesn't explicitly point out that the context in which such a detector would be most valuable would be warfare.

That's my job: I believe that the "agency detector" in humans is quite literally the "god detector", in the sense that it is "tuned" by natural selection to find purpose in complex phenomena, especially those related to potential warfare. This "warfare agency detector" is tuned very high, and hence produces "false positives" in the form of war gods, which we then use to explain and justify our participation in warfare, especially agressive warfare against others.

Clearly, wars are ultimately planned, fought, and won or lost for economic reasons. However, pure economics alone can't persuade a combatant to risk his life in a battle. Believing that one is protected by an all-powerful deity can do that.

And yes, Jesus was a nice guy, who preached "turning the other cheek" and "loving thy neighbor." And yes, as a soi dissant Quaker Zen Buddhist, I should (and do) preach the same kind of thing myself. I hope that it is obvious that this is entirely irrelevent to the argument I have made for the evolution of the capacity for religious experience in the context of warfare.

Dr MacNeill, would you please answer the following question: Say, a few years ago a guy named John went to a remote area in Australia and came across a fancy stone half-buried in the ground. Having seen it, he believed that it existed, and, if I understand your thesis, this means the stone in question indeed existed to the extent it existed in his mind. Yesterday John died. There is nobody any longer who ever believed in the existence of that stone, so, according to your thesis, it does not exist as it does not anymore exist in anybody's mind. I am confused - does that stone exist or not? Say, it does not. If tomorrow some girl by the name of Mary travels to the remote area in question and discovers the stone still in the same place, it will suddenly come into existence, right? So, it existed between the time John saw it and the time of his death, then it did not exist for a while, and then it again came into existence when Mary saw it? Do I misrepresent your thesis? Thanks for clarification and apology if I distorted your thesis.

— Mark Perakh

Jim Harrison:

It always amazes me when a person can read something an get exactly the opposite out of it than what was intended. I hope it is clear from the posts that I have been making that natural, physical "things" like rocks are NOT the same as the ideas we have about them. The same is not true, however, for supernatural, non-physical "things", which by definition are simply ideas (that is, concepts that exist only in our minds). Rocks, trees, etc. - these are all natural objects that I (and most other people, including I assume the vast majority of the readers of this list) assume exist completely independently of whether I think about them or not (i.e. their existence has absolutely nothing to do with whether we can think about them or not. Ergo, "things" such as physical objects (like rocks) are indeed separate from the ideas we have about them. Admittedly, the foregoing is a form of "ontological naturalism" (look it up), and as such is not empirically verifiable, but as a naturalist I simply assert that I assume the foregoing without empirical proof.

However, to assert as you do that "things" are not the same as the ideas about those things is not always the case. Specifically, it is not the case when those "things" are supernatural, non-physical "things" such as the United States or Superman (or "God"). These "things" are ideas by definition, and have no reality in the physical world.

indeed, I would go a lot further than this and state that some "things" that many of us take as "real", such as biological species, are in fact purely imaginary creations of the human mind. True, the individual organisms that we classify into such species really do exist, but "species" is a category name which we place onto nature, having no real existence in nature at all. The philosophical tradition that this idea comes from is called nominalism. It was refined and championed by William of Ockham (yes, that Ockham, of the "razor"), and is part and parcel of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, in which he spent several chapters (most notably chapters 1 - 4) carefully and completely deconstructing the Platonic concept of "species" (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/accuracy-precision-nominalism-and.html for more on this).

I very much agree with Matt Young's entry, provided that Professor Stenger indeed "goes further and claims that science has conclusively disproved God."

It is child's-play to disprove, for example, the Genesis account of creation. [An aside, it really sucks that creationists have politicized Genesis so much, as it is quite a beautiful piece of art and a true hallmark of human intellectual history.]

To "disprove God" requires really pinning Him down like a butterfly. To be perfectly honest, I think the whole enterprise is a bit tawdry and below us.

As a logician, Mr. McNeill is very much a social scientist, though, to be fair to his profession, there are cognitive anthropologists who apparently understand logic--Scott Antran, for example. I shouldn't be so schoolmasterish about all this, but McNeill really should take a course on the subject some time instead of retailing foolishness on a par with the Crack in the Cosmic Egg to admiring undergrads.

Whether an idea is an idea of a physical object, of a social construct like a nation, or a supernatural being is irrelevant. An idea simply isn't identical to its reference. Actually, it's already a mistake to confuse what McNeill calls ideas, i.e. mental representations, with concepts for much the same reason that numerals aren't the same thing as numbers.

Anyhow, speaking crudely: I certainly have an idea of a unicorn, but I don't have a unicorn in my head because even a small unicorn would be too big. For that matter even the idea of an idea is not the same thing as the idea to which it refers. Confusing mental representations with their corresponding concepts and references is called "Psychologism." It isn't a very common mistake anymore, having been pretty much blown out of the water by a man named Gottleib Frege 100 years ago.

By the way, it's kind of strange to think that the fact that an entity like the United States is a political construction implies that it isn't also an objective reality. The nation is a legal entity. It also is several thousand miles across and a couple of hundred years old, something that no idea of mine or anybody else or all of us together can claim to be. And, of course, real nations like France are different than imaginary nations like Fredonia precisely because unlike Oakland, there is a there, there.

Thanks, Dr. MacNeill, for taking time to respond to my question, disregarding its facetious tenor. Let me continue though. OK, so stones, trees, etc., exist independently of our mind (as you explained in your reply), while the US of America does not exist except for as an idea (although I am still uncertain why you refer to it as supernatural). OK - likewise the state of California exists only as an idea, right? What about the city of San Diego? If it exists independently of our mind, why is California different? If it does not exists other than as an idea, what about a certain building in that city? It is made of stones so it is supposed to exist independently of our mind, right? On the other hand, why does it exist while California does not? Where is the demarcation line between things that exist independently of our mind and those that, like the US of America, do not?

I don't mind that some of the commenters may construe my questions as stupid, fools have their use (both as an idea and independently of the mind).
I regret that you chose to ignore my question regarding the quotation from Lenin, but so be it. Cheers!

Suppose that a distant intercessory prayer experiment had been conducted, and it turned out that the prayers of Catholics were answered in the affirmative, but the prayers of Jews, Protestants, and Muslims had no effect above the control group (those who were not explicitly prayed for).

TLON, UQBAR, ORBIS TERITUS

Can anybody kindly explain what it means?

In the same comment there is the word "symantic." I guess it is a hybrid between Symantec and semantic?

Ronald Knox gave the definitive answer to this question as I recall:

There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by, yours faithfully, GOD.

Disclaimer: Noneoftheabovewordsshouldbeconstruedtoimplythat
theposterendorsesanynonatheistreligiouspositionasinhisopinion
thefactthatotherwiseintelligentpeopleappeartobelieveingodis
completelyandutterlybizarre

Science is at its root, and by application of various methodologies, including but not limited to Bayesian logic, Occam's Razor, and objective reasoning, an excercise in disproof. The object of the "game" is not to prove what exists, but remove from the possible field of consideration that which cannot exist. Science for the most part limits itself to the material world. This CAN include deific action, if such that an event or phenomenon cannot exist without any other explanation, but only as a possible cause, but never itself directly disprovable by its non-observational nature.

On another tack: Sandefur comments that we should not weaken science as it would to risk offending the religious sensibility over their faith, but rather continue pursuing this discussion anyway and allow ourselves this "offensive" consideration, to which I would back up both Young and Stenger: Faith cannot be swayed. A person who beleives does so to the heart of him or herself, and as such cannopt be truly shaken by any fact. To that person, a fact can only be an action from a disbeleiver or an attacker. When a person acts as when one is threatened, one does so out of fear, and as such faith is "weak"; i.e., that person has no faith, but pretends for the sake of the image or the society. What science does to offend is not to seek offense, but allows the fearful to react with offense, as this is a typical defense mechanism of the challenged insecure person. Consider that a man of faith cannot truly be shaken, but can dismantle his own faith at will. He just chooses not to.

Some very bright people believe in both science and God, and they are on our side of the evolution-creation "debate." They are experimental evidence that science and religion can coexist. We should not risk alienating them by falsely telling them that science proves them wrong.

— Matt Young

"That said, ideas are clearly "supernatural" are they not? After all, you can't cut somebody's brain open and find "ideas" in there. If ideas have any physical (i.e. natural) reality at all they are simply patterns of action potentials in the central nervous system."

I strongly disagree! Ideas DO have a physical reality, which, as you say, is in "the form of patterns of action potentials in the central nervous system". Those patterns are real and you can, at least in principle, cut somebody's brain open and observe them. In practice, we use less destructive methods such as MRI scans, CAT scans and whatever improved methods we discover in the future.

If ideas were SUPERnatural, they would exist somewhere else, where we could not access them in any way, at least until some supernatural entity decided to let us see them.

"God = the idea of God"

The idea of God may be all that exists in reality, but God, if he existed in reality, would be more than an idea in somebody's head.

You could just as well say, "Gun = the idea of Gun." But if somebody points the idea of a gun at you and pulls the idea of a trigger, no real bullet will come out of the barrel. The same cannot be said for a real gun.

Now if you were to say, "IN REALITY, there is no God and the only thing that actually exists that comes close to a God are the many Ideas of God that people carry in their heads," I would be in complete agreement.

By the way, I completely agree with your characterization of Dr. Dembski's honesty.

Jim Harrison got it exactly right in comment #97521

(I am, in fact, religious but my religious beliefs are in no danger from any science because sunsets are still beautiful, salt air still makes me calm, whiskey still tastes good, sex still feels good and I am gratefull to be alive.)

A concern about the truth or otherwise of religion may seem purely academic when couched in terms of the philosophy of science, as on this blog, but in the political arena it is a more pressing matter to try and prevent the actions that follow inevitably from fundamentalist religious beliefs.

So, Dr. McNeill, does your argument postulate that belief in God is a bona fide biological adaptation, corresponding to a genetically hard-wired neural structure, or more like a meme-like thing, a self-replicating cultural entity that may (as in this case) be advantageous for the organism that holds it?

Which raises a question, that I hope someone here may answer: is there been any study (twins etc) on the heritability of belief in God? Perhaps cultural components are too strong to tease out the underlying genetics, but still...

Finally, would your hypothesis predict that countries with high rates of (or institutionalized) atheism would fight fewer aggressive wars, or fight them less fiercely? For instance, as Mark can attest, Soviet soldiers in WWII, a defensive war, were among the most relentless and self-sacrificing fighters in the conflict. The same Army fought several more aggressive wars in the same general timeframe, say from the invasion of Finland to Afghanistan. There should be some material there about soldiers' attitudes and fighting patterns.

Continuing on specifically with the issue of whether science can disprove God, of course there is the trivial answer that science cannot disprove a concept that is infinitely malleable. Now I know that none of my ideas are original, and have been previously expressed far more eloquently, but I disagree strongly with those who contend that atheists display the same faith in their "religion" that any believer does. I don't believe in anything else without evidence, yet in order to avoid this charge, I am asked to make an exception for this one and only one particular case. In fact I am actively discouraged against believing in other magical thinking, such as witchcraft. And please don't respond with the sophomoric plea to the immaterial from Contact "Do you believe your father loved you? Prove it!". In this one case I am asked to believe solely because many other people do so, and there is a book that can be pointed to as proof. Yet millions of others believe something else that is contradictory, and they have their own books. And every single believer believes they are right, and that all the believers in something else are mistaken. In fact, they would be one of these other believers themselves, and believe just as strongly in the other God, except for the accident of where they were born. In America, many see our military and present economic might as proof that we believe in the "right" God, yet they are in fact the result of our culture's adoption of Enlightenment values at the expense of religion. So instead of trying to reconcile or somehow sort through all of these conflicting beliefs, I make the logical assumption that they are all incorrect. How can disbelief, coupled with the complete lack of physical evidence for any of them, perversely be an equivalent act of faith?

Some make the illogical leap of equating this stance with immorality or amorality, but I think morality in fact is the development of thousands of years of human social interaction, and does not require belief in the supernatural. In fact, I am a skeptic in some pioneering social areas, because I feel that many of the social experiments that we consider so groundbreaking and innovative have probably been tried countless times by previous civilizations and discarded as unworkable.

Religion, by appealing to faith, can only function if there are interpreters of the faith. Thus its ultimate product is always unquestioned control of a large group of people by the select few. Our best defense is a healthy skepticism.

You are conflating two different things. "Fundamentalism" =/= "religion". The vast majority of religious people think the fundies are just as nutty as you do.

— Rev Dr Lenny Flank

Scince may not be able to "disprove" the existence of God in general, but it can show that some claims of some religions are not true - such as that the world was created 6000 years ago. Therefore in some sense such religions are "refuted" by science.
This "refutation" gets very close to real refutation when the religious claims are supposed to come from God itself. Indeed, whatever tiny wriggle room is left to the believer, it is hard to see any practical difference in this case: an all-good supernatural being claiming to have created the world 6000 years ago does not exist, so either it's all in the minds of the devotees or else the being in question does exist but is not supernatural or all good.

Mr. Sandefur (Comment 97416) has misunderstood my position. He, Professor Stenger, and I think that there is no evidence for the existence of God or, at least, for an omnipotent, benevolent God.

Brian wrote:
""Fundamentalists" are merely those who actually believe their various religious texts - "moderates" are those who believe only their own interpretation of those texts."

We all interpret every text we read, including the fundamentalists. It's unavoidable.

You might like Isaac Asimov's career choice test: what is the meaning of "unionized"? Has it something to do with trade unions (union-ized) or with particles with electrical charge (un-ionized).

The vast majority of religious people think the fundies are just as nutty as you do.

So, Dr. McNeill, does your argument postulate that belief in God is a bona fide biological adaptation, corresponding to a genetically hard-wired neural structure, or more like a meme-like thing, a self-replicating cultural entity that may (as in this case) be advantageous for the organism that holds it?

This post reminds me of a dialogue between Dogbert and a professional debunker of supernatural phenomena:

Debunker: "I have a machine that can detect the presence of supernatural energy."

Dogbert: "Have you ever detected such energy by means of this machine?"

Debunker: "No."

Dogbert: "Then how do you know your machine CAN detect such energy?"

Debunker: "..."

I totally agree with you: science can indeed disprove alleged supernatural events, and provide materialistic explanations for events attrbuted to divine intervention; but any scientist who claims he/she can prove or disprove the existence of a God is simply making an ass of him/herself. (Also, the utter lameness of the "diagnosis of exclusion" you cited as an example further proves your point.)

As to the question of why Soviet soldiers fought so effectively during WW II, despite being atheists, I have two comments:

First, in my hypothesis, religions don't necessarily cause wars. Indeed, I believe that most wars are ultimately caused primarily by economic forces. What I am suggesting is that the capacity for religion exists because religious belief can facilitate warfare that is initiated for other reasons. Having religious beliefs, IOW, makes it more likely that individuals will participate in war, as the whole dismal history of our species can attest. And, of course, if the capacity for religious belief can facilitate warfare, then as the result of such warfare such a capacity can increase in frequency if one survives and successfully reproduces as a result. In this way, religion and warfare constitute a coevolutionary spiral, similar to the other evolutionary "arms races" already described in the literature.

Second, since rewiring of the human CNS takes time and (probably) genetic change, the fact that most of the wars of the 20th century didn't directly involve religion is irrelevent. We have many capacities that we have inherited from our Pleistocene ancestors that do not necessarily translate into increased survival and reproduction today, and there are an increasing number of things that negatively impact the probability of our survival and reproduction today which we have not yet evolved a predisposition to avoid. For example, phobias against spiders and snakes are common, even among people who have never encountered a poisonous version of either, yet phobias against electrical outlets or running into the street are still regretably rare in young children.

normdoering writes "Let's say the believer can talk his god into doing this repeatedly. After a while we have to note he's on to something associated with his concept of god." But do we HAVE to note this?

The believer clearly has some ability others lack.

The believer THINKS his god is doing it - that is, he has a ready-made explanation for his ability. But the believer may be completely misinterpreting what he's doing.

It's not unheard of for scientists to get experimental results consistently, that others can't reproduce, only to find that since the original scientists didn't understand what was really causing their results, they omitted critical features from their description of their experimental method. It's pretty easy to hypothesize that "If we do A, the result will be B", perform the experiment, and sure enough B happens. But later, it turns out that B happened for reasons having little or nothing to do with A. Hypotheses can be supported by accident.

Perhaps it would help to ask the following questions:

1) Since, as most of us agree, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of the kind of "god" described in the JCMM Bible/Q'uran/Book of Mormon, why do so many people believe there is? Are people really that gullible, or is there perhaps an innate predispostion to believe in such things? For example, I can suggest to you that you are "hollow" in the back (i.e. only your ventral surface exists; you are built like a Hallowe'en mask), yet this idea is unlikely to catch on with most people. However, a huge majority of the Earth's human population believes fervently that an invisible human-like entity with super powers controls their lives, and that they will continue to live on after they are dead. Are these two ideas really that different? What makes so many people not believe the first, but believe the second to the point that they will forego reproduction or even kill people and/or commit suicide in support of that belief? Could it perhaps be an innate predisposition to believe in such things as gods?

2) If there is an innate predisposition to believe in such things as gods, what would be the most likely candidate as to the EEA in which such an adaptation evolved? That is, what human activity, pursued assiduously over the past 100,000 years or so, would have caused the greatest assymetry in reproductive success, thereby resulting in the evolution of such a capacity? I believe, based on the work of Atran, Boyer, Betzig, Keely, Kelly, LeBlanc, and others that the answer is warfare. If you don't think so, then what other human activity would be more likely to provide the evolutionary context within which such a capacity would have evolved?

Please, can someone in this thread tell me what "supernatural" means so that I can actually have a coherent opinion on whether or not science is capable of studying it?

I'm quite sure ID isn't scientific, but I confess I have no idea at all in what sense ID is positively identifiable as "supernatural", nor do I know whether or not ID is unscientific because it deals in the supernatural.

I'm not trying to be flippant here. I really don't understand.

...science can indeed disprove alleged supernatural events, and provide materialistic explanations for events attrbuted to divine intervention; but any scientist who claims he/she can prove or disprove the existence of a God is simply making an ass of him/herself. (Also, the utter lameness of the "diagnosis of exclusion" you cited as an example further proves your point.)

Keely, L. (1996) War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 245 pp

Kelly, R. (2000) Warless Societies and the Origin of War. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 192 pp

LeBlanc, S. (2003) Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful Noble Savage. St. Martin's Press, New York, NY, 271 pp

Please, can someone in this thread tell me what "supernatural" means

Then thoughts cannot be supernatural.

I'm still stuck at the fact that all we'd have disproved is that God is answering these particular forms of prayers in any naturalistically measurable way...

Maybe we've just proven the existence of a relatively deaf or distracted God?

Assuming, of course, we're even barking up the right God tree, so to speak. Type. Whatever.

Yes. If you're going to be fair and open you have to. It remains a potential explanation until you eliminate it.

You don't actually know that for sure either, so it's not clear. Someone else may have some technological device that shoots lightening and may be using it to fool the guy.

Indeed. In fact there is a very interesting case of an alternate explanation in the story of N-rays

why do so many people believe there is? Are people really that gullible, or is there perhaps an innate predispostion to believe in such things?

If you don't think so, then what other human activity would be more likely to provide the evolutionary context within which such a capacity would have evolved?

Then thoughts cannot be supernatural.

It looks like Dr. MacNeill chose not to reply to my comment 97524. It is OK, as I agreed in advance to have my comment to be construed as not meeting the requirement of being sophisticated on the level of the philosophical discussion on this thread. So, here is another point - Dr. Neill's opinion regarding the connection of religious beliefs to humans' predisposition to wars. Since Andrea appealed to my personal experience during the WW2, I take the liberty to refer to another item from my experience. In the Siberian prison camps I observed how many inmates, who never before gave a thought to religion, converted into fervent believers. It seemed to enable them to cope with the inhuman conditions of the camps, with permanent hunger, endless severe punishments for minor infractions of rules, freezing Siberian cold, hard labor, and all other nice thing they were subjected to. It seems to me these conversion had little to do with predisposition to wars or love of warfare. Does this not shed some light upon human predilection to religious faith? Interesting, after being freed, many of those new believers reversed to a complete indifference to religion (with some exceptions of course). While I don't expect that Dr. MacNeill will be much impressed by this story, does it not have in it some stuff for contemplation in relation to his theory of "religion stemmed from predisposition to war?" Am I again misrepresenting Mac Neill's idea?

...why do so many people believe there is [a God]? Are people really that gullible, or is there perhaps an innate predispostion to believe in such things?

I suspect that when most humans imagine one or more "Gods," they are actually personifying their vague notions that "there's gotta be something more" than the day-to-day grind of working, meeting our ongoing material needs (food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc.), and short-term self-gratification (sex, partying, drinking, sport, etc.). When we imagine God(s), we are imagining a higher state of being, a higher purpose than mere survival, and giving a face to it, just like we tend to personify/anthropomorphize many other abstract or invisible things in our lives. "God(s)" is/are the desire we all have to be something more or better than instinct-driven animals.

Finally, would your hypothesis predict that countries with high rates of (or institutionalized) atheism would fight fewer aggressive wars, or fight them less fiercely? For instance, as Mark can attest, Soviet soldiers in WWII, a defensive war, were among the most relentless and self-sacrificing fighters in the conflict.

I suspect that when most humans imagine one or more "Gods," they are actually personifying their vague notions that "there's gotta be something more" than the day-to-day grind of working, meeting our ongoing material needs (food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc.), and short-term self-gratification (sex, partying, drinking, sport, etc.).

When we imagine God(s), we are imagining a higher state of being,...

... "God(s)" is/are the desire we all have to be something more or better than instinct-driven animals.

I am amazed - the author confuses/conflates testing of physical phenomena i.e. if someone is healed etc. w/ supposed causes that cannot be tested. Science, or more precisely scientific/empirical methodology CAN test claims of the supernatural (think the good work of "the Amazing Randi"). In fact many phenomenon formerly believed to be supernatural in origin have been shown to have natural causes (i.e. illnesses, lightning) If scientific methodology fails to explain a cause of a particular phenomenon - the only conclusions that can be drawn is that either "we don't know" or the phenomenon is not adequately described to lend itself to scientific inquiry or the phenomenon as described does not exist. Does this mean that someday science may discover that something like ESP is real? perhaps - but if it does, by definition ESP will then be shown to be NATURAL. Science does not have the "tools in the toolbox" to ever actually discover the supernatural.

There used to be a philosophy of mind called "dualism" that attributed intelligence and thought to a supernatural cause, to souls that could survive death. This is still believed by many people who don't know any better.

I must have dozed off (or passed out) and missed the bit where the existence of immortal souls was disproven. Can you provide a link to the relevant peer-reviewed paper?

There are "fossil religions" like the ancient Egyptian religion which shaped a society and motivated the building of the pyramids. No society after that ever devoted so much human effort to their religion.

Really? Some of those cathedrals in Europe show a pretty impressive amount of effort, and make up in artfulness, ingenuity, and complexity what they lack in sheer size. Also, are you counting large-scale charitable work as "human effort [devoted] to their religion" when it's organized by a church according to a holy person's admonitions?

It seems to me that one can find that the evidence is such that the warrant for a hypothesis is zero currently and still say that this might change. So, in this case, what would be wrong with claiming that the current evidence suggests there is no god (=has disproved gods) and still say that this could change if new evidence arises?

(I might add also that Bayesianism is contentious, to say the least. It is my view that only qualitative understanding of warrant and other factors is available.)

--------

Allen MacNeill: Ideas exist - but not independently of ideating animals. I don't think Christians (etc.) claim to worship an idea of god, they claim to worship the referent of the idea. So, what good does this do? (Ideas are supernatural?? Only to a [metaphysical] idealist. In a materialist metaphysics, ideas are just [classes of] brain processes found in certain animals. I might add that this explains why ideas have power - the interconnectedness of neurons and from there to other body systems (endocrine, muscular, etc.)

Put another way: why do you think the United States is purely an idea? It has concrete properties like a concrete structure (the social system of systems it comprises); it changes (and thus possesses energy, thus passing the Bunge-test for being real - you may wish to also read about his work in the social sciences and how idealism is fatal there as much as in physics), has an external environment in the world system (the other countries), etc.

Pete Dunkelberg: On the other hand, deism runs into problems with semantics - if "universe" means "aggregate of everything", deism is impossible. If "universe" means "local hubble volume" as it does sometimes in physics, then why would one call the creature that may have set off our expansion a god, especially considering that such expansion can be done nondeliberately?

Jaime Headden: Your pseudopopperianism is contentious, BTW. Many philosophers (and certainly many scientists) have given reasons for which falsificationism is incomplete ...

That may be the way religion is evolving today, but in the past, when the first books of the Bible were being written and before, in Egypt and Babylon, I suspect the motives were different --- that it was tied trying to manipulate the world for survival and to organizing a people under a ruling authority.

Oh please...first, the Egyptian, Babylonian and Jewish religions weren't the only ones on Earth at the time; and second, what the "ruling authorities" did is a completely separate issue from what most people felt or thought.

That may be what the god concept is now evolving into. It is not the god concept of traditional religions.

And that conclusion is based on interviews with how many practioners/believers of ancient religions? (You'd have to have used interviews, since "god concepts" don't leave fossilized remains.)

My point is that people strive to be better than mere animals, and that's how/why cultures, arts, and civilizations are created. Religious beliefs (some at least) have contributed to this by offering codes of conduct ("morality") that demand that we, as social creatures, resist our momentary instincts and desires to further a greater good (as it was understood at the time). What religions are doing today, is merely the further progression of what they've been doing throughout history and prehistory.

why do so many people believe there is? Are people really that gullible, or is there perhaps an innate predispostion to believe in such things? For example, I can suggest to you that you are "hollow" in the back (i.e. only your ventral surface exists; you are built like a Hallowe'en mask), yet this idea is unlikely to catch on with most people. However, a huge majority of the Earth's human population believes fervently that an invisible human-like entity with super powers controls their lives, and that they will continue to live on after they are dead. Are these two ideas really that different? What makes so many people not believe the first, but believe the second to the point that they will forego reproduction or even kill people and/or commit suicide in support of that belief? Could it perhaps be an innate predisposition to believe in such things as gods?

Keith-
the only conclusions that can be drawn is that either "we don't know" or the phenomenon is not adequately described to lend itself to scientific inquiry, or the phenomenon as described does not exist. Science does not have the "tools in the toolbox" to ever actually discover the supernatural.

either we need to define/describe god in empirical terms (which I believe cannot be done) or we have to accept that science is not equipped to disprove god's existence. which does not prove that god exists - merely that we have no way to prove that he doesn't

I must have dozed off (or passed out) and missed the bit where the existence of immortal souls was disproven. Can you provide a link to the relevant peer-reviewed paper?

Some of those cathedrals in Europe show a pretty impressive amount of effort, ...

Also, are you counting large-scale charitable work as "human effort [devoted] to their religion" when it's organized by a church according to a holy person's admonitions?

The fact of the matter is that in "primitive societies" there is no difference between religion/spirituality and "something else". Animistic explanations are how humans deal with the world at the time when all phenomena are simply encountered and experienced.

"Creationism" runs rampant through the environment in which cause and effect relationships are either not known, or are known as some kind of "magical relationship". We were long out of animism before we even believed in the conservation of energy (300 years ago or so), and we hadn't even conceived of "energy" all that much earlier. Winds might occur because of ghosts (usually small scale with ghosts), God, gods, or Satan (Yahweh appears to have been a storm god in Exodus). Indeed, if one found the proper incantations and spells, one might conjure up winds, waves, cold, or heat, since humans didn't have the foggiest notion of proximate causes for these phenomena.

Conservation of matter was often accepted, at least in early civilization. The Genesis story, where God spoke (incanted) the world into existence is rather late and abstract, whereas early gods could transform material objects, but did not make them out of nothing. But magical transformations of matter and energy seemed to be nothing at all odd, for humans themselves were able to effect such transformations on a limited scale, especially with mysterious fire.

As long as the world could only be understood through raw empiricism, causation was noted but was generally quite mysterious. Turning brittle green rocks into malleable copper using fire--how magical is that? OK, we don't want populizers of science gushing about such "magic", since we know that humans know "how it happens" in a reasonably sophisticated manner even if we don't know how it happens ourselves. Yet it was alchemy in the past, a number of steps performed only because they gave a highly desirable result, and not because anyone knew what the charcoal added to the ore did, or how fire effected the conversion.

The fact is that religion/spirituality was inescapable in the past (as others have alluded), and not because of war or Freudian speculations, rather it was because events happened in very undeniable fashions, but without the slightest hint of adequate causation. One could start to make sense of this by suggesting that anima, spirits, were manifesting their quixotic and capricious natures, yet one might begin to note some patterns in the wills of even the most effervescent of spirits.

Then one had a peg to hang one's hat on, and one might notice that the storm god, for instance mostly spills his fertilizing liquid upon the female ground during the winter. We don't know why, but that's up to the storm god (we might make a myth that "explains" Yahweh's preferences). And we don't know why the storm god sometimes does not fertilize the ground--perhaps he has had a dalliance with another goddess. So then we have a kind of "explantion" for the pattern, as well as possible explanations for deviance from that pattern. "Explaining" unreliable patterns quite readily called for animistic causation, then, because the only thing that we knew that caused events according to patterns, yet would often be unreliable, were humans and animals.

It's all very reasonable at certain stages of human development.

I think that in prison camps a different, but complementary to the above, kind of psychology takes place. We grasp at anything to get ourselves out of grave predicaments, and a mental presence may be the last hope that we might have. Thus we might pray to God, or call out to "Mommy", when we have no other hope. Unfortunately, neither is at all likely to help us in this case, yet even when left to rot we might still be comforted by the associations with a familiar name like "Mommy" or "Jesus". Believe me, I would not try to rip those psychological comforts from the desperate (and in fact I would not generally try to dissuade those who seem to need religion in our own society (if we reduced need we'd probably reduce religion--it's not for nothing that many preachers don't work for a better society)--but they have no business preventing science education).

Calling out to God in desperation was no doubt a considerable aspect of ancient religion as well, and indeed, those times were often desperate in a way that we don't understand. Still, desperation is not the full story, and I expect that animistic explanations probably were a necessary bridge to our more rational models of reality. We need merely heuristic explanations whenever we lack good causal explanations.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

So much to comment on, so little time.

First, on God (or the USofA, or ID or Santa Claus) as the idea of God (etc.): I still see an important difference between the USofA and all the other candidates. The USofA will actually interact with reality in ways the others don't. It can put you in jail, occupy your land, annihilate your family... Now, you might say these are all actions taken by actual humans acting "in the name of" the relatively abstract entity known as the USofA. I think it would be more accurate to say that those humans are part of that portion of reality that we draw an artificial semantic border around and call the USofA. Important parts of that chunk of reality include, for instance, the commanding officer of the soldier ordered to arrest you (shell your house, etc.) the physical consequences faced by that soldier if he disobeys and so on. If someone occupies your land, kills your family, etc. "in the name of God" - it may be functionally similar. And there may be an equivalent to the commanding officer and consequences (from your fellow God-warriors) for disobedience. But there's no chunk of reality you can draw a border around and say "that's God". At least if you mean anything like what is generally understood by that term. My minimal requirement for an entity to qualify as (a) God is a non-corporeal will: it has to have preferred and non-preferred outcomes, and means by which to communicate those preferences and influence those outcomes.

Second - the difference between "religion" as understood and implemented by thinkers such as George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, or Osama bin Laden, and the "official atheism" of Josef Stalin, Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung strikes me as inconsequential. If the behavior and neurology of Homo sapiens has been shaped evolutionarily by warfare, I doubt whether that behavior and neurology cares whether it's organized around a Sky God, the honor of your ancestors, or the ideal of the perfect Communist state.

So which of those 5 distinct definitions you supplied is under discussion in this forum? Is it the same sense that Stenger used? Are either of these what IDists mean when they use the term? Was your list intended to be exhaustive, and if so, does it rule out definitions such as "indescribable", "describable but immeasurable", "relating to a metaphysics in which mind preceeds matter", "pertaining the irreducibility of semantic predicates to natural predicates", "involving the view that philosophical claims are a subset of empirical claims", etc.?

...since "god concepts" don't leave fossilized remains....

My point is that people strive to be better than mere animals, and that's how/why cultures, arts, and civilizations are created.

Religious beliefs (some at least) have contributed to this by offering codes of conduct ("morality") that demand that we, as social creatures, resist our momentary instincts and desires to further a greater good (as it was understood at the time). What religions are doing today, is merely the further progression of what they've been doing throughout history and prehistory.

Professor Stenger did not wholly address the question but responded that he was referring to the benevolent Christian God. Again, I agree with his conclusion, inasmuch as I think that evil and misfortune count decisively against a benevolent and omnipotent God, and any theodicies I have ever read are but lame rationalizations.

Suppose it is suggested that the amount of evil that exists favors the hypothesis that there is no God. Within the framework of likelihood inference, there are two quantities we must evaluate: What is the probability that there would be so much evil, if the universe were produced by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and entirely benevolent God? And what is the probability of there being so much evil, if the universe were produced by mindless natural processes? Once again, if the ways of God are sufficiently mysterious, we will not be able to evaluate the first of these likelihoods.

And atheists who agree with my criticism of the design argument should desist from pressing the argument from evil as a proof that there is no God.

I believe in an old ideal of courtesy.

Don't jeer at other peoples' ethnicity, physical disabilities, or religious traditions.

Of course I fight back when someone tries to teach one narrow religion as "science" in the public schools, or even misinforms the public with lies about science. And "religious" views that require doing something like hurting people physically are can't be expressed legally.

Other than that, I vehemently oppose anyone trying to impose their own religious views on a law-abiding person who doesn't want them. And the sophistry of claiming that atheism isn't a religious view doesn't cut the cake.

Some of the atheists here are former fundamentalists, but many are merely hyper-priveleged upper middle class academics or professionals, children of academics or professionals. They were raised to believe that atheism is the "culturally superior" thing to do, and they delight in saying so, however another person may feel. There are words for this type of behavior. Colonialism, imperialism, snobbery, hubris, arrogance, and so on. Atheism is just the cultural tradition you were raised with or adopted. It isn't "logically superior". Nor would it matter if it were.

Brian is quite literally a fascist fundamentalist atheist. His argument is very simple. You can't compromise with the "moderates", everyone must become an atheist or be dealt with. This is 100% unequivocally exactly the same as the attitude of the religious right and the Taliban. Hopefully, Brian isn't as violent as they are, but his attitude is the 100% exactly the same. No, it doesn't matter if you leave me alone, it doesn't matter if you mind your own business. You must do EXACTLY as I TELL YOU TO. I decide, you obey, and I have a convoluted cockamamie justification for why I can't "compromise with moderates".

Panda's Thumb puts up a topic about evolution or biomedical science, and there are maybe six comments. Put up a comment about religion, and there are hundreds, a substantial number from furious atheists who are every bit as stubborn in their refusal to live and let live as the creationists are. Is it really necessary for a science site to be a fundamentalist atheism proseletysing site?

By the way, my very best friends are mainly atheists. My problem is not with atheism in the slightest, but with the very clear attempt to exclude anyone who doesn't adhere to Priveleged Rich Country Guy Elitist Atheism from science. Please don't answer by saying that the fundies try to exclude you, too. That only proves my point. I already agree that they do it too - that's what makes you like them.

So which of those 5 distinct definitions you supplied is under discussion in this forum?

Here's the point:

ANY TIME a religion makes a claim about the natural world--

We can pray away your cancer;
Your soul weighs something and it leaves you at death;
There was a worldwide flood ~4000 YBP;
People and dinosaurs lived together;
The bacterial flagellum could not have evolved;
The speed of light has slowed

--it can and should be tested in the natural world by our tool for testing things in the natural world (science).

Whether there is a supernatural god can't, by definition, be tested by science.

God did something in the natural world CAN be tested--at least to the extent of finding out if the alleged effect actually happens, and whether there are any possible natural explanations.

If religious people don't want god to be "disproven by science," then they'd better quit making claims that god has any effect in the natural world!

Thanks, harold, you just saved me a lot of keystrokes. I have to admit it's amusing, in a sad make-fun-of-homeless-drunks sort of way, when atheists make so many uninformed assertions about religions and religious people that simply aren't borne out by the religious people I encounter on a regular basis -- then refuse to consider the evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Isn't "science" about questioning what you think you know in light of new information?

Various sophisticated people have evolved God notions that are more or less defensible from an intellectual point of view, but these elaborated concepts have very little to do with popular faith and are as alien to the mentality of the mass of mankind as the purest atheism. Most people, most places, most times have no coherent theology at all. They simply think the universe is haunted. We pretend that the beliefs of the majority aren't mere superstition because it is politically convenient to do so in a madhouse run by the patients. From a strategic point of view that may well be the smartest move, but it's just spin.

The great thing about gid, gop, dop, dig dang whats it's name again ?
Is that scientists and educators don't have a thing to worry about(at the moment), just sit back and watch all the sects and cults fight it out amongst themselves (and make sure they follow the law and that they don't get to say what "The One True Word of *insert favorite deity here* IS"

You can always rely on this interesting fact,that for every human mind on earth there are just as many definitions on whatever IT is.
Take what I think it is for example....read the above line.

So the next time someone says to you "I know what G*d is (or IS not)" get them to define what G*d IS(or is not) and then just quietly close the door and let them bore themselves to death.

The IDeologists are doing a nice job on that right now. They still have not performed a single bit of science ....and they never will.

The problem we have today, is that for some people, tolerance is not an option for them, they need to be reminded that they are free to think whatever they like and others are free agree or disagree with them .....until they get the law changed, then you will see a holy war (hopefully) like all the others around the world.

harold: I see your point about Brian. Just wow. "Fascist fundamentalist atheist" is right! Check out this blithering:

This presupposes that the important debate is evolution vs creation, rather than for and against religion more generally.

Um...actually, that really IS the important debate: the general position of this blog, and most of its respondents, is that we're all entitled to our diverse religious beliefs, as long as no one tries to disguise his own beliefs as "science" and force-feed them to other people's kids. Am I missing something here?

In my view, an intolerance of all religion is necessary in order to diminish the influence of the fundamentalists.

What he seems to be saying is that we can't make common cause with religious moderates, 'cause that would help the fundamentalists; so he wants to make common cause with the fundamentalists -- by ganging up on the moderates -- instead. What side did he say he was on again?

Extremists ganging up on moderates -- it worked for Hitler and Stalin, so now Brian wants to try it again, 'cause the results were so awesome the first time!

This guy can't understand the simple concepts of "common interests" and "mutual respect." I really don't want to know what sort of childhood he had, or how he got on with the other kids.

I believe in an old ideal of courtesy.

Brian is quite literally a fascist fundamentalist atheist.

His argument is very simple. You can't compromise with the "moderates", everyone must become an atheist or be dealt with.

This is 100% unequivocally exactly the same as the attitude of the religious right and the Taliban.

I'd suggest reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" for a very persuasive argument that it is impossible to make diplomatic accommodations with religious moderates without also promoting the processes in society which enable fundamentalism to flourish.

Bee wrote: "My point is that people strive to be better than mere animals, and that's how/why cultures, arts, and civilizations are created."

To which Norm replied: "I'm not exactly sure you can say we "strive" to be better than animals. We just are different than other animals in our use of language, art and science. We don't have to try or strive --- it's what a culturally educated person does naturally. I don't strive to be attracted to art --- I just am, naturally. I have to to survive and prosper in the culture I live in."

I'd say what we strive for is realization of our human potential. Of course, this can be anything from acting out a crude fantasy to remaking the world according to an ideology (for better or worse).

I also think it would be helpful to not refer to ideas or thought as supernatural. That word has a lot of baggage, and it's really not accurate. They are non-physical subjective experiences of physical brains. Is there even a single word for that?

Brian wrote, and norm quoted:

I'd suggest reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" for a very persuasive argument that it is impossible to make diplomatic accommodations with religious moderates without also promoting the processes in society which enable fundamentalism to flourish.

Deny it all you want, norm, but this is, indeed, exactly the same position as most fundamentalists take toward all forms of liberalism, diversity, accomodation, moderation and compromise: that ANY accomodation with "those people" will allow their most evil and extreme tendencies to flourish, and chaos and depravity will overwhelm us all.

Admit the obvious: fundie atheists and fundie theists fear and hate moderates for the same reason: the moderates make all extremes look equally stupid, therefore the extremes must eliminate them, or they will have no credibility at all. Just like Hitler and Stalin, who could justify themselves only by pointing to each other.

I'd say what we strive for is realization of our human potential.

I also think it would be helpful to not refer to ideas or thought as supernatural. That word has a lot of baggage, and it's really not accurate. They are non-physical subjective experiences of physical brains.

... the moderates make all extremes look equally stupid,...

"The argument that science has disproved God, besides being wrong, puts religious believers who support science into an untenable position and risks alienating precisely those people whose support we desperately need."

Science can't prove or disprove God. But there are scientific explanations for the universe and everything within it. So science makes God completely unnecessary.

Creationists are hopelessly stupid but they are mostly correct when they claim that evolution and religion are incompatible.

The only God that can be compatible with science is a God that has no reason for existing.

I don't think there is ever a good reason to be a liar. There is no reason for a scientist to talk about religion or God, but to say that science and religion are compatible is a lie.

The only thing religion has ever accomplished is slowing down human progress, starting wars, abusing children with lies, genocide, etc. The world would be better off if atheists would more often point out the stupidity of religion and the terrible harm that religion has caused.

roger wrote:

There is no reason for a scientist to talk about religion or God, but to say that science and religion are compatible is a lie.

Really? Science is quite compatible with MY religion. And no, my religion does not postulate a God(ess) who "has no reason for existing," whatever the hell you mean by that. I have some very good personal reasons for believing in Gods, and so do the (non-creationist) people I've met in Narcotics Anonymous.

The only thing religion has ever accomplished is slowing down human progress, starting wars, abusing children with lies, genocide, etc. The world would be better off if atheists would more often point out the stupidity of religion and the terrible harm that religion has caused.

Funny, our latest Pope said exactly the same thing about atheism and "neo-paganism" -- with just as little supporting evidence. And bitots of every religion say the same thing about all other religions-- with just as little supporting evidence. Funny coincidence, that.

Here's a news flash: "religion" does not cause harm or impede progress; people do. If you want to blame someone for genocide, at least try to sort out exactly WHICH people you're blaming. Or quit pretending you even care what you're talking about.

I don't think there is ever a good reason to be a liar.

Every time someone asks for common courtesy and simple tolerance toward people of different faiths, some atheist jumps up and starts howling about "being a liar." What the hell's wrong with you guys? Are courtesy and tact among those "irrational" concepts you can't seem to get your heads around? Grow up two decades and call us in the morning.

Science can't prove or disprove God. But there are scientific explanations for the universe and everything within it.

Creationists are hopelessly stupid but they are mostly correct when they claim that evolution and religion are incompatible.

The only God that can be compatible with science is a God that has no reason for existing.

I don't think there is ever a good reason to be a liar. There is no reason for a scientist to talk about religion or God, but to say that science and religion are compatible is a lie.

Science is quite compatible with MY religion.

And what religion am I again, norm? You're getting really unhinged. Go to bed.

Oh, and roger? You've just been called on an indefensible generalization BY NORM! How unhinged does that make you?

And what religion am I again, norm?

Wrong again, fool. Good night and good luck.

Just when I thought everything was going swimmingly, if sometimes off task, we seem to be getting a bit of invective. Pls keep the discussion civil. I will reserve my right to delete (or send to the bathroom wall if I can figure out how) any comments that get sufficiently uncivil. It is, honestly, possible to disagree with people without calling them fascists or liars.

Some gods don't exist. Like Cupid and Dionysus. At least they probably don't.

I don't know for certain that no gods exist. I don't know for certain that nothing exists other than the known universe and the matter and space in it.

But I know -- or at least I am overwhelmingly warranted in inferring -- that no deity (or any other being) turned dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two elephants to live on earth. For one thing, self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms to live on earth, including all the elephants. And the claim that a deity (or some other being) turned dust -- poof! -- directly into the first two elephants to live on earth is logically inconsistent with the claim that self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms to live on earth, including all the elephants.

A lot of people think stuff happened that didn't happen. That's not a big deal. That's just life. Some things happen. Some things don't. I've never been abducted by aliens. Am I certain that I've never been abducted by aliens? Maybe not. But I'm warranted in inferring that I haven't been. And I'm warranted in inferring that that snake never talked to Eve. And that Methuselah didn't live to be 969 years old. And Noah didn't get all those animals on that boat. Especially the kangaroos and koalas.

Am I certain that Uri Geller isn't bending those spoons with some telepathic power? Maybe not certain. But I'm really warranted in inferring that he is not.

I agree that one should not claim that God(s) are categorically disproven and I think Vic is usually careful to say he is only talking about the personal God of Abraham who answers prayers and intervenes in the world. I also agree that the problem of evil (and the problem of hiddeness) are decisive proofs that this God doesn't exist. But I think you go too far when you write,"Rightly or wrongly, many people believe in God, and many of those same people support evolution and oppose creationism, whether intelligent-design creationism or other. Force them to choose between their religion and science, and a great many will probably choose religion, to the detriment of science." If pressed by the evidence many nominal theists will retreat into deism and many will simply stop believing. Believers are the minority in most european countries.

The main obstacle to acceptance of atheism seems to be a fear of moral collapse. Everyone supposes that THEY could be moral without religion, but those other people are only constrained from rape and pillage by fear of fire and brimstone. As science extends to the study of societies, both human and animal, this last obstacle will crumble.

Raging Bee asked:

Wrong again, fool.

I must have dozed off (or passed out) and missed the bit where the existence of immortal souls was disproven.

When we imagine God(s), we are imagining a higher state of being, a higher purpose than mere survival, and giving a face to it, just like we tend to personify/anthropomorphize many other abstract or invisible things in our lives. "God(s)" is/are the desire we all have to be something more or better than instinct-driven animals.

exactly the same position...that ANY accomodation with "those people" will allow their most evil and extreme tendencies to flourish, and chaos and depravity will overwhelm us all.

— Raging Bee

Please explain why the cosmological constant has such a tiny but non-zero value.

— David Heddle

The failure of distant prayer studies and other scientific evidence have led Professor Stenger to conclude that God does not exist.

Again, I agree with his conclusion, inasmuch as I think that evil and misfortune count decisively against a benevolent and omnipotent God, and any theodicies I have ever read are but lame rationalizations.

The claim that science has conclusively disproved God is what your physician might call a diagnosis of exclusion. That is what she uses when she has no firm idea what you have.

The physician's diagnosis was justified when she made it, but it was a diagnosis-of-the-gaps argument and promptly disproved.

If they ever convince the public to automatically link science with atheism, then evolution is done for, and it will take science down with it.

From a Bayesian perspective, one has to specify (or presume) an estimate of the probability of something (the prior) before using evidence to modify (or confirm) one's views. If, like Heddle, for example, you set the prior at 100%, you are probably going to conclude that any evidence whatsoever confirms your prejudice. What God (whatever that is) has to do with the constants of nature is quite unclear even if there is some sense in which the current "settings" are surprising; but a true believer, having fixed the game, pulls in God at every opportunity. Such folks are surely welcome to ride their hobbyhorses, but they shouldn't be upset if, from time to time, somebody points out that they aren't getting anywhere on their wooden steeds.

Those of us who don't have an emotional or practical attachment to curious old superstitions have no reason to set the prior for the existence of God at much more than 0. God just isn't a respectable hypothesis, which is why atheism is a waste of time. Acting as if there were really a doubt about the nonexistence of God is a mistake rather like admitting to a psychotic that you can't prove he isn't Admiral Nelson, since, from a strictly logical point of view (all together now!), you can't prove a negative.

Raging Bee wrote: exactly the same position...that ANY accommodation with "those people" will allow their most evil and extreme tendencies to flourish, and chaos and depravity will overwhelm us all.

Heddle

Excellent, so you have proof for your reasoning on that small non zero CC ?

If your reasoning for your "One True Word of ***" is based on such a tiny little number why take any notice of it?

Get serious give us a really big impressive number like x inches.

Now tell us all about talking snakes in Gen.3. (giggle)

from a strictly logical point of view (all together now!), you can't prove a negative.

normdoering,

Do you see there being a difference between:

1. I believe humans have immortal souls.
2. That humans have immortal souls hasn't been disproven.

OR

1. People have a concept of God in order to feel like they have a higher purpose.

2. People have a higher purpose.

What's the deal? Are you just yanking chains here?

Comment #97618 Posted by heddle on April 20, 2006 01:59 PM (e) roger, Science can't prove or disprove God. But there are scientific explanations for the universe and everything within it. Really? Please explain why the cosmological constant has such a tiny but non-zero value.

This is all very simple. The belief that there is a God or might be a God is a belief that something supernatural is possible or might be possible. Of course anything supernatural is impossible. So God is impossible. And as I said before in comment 97615, God is completely unnecessary.

Do you see there being a difference between: 1. I believe humans have immortal souls. 2. That humans have immortal souls hasn't been disproven.

1. People have a concept of God in order to feel like they have a higher purpose. 2. People have a higher purpose. What's the deal? Are you just yanking chains here?

I believe in an old ideal of courtesy ... Brian is quite literally a fascist fundamentalist atheist

— harold

And "religious" views that require doing something like hurting people physically are can't be expressed legally.

— harold

You can't compromise with the "moderates", everyone must become an atheist or be dealt with. This is 100% unequivocally exactly the same as the attitude of the religious right and the Taliban.

Um...actually, that really IS the important debate: the general position of this blog, and most of its respondents, is that we're all entitled to our diverse religious beliefs, as long as no one tries to disguise his own beliefs as "science" and force-feed them to other people's kids. Am I missing something here?

— Raging Bee

This guy can't understand the simple concepts of "common interests" and "mutual respect." I really don't want to know what sort of childhood he had, or how he got on with the other kids.

— Raging Bee

The belief that there is a God or might be a God is a belief that something supernatural is possible or might be possible. Of course anything supernatural is impossible. So God is impossible.

And it is overwhelmingly probable that self-replicating molecules evolved through reproduction into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth, including all the humans.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H.L. MENCKEN (1880-1956)

Oh dear. And I thought this discussion had promise.

Oh well. As long as that that's not happening, how about we at least make it different and have a feces-flinging match between Those Who Care and Those Who Don't.

Jim H. has the right of it. It is indeed a category error to equate X==idea(X) and use this as a axiom, substituting anything at all for X. This might be harmless for certain particular Xs, but I'll not explore this line further.

Bayesian reasoning is certainly not contentious, except perhaps for some who have not studied it. It is routinely used in trouble-shooting (intuitively on "Car Talk") and diagnosis is general. There is a Bayesian analysis program available to assist MD with medical diagnosis, for example.

Generally, formal Bayesian reasoning is necessary in areas which are data poor and hypothesis rich. I have just finished reading two books on the use of Bayesian techniques in archeology, an subject which certainly qualifies as data poor and hypothesis rich. There is nothing wrong with the older, better established Fischerian statistics that many of you may have studied. Those frequentist techniques, however, require much more data to arrive at the same conclusions. I have yet to see a paper in which the use of both Bayesian and Fischerian methods arrived at opposite conclusions regarding "rejection of the null hypothesis".

With regard to Allen MacNeill's hypothesis regarding the origin of the God meme (or God memplex, if you prefer), he is delving into an area of archeology in which very little data can possibly be available. I suspect that there is as much (or rather, as little) for my own: The God meme helps to form and control the social interactions between the individuals in a single company (100 to 400 people, including children). Such companies met together once a year, with considerable tensions between the males. Having a single God meme then cut down on the number of murders, promoted good marriages, exchange of goods, etc.

I know of no evidence, although I have not particularly looked for it, of warfare between companies before the age of 'land management', or 'proto-agriculture'. See "Noah's Flood", or better, P. Bellman, "First Farmers".

Before this time, people were, on average, few and far between. An excellent writer on this topic is R.Dale Guthrie, "The Mammoth Steppe" and "The Nature of Paleolithic Art" come to mind. The latter is excellent. I probably learned more about the essential nature of young men from this book than any other. After all, there has been essential no genetic evolution between then and now.

With regard the extent to which 'God' is genetic, I point you to Alex Templeton's recent paper in Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. There he determines, by excellent techniques, that humans left Africa (most probably) 130,000 years ago, thence spreading across all lands. Now that is so recent that little genetic change has occurred since. So if part of 'God' is genetic, one would have to look for it in Africa. I haven't.

But more to my point, once out-of-Africa, there was hardly anybody anywhere before the stage I have called 'land management'. This doesn't appear to have occurred before about 15,000 years ago anywhere. So before then the opportunities for warfare would be distinctly limited. No opponents.

For an excellent popular account of the peopling of the world, see S. Oppenheimer's "Out of Eden". I have some minor quibbles regarding the peopling of the Americas, but his overall account and approach seems good and his writing is most enjoyable. From this you'll get a good sense of the world with almost nobody in it.

Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it.

— jonboy

you'll get a good sense of the world with almost nobody in it.

stevepinhead --- Nostalgia! Horrors, no! I've now read quite a bit about what life must have been like since the last interglacial, the Eemian. No, thank you, no. I am definitely and firmly embedded in the 20th century (and not enjoying the 21st, so far).

Will that keep them off? ;-)

normandoering -

I'm going to try to respond, without further inflaming things. It's up to you whether you accept the olive branch or not.

First of all, I'd like to point out that you ignored the substance of my post. I'll come back to that.

Your wrote -

"Is the old ideal of courtesy a one way street where religious people get it and others are lied about and insulted?"

I've never hesitated to speak bluntly. I haven't insulted or lied about anyone. I used the strong term "fascist"; perhaps I should have used the more polite synonym "authoritarian". His position was that there is a struggle between "religion and non-religion" and that there can be no "diplomatic accomodation with moderates". Those were his exact words. The words are astonishingly and chillingly similar to those used by the religious right. May I ask, if Brian is involved in a "struggle between religion and non-religion", and he won't allow "diplomatic accomodation" of even "moderates", how he will deal with those whom he cannot "accomodate"?

"He never said everyone had to be an atheist."

I'm confused. May I ask, again, if Brian is involved in a "struggle between religion and non-religion", and he won't allow "diplomatic accomodation" of even "moderates", how he will deal with those whom he cannot "accomodate"?

"That is a bald faced lie."

Actually, even if my subjective opinion were wrong (which it isn't), it doesn't make it a lie.

"The term "diplomatic accommodations" does not, except in your twisted delusional view, equal "the Taliban.""

I'm confused again. Isn't the whole point of the Taliban that they won't accomodate anyone else?

"You are in fact proof that we cannot make "diplomatic accommodations" with you."

Why? Because I say that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Mormons and atheists can all accept science and live together in, as you put it, "diplomatic accomodation"?

"It doesn't mean we will kill you, silence you, or restrict your freedom --- it just means we will not bargain on presenting the evidence for our views as diplomatic accommodations to religious prejudice against us."

Really. Well, then, I guess there's no problem after all. Silly me for thinking that "no diplomatic accomodation even with moderates" had a more sinister tone than that. I guess the fact that fundamentalists, Maoists, and so on talk exactly that way caused me undue alarm.

I'll grant you this - you have a right to complain about religious prejudice against you. Not mine; if I was prejudiced against atheists I wouldn't have a friend left. It was not Brian's atheism I responded to. I must say, however, that even the statement "I am not an atheist" seems to provoke the rage of some, along with claims that the speaker must therefore be "biased against atheism". This is not entirely dissimilar to the psychology of the fundies. Labelling those who aren't the same as you as "against" you.

Science is, however, no more evidence for your religious views than for anyone else's. It conflicts with Jerry Falwell's views, but not with yours, not with mine, and not with those of the Dalai Lama or the Vatican science counsellor. And the way you know whether it conflicts with someone's views is if they tell you it does, either explicitly or by denying basic scientific concepts. Jerry Falwell does both, the rest of the people I mentioned do neither. How and if they practice a private religion is, to paraphrase that great American Benjamin Franklin, none of your business.

In closing, may I ask, where are the pro-science Hindu voices, Buddhist voices, Jewish voices, etc, here on PT? Maybe they get sick of hearing endless overgeneralized rants against "religion". I've worked with scientists of all those faiths. Do you really think that there's nothing on earth except atheism and fundamentalist mega-churches? And for that matter, do you really think it's your business if someone goes to a fundamentalist mega-church, as long as they respect your rights? My problem with fundamentalists is that they want to force their views on me in disregard of my rights; what they believe privately is none of my affair.

You seem to think that there's a "battle between religion and science" or something, but all I see is a battle between A bunch of Priveleged Yet Angry Stridently Atheist Upper Middle Class American and European Guys and a bunch of Batspit Crazy Authoritarian Fundies, with anyone else taking it from both sides. It's pretty silly.

OK, "nostalgia" was probably the wrong word. Appreciation? Interest?

But, anyway, with that disclaimer, yeah, you should be fine now.

Or at least safe from all but the truly unregenerate far-far-far-from reality loonie-ticks...

Seriously, why does this discussion keep happening?

1) We can disprove specific conceptions of God which intervene in a way incongruent with natural laws and principles.

2) We could, in theory, prove the same God, though this has not occurred yet.

To me, the rest is kind of like the discussion about IC. You can't even falsify a God which acts in accord with natural laws in principle, nor could you confirm one. It's like arguing about which imaginary infinite line in 3 space is longer.

Tolerance of moderate religious belief is what allows fundamentalism to continue to flourish in our increasingly secular society

jonboy: if you look more closely, you'll see I'm only hard on atheists who make asses of themselves by pretending their atheism makes them superior (much like a newly-born-again fundie), and making ridiculous overgeneralizations about other people, their beliefs, and the consequences thereof (much like a newly-born-again fundie). For further clarification, see harold's last response. Or, better yet, READ IT SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY.

PS: If we want to blame "religion" for all of the evil done throughout our history, shouldn't we also give "religion" credit for the good? A little logical consistency might help to back up the atheists' self-image as rational thinkers.

heddle,
"Please explain why the cosmological constant has such a tiny but non-zero value."

There are several types of proposals that may explain this. Endless inflation populates possible values of changeable parameters, for example in the string landscape, with universes. One selection mechanism is the observer anthropic principle - it was pure coincidence. Another selection mechanism is the environmental - some parameter values maximise universe production.

I believe the operative term is "can of worms"...

Maybe I'm too simple minded. Or maybe I took too many philosophy courses, studied too much science, had the wrong fundamentalist upbringing, married into the wrong mainstream protestant pastor's family, took too many hallucinogens, or have been working with computers and databases too long, but...

Since when is science in any way concerned with "god", or "God", in any form. My understanding of any definition of a god, is that it is perceived as an entity or entities completely outside the realm of nature, in that the forces of nature are completely under his/her/its/their control. My understanding has always been that Science studies nature as we are able to physically observe and measure it.

I thought belief in god/God was based on faith. One definition of faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Doesn't sound like something for science, to me. Whether you are a theist, agnostic, or atheist.

I object to any discussion of the existence of God/god/gods in a science forum. It distracts from the good information.

For the record: I am intentionally "unchurched", and have no interest in any notion of the supernatural in any form. My "belief system" is that there are simply things we don't know, yet.

In closing, may I ask, where are the pro-science Hindu voices, Buddhist voices, Jewish voices, etc, here on PT? Maybe they get sick of hearing endless overgeneralized rants against "religion".

Re: the "Mars" hypothesis of religion:

I'm more of the "Freeloader" hypothesis of religion. It goes something like this:

In most nonhuman primate societies, the Big Cheese, the guy in charge (and it is invariably a guy), is able to run things because he can beat up all challengers (or, in more socially-oriented nonhuman primate societies, he can build an alliance of others that will support him and beat up all his challengers). In the earliest human societies, that was probably true as well.

Alas, ruling by raw intimidation is, uh, kind of wasteful of energy, time and (once you develop effective weapons) members of the social group. So it's an enormous advantage to coerce social members without using physical methods to do it. Enter "religion".

It's a given that all the members of the early human social group were frightened, awed and (most importantly) unable to explain or control the forces of nature. Enter the "shaman", the guy with the "special ability" to understand and even control (or at least appear to) the unseen and incomprehensible supernatural forces (aka THE GODS). The Big Cheese, meanwhile, sees a powerful ally, and . . . voila. Organized religion. The Big Cheese is the Big Cheese not just because he can beat up anyone who challenges him, but he also has the shaman on his side --- and that means he also has THE GODS on his side, who can REALLY REALLY beat up anyone who displeases them.

Oh, and by the way, social group members, we priests/Big Cheese are terribly busy all the time with this "communing with THE GODS" thingie (you don't want THE GODS to send another drought like they did *last* year, do you?), so you can't possibly expect *us* to, uh, you know, WORK or anything. We'll leave that all to you wonderfully loyal social members, who will therefore please THE GODS and make them happy by doing whatever the shaman/priests tell you THE GODS want you to do. Such as, oh, give a portion of everything you produce to us -- uh, I mean, to THE GODS. And if you don't, by golly, THE GODS will beat you up really really bad. Just you wait and see.

Oh, and by the way, THE GODS want you to invade that tribe's territory over there because I want its fruit trees --- uh, I mean, THE GODS want us to punish that tribe for its sins, and THE GODS have graciously given us their land. So get to it. Me, I'll be here with the priests, communing with THE GODS on your behalf.

And indeed, organized religion has been a tool of the political/economic ruling elite ever since. Heck, in the case of most ancient societies, it WAS the ruling elite.

And you know what? They STILL don't do any work for their living.

I haven't insulted or lied about anyone. I used the strong term "fascist"...

His position was that there is a struggle between "religion and non-religion" and that there can be no "diplomatic accommodation with moderates".

I am concerned that strident arguments linking science to atheism are counterproductive. Creationists claim that evolution and religion are incompatible (though they usually mean their version of religion). If they ever convince the public to automatically link science with atheism, then evolution is done for, and it will take science down with it. Rightly or wrongly, many people believe in God, and many of those same people support evolution and oppose creationism, whether intelligent-design creationism or other. Force them to choose between their religion and science, and a great many will probably choose religion, to the detriment of science.

...if Brian is involved in a "struggle between religion and non-religion", and he won't allow "diplomatic accommodation" of even "moderates", how he will deal with those whom he cannot "accommodate"?

I'm confused again. Isn't the whole point of the Taliban that they won't accommodate anyone else?

I say that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Mormons and atheists can all accept science and live together in, as you put it, "diplomatic accommodation"?

...you have a right to complain about religious prejudice against you. Not mine

Science is, however, no more evidence for your religious views than for anyone else's.

It conflicts with Jerry Falwell's views, but not with yours, not with mine, and not with those of the Dalai Lama or the Vatican science counsellor.

And the way you know whether it conflicts with someone's views is if they tell you it does...

Do you really think that there's nothing on earth except atheism and fundamentalist mega-churches?

Further examination reveals that the plagiarism incident was not an isolated event, but rather pervasive misconduct in this regard. Say good-bye to "jonboy".

If you can't say something in your own words and are unwilling to take the time to acknowledge a source, you may always simply provide a link to the source so that others can go read it for themselves.

I really didn't want to agree with Lenny Flank, but his 'Freeloaderism' certainly seems to be fairly close to what I have read about baboons and chimps. So the extrapolation to humans doesn't seem unreasonable. But I am sure that an anthropologist would probably use more words and more professional terms to say much the same thing. Lenny is just more, well, pointed.

Tolerance of moderate religious belief is what allows fundamentalism to continue to flourish in our increasingly secular society

I really didn't want to agree with Lenny Flank, but his 'Freeloaderism' certainly seems to be fairly close to what I have read about baboons and chimps. So the extrapolation to humans doesn't seem unreasonable. But I am sure that an anthropologist would probably use more words and more professional terms to say much the same thing. Lenny is just more, well, pointed.

Lenny is just more, well, pointed.

Since when is science in any way concerned with "god", or "God", in any form. My understanding of any definition of a god, is that it is perceived as an entity or entities completely outside the realm of nature, in that the forces of nature are completely under his/her/its/their control. My understanding has always been that Science studies nature as we are able to physically observe and measure it.

I thought belief in god/God was based on faith. One definition of faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Doesn't sound like something for science, to me. Whether you are a theist, agnostic, or atheist.

I object to any discussion of the existence of God/god/gods in a science forum. It distracts from the good information.

I really didn't want to agree with Lenny Flank

But I am sure that an anthropologist would probably use more words and more professional terms to say much the same thing. Lenny is just more, well, pointed.

The two theories, Mars and Freeloader, are not in conflict --- they could both be true.

"Moreover, "God" often has been used to fill in the gaps of our understanding. Our understanding of evolution closes a gap in our understanding. As we understand more about the universe, what kind of god, if any, would one be justified in believing exists?"

And why wait until there are no longer any gaps for God to fill? Why not just admit right now there is no reason for a God?

The Freeloader view is larger and more inclusive, though ---

...it CONTAINS the Mars view.

---- warfare appeared so that various Big Cheeses could take each other's stuff ...

What it doesn't explain is the reason we evolved the capacity to really believe in religious experiences and be convinced, not just cowed by a bully.

It is unavoidable that people will argue that science and atheism is linked. It is also unavoidable that people will argue that science and religion is ideologically and historically incompatible.

Stenger asks if science can study the supernatural. The pair natural-supernatural and "the two magisteria" are forms of dualism that has never had testable support as such. So the answer is negative.

More interesting is if science can study religious claims. Science use observations to make and verify theories beyond reasonable doubt. (Pet peeve: Induction is a tool to make hypotheses, not to 'prove' theories, contrary to what some say here. Verifying theories are much stronger, using prior theories and falsification et cetera.) It has been a result, not a priori given, that these theories has converged to be about nature. Dualistic theories of spirited mechanisms, souls, et cetera has lacked testable support.

On this basis science has alway studied religious claims when they have been about observable properties about the world. These claims have failed which means that these theories have been falsified.

As a belated attempt to avoid problems religions redefine themselves all the way back to deism. A problem with deism is that it is still incompatible with science since methods of science includes skepticism. A scientist can not be a deist without using different criteria indiscriminately.

But science can make a stronger claim IMO. We have learned that there are general conservation theorems on energy and probability for all natural phenomena. This makes it possible to test whether an event is natural or nonnatural. A class of theories would be that all phenomena are natural from natural causes (by causality and/or conservation of probabilities), distinguished from nonnatural phenomena from nonnatural causes.

These theories can be tested falsifiably beyond reasonable doubt. (For example, by experimental sieves testing a large number of systems such as chemical reactions.) The best such verified theory, which happens to be in line with many physicists implicit and successful use of (quantum) realism, is that nonnatural causes does not exist. That rejects forcefully any dualistic stuff like gods et cetera.

If any nonnatural phenomena are observed, it could be a revelation to science. :-) Effects such as below threshold observations are in this context naturally taken as noise, as are all hypotheses about less powerful ways of mediating nonnatural causes such as small scale quantum noise interference.

So while science can't say much about supernatural dualistic claims, it seems to be able to make and verify in the normal manner the simple matter-of-fact theory that natural causes are all there is. As normal for a scientific theory this could change if new evidence arises, but that does not a priori invalidate or cast doubt on any other theory verified beyond any reasonable doubt so it should not be used here - agnosticism is not a scientific option any more than deism is.

--- even the most solitary of animals follows the simple rule, "don't mess with anything that can beat you up". Religion (and shamans) simply transfer that rule to the Super Big Cheese In The Sky.

Can it explain all religions? Zen Buddhism as well as the old testament?

It could. But Allen MacNeill still beat you to the Mars view. You can not encompass his theory in a broader one and take credit for MacNeill's ideas.

I think you may have indeed expanded on the Mars theory. However, Allen MacNeill went in some detail incorporating agriculture and making predictions based on his theory. Can you make any predictions that will test your theory?

Hmm. I just realised the claim of the "natural" theory is stronger - the sieve removes all duality descriptions of nature. The removal of the basis of all religions are incidental.

You don't mess with bullies that will beat you up --- but that doesn't mean you believe them when they tell absurd stories. You just cow as you should and then stab them in the back when you get the chance. If you don't think they are dealing honorably with you --- you don't have to deal honorably with them.

I like Allen MacNeill's ideas about war --- really believing in things like immortality of the soul makes war less of a horror and that makes better soldiers and that puts a survival advantage in the society of of true believers.

You don't mess with bullies that will beat you up --- but that doesn't mean you believe them when they tell absurd stories. You just cow as you should and then stab them in the back when you get the chance. If you don't think they are dealing honorably with you --- you don't have to deal honorably with them.

Actually, religious fanatics who aren't afraid to die, make very poor warriors.

They tend to get themselves killed at a quite alarming rate. Tends to, uh, reduce the size of one's army rather quickly. The trick to winning in warfare is NOT to die for your beliefs ---- it's to make the other guy die for HIS.

Lenny, I'm going to put you and Allen MacNeill both in the same camp (I'm sure neither of you will enjoy this.) Both of you assume the pre-existence of agriculture. Fine, we know that once irrigation is used in agriculture, there are Big Cheeses, warfare, etc.

But it is clear from the archeological record in Europe that there was some sort of respect for the dead about 30,000 years ago, long before agriculture. This suggests some vague God meme, or immortality meme. Furthermore, in hunter-gatherer societies, everybody works, including the chiefs. No Big Cheese, because there is no surplus.

I've already posted that God genes, if any, needed to arise in Africa. And I've alternately suggested that God genes and memes would aid with the social cohesion of the company. There is no evidence of warfare before proto-agriculture. There is evidence of murder. Possibly God genes and memes cut down on the incidence of murder.

Also, an immortality meme might well help when faced with: bison, mammoths, lions, rhinos, and saber-tooths, all of which roamed the mammoth steppe, sharing the same space with people. Furthermore, Alex Templeton's paper demonstrates that people shared, over time, genes. Maybe by warfare, but again, maybe not.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that conditions before agriculture were anything like they were (are) in agriculture societies.

How'm I doing?

Why didn't democratic and secular instincts develop in earlier primate socities?

The freeloaders should be a drain on the society they inhabit and exploit

--- why wasn't there more evolutionary health in getting rid of them?

What did they contribute to a culture's survival?

But it is clear from the archeological record in Europe that there was some sort of respect for the dead about 30,000 years ago, long before agriculture. This suggests some vague God meme, or immortality meme. Furthermore, in hunter-gatherer societies, everybody works, including the chiefs. No Big Cheese, because there is no surplus.

Lenny, I'm going to put you and Allen MacNeill both in the same camp (I'm sure neither of you will enjoy this.) Both of you assume the pre-existence of agriculture. Fine, we know that once irrigation is used in agriculture, there are Big Cheeses, warfare, etc.

But it is clear from the archeological record in Europe that there was some sort of respect for the dead about 30,000 years ago, long before agriculture. This suggests some vague God meme, or immortality meme.

Furthermore, in hunter-gatherer societies, everybody works, including the chiefs. No Big Cheese, because there is no surplus.

Has any one here ever read "The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into The Forces of History" by Howard Bloom:
http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/

It has a few similar ideas about religion and war.

roger (?): Tolerance of moderate religious belief is what allows fundamentalism to continue to flourish in our increasingly secular society...

Lenny: That is quite possibly the silliest thing I have ever heard.

norm: Only when it's taken out of the context of the book it was written in. Harris goes into more detail on how it actually works out that way. Religious believers of all stripes, but especially Christians, are constantly "stroked" and coddled by politicians and culture.

And WHO took it out of its precious context and made it sound as stupid as it sounds here? Not myself or Lenny, but the person who quoted it approvngly. This leads me to one of two possible conclusions:

a) The person quoting the text didn't have sufficient understanding of the text's meaning to represent the message properly; OR

b) The "out of context/you don't understand" bit is pure BS, the same excuse routinely used by hacks and con-men like Noam Chomsky whenever someone debunks some clearly idiotic or dishonest statement of theirs.

Judging by what I've read here, Harris' book sounds, at best, utterly worthless.

In other words, hunter gatherers couldn't afford freeloaders

I think you've got some original ideas there.

Lenny, go back and read my rather thorough description of the 115,000+ years of pre-land-manager life. There were simply so few people that warfare was (almost) non-existent. There is, AFAIK, no evidence for it. So there was very little inter-group contact, including robbery.

The chiefs were the men who survived to the ripe old age of 30--35. They led their band. Probably the successful hunters ate first and ate the choicest cuts. Enough reason to be a chief?

Finally, the concept of the 'ultimate lazy' society applies to modern-day hunter-gatherers. These are land-managers. There are no societies facing the climatic and ecological conditions of the more remote past.

Longhorn:

I don't really disagree with anything you said, except that I find it difficult to reconcile reasonableness with religious belief/faith. I think reason is the antithesis of faith. The destruction of my own faith had many causative factors, but reasoning for myself was primary. I just find the whole ongoing argument tedious. Those who believe will not be convinced otherwise until they have their own "crisis of faith". Those who don't are only echoing what I have already determined for myself. It just seems like a pointless exercise. You said science is a method we employ to try to understand. I completely agree. And it has proved very useful. I think there are some who fear it, because it is slowly eliminating some of their traditional "mysteries."

I guess I've just lost my enthusiasm for the debate.

Also, an immortality meme might well help when faced with: bison, mammoths, lions, rhinos, and saber-tooths, all of which roamed the mammoth steppe, sharing the same space with people.

A meme that says "I'm an immortal soul so it doesn't really matter if that bison runs me over", doesn't seem to be,uh, all that practical to me.

Lenny, go back and read my rather thorough description of the 115,000+ years of pre-land-manager life. There were simply so few people that warfare was (almost) non-existent. There is, AFAIK, no evidence for it. So there was very little inter-group contact, including robbery.

The chiefs were the men who survived to the ripe old age of 30---35. They led their band.

Probably the successful hunters ate first and ate the choicest cuts. Enough reason to be a chief?

Finally, the concept of the 'ultimate lazy' society applies to modern-day hunter-gatherers. These are land-managers. There are no societies facing the climatic and ecological conditions of the more remote past.

And you were doing so well, it was almost as if you were thinking.

I'll try to respond to Normdoering - so much hubris, so little time...

"Can you really accept science? Or are you just accepting a distorted version of it? Can you accept the fact that neuroscientists are so profoundly atheistic in their science they no longer argue about whether there is an immortal soul --- they just assume there isn't one?"

Interesting, since my undergraduate concentration was in neurobiology, with a fair bit of psychology on the side, and I've kept up with the field ever since. We didn't talk about religion, we talked about neurobiology. And I didn't say a word about the immortal soul. (No doubt Norm is insinuating that work on the neurobiology of religious experience "proves" his long-preconceived notions. That sort of "brain area" research is of great value and interest, but it's really more of a starting point than anything else).

"You can't divorce science from atheism so easily. They've already been connected in the popular mind."

Really? While I think this is wrong on two levels. They aren't connected, and whatever the "popular mind" is, I don't see much evidence that it thinks they are. I, personally, would provide evidence before making an assertion like this. But that's just me. I like evidence. I even modify my opinion according to the evidence, or admit that I don't know something when there's no evidence one way or the other. Eccentric that I am.

"I strongly disagree. Modern science does point more to atheism than theism."

Well, that settles that. Norm "strongly disagrees". Somebody call the Vatical science advisor and the Dalai lama. But wait, I'm confused again. I thought the whole complaint against science is that it uses "methodological materialists" or something. So we're only looking for natural explanations. So that we aren't looking for religious explanations. So isn't this kind of like complaining that we went out rabbit hunting, and we didn't come back with any ducks? I don't get it - how could science be expected to "support theism"?

"I don't know what you believe --- but I think the Dalai Lama and the Vatican science counselor or in trouble when it comes to understanding the findings of modern science."

But you see, Norm, they don't think so. In fact the Dalai Lama has all kinds of summits with scientists. Read this very carefully, Norm, because it could provoke an insight - IT-DOESN'T-MATTER-WHAT-YOU-"THINK". I'm afraid I have to say, Norm, this comment makes me believe that you're what's referred to as a "prejudiced".

"No, what I assume is that moderates, Hindus and others would have more problems with science if they really understood it. I don't think they do understand it because they're constantly being lied to about what its real conclusions are."

I'd stake a fair bit that some moderate Hindus out there understand, and produce, science, at a level at least equal to that of normdoering. And I'd suggest that we see a fair bit of evidence of that "prejudiced" thing again here.

"Don't be so sure of yourself."

Norm, I'll come right out and admit that I don't like you anymore. I don't like the way you arrogantly make stupid assumptions, stereotype people, and run down people you have never met. But I have to tell you, there are plenty of atheists I like a great deal.

"Can you accept the fact that evolution sentences billions and billions of creatures to horrifying death and misery? That's the ultimate secret to how evolution works: failures die."

I've left the best for last. No, Norm, this is not an accurate description of the theory of evolution. First of all, this is loaded with outrageous anthropomorphisms. Judges "sentence", Norm. Gravity doesn't "sentence" apples to hit the ground when they fall off trees. Evolution is just what happens. "Horror" and "misery" are human constructions. I'm easy-going - I'll apply them to other highly cephalized mammals. "The dog felf horror and misery". Fine, I'll grant you that one. But it's an awful stretch to say that plants, bacteria, insects, and so on feel horror and misery. Evolution doesn't produce "failures", Norm. Some traits are selected for, others aren't. You, Norm, may say "that particular wild strawberry gene is a 'failure'", but "evolution" doesn't "think" it's a failure; the phenotypic traits associated with it weren't selected for in that environment, that's all. And lastly, Norm, although all sexually reproducing organisms die, the carriers of traits that aren't selected for don't necessarily "die" at a faster rate (although that may often happen). The relevant point is that they reproduce at a slower rate than carriers of traits that are selected for. In fact, the well-accepted concept of sexual selection renders your statment nonsensical - in many cases, the better reproducers also die younger.

A good shorthand way to describe evolution is a "change in the frequency of alleles over time". And of course, we could equally, and equally anthropomorphically, say "successes reproduce". Indeed, if all evolution really did was "kill" failures, life wouldn't have gotten very far.

Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it.

Well, this thread seems to have been peer-review, of a sort.

;)

So, who wants to co-author a paper about "The Freeloader Hypothesis of Religion" with me?

We'd have to title it something really long and pretentious, like "Preliminary Notes on the Formation of the "Freeloader" Hypothesis As an Evolutionary Explanation for the Development of Human Social Intra-group Relations in Pre-Agricultural Societies, And Its Possible Applicability to Modern Social Construction".

(grin)

So, who wants to co-author a paper about "The Freeloader Hypothesis of Religion" with me?

In Zen, of course, there is no god or gods, but nevertheless, people can indeed be led to act in certain ways by those "religious" structures.

I guess I've just lost my enthusiasm for the debate.

normdoering -

I feel that my last post was a bit too harsh.

My problem is certainly not with atheists, who have never caused me the least bit of actual trouble in my life - the exact opposite, in fact.

I was, however, royally cheesed off by that "there can be no diplomatic accomodation of the moderates" thing.

You felt obliged to jump in and defend it.

I sort of felt like Lenny Flank - silliest thing I ever heard.

But the problem is, this really, really is EXACTLY what the worst extremists always say.

You tried to spin it as a mere "we won't pretend to agree with their religion" thing.

But that's NOT what it sounds like. "Accomodation"? Please. It sounds like Pat Robertson, the Taliban, Chairman Mao, and everyone else who makes the world miserable. And it was an appeal to authority. Some guy wrote some book, so there can be no "diplomatic accomodation of the moderates".

I asked you before, and I'm asking you again, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Precisely what do you propose to do with "moderates" whom you can't "diplomatically accomodate"?

Now, I realize that these are the words of some other long-fled guy, but I would appreciate it if you would explain, in plain English, what they mean to you. How do you propose to deal with moderates whom you can't "diplomatically accomodate"? I'm talking specifics. Forced conversion? Execution? Jail? Mere exclusion from academic or professional jobs, despite the irrelevance of their "moderate" beliefs you don't agree with? What does "no diplomatic accomodation of the moderates" mean and how do you plan to enforce it?

Please answer my question.

... neurobiology, ... I've kept up with the field ever since. We didn't talk about religion, we talked about neurobiology.

And I didn't say a word about the immortal soul. (No doubt Norm is insinuating that work on the neurobiology of religious experience "proves" his long-preconceived notions. That sort of "brain area" research is of great value and interest, but it's really more of a starting point than anything else).

You can't divorce science from atheism so easily. They've already been connected in the popular mind.

Hmm. I just realized the claim of the "natural" theory is stronger - the sieve removes all duality descriptions of nature. The removal of the basis of all religions are incidental.

I, personally, would provide evidence before making an assertion like this.

Well, that settles that. Norm "strongly disagrees". Somebody call the Vatical science adviser and the Dalai lama. But wait, I'm confused again. I thought the whole complaint against science is that it uses "methodological materialists" or something.

So we're only looking for natural explanations. So that we aren't looking for religious explanations. So isn't this kind of like complaining that we went out rabbit hunting, and we didn't come back with any ducks?

I don't get it - how could science be expected to "support theism"?

Norm, because it could provoke an insight - IT-DOESN'T-MATTER-WHAT-YOU-"THINK".

Norm, I'll come right out and admit that I don't like you anymore.

I don't like the way you arrogantly make stupid assumptions, stereotype people, and run down people you have never met. But I have to tell you, there are plenty of atheists I like a great deal.

I've left the best for last.

No, Norm, this is not an accurate description of the theory of evolution.

First of all, this is loaded with outrageous anthropomorphisms.

Judges "sentence", Norm.

Evolution is just what happens. "Horror" and "misery" are human constructions.

"The dog felt horror and misery". Fine, I'll grant you that one.

But it's an awful stretch to say that plants, bacteria, insects, and so on feel horror and misery.

Evolution doesn't produce "failures", Norm. Some traits are selected for, others aren't.

And lastly, Norm, although all sexually reproducing organisms die, the carriers of traits that aren't selected for don't necessarily "die" at a faster rate (although that may often happen). The relevant point is that they reproduce at a slower rate than carriers of traits that are selected for.

A good shorthand way to describe evolution is a "change in the frequency of alleles over time".

And of course, we could equally, and equally anthropomorphically, say "successes reproduce". Indeed, if all evolution really did was "kill" failures, life wouldn't have gotten very far.

Fortunately not all atheists are as militant as Norm. I think most people recognise that atheists too have their 'fundies' who - just like the Christian fundies - can give the rest of us a bad name.

On a science blog it's fair to point out that science does not - and cannot - 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. If we have a hypothesis that can be repeatably tested, and if it has resisted all our attempts to falsify it so far and it helps up make useful predictions then we call it a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it has been 'proven'.

A statement like 'Science proves God doesn't exist' is a statement of faith, not of science, because science can do no such thing.

... the problem is, this really, really is EXACTLY what the worst extremists always say.

And it was an appeal to authority. Some guy wrote some book, so there can be no "diplomatic accommodation of the moderates".

I asked you before, and I'm asking you again, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Precisely what do you propose to do with "moderates" whom you can't "diplomatically accommodate"?

How do you propose to deal with moderates whom you can't "diplomatically accommodate"?

How do you propose to deal with moderates whom you can't "diplomatically accomodate"? I'm talking specifics. Forced conversion? Execution? Jail?

— harold

I'd suggest reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" for a very persuasive argument that it is impossible to make diplomatic accommodations with religious moderates without also promoting the processes in society which enable fundamentalism to flourish.

— Brian

The truth is that the fact that methodological naturalism works so well is that it's probably because metaphysical materialism is true. It is certainly strong evidence that it is true. And that's another line of evidence.

Uh... no. The whole concept of "evidence" is an assumption of the methodological naturalist model. To say evidence, as defined by methodological naturalism, suggests methodological naturalism is true is circular.

Norm wrote:

"No, what I assume is that moderates, Hindus and others would have more problems with science if they really understood it. I don't think they do understand it because they're constantly being lied to about what its real conclusions are."

Rough translation: "Religious people understanding science and not blowing their gaskets? THAT'S INCONCEIVABLE!!"

And Brian wrote:

By "diplomatic", I mean saying what people want to hear rather than speaking the truth...

Your posts (and norm's) show neither an understanding of "diplomacy," nor any grasp of the truth. You're certainly in no position to go about fudging the definition of either word.

By saying I oppose this accommodation I mean that those of us who oppose religion should explicitly promote its criticism, create a climate where ultimately it is seen as socially embarrassing to believe in a holy text, rather than embarrassing to admit atheism, and work to dismantle political and governmental support for religion.

And how far must atheists go to "create" such a "climate" and "dismantle" (a.k.a. "liquidate?") support for their opposition? What sort of relentless propaganda campaign will you dream up to -- as you shamelessly admit -- publicly humiliate everyone who disagrees with you? Judging by the ignorant, illogical, emotional, and just plain needlessly hateful "criticism" I've read from you here, the prospects look rather grim. (Karl Rove might be willing to help you out, if the price is right. He's good at that sort of thing. Also, the former Iraqi Information Minister could put an amusing face on things.)

The policy you advocate -- in both its explicit and its implicit facets -- is completely contrary to the basic ideals of free speech, free inquiry, honesty, mutual respect, equal rights, and just plain common decency. This policy is just plain wrong, and hastily saying you don't actually advocate killing people doesn't justify any of it -- it only shows how low your "standards" have sunk.

One more point for norm and Brian: since you've explicitly identified me, all of my friends, and about 90% of my extended family (that I know of) as being in league with your enemies, perhaps you should explain why I should show you even a milligram of respect.

Well, tough shit. That's exactly the kind of social pressure we have to put up with to express our ideas.

Just like the "Christian" fundies: say things that are clearly idiotic and false, insult huge numbers of people who have done you no wrong, misrepresent ideas and beliefs of which you clearly know nothing, squander whatever goodwill your audience initially had toward you, make a laughable unhinged ass of yourself, and then pretend you're being "persecuted" for your bold radical ideas, rather than your behavior. There are people in religious minorities who really do get persecuted despite behaving decently and honestly toward others; they get my sympathy and respect, you don't.

'How do you propose to deal with moderates whom you can't "diplomatically accommodate"?'

The way I'm dealing with you right now.

By making an ass of yourself and repeating bigoted assertions that have been refuted earlier? Thanks, that answer cleared a few things up.

PS: Thanks, Tim Hague, for trying to distance at least a few atheists from the unhinged extremists we've been hearing from here. I know of at least two atheists who would appreciate the good words.

Bee, pause a moment and wipe the foam from the corners of your mouth.

I've BEEN wiping it off, but norm and Brian keep spitting more at me. Thanx for your concern though...

I've BEEN wiping it off, but norm and Brian keep spitting more at me. Thanx for your concern though...

What the hell's wrong with you guys?...Grow up two decades and call us in the morning.

You're getting really unhinged. Go to bed

Wrong again, fool

Judging by the ignorant, illogical, emotional, and just plain needlessly hateful "criticism" I've read from you

say things that are clearly idiotic and false

make a laughable unhinged ass of yourself

the unhinged extremists we've been hearing from

This policy is just plain wrong, and hastily saying you don't actually advocate killing people doesn't justify any of it --- it only shows how low your "standards" have sunk.

The policy you advocate --- in both its explicit and its implicit facets --- is completely contrary to the basic ideals of free speech, free inquiry, honesty, mutual respect, equal rights, and just plain common decency.

— Raging Bee

Your posts (and norm's) show neither an understanding of "diplomacy," nor any grasp of the truth. You're certainly in no position to go about fudging the definition of either word.

— Raging Bee

And how far must atheists go to "create" such a "climate" and "dismantle" (a.k.a. "liquidate?") support for their opposition? What sort of relentless propaganda campaign will you dream up to --- as you shamelessly admit --- publicly humiliate everyone who disagrees with you?

— Raging Bee

Judging by the ignorant, illogical, emotional, and just plain needlessly hateful "criticism" I've read from you here, the prospects look rather grim.

— Raging Bee

The policy you advocate --- in both its explicit and its implicit facets --- is completely contrary to the basic ideals of free speech, free inquiry, honesty, mutual respect, equal rights, and just plain common decency.

— Raging Bee

This policy is just plain wrong, and hastily saying you don't actually advocate killing people doesn't justify any of it --- it only shows how low your "standards" have sunk.

— Raging Bee

One more point for norm and Brian: since you've explicitly identified me, all of my friends, and about 90% of my extended family (that I know of) as being in league with your enemies, perhaps you should explain why I should show you even a milligram of respect.

— Raging Bee

The relevance of this to Panda's Thumb is in whether atheist scientists, or those who believe that science and religious belief are incompatible, should, as advised by Matt Young, shut up about it on grounds of political expediency.

However solid an argument you have in this area, I think it's ultimately negated by your propensity to see any critical commentary on religiosity as a vicious attack...

If you followed the dialogue as closely as you say you have, you would understand that my attacks (for which I make no apology) were directed, not at "critical commentary on religiosity," but at uninformed, overgeneralized, and bigoted commentary that simply does not square with the reality that I have observed. If you don't like being insulted, then stop falsely insulting people I know. Or, if you want your "critical commentary" to be respected, then take a little more care to make it respectable. If you say something about religion that's even remotely true of the religious people I know, I won't attack it.

I'm no big fan of Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, or pre-Vatican-II Catholics; but I don't make broad insulting comments about them of the "Christians worship a book"/"heathens worship stone idols" variety. Nor do I play such two-faced logical games as blaming "religion" for all evil while giving it no credit for any of the good. That's bigotry, plain and simple, and if we (rightly) attack it when it comes from religious people, then why give it a pass when it comes from atheists?

Comment #97782: "and religion is probably here to stay"

I hope religion becomes extinct some day. We can do without the brainwashing of children, harassment of science teachers, religious terrorism, and religious wars.

Perhaps because I have sought throughout to represent my own views boldly but honestly...

...and if those views are clearly wrong or insulting toward people who don't deserve to be insulted, that makes you an honest bigot. Which may -- or may not -- be better than a bigot who knows his views aren't helpful in all circumstances, and keeps his mouth shut to keep his foot out of it. At least the latter kind of bigot shows a little more understanding of how other people might think.

...never resorted to personal abuse...

No, just general abuse of huge numbers of people based solely on your simplistic notions of what they believe and where their (alleged) beliefs might lead. And this is acceptable...why?

"A statement like 'Science proves God doesn't exist' is a statement of faith, not of science, because science can do no such thing."

I am quite content with following the evidence where it leads. Which is why I can see that deism is to use different criteria indiscriminately. It is tolerable, but not respectable.

Science does not 'proves' that gods does not exist, instead it seems to be able to verify beyond reasonable doubt that dualistic phenomena and their causes such as gods does not exist.

Why no attempts are performed to do research in this direction is an intriguing sociological question, ripe for yet more research. Why is it that research can be done on dangerous weapon systems, but not on dangerous theory systems?

But seriously, I have to dig for more science history, philosophy and science (especially on conservation laws), before I am satisfied with why this should be a non relevant idea.

Brian,
Your arguments are interesting. I am not so sure that a separation policy is bad since unnecessary conflicts are prevented. It is not the only area where separation has been used in a similar manner, I believe. (But if we look at the typical army behaviour towards gays of "don't ask, don't tell" not all those solutions are ideally conflict preventing. Perhaps that is your point.) And I like your ideas of "create a climate where ultimately it is seen as socially embarrassing to believe in a holy text" and "rather than embarrassing to admit atheism" which each can be rationally supported.

What I don't see is why Panda should be the place for this argument, since it is used to "discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation". Defending integrity of science doesn't really need militant atheism, merely secularism.

PZ on Pharyngula seems to describe his stance towards religion as "tolerate, not respect" which is in line with what I wrote here.

"A statement like 'Science proves God doesn't exist' is a statement of faith, not of science, because science can do no such thing."

I am happy with following the evidence where it leads. Doing that I find that deism is to use different criteria indiscriminately. It is tolerable, but not respectable.

While science does not 'prove' that gods does not exist, it seems able to verify beyond reasonable doubt that dualistic phenomena and their causes, such as gods, does not exist.

(typical crank argument)Why these types of theories are not researched is an interesting sociological question, which itself is ripe for research. Why is it that dangerous weapon systems can be researched, but not dangerous theories?(/typical crank argument)

But seriously, I need to dig more into science history, philosophy and science (of conservation theorems), before I am satisfied why these ideas are not relevant.

Brian,
Your commentary 97757 is interesting. But I don't think a separation policy is necessarily bad, and it is used to prevent unneccessary conflicts. It is used similarly elsewhere, I believe. (But if we look at for example the typical army stance towards gays of "don't ask, don't tell", it is not ideally suited to prevent all conflicts. Maybe that is your point.)

I especially like your ideas to "create a climate where ultimately it is seen as socially embarrassing to believe in a holy text" and "rather than embarrassing to admit atheism" which both can be supported rationally.

What I do not get is why Panda should be a forum for that. It is used to "discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation". Defending the integrity of science does not need militant atheism, merely secularism.

PZ at Pharyngula seems to define his stance towards religion as "tolerate, not respect" which seems to be a good sum up of what I write here.

And certain kinds of religious belief are reasonable. Perhaps some ideas expressed by Kant and the early Wittgenstein.

Tojborn Larsson wrote -

"I especially like your ideas to "create a climate where ultimately it is seen as socially embarrassing to believe in a holy text" and "rather than embarrassing to admit atheism" which both can be supported rationally."

Brian's original statement was the chilling one that there could be no "diplomatic accomodation with moderates", and he declined to explain exactly what he meant by this. He seems to have eventually come around to saying that he "only" meant that anyone with a different religious perspective than his should be subjected to social exclusion, even "moderates" who do him no harm. Naturally, this standard of "mere" social exclusion for different religion has been used to great effect to professionally and economically harm people over the years, but it isn't quite like executing them.

You may argue that, with this revelation, terms like "nastiness", "bigotry", "upper class arrogance", and the like should have been substituted for "fascism". I continue to make the obvious point, however, that arguments against "diplomatic accomodation of moderates" are indeed characteristic of, yes, fascism as the term is usually understood. It is a position of disrespect for the rights of others, even when others are doing you no harm. You may also argue that Brian has little power to carry out his program. However, that's also true of the most extreme fundamentalists, and they don't get the cloying treatment that Brian and his ilk do.

"What I do not get is why Panda should be a forum for that."

Because you make it one. It's not Brian in isolation. It's inevitable that there will be obnoxious, intolerant, bigoted drive-by posts, from people of all manner of extreme positions. But when such posts are from a self-identified "atheist" - even posts that contain language such as "no diplomatic accomodation with the moderates"(!) - the moderators and regular posters treat them with a sickeningly exaggerated display of "respect", and they quickly draw a cheering section. There is a ludicrous double standard.

"It is used to "discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation". Defending the integrity of science does not need militant atheism, merely secularism."

Interesting that you should say this. If I may say so, I have a far better grasp of evolution, biomedical science in general, and the supporting mathematical and physical sciences, than either Brian or normdoering has remotely expressed. I have personally, both here and elsewhere, shown misinformed people why ID is vacuous and helped them to understand the theory of evolution, in scientific terms, and I can assure that screaming in their face about atheism doesn't contribute to that effort - not even if they are atheists (PT seems to suffer in general from the bizarre delusion that declaring oneself an atheist renders one knowledgeable of science). I'm not even very religious in the traditional sense, I'm just not a hard-core atheist, and respectful of the rights of others. And I also prefer that talented people of all backgrounds be encouraged to advance scientific knowledge.

Let's switch to talking about science. Let's talk psychology. Operant conditioning. Behaviors that are rewarded are likely to be repeated, behaviors that are punished are likely to be extinguish. Panda's Thumb, with the voice of moderators and cheering sections, chooses to reward Brian with ego-stroking and oh-so-tender maybe-criticisms layered beneath a mountain of sticky, sugary "respect". It chooses to punish the likes of me by hanging us out to dry when we stand up for the very minimal idea that science isn't the property of one religious or cultural group. So you lose Harold, and you gain Brian (until he inevitably gets drunk on his ego and makes comments that force you to ban him). So don't turn around and ask why your site fails to "discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation", and instead degenerates into an uncivil screamfest between a tiny number of unbelievably thick-skinned and deluded creationist fanatics, and an ever-changing army of brittle-egoed, strident young Brians. It's because you get what you reward. Indeed, this very thread was intended from the beginning to encourage the Brians out there.

In closing my final post on Panda's Thumb, I'd like to suggest that you change the logo. It is inappropriate for two reasons. First, the image is strongly associated with the late Steven J. Gould. This implies that Dr Gould would sanction a standard of favoritism for one particular bigoted religious position, which I am sure he would not, however atheist his personal views may have been. Secondly, the logo is entirely "scientific" in nature. It could mislead new users into perceiving the site to be one in which topics related to evolutionary biology and science education are discussed, as the major order of business.

I hope religion becomes extinct some day. We can do without the brainwashing of children, harassment of science teachers, religious terrorism, and religious wars.

harold: I understand your feelings here, but I wouldn't be so quick to bugger off. I wouldn't go so far as to say that militant atheists have a "cheerihg section" here, but to the extent that they do, comments like yours serve to counter that coddling effect, and, by calling bullshit on certain people's more outrageous statements, help to keep the dialogue on the intended track, if only a little. (As Hillary Clinton might say, it takes a village to bitch-slap an overgrown child.) The points you make are valid and not out of place; Persons of faith who care about science and education issues do exist and do have a place here, and some atheists need to be reminded of this.

(And speaking of reminders, let's remember that many of the actual plaintiffs in the Dover case were Christians fighting for religious freedom and honest education. Are these the people Brian wants to humiliate and ostracize? Some atheists need to be reminded who their most crucial allies are.)

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
STEVEN WEINBERG (Nobel Prize winning physicist)

Bill: which "religion" are you -- or that Weinberg guy -- talking about? I don't remember MY religion getting a good person to do evil things. And did you and Weinberg ever consider the possibility that "religion" might also get an evil person to do good things?

Oh, and how would you react to a statement that "atheism is an insult to human dignity?" Would you consider that a valid assertion?

harold,
You say a lot of things, which according to your comment start, is directed to me personally. I will answer them en masse to say that I think you are making preposterous claims.

"Brian's original statement was the chilling one that there could be no "diplomatic accomodation with moderates".

While you see this as a militant action, I see an intention to disagree instead of separating out religion. Which BTW is very hard to do due to religious actions like ID.

"He seems to have eventually come around to saying that he "only" meant that anyone with a different religious perspective than his should be subjected to social exclusion, even "moderates" who do him no harm."

I quoted him on ideas to "create a climate where ultimately it is seen as socially embarrassing to believe in a holy text" and "rather than embarrassing to admit atheism"

Both can be supported rationally, the first by pressing the issue of using a text to judge any part of reality by, the second is primarily to inverse a type of policy you accuse him of, the social exclusion of atheists to US political posts.

"Because you make it one."

Preposterous, I argued for not doing that.

"Interesting that you should say this."

Why you think so eludes me, I haven't expressed different thoughts earlier.

"It chooses to punish the likes of me by hanging us out to dry when we stand up for the very minimal idea that science isn't the property of one religious or cultural group."

But this is exactly what Brian and I are arguing that Matt Young's policy means. We can't express and explore the very natural question of how much science supports atheism, and how others are reacting to that. This makes Panda a property of religion.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." STEVEN WEINBERG (Nobel Prize winning physicist)

I quoted him on ideas to "create a climate where ultimately it is seen as socially embarrassing to believe in a holy text" and "rather than embarrassing to admit atheism."

Both can be supported rationally, the first by pressing the issue of using a text to judge any part of reality by...

So...if someone stands up and says that his/her holy text is a source of wisdom and strength in his/her life, and that he/she was moved by said text to quit using drugs, bring food and water to people displaced by Hurricane Katrina, and oppose the Iraq war, you would support, "rationally," an attempt to make this person's beliefs "socially embarrassing?"

If such an action can be "supported rationally," then I would have to question the assumptions that underpin your "rationality." It certainly can't be supported morally.

Torbjorn: harold's points were far from "preposterous," even if they weren't all correct, and in my estimation, you have not addressed them sufficiently. Consider this quote of yours:

[harold said:] "Brian's original statement was the chilling one that there could be no "diplomatic accomodation with moderates".

[And you replied:] While you see this as a militant action, I see an intention to disagree instead of separating out religion. Which BTW is very hard to do due to religious actions like ID.

On the one hand, "no diplomatic accomodation with moderates" is far more than "an intention to disagree." On the other hand, your response above was rather garbled, so I could easily have misinterpreted you. Could you please clarify? What, exactly, is "very hard to do due to religious actions like ID?"

Since religion is so ubiquitous, it makes a pretty lousy candidate as the independent variable in an explanation of human skullduggery. The fact that religion is absurd doesn't mean that its evil. Mostly it isn't. Indeed, lots of utterly atheistical folks----Nietzsche, for example--have argued that the various organized churches are useful because in practice they bridle the dangerous spiritual impulses of the population.

The truth is that the fact that methodological naturalism works so well is that it's probably because metaphysical materialism is true. It is certainly strong evidence that it is true. And that's another line of evidence.

To say evidence, as defined by methodological naturalism, suggests methodological naturalism is true is circular.

To me, "no diplomatic accomodation with moderates" means "you do not get a special cookie for being religious". I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I continue to make the obvious point, however, that arguments against "diplomatic accommodation of moderates" are indeed characteristic of, yes, fascism as the term is usually understood. It is a position of disrespect for the rights of others, even when others are doing you no harm.

Imagine if Christians were commonly denied custody of their own children by judges who declared that attendance at Christian churches and maintaining a Christian education were contrary to the children's best interests.

You may also argue that Brian has little power to carry out his program. However, that's also true of the most extreme fundamentalists, and they don't get the cloying treatment that Brian and his ilk do.

I don't remember MY religion getting a good person to do evil things.

— Raging Bee

They got an incompetent fundy president elected who endorsed Intelligent Design and religious discrimination against atheists, gays and others and who said Jesus was his favorite "political philosopher."

— normdoering

normdoering -

I'll make one final, final post, just to make it clear that I despise and condemn the obnoxious bigotry against atheists that you describe every bit as much, if not more (because it is far more prevalent), than I condemn obnoxious bigotry by atheists.

I consider it a profound violation of the rights and dignity of the people involved. I oppose it with every fiber of my being. I have never remotely suggested that unjustified bigotry against atheists should be "accomodated". Furthermore, the cases you describe involve far more serious wrongs than being harangued on the internet.

I want to make that crystal clear, because that type of religious bigotry is exactly what I am vehemently speaking out against.

As that great American Benjamin Franklin said, however, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

AC -

I'm not suggesting in the slightest that anyone should get a "special cookie". What I suggested was that no-one should get a special mouthful of castor oil, either, for the crime of being anything other than an "atheist". Nor, of course, for the perfectly valid and reasonable choice of being an atheist.

Apparently, the phrase "there can be no diplomatic accomodation even of the moderates" can be read subjectively. When read by another atheist, it seems to hold no obnoxious or sinister implication. When one comfortably holds the same view as the speaker, it seems, it becomes obvious that its meaning is somehow trivial, or one of self-defense. When read by one of us moderates, however, it is most offensive.

Try a thought experiment. If a nice Christian said "we should respect the rights and feelings of the atheists, they aren't hurting us", and a nasty Christian popped up and said "haven't you seen the latest book by Professor Blahblahblah? There can be no diplomatic accomodation, even of the moderates! Our victory must be total!", how would you feel? Indeed, I should ask, how do you feel, because fanatics do this all the time.

I went through a long round of being relentlessly attacked by another unhappy young atheist poster here on PT some time back. I was patient, because his over-the-top hostility and emotionality told me that he would inevitably get himself banned. But I don't have the patience to put up with that type of thing again.

If the philosophy of this site is to be that the statement "I'm not an atheist, but I accept science" is an invitation to endless rounds of abuse, then so be it.

Also, lost in my original comments (because cherry-pickers didn't address it) was my point that one's religious practice is usually a cultural trait. The atheism of so many here signifies upper class, priveleged status, and the "religion" they disdain (always assumed to mean lower class American Christianity) is a sign of lower status. They completely overlook the existence of far more religious traditions in the world. While normdoering makes the very valid point that atheists suffer bigotry in the US, there is also an element of social class and ethnic bigotry in the hyper-strident "college atheism" so often on display, and that deserves to be addressed.

Oh, and one final, final, final thing.

I would consider it an unspeakable insult for anyone to insinuate that I ever have supported, or ever would support George W Bush for any position of responsibility.

Raging Bee wrote: harold: I understand your feelings here, but I wouldn't be so quick to bugger off. I wouldn't go so far as to say that militant atheists have a "cheering section" here, but to the extent that they do, comments like yours serve to counter that coddling effect, and, by calling bullshit on certain people's more outrageous statements, help to keep the dialogue on the intended track, if only a little.

Raging Bee further wrote: [L]et's remember that many of the actual plaintiffs in the Dover case were Christians fighting for religious freedom and honest education. Are these the people Brian wants to humiliate and ostracize? Some atheists need to be reminded who their most crucial allies are.

Some time ago, Brian wrote:, Persuading people that their religious beliefs are foolish, by presenting them with alternative and more rational interpretations of the evidence, seems to me to be well within normal social mores. What else is Panda's Thumb's discussion of creationism about? I just go further - I think the case is against all religion, not just creationism. Would you wish to fly in a spacecraft engineered by a flat-earther? Would you deem it acceptable for their belief system to be treated as a mere "private matter", or prefer it to be challenged?

Sure thing norm, there's bigotry against atheists, so that makes indiscriminate hatred of all persons of faith, including those moderates who oppose the very bigotry you rightly condemn, is perfectly okay. Sorry, pal, two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the second wrong is as incompetent as yours.

Ever hear of a guy named Martin Luther King? He didn't fight bigotry by trashing white people right and left; he fought it by appealing to shared values -- and thus, by uniting moderates against his extremist enemies.

Bill wrote: I submit that you have a selective memory, unless you assert that there were no "good people" involved in such activities as witch burning.

First, you're accusing the wrong religion -- the perpetrators were Christians. And second, there were indeed good people involved in witch-burning -- the victims, and the Christians who opposed it. See where blind, generalized accusations get you?

Some time ago, Brian wrote:, Persuading people that their religious beliefs are foolish, by presenting them with alternative and more rational interpretations of the evidence, seems to me to be well within normal social mores. What else is Panda's Thumb's discussion of creationism about? I just go further - I think the case is against all religion, not just creationism. Would you wish to fly in a spacecraft engineered by a flat-earther? Would you deem it acceptable for their belief system to be treated as a mere "private matter", or prefer it to be challenged?

As for your spaceship analogy - I'm certain that many of the past and present engineers, technicians, and astronauts that have worked in the space program held varying religious beliefs. And guess what - we landed men on the Moon and returned them safely back to Earth! Not too shabby work there.

Sure thing norm, there's bigotry against atheists, so that makes indiscriminate hatred of all persons of faith, including those moderates who oppose the very bigotry you rightly condemn, is perfectly okay.

Try a thought experiment. If a nice Christian said "we should respect the rights and feelings of the atheists, they aren't hurting us", and a nasty Christian popped up and said "haven't you seen the latest book by Professor Blahblahblah? There can be no diplomatic accomodation, even of the moderates! Our victory must be total!", how would you feel? Indeed, I should ask, how do you feel, because fanatics do this all the time.

— harold

Ever hear of a guy named Martin Luther King? He didn't fight bigotry by trashing white people right and left; he fought it by appealing to shared values

— Raging Bee

Raging Bee:

I was under the impression that you were a Christian.

It is possible that the objects of the prayer had a lot of "unauthorized" people praying for them, so the background noise wholly obscured the effect of the experimental prayer group, but the experiments are sound in principle if not in practice and exemplify a scientific study of religion.

The argument that science has disproved God, besides being wrong, puts religious believers who support science into an untenable position...

Paleolithic life, once again. I am sufficiently annoyed by Lenny Flank's inability to understand just how different Paleolithic life was that I checked out, again, the copy of R. Dale Guthrie's "The Nature of Paleolithic Art". This volume represents the culmination of a lifetime of collecting this art, from hundreds of sites in Eurasia and some from Africa.

"Paleolithic art has no scenes of war or group violence. This is in remarkable contrast to tribal art, in which such scenes are common. There are, however, at least sixteen single Paleolithic images that might be speared humans, mortally wounded or corpses. ... Multiple wounds on many of these suggest an attack by more than one person. ... One can imagine a too belligerent, very uncooperative, or demagogic person finally getting it. ... You had to get along or else. These are probably pictures of 'or else'. Since the person was probably someone you knew as a neighbor or even a relative, the killing would be a serious event." --- page 182.

In skimming through this chapter, 4, I counted the following number of images of 'testosterone events'.:
bison at taking man (3)
bear attacking man (3)
spear in lion (3)
lion bites man (1)

In addition, there are many images of speared horses, elk, and especially steppe bison, these being considerably larger than the American plains bison. There are also a few images of speared woolly rhinos and mammoths.

Life was hard in Paleolithic times. Men had only wood and stone spears and other tools. Getting through the winter living on the Mammoth Steppe must have been chancy. The nearest known examples are of certain Inuit bands which mostly starved some winters, the survivors being taken in by other bands.

Again quoting Guthrie, "Belief in the supernatural falls among the list of human universals for all cultures (Brown 1991) and so is perhaps a natural part of our predisposition (Boyer 1994). Although no Paleolithic images fall unequivocally into the category of the supernatural, there are a few which may ... We can ask why traces of the supernatural experience are not nearly as frequent in Paleolithic art as they are among later tribal peoples. ... For evolution's purposes, the supernatural often becomes a better metaphor than the gritty details of the natural." --- pages 436-437.

Uggh! More insults and distortions from the real bigots.

Raging Bee wrote: Sure thing norm, there's bigotry against atheists, so that makes indiscriminate hatred of all persons of faith, including those moderates who oppose the very bigotry you rightly condemn, is perfectly okay.

And yet more lies and distortions from Raging Bee. I do not hate people indiscriminately. It so happens I don't even hate you --- but I do have to call you on your lies because they are all Tony and Harold can see and they take them as facts... but that seems true even when I point out how distorted your perceptions are.

AC Wrote: And I think we should take the same approach, by appealing to shared values like equality under the law, separation of church and state, etc.

Some time ago, Brian wrote: Tolerance of moderate religious belief is what allows fundamentalism to continue to flourish in our increasingly secular society - this argument is developed at length in the book I cited so I don't want to expound it here. In my view, an intolerance of all religion is necessary in order to diminish the influence of the fundamentalists.

Enough of this pointless holy war.

Let's get back to our important research concerning the "Freeloaders" theory of social development . . . . . I smell a paper there for some social "science" journal or another . . . . .

You could be driving across one of the bridges that I designed.

Bigot? I've read your postings on this thread and others, and you sure are capable of shoveling out similar insults and distortions.

I see. Only Norm knows THE GREAT TRUTH and how dare anyone else question HIS PROFOUND WISDOM.

The rest of us are just liars and bigots because we don't agree with you.

I think that Bee and Harold have made well thought out arguments defending their positions.

Also, before you beat up on engineers, be careful. You could be driving across one of the bridges that I designed.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: Enough of this pointless holy war.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank asked: I ride a bicycle wherever I go. Does that help with your designs? :)

*sigh* This was a great thread until the fundie moderates showed up.

Normdoering wrote: ...he started getting pissed off and piling on more distortions on other subjects without ever addressing my corrections, or even acknowledging he had read them --- much the same as you simply ignored my corrections to your claim about Brian meaning to insult Christians by talking about flat-earthers.

Why, when Brian specifically says, "a flat-earther" do you choose to identify with that flat-earther and feel insulted? Is it because flat-earthers are often Christians?

I wrote: I'm certain that many of the past and present engineers, technicians, and astronauts that have worked in the space program held varying religious beliefs. And guess what - we landed men on the Moon and returned them safely back to Earth! Not too shabby work there.

Are you not now defending a fundamentalist and proving Brian's original point about moderates?

Prove it --- point one out.

Raging Bee wrote: (#97581) My point is that people strive to be better than mere animals, and that's how/why cultures, arts, and civilizations are created. Religious beliefs (some at least) have contributed to this by offering codes of conduct ("morality") that demand that we, as social creatures, resist our momentary instincts and desires to further a greater good (as it was understood at the time). What religions are doing today, is merely the further progression of what they've been doing throughout history and prehistory.

Raging Bee also wrote: Ever hear of a guy named Martin Luther King? He didn't fight bigotry by trashing white people right and left; he fought it by appealing to shared values --- and thus, by uniting moderates against his extremist enemies.

Probably it was Christians more than anyone else that helped defeat ID in the Dover trial, so yes it makes sense to not alienate Christians who support evolution. And of course science has nothing to do with either atheism or religion. But it's very obvious that evolution conflicts with some religious beliefs and I don't think it's possible to hide that fact.

Of course there are differences between Christians, some will interpret scientific evidence differently so that it lines up with the bible, others will interpret the bible differently to accept theories like evolution. But to me all believers in anything supernatural are pretty much the same, they believe in something that is impossible. Some will believe every single myth they were ever taught, others will select only one or a few miracles to believe in, or just believe in God and not much else. They're all the same to me, they think differently than I do because I am convinced anything supernatural is nonsense. And I think teaching children that the supernatural is possible or might be possible is child abuse.

So it's good that there are Christians that help keep religion out of public schools, but I still think there is no reason to keep quiet about the harm that I think religion causes.

All I stated was that a person's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the work that they (engineers) create.

Brian who wrote: "In my view, an intolerance of all religion is necessary in order to diminish the influence of the fundamentalists." In Brian's world, there is no difference between mainstream, moderate Christians and fundamentalists. From this context, Brian's insult was directed at not just the flat-earth fundamentalists, but to anyone who holds any type of religious belief.

When Brian asks "would you deem it acceptable for their belief system to be treated as a mere "private matter", or prefer it to be challenged?", he assumes that anyone with any belief system is incompetent and incapable of doing any type of complicated work, such as designing a spacecraft.

In fact, I would further state that Brian appears to be advocating the need for some type of "atheist-based" qualification for anyone designing spacecraft.

I'm certain that many of the past and present engineers, technicians, and astronauts that have worked in the space program held varying religious beliefs. And guess what - we landed men on the Moon and returned them safely back to Earth! Not too shabby work there.

I defy either you or Brian or anyone else here to say that these people were not qualified.

Again, in Brian's world (and perhaps yours also), there is no difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate.

I was defending the abilities of engineers to design airplanes, cars, roads, bridges, buildings, spacecraft, and the whole range of modern conveniences, and to be able to do such work regardless of their religious belief systems.

So it's good that there are Christians that help keep religion out of public schools, but I still think there is no reason to keep quiet about the harm that I think religion causes.

It seems like people are just pontificating wildly about their religious opinions,

Brian, I doubt that you are an engineer or understand what it means to be an engineer when you make an asinine statement like that.

— Tony

Lenny Flank, I demolished your Freeloader theory in my post here yesterday. Until tribal times, of course, which began, most generously, 15,000 years ago. So don't add my name to your forthcoming paper...

Summarizing some of what has been worthwhile in this thread, it seems everyone is agreed that the methods of science cannot be used to either prove or disprove the existence of a (sufficiently detached) God. Many hold some form of religious belief and, indeed, may have had religious or mystical experiences. Some anthropologists hold that belief in the supernatural is a human universal,
in that it occurs in all societies.

What hasn't been stressed, I think, is that the modern conception of science is actually quite new. Was the first good expression of it due to Sir Francis Bacon?
In the days of Good Queen Bess? Has there been any substantive refinement since?

Comment #97941: "While you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this, I wonder if you have thought through this position? Would you be willing to:
- Potentially alienate all Christians and turn them against the cause you are currently fighting for with regard to science?
- Accept that, given our requirement for free speech here, this also means that there is no reason for any Christian, no matter how intolerant or not, to keep quiet about the harm that they think atheism (or in a few more extreme cases, anyone not Christian like them) does?"

Like I said before, science has nothing to do with atheism and religion. But when millions of people say evolution conflicts with their bible, they are right, why disagree with them? I don't think anyone should avoid telling Christians their bible is nonsense.

This is getting off topic, but I was wondering why any Christian would think atheism causes any harm. Atheism does not slow down human progress with strange supernatural beliefs.

You may argue that, with this revelation, terms like "nastiness", "bigotry", "upper class arrogance", and the like should have been substituted for "fascism". I continue to make the obvious point, however, that arguments against "diplomatic accomodation of moderates" are indeed characteristic of, yes, fascism as the term is usually understood. It is a position of disrespect for the rights of others, even when others are doing you no harm. You may also argue that Brian has little power to carry out his program. However, that's also true of the most extreme fundamentalists, and they don't get the cloying treatment that Brian and his ilk do.

"What I do not get is why Panda should be a forum for that."

Because you make it one. It's not Brian in isolation. It's inevitable that there will be obnoxious, intolerant, bigoted drive-by posts, from people of all manner of extreme positions. But when such posts are from a self-identified "atheist" - even posts that contain language such as "no diplomatic accomodation with the moderates"(!) - the moderators and regular posters treat them with a sickeningly exaggerated display of "respect", and they quickly draw a cheering section. There is a ludicrous double standard.

Like I said before, science has nothing to do with atheism and religion. But when millions of people say evolution conflicts with their bible, they are right, why disagree with them? I don't think anyone should avoid telling Christians their bible is nonsense. This is getting off topic, but I was wondering why any Christian would think atheism causes any harm. Atheism does not slow down human progress with strange supernatural beliefs.

I think science has much to do with religion. First, my own opinion is that a study of religion or religious claims by the methods of scientific inquiry essentially falsifies the claim of (at least) a benevolent and omnipotent God. Others dsagree. I see no reason to antagonize them with overwrought claims that science has disproved theism, though it has done so to my satisfaction.

I will go further, however, and say that any religious belief that denies any known scientific fact must necesarily be wrong and should be reexamined. The age of the earth and the descent of life with modification are so well supported that we may fairly call them scientific facts. Beliefs that deny these facts are wrong. If they result in unfounded attacks on science, then they are also dangerous. (Yes, I understand that you cannot prove anything outside logic, so let us say it is proved well beyond reasonable doubt.)

There is precedent for people changing religious beliefs in response to new evidence: The Church, for example, has not recently burnt anyone at the stake nor even criticized anyone for claiming that the stars are suns like ours.

The prayer studies, by the way, are indeed flawed by the assumption that prayers will be answered in the affirmative. That is, however, what proponents of prayer hypothesize, so the studies can be said not to have supported their hypothesis - and not much more.

David Sloan Wilson's book Darwin's Cathedral posits that religion is adaptive behavior and may have bearing on the discussion of its origins.

I agree that the discussion has strayed off task, but the first 100 or so comments, at least, were interesting and relevant to something, if not my original essay.

What I argued was (1) science cannot disprove religion and has not done so, and (2) overblown claims to the contrary should be avoided in part because they may alienate moderate religious believers who are our natural allies. I later clarified (3) that I do not advocate for political expediency either (a) denying that science disproves theism or (b) keeping quiet about being an unbeliever.

Is there any further discussion of these points?

Science disproves theism? Depends upon the version of theism. If there is no divine intervention allowed in some version of theism, then there are no observables. So there is nothing for science to come to grips with.

In any case, science never proves any hypothesis or theory. Further observations either tend to confirm or else to falsify a hypothesis. But no hypothesis, no matter how well tested, is ever fully 'proved.' So science, no matter what, can ever prove that there is no God.

What matters in science, I hold, is that the assumption of God is an unnecessary part of any hypothesis, and so by the principle of parsimony, not mentioned. I do not find this a convincing reason to embrace atheism, it is just irrelevant to the practice of science the same way theism is irrelevant.

Paleolithic life, once again. I am sufficiently annoyed by Lenny Flank's inability to understand just how different Paleolithic life was that I checked out, again, the copy of R. Dale Guthrie's "The Nature of Paleolithic Art". This volume represents the culmination of a lifetime of collecting this art, from hundreds of sites in Eurasia and some from Africa.

"Paleolithic art has no scenes of war or group violence. This is in remarkable contrast to tribal art, in which such scenes are common. There are, however, at least sixteen single Paleolithic images that might be speared humans, mortally wounded or corpses.... Multiple wounds on many of these suggest an attack by more than one person.... One can imagine a too belligerent, very uncooperative, or demagogic person finally getting it.... You had to get along or else. These are probably pictures of 'or else'. Since the person was probably someone you knew as a neighbor or even a relative, the killing would be a serious event." ---- page 182.

In skimming through this chapter, 4, I counted the following number of images of 'testosterone events'.: bison at taking man (3) bear attacking man (3) spear in lion (3) lion bites man (1) In addition, there are many images of speared horses, elk, and especially steppe bison, these being considerably larger than the American plains bison. There are also a few images of speared woolly rhinos and mammoths.

Again quoting Guthrie, "Belief in the supernatural falls among the list of human universals for all cultures (Brown 1991) and so is perhaps a natural part of our predisposition (Boyer 1994).

Although no Paleolithic images fall unequivocally into the category of the supernatural, there are a few which may ... We can ask why traces of the supernatural experience are not nearly as frequent in Paleolithic art as they are among later tribal peoples....

For evolution's purposes, the supernatural often becomes a better metaphor than the gritty details of the natural." ---- pages 436-437.

Glen D --- Good for you. A few clarifications may be in order. First of all, Guthrie offers the highly probable hypothesis that Paleolithic art picturing men with animal heads were almost certainly depictions of hunters. Guthrie hunts himself and understands the need for some form of sneaking up on the prey. Animal heads were certainly used for at least this purpose.

Only late Paleolithic or not, he has collected at least 16 examples of single individuals being murdered by multiple spears. He has never found a single depiction of war or group violence. I claim this says something important about Paleolithic life.

The hunter/gathers discovered during explorations had, it seems, a rather different way of life than the peoples of the Paleolithic. I call these later peoples land managers. In any case, they were surrounded by neighbors. I argue that in Paleolithic times there were so few neighbors that no arguments arose. It's hard to fight with somebody living 100 km away. (And when you do meet them, you'll profit more by trading information.)

For reasons unknown to me, there were very few people living in Eurasia until, say, 15,000 years ago. At this point bands formed into tribes and open warfare is indeed in the record. More important, the density of archeological sites dramatically increases, yes? So something severely limited the human population until after the end of the last ice age. One hypothesis is the highly variable climate. Another is that the herbaceous productivity of the Mammoth Steppe was quite low, thus limiting the population of the top hunters, people and lions.

Comment 97974: "I'm curious as to what you have to say to the OVER 1 BILLION who think that evolution is perfectly in step with their Bible, though."

If some Christian told me evolution lines up with the Bible, I would say I'm glad you accept evolution but I would ask him why do you think evolution does not conflict with this statement from Genesis: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

It's wonderful that some Christians think their Bible is so flexible that they can just ignore parts of it, or say some parts of it don't really mean what they say. But I think it's strange they still think some supernatural beliefs make sense. I probably shouldn't care, but I hope some day most people give up this supernatural stuff, I don't see what good it is.

If Mr. Benson, in Comment 97982, is referring to my immediately preceding comment, tnen he has misread something. I do not say that science disproves theism; I specifically argue that it cannot. I say, however, that a scientific approach has convinced me that a benevolent and powerful God, at least, does not exist. My concern here, however, has been the dangerous argument that science conclusively disproves theism.

I hate to be agreeable, but I find no fault with anything stated in Comment 97982, except that I think that if there is no evidence for a deity, then the default assumption should be that there is none, not merely that it is irrelevant to science.

I agree further that science cannot prove anything in a logical sense. but, as I claimed before, it can demonstrate the truth of empirical propositions like descent with modification well beyond reasonable doubt. In practice, if not in philosophy, that is proof.

God, I'll grant, is different, in part because we are trying to prove a negative if we hypothesize that God does not exist. However, since I see no positive reason to think that such an entity exists, I will hypothesize that it does not.

I think the only difference between Mr. Benson and me may be that he thinks God is irrelevant, whereas I think he does not exist.

I think science has much to do with religion. First, my own opinion is that a study of religion or religious claims by the methods of scientific inquiry essentially falsifies the claim of (at least) a benevolent and omnipotent God. Others dsagree. I see no reason to antagonize them with overwrought claims that science has disproved theism, though it has done so to my satisfaction.

I will go further, however, and say that any religious belief that denies any known scientific fact must necesarily be wrong and should be reexamined. The age of the earth and the descent of life with modification are so well supported that we may fairly call them scientific facts. Beliefs that deny these facts are wrong. If they result in unfounded attacks on science, then they are also dangerous. (Yes, I understand that you cannot prove anything outside logic, so let us say it is proved well beyond reasonable doubt.)

There is precedent for people changing religious beliefs in response to new evidence: The Church, for example, has not recently burnt anyone at the stake nor even criticized anyone for claiming that the stars are suns like ours.

The prayer studies, by the way, are indeed flawed by the assumption that prayers will be answered in the affirmative. That is, however, what proponents of prayer hypothesize, so the studies can be said not to have supported their hypothesis - and not much more.

David Sloan Wilson's book Darwin's Cathedral posits that religion is adaptive behavior and may have bearing on the discussion of its origins.

I agree that the discussion has strayed off task, but the first 100 or so comments, at least, were interesting and relevant to something, if not my original essay. What I argued was (1) science cannot disprove religion and has not done so,

and (2) overblown claims to the contrary should be avoided in part because they may alienate moderate religious believers who are our natural allies.

I later clarified (3) that I do not advocate for political expediency either (a) denying that science disproves theism or

(b) keeping quiet about being an unbeliever.

Is there any further discussion of these points?

Matt Young, yes. God, or any form of the supernatural, is simply irrelevant to science. Except possibly that possibly belief in the supernatural is partly genetic. If it is only the stuff of memes, then as memes are relatively easily discarded for newer memes, then belief in any form of the supernatural is easily discarded as excess mental baggage.

If it is partly genetic, I suppose discarding some concept of God is going to be more difficult for many people. So in this case maybe it is better to stick with the claim that science deals only with the natural world, looks for natural explanations, and doesn't need any form of theism for its ability to organize, inform and make predictions.

Well beyond reasonable doubt in some cases, yes. However, Einstein's theory of general relativity is used in global positioning systems, for example. However, there are substantive theoretical grounds for doubting this theory is entirely correct. Indeed, I recently read of an experiment in Germany, which if duplicated, demonstrates an entirely unexpected aspect of the theory is wrong. For both these reasons, I doubt Einstein's general relativity, despite its predictive and engineering successes.

My concern here, however, has been the dangerous argument that science conclusively disproves theism.

Matt Young, yes. God, or any form of the supernatural, is simply irrelevant to science.

First of all, Guthrie offers the highly probable hypothesis that Paleolithic art picturing men with animal heads were almost certainly depictions of hunters. Guthrie hunts himself and understands the need for some form of sneaking up on the prey.

Only late Paleolithic or not, he has collected at least 16 examples of single individuals being murdered by multiple spears. He has never found a single depiction of war or group violence. I claim this says something important about Paleolithic life. The hunter/gathers discovered during explorations had, it seems, a rather different way of life than the peoples of the Paleolithic. I call these later peoples land managers. In any case, they were surrounded by neighbors. I argue that in Paleolithic times there were so few neighbors that no arguments arose. It's hard to fight with somebody living 100 km away. (And when you do meet them, you'll profit more by trading information.)

For reasons unknown to me, there were very few people living in Eurasia until, say, 15,000 years ago. At this point bands formed into tribes and open warfare is indeed in the record. More important, the density of archeological sites dramatically increases, yes? So something severely limited the human population until after the end of the last ice age.

normdoering, when I do science or dabble in the philosophy of science, any notion of the supernatural is simply irrelevant. When attempting to explain science to reasonable people, I never mention the supernatural. When attempting to deal with IDiots and others who press claims of the sort "I know what science is better than you!", I attempt to explain just how science actually works. On one, but only one, occasion, the person was willing to be persuaded that I knew more about the conduct of science than he. Otherwise, I (like Lenny Flank) have found it hopelessly impossible to have a discussion with the zealots.

Ok? ... and I agree with your last paragraph!

Glen D --- Yes, there are depictions of men with animal heads both standing up and lying down. But always in the right number to be a hunting party, namely all 3--5 men between the ages of 14 and 35 in the entire band. They need to travel to the hunt site with the prepared disguises. Carrying these on their heads seems a sensible plan.

Paleoanthropology is data poor and hypothesis rich. I have seen, in refereed, published form, some unbelievably weird hypotheses. So there are almost no claims regarding the social organization of Paleolithic bands that to which I give much credence ... It is possible that some bands had disputes. Even likely, I suppose. However, these did not, on the evidence, give rise to war or group violence. (Maybe the two chiefs arm-wrestled? :-)

'prolific herds of game animals' --- There weren't any, according to Guthrie in "Mammoth Steppe". No place on the steppe could support more than small herds. I agree on the necessity of the game hunters to keep following game, but they also hunted in the taiga, further south,
without so much migration required.

Since Guthrie doesn't date his pictures beyond Paleolithic vs later tribal times, I couldn't say whether the speared humans were of species sapiens, hablis or neanderthalis. What appears to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that when Home sapiens left Africa about 130,000 years ago, there was genetic interaction with the populations previously there, see Alex Templeton's paper, where he is specific in excluding anything regarding H. neanderthalis.

Eurasia was surely sparsely populated before 15,000. Look at how few sites in the best studied part, Europe, spread over about 35,000 years. And yes, in at least Southwest Asia (Middle East), the population density began to rise about 15,000 years ago, before the Younger Dryas. Don't know about Europe or the rest of Asia.

...when I do science or dabble in the philosophy of science, any notion of the supernatural is simply irrelevant.

When attempting to explain science to reasonable people, I never mention the supernatural. When attempting to deal with IDiots and others who press claims of the sort "I know what science is better than you!", I attempt to explain just how science actually works. On one, but only one, occasion, the person was willing to be persuaded that I knew more about the conduct of science than he. Otherwise, I (like Lenny Flank) have found it hopelessly impossible to have a discussion with the zealots.

testing ESP and efficacy of prayers --- Well, fortunately I don't waste my time on that. But it would still be irrelevant to me if I did. ESP? Well, maybe people really do have another sense modality. Let's test this with statistically valid tests. Every time (and that's been quite a few by now) no correlation is observed. Conclusion: no ESP.

Similarly for prayer efficacy, it is much the same.

I fear I don't find irrelevancy to be the same as non-existence. For my computer science related interests in biology, paleontology and its conclusions are (currently) irrelevant. That doesn't mean that fish-with-legs, etc., never existed. So it seems we will just have to disagree on this matter...

If pressed, I suppose I would say something like: As a practicing scientist, I am agnostic since the supernatural is not within the scope of science, and is irrelevant to it. Personally, I, like many others, have had experiences called religious or mystical. As these arise purely subjectively, and as I am not a psychologist, I simply accept these feelings, as I do the feeling of hunger, etc. I do not hypothesize nor conclude. I certainly do not accept the conclusions or the works of others. (I haven't tried exactly this with zealots. I suspect it involves too much reasoning with too many steps for them.)

testing ESP and efficacy of prayers ---- Well, fortunately I don't waste my time on that. But it would still be irrelevant to me if I did.

You mean when you pointed out that there was no warfare in early human pre-agricultural history?

To which I replied that the Freeloader hypothesis is not based on warefare, unlike Dr MacNeill's hypothesis?

Lenny Flank, I demolished your Freeloader theory in my post here yesterday.

I think that science can lead to unbelief (or nonbelief) if not outright disbelief for precisely the reason Mr. Doering stipulates. In some ways, a belief in God or gods was always a god-of-the-gaps belief. As we began to understand that lightning and disease, for example, have natural causes, we began to see that it was not necessary to invoke the supernatural to explain first some, then many, then perhaps most physical and biological phenomena. That progression combined with the utter inadequacy of any theodicies I have ever read have led me to conclude that the traditional God does not exist. If the god of deism exists, he or she or it is irrelevant.

Research by James Leuba in the early to mid-20th century, incidentally, and a later replication by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham show a correlation between being a scientist and being an unbeliever (at least in the traditional Christian God). It is unclear whether unbelievers are more likely to go into science or whether science leads to unbelief, but another study by Leuba suggested that belief in God among college students decreased with academic advancement.

Creationists may be right when they say that science leads to disbelief. It certainly ought to lead to disbelief in young-earth nonsense and intelligent designers.

I have, however, no quarrel with those whose belief in God does not lead them to antiscientific or other dangerous political positions. I just think they are objectively wrong. I do not understand the stridency of some atheistic fundamentalists.

In the absence of some sort of theory, even a low-level theory, of what's going on, purely correlational research is likely to produce a lot of garbage results. After all, if you do 20+ studies, you're very likely to find one to publish in which the hypothesis is verified at .05.

The instance of ESP research is illuminating. The last time I did a literature search--it was about 5 years ago, as I recall--there were exactly zero credible studies reporting ESP. But I have to admit that the best reason not to believe in ESP is not the absence of proof, but the absence of theory. Consider:

1. There are four basic interactions: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational. Which of these interactions is responsible for ESP?

2. The known sensory modalities of animals have anatomical correlates. There are regions of the human brain that process sight, sound, smells. Animals that have special senses such as fish that navigate murky water by electrical signals have great big brain regions that process the information--the details are available in Conway Morris' book Life's Devices. Where is the region of the brain that processes ESP? If there is one, it's mighty small.

The situation is much the same with research on prayer. In the absence of a theory of how prayer works, even positive results wouldn't mean very much. On the other hand, there is a theoretical explanation for one recent negative result. It may be that the reason that heart patients who know they are being prayed for have worse outcomes is because of the social pressure it entails. After all, it has been reported that schizophrenics who are subjected to high levels of what is called EE (expressed emotion) from family members have worse outcomes (Jenkins, J.H. Antrhopology, Expressed Emotion, and Schizophrenia. Ethos 19(4)). Obviously, this explanation may be wrong. My point is, you could do something with it.

The trouble with notions like ESP, astrology, and God is not that they have been disconfirmed; but as candidate explanations, they have never made the cut.

I do not understand the stridency of some atheistic fundamentalists.

The surveys of Leuba and later of Larson and Witham give consistent results, except for one possible anomaly, despite around 80 years between Leuba's first and Larson and Witham's. Additionally, those three surveys found that, for example, biologists and anthropologists or sociologists were less likely to believe in God than physicists; these results are echoed in other recent surveys. John Lynch and I will discuss these and other surveys in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, which is due out in August.

I (unusually) do not agree with Mr. Harrison that you need a theory to do science. There is a constant interplay between theory and experiment, experiment and theory. It does not matter which comes first. The therapeutic touch people have no theory (beyond that TT must result from some force that science has not discovered), but if they ever show in proper double-blinded tests that one person can sense the presence of another, they will have to be reckoned with.

Yes, I have read Mr. Harris's book. I was not particularly impressed, perhaps because much in it was old hat to me. I was especially not impressed by the chapter, "Exeriments in Consciousness," in which he seemed to espouse some kind of mysticism to replace conventional Western religion. I thought that the most remarkable thing about the book was that he managed to get it published by a major publisher. If anyone wants a primer on atheism, I more highly recommend David Eller's Natural Atheism.

Is Mr. Harris strident? I suppose so. I certainly thought that he too often crossed the line between wit, even biting wit, and sarcasm.

I was particularly distressed by his implication (p. 128) that the USSR was a responsible custodian of nuclear weapons, but the rulers of Iran are not, because they are religious lunatics who are not afraid of being incinerated in a nuclear war. I do not know whether Mr. Harris was thinkng of the USSR under Stalin, but I distinctly (and I hope accurately) remember Mao's saying that China had enough people to survive a nuclear war, and I think Stalin thought the same about the USSR. In any event, Stalin was among the worst monsters that history has ever produced, even by twentieth-century standards; if he was a responsible custodian of nuclear weapons, I cannot imagine anyone who would be irresponsible.

Lenny Flank, I'll try once more regarding Paleolithic life style: People lived in bands. A typical size would be 4 adult males, ages 14--35. Same number of adult females, same age range. Also 16 infants and children. One old man and three old women, ages greater than 35. Total, 28. Guthrie states "not larger than 25 to 40 people"

While life was not hand-to-mouth, it was year-to-year. Most important, the youth needed to learn what was necessary for the band's continued existence. Quoting Guthrie, "Here is a wise old Paleolithic guy who was responsible for the male side of wisdom and who must have spent much time telling stories to the young." Doesn't sound like a freeloader to me...

I'm not sure I've managed to disagree with Matt Young quite yet. Like him I think that fruitful science ususally involves a dialogue between theory and experiment/observation. I merely observe that as a matter of experience, purely correlational research doesn't go very far except in those instances in which there is a strong and obvious correlation between one thing and another--between cancer and cigarette smoking, for example. Where the relationships are extremely weak at best--between exposure to magnetic fields and leukemia, for example--the lack of a plausible causative mechanism makes it next to impossible to interpret the statistical results. Where there is, so far as anybody can see, absolutely no relationship--between guessing what somebody is thinking and what they actually are thinking, for example--statistical methods will produce artifacts. It doesn't matter how sophisticated your methods. If nobody's broadcasting on that frequency, turning up the volume just makes it easier to hear the static.

The notion that you can get results by applying a universal method to any data set is belied by the history of science. Methods work when and only when there is some regularity to detect. Otherwise they fail, as in the instances of astrology or classical learning psychology. There's simply no reason to think that the configurations of distant balls of gas or rock will make a given human being more or less creative or energetic, just as there is no reason to think that a simple mathematical function just has to exist that relate arbitrarily defined stimuli and responses in an interesting way.

Actually, I doubt if even the Priests of Marduk or whoever dreamed up astrology were acting as pure empiricists. They thought the stars and planets were Gods, after all, so they had some reason to think that what was above could influence what was beneath. I doubt if you can even have bad science without theories. When modern astrologers and psychologists fall back on purely correlational methods, they do so as a defensive strategy. They are like the Creationists and ID folks who discovered a remarkable enthusiasm for Popper's philosophy of science only after they realized its polemic utility.

Lenny Flank, I'll try once more regarding Paleolithic life style: People lived in bands. A typical size would be 4 adult males, ages 14---35. Same number of adult females, same age range. Also 16 infants and children. One old man and three old women, ages greater than 35. Total, 28. Guthrie states "not larger than 25 to 40 people" While life was not hand-to-mouth, it was year-to-year. Most important, the youth needed to learn what was necessary for the band's continued existence. Quoting Guthrie, "Here is a wise old Paleolithic guy who was responsible for the male side of wisdom and who must have spent much time telling stories to the young." Doesn't sound like a freeloader to me...

Lenny Flank, there was no shaman in my list of a typical band. There is at best ambiguous evidence of any supernatural ritual in Paleolithic life.

The old man wasn't the chief, that being the senior hunter. I am sure that he also worked at preparing hides, etc., whilst instructing the young. I doubt this was a 'privileged' position. That would apply best to the chief. He would be honored, as would be the three crones, but strictly speaking, nobody was privileged in that they did not have to contribute to the band's welfare.

Despite a rushed posting yesterday, I agree with Jim Harrison. I'll take a pure Bayesian position, knowing full well that Bayesian reasoning is not all there is to science.

For the Bayesian, one must begin with both a hypothesis, H, and some evidence, E. One then attempts to determine whether hypothesis H or the null hypothesis, anything-but-H, most probably explains the evidence. There is more I could say, but to keep it short, the point that both theory and data are required has been once again made.

This is essentially the same as Matt Young's point(s), yes?

Lenny Flank, there was no shaman in my list of a typical band. There is at best ambiguous evidence of any supernatural ritual in Paleolithic life.

But it is clear from the archeological record in Europe that there was some sort of respect for the dead about 30,000 years ago, long before agriculture. This suggests some vague God meme, or immortality meme.

The old man wasn't the chief, that being the senior hunter. I am sure that he also worked at preparing hides, etc., whilst instructing the young. I doubt this was a 'privileged' position. That would apply best to the chief. He would be honored, as would be the three crones, but strictly speaking, nobody was privileged in that they did not have to contribute to the band's welfare.

Certainly respect for the dead does not require a full-time shaman, any more that Quaker Meetings have a pastor. Nor did I state they were all equal. For obvious practical reasons the hunters get first choice of meat, as I already indicated.

(You'd never survive back then. No IDiots to bash.)

(You'd never survive back then. No IDiots to bash.)

The right reverend Leonardo Flanko MD phD FOTHB who lives in that altitudinally challenged state of Florida is infact totally dependant on civil engineers to build bridges so his bicycling actually provides him with genuine cardiovascular benefits (beyond that which comes from realizing that the little old lady in the town car next to him peering underneath the steeringwheel top is about to suddenly make a right hand turs sans signal or acknowledgement of his existance). Having had the priveledge of cycling in Florida (Naples) I can safely say it is different from Colorado where rednecks in pickup trucks delberately try to run you off the road and who needs that steenking oxygen anyway?

Certainly respect for the dead does not require a full-time shaman, any more that Quaker Meetings have a pastor.

Nor did I state they were all equal. For obvious practical reasons the hunters get first choice of meat, as I already indicated.

You'd never survive back then.

No IDiots to bash.

The right reverend Leonardo Flanko MD phD FOTHB who lives in that altitudinally challenged state of Florida is infact totally dependant on civil engineers to build bridges so his bicycling actually provides him with genuine cardiovascular benefits (beyond that which comes from realizing that the little old lady in the town car next to him peering underneath the steeringwheel top is about to suddenly make a right hand turs sans signal or acknowledgement of his existance). Having had the priveledge of cycling in Florida (Naples) I can safely say it is different from Colorado where rednecks in pickup trucks delberately try to run you off the road and who needs that steenking oxygen anyway?

I (unusually) do not agree with Mr. Harrison that you need a theory to do science.

There is a constant interplay between theory and experiment, experiment and theory. It does not matter which comes first.

I have read Mr. Harris's book. I was not particularly impressed, perhaps because much in it was old hat to me. I was especially not impressed by the chapter, "Experiments in Consciousness," in which he seemed to espouse some kind of mysticism to replace conventional Western religion.

... most remarkable thing about the book was that he managed to get it published by a major publisher. If anyone wants a primer on atheism, I more highly recommend David Eller's Natural Atheism.

... my review of "Natural Atheism" by David Eller. My conclusion is that this book is not only unscientific, but antiscientific, a disgrace to philosophical reflection, contains many errors of logic and reasoning, and represents about the worst of the arguments in favor of atheism and against theism. I don't say this lightly because the author is, after all, a Ph.D. in cultural anthropology and an assumed academic scholar...

The one issue where I really disagree --- and quite strenuously, I might add --- is with Eller's arguments about the nature of truth, knowledge, and belief. I think that he is completely out of step with contemporary epistemology and is bending the concepts into unnecessary pretzels.

"The End of Faith" articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated, almost personally understood. Sam Harris presents major religious systems like Judaism, Christianity and Islam as forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and, important when it comes to matters of humanity's long-term survival, mutually incompatible. A doctoral candidate in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles, Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in contemporary America: "We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad,' 'psychotic' or 'delusional.'"

I was particularly distressed by his implication (p. 128) that the USSR was a responsible custodian of nuclear weapons, but the rulers of Iran are not, because they are religious lunatics who are not afraid of being incinerated in a nuclear war.

I do not know whether Mr. Harris was thinking of the USSR under Stalin, but I distinctly (and I hope accurately) remember Mao's saying that China had enough people to survive a nuclear war, and I think Stalin thought the same about the USSR.

Stalin ... if he was a responsible custodian of nuclear weapons, I cannot imagine anyone who would be irresponsible.

This is way off task, but in fact only one country in the world has ever used nuclear weapons against people.

There's only be one country crazy enough to use nukes... guess who.

This is way off task, but in fact only one country in the world has ever used nuclear weapons against people.

Tony wrote: Brian, I doubt that you are an engineer or understand what it means to be an engineer when you make an asinine statement like that.

I feel quite happy to be keeping out of this argument (which has very little do to with anything I contributed), and even less to do with the debate over Matt's original point (which remains relevant and would benefit from further discussion), but I would note that I am and have been for several years a professional bridge engineer and the ridiculous assertions you went on to make may be somewhat deflated by that point. I am happy to drive over bridges designed by my theist colleagues, but I would remain unhappy to fly in a spacecraft designed by a flat-earther, which is all I originally said. Nothing more.

Normdoering wrote: Now, most of the time it will be true that religious beliefs do not interfere with a person's job function, but that could not be true for a flat-earther trying to design a spacecraft. (Not that a flat-earther could get into the job). You admit later that he could not do the job saying: "If a flat-earther cannot separate their religious views from the educational requirements around designing spacecraft, then it is highly unlikely that they would even be in such a field of work." Right, it's as unlikely as Michael Behe becoming a biologist or George Bush getting elected president. Yet this contradicts your initial assumption just above. That was: "a person's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the work." How can these beliefs both be true?

Right, it's as unlikely as Michael Behe becoming a biologist or George Bush getting elected president.

I wrote: Again, in Brian's world (and perhaps yours also), there is no difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate.

And Normdoering responded: That's not true except in the elaborate fantasy land you seem to have constructed about us.

Why not just say it; that it was the big, bad, mean United States that dropped two low-yield atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. However, I wonder how many people alive today who are so critical of this decision may have had grandfathers whose lives were spared because that decision: 1) made an invasion of Japan unnecessary and, 2) helped bring a rapid end to the war. Many atrocities were committed by each side during that war. Has Japan apologize for the Rape of Nanking (were Chinese civilians were used as targets for bayonet practice) or the Bataan Death March?

Matt Young wrote (#97976):

"I will go further, however, and say that any religious belief that denies any known scientific fact must necesarily be wrong and should be reexamined. The age of the earth and the descent of life with modification are so well supported that we may fairly call them scientific facts. Beliefs that deny these facts are wrong. If they result in unfounded attacks on science, then they are also dangerous. (Yes, I understand that you cannot prove anything outside logic, so let us say it is proved well beyond reasonable doubt.)"

I must take strong exception to this statement. First, there can be no such thing as a "scientific fact". A fact is a fact or it is not a fact. To propose scientific facts borders on scientific heresy and sets you up for circular reasoning. In science we go from facts to principles, not from principles to facts.

Second, The definition of "reasonable doubt" is "doubt based on a reason." While the scientifically established age of the earth has quite reasonably been demonstrated, it is by no means established beyond a reasonable doubt, for it is based on axioms and assumptions for which there is no empirical evidence or logical support, such as the constancy of the laws of nature and others.

All together, this has been the silliest thread on PT in a long time.

Carol said
All together, this has been the silliest thread on PT in a long time

Whilst I agree with you for once....up to a point....(i.e. I would rather cut out my liver and dance naked around a dead bison).

The proof of your axiom of course, is you posting to this very thread.

Now let the real sillyness begin!

All together, this has been the silliest thread on PT in a long time.

Second, The definition of "reasonable doubt" is "doubt based on a reason."

At a time when the government is apparently contemplating an attack on Iran in order to prevent that country from becoming a nuclear power, the circumstances under which nations are likely to use or not use nukes is a relevant question, especially since there is some prospect of the United States itself using nuclear weapons in a strike on Iran.

The people who are promoting an attack on Iran are demonizing Iran and its political leaders as a bunch of fanatics who would use a nuclear weapons freely against Israel or the United States despite the obvious fact that such a move would result in the total distruction of their country. As Martin van Crevel, an Israeli military historian of very great repute, pointed out last week, this same kind of alarmist talk was previously used apropos of the Soviets, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pakistanis, and the North Koreans. All of these countries did get the bomb, and none of them has used it. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that would have made much sense.

The American use of the bomb in World War II was anomalous in a couple of ways. Whether or not it was a good idea from the point of view of either morality or Real Politik, it took place at a time when there was no prospect that the attacked country could retaliate in kind. Over and beyond that, however, the nuclear attack was also a continuation of an American tradition of total war that goes back to General Sherman at least. Rightly or wrongly, we've been a mighty self-righteous bunch over the years and our sense of exceptional national virtue is a ready excuse for extreme measures. Like bombing Iran, for example.

There's only be [sic] one country crazy enough to use nukes... guess who

This is way off task, but in fact only one country in the world has ever used nuclear weapons against people.

"I will go further, however, and say that any religious belief that denies any known scientific fact must necesarily be wrong and should be reexamined. The age of the earth and the descent of life with modification are so well supported that we may fairly call them scientific facts. Beliefs that deny these facts are wrong. If they result in unfounded attacks on science, then they are also dangerous. (Yes, I understand that you cannot prove anything outside logic, so let us say it is proved well beyond reasonable doubt.)" I must take strong exception to this statement. First, there can be no such thing as a "scientific fact".

A fact is a fact or it is not a fact.

To propose scientific facts borders on scientific heresy and sets you up for circular reasoning. In science we go from facts to principles, not from principles to facts.

Second, The definition of "reasonable doubt" is "doubt based on a reason."

While the scientifically established age of the earth has quite reasonably been demonstrated,

it is by no means established beyond a reasonable doubt,

for it is based on axioms and assumptions for which there is no empirical evidence or logical support, such as the constancy of the laws of nature and others.

All together, this has been the silliest thread on PT in a long time.

The people who are promoting an attack on Iran are demonizing Iran and its political leaders as a bunch of fanatics who would use a nuclear weapons freely against Israel or the United States despite the obvious fact that such a move would result in the total destruction of their country.

All of these countries did get the bomb, and none of them has used it. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that would have made much sense.

...the circumstances under which nations are likely to use or not use nukes is a relevant question, especially since there is some prospect of the United States itself using nuclear weapons in a strike on Iran.

Over and beyond that, however, the nuclear attack was also a continuation of an American tradition of total war that goes back to General Sherman at least.

Matt Young wrote (while I was reviewing my post): 1000 apologies! I should have known better than to write a simple sentence that anyone and everyone might interpret according to their own agendas.

1000 apologies! I should have known better than to write a simple sentence that anyone and everyone might interpret according to their own agendas.

I was responding to There's only be [sic] one country crazy enough to use nukes... guess who and I said This is way off task, but in fact only one country in the world has ever used nuclear weapons against people.

For the record, I was ~4.5 years old when the bombs were dropped, and my father and several uncles were in the US Army, though not, I think, in combat in the Pacific. I do not place blame, and I am not sure whether the decision to use nuclear weapons was correct or not; it was certainly not black and white. Still, the fact remains that the US is the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in war. I originally introduced nuclear weapons because I was concerned about Mr. Harris's demonizing the Iranians while playing down the possibility of a standoff such as that between the US and the USSR. It would be an exaggeration to accuse Mr. Harris of bias against Iran because it is a Muslim nation, but I think he may have inadvertently understated the danger of a nuclear-armed USSR to make a point.

I posted my last comment before I had read Mr. Harrison's, which preceded it by a few minutes. I concur with everything Mr. Harrison has said in that comment and did not think he was one of those who interpreted my earlier comment according to his own agenda.

I agree with the thrust of Mr. Davidson's remarks, but I must ask him to stop calling names on any thread of which I am moderator.

Lenny, as an adult male either you were a hunter, the best one being the chief, or you were the old man, who might have lead rituals involving the supernatural, as the evidence is not clear. As I have repeatedly stated, archeology is data poor and hypothesis rich, anthropology even more so. The major point, perhaps, is that very little is known about Paleolithic times.

Glen D, I am sorry you feel ignored. My apologies for the delay. First of all, his name is R. Dale Guthrie. He is one of the world's foremost experts on the Mammoth Steppe and Paleolithic times. Furthermore, he writes well. I doubt that either of us know more about this time and space than he, yes?

A rough-n-ready calculation, based on evidence from early Neolithic times in Scotland, shows that each band needed about 100,000 km^2. That's a square 100 km by 100 km. Meetings between bands were certain to be infrequent. There is no evidence for group violence. There is strong, biologically based, reasons to think that meetings between bands were correct, if not friendly. The situation changed dramatically, as the evidence shows, once bands coalesced into tribes. I will go with the evidence: human life styles, including war, changed dramatically once the ice age ended.

R. Dale Guthrie is not only emeritus professor at the University of Alaska, he is himself a hunter. I'll trust his judgments on the interpretation of the evidence. For example, the animal head is mounted above the hunter's own. Certainly plausible, especially coming from a big game hunter specializing in the subject of Paleolithic life on the Mammoth Steppe.

It is certainly the case that population pressure caused people to spread over all of Eurasia so that the total population slowly increased. The density, however, is controlled by climate and the ability to make a living. I've already indicated that the density was quite, quite low. I have previously offered two hypotheses regarding why this was so. And to repeat, the density did not begin to increase until after the end of the ice age.

There is no evidence of cannibalism among H. sapiens until rather recent times. The usual interpretation of cannibalism is a lack of protein in the diet. The hunters on the Mammoth Steppe certainly had plenty of protein. There is no evidence of cannibalism in any H. sapiens archeological site from Paleolithic times, yes? I'll go with the evidence.

Finally, "shamans". There is only one image offered by R. Dale Guthrie in "The Nature of Paleolithic Art" which could be considered to be a ritual dancer, or "shaman" in an animal disguise. So this appears to be rare to nonexistent, as there are other interpretations of this image. To repeat, archeology is data poor and hypothesis rich.

Did I hit all the points?

Sigh. I seem to be a bit tardy getting my comments off the mark. When I said I agreed with Mr. Davidson's remarks, I meant with regard to Ms. Clouser's comment. I have no reply to his next comment. I trust no one will try to infer anything from that statement.

I agree with the thrust of Mr. Davidson's remarks, but I must ask him to stop calling names on any thread of which I am moderator.

Whether or not it was a good idea from the point of view of either morality or Real Politik, it took place at a time when there was no prospect that the attacked country could retaliate in kind.

Furthermore, he writes well. I doubt that either of us know more about this time and space than he, yes?

Authorities do not an argument make.

Glen D, I am sorry, but what was the argument? The original point had to do with belief in the supernatural. On that, I found you posted useful comments regarding the possibility that in Paleolithic times people did not make any distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. I didn't reply to that because this strikes me as a plausible hypothesis.

Tony wrote: "If any of those countries [U.S.S.R., China, India, Pakistan, North Korea] thought that they had an iron-clad method of using those weapons without facing similar retaliation would have done so in a heartbeat." I guess Tony,like the Shaddow, knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

Obviously we cannot know if any of these countries would have used the weapons were they not afraid of retaliation. They were afraid of retaliation, and they never used the bomb. What does seem likely, however, is that Tony would have used them in a heartbeat or, if not Tony, then the various leftover cold warriors, chicken hawks, and Neocons who, after all, are cheerfully proposing to use nuclear weapons on Iran. These guys are projecting. Let us suppose that those goddam foreigners are cold blooded murders (when they aren't raving madmen) so we can be cold blooded murderers (or raving madmen) ourselves.

Even Stalin and Mao, not exactly my heroes, were men with human motives and peculiarities. Neither one of them was Skeletor and they didn't run SPECTRE. It wouldn't hurt if the level of political thinking in this country transcended the Weltanschauung of Marvel comics once in a while. I'm not holding my breath.

Hmmm. The sh*tstorm seems to have died down, only to reveal another, brewing on the horizon...
*opens umbrella*

However, I've been following with mild interest the discussion of the Paleolithic origins of religious belief, and I had a thought, musing on it last night.

Given that ritual among extant tribal peoples overwhemingly involves psychoactive substances, and that use of such is a universal across cultures, what do you think of the idea that we were selected for susceptability to, um-- drugs?

Whether or not it was a good idea from the point of view of either morality or Real Politik, it took place at a time when there was no prospect that the attacked country could retaliate in kind.

Glen D, I am sorry, but what was the argument? The original point had to do with belief in the supernatural. On that, I found you posted useful comments regarding the possibility that in Paleolithic times people did not make any distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. I didn't reply to that because this strikes me as a plausible hypothesis.

Oops, according to Wikipedia the nuclear material from Germany did not get to Japan. If right, the Japanese had only their own isotopes to work with, and perhaps would not have launched the dirty bomb without the German material (I don't know either way). Anyhow, here is the wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

CJ O'Brien --- After reading about drunken bees, bears wild on honey, etc., I suggest that it is rather more that there has been no selection pressure against the effects of such rare, before Neolithic times, psychoactive substances. I'll also surmise that in Paleolithic times there were memes classifying psychoactive substances with other poisonous plants.

Other moderators may do what they please; I prefer threads under my jurisdiction not to be cluttered by name calling back and forth. If you can't counter someone's arguments with reason, you are not going to do so with invective.

When I said that people have agendas, I did not mean that pejoratively; everyone has an agenda. I think it is possible, however, to read into a statement content that is not there. When you do that, you are necessarily interpreting it according to your agenda. Thus, I was accused of demonizing the big, bad US, whereas I intended no such inference. Someone else asked whether Hitler was too moral to use nuclear weapons; Hitler, whom I had never mentioned, had no nuclear weapons. And, no, Stalin was not too moral to forgo nuclear weapons.

Still, I will argue that anyone who claims that the leaders of Iran are religious lunatics who cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons should at least reflect on the fact the the US is the only nation that ever did so.

Jim Harrison wrote: What does seem likely, however, is that Tony would have used them in a heartbeat or, if not Tony, then the various leftover cold warriors, chicken hawks, and Neocons who, after all, are cheerfully proposing to use nuclear weapons on Iran.

Other moderators may do what they please; I prefer threads under my jurisdiction not to be cluttered by name calling back and forth. If you can't counter someone's arguments with reason, you are not going to do so with invective.

When I said that people have agendas, I did not mean that pejoratively;

I should have known better than to write a simple sentence that anyone and everyone might interpret according to their own agendas

everyone has an agenda.

I think it is possible, however, to read into a statement content that is not there. When you do that, you are necessarily interpreting it according to your agenda. Thus, I was accused of demonizing the big, bad US, whereas I intended no such inference.

Someone else asked whether Hitler was too moral to use nuclear weapons; Hitler, whom I had never mentioned, had no nuclear weapons. And, no, Stalin was not too moral to forgo nuclear weapons.

Still, I will argue that anyone who claims that the leaders of Iran are religious lunatics who cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons should at least reflect on the fact the the US is the only nation that ever did so.

Tony, I'm not claiming to be able to read your mind, which is why I included the phrase "or if not Tony" in a line which was obviously meant as polemic against a specific bunch of people. On the other hand, you do seem to be quite willing to assume that only a naif would doubt that the nation's enemies are likely to go in for a first strike--"Don't kid yourself" is your bit. It's an old maxim that a general should prepare for everything that the other side is capable of doing and not just what he thinks they are likely to do. But that maxim works both ways. Assuming that the enemy is nuts and evil is as much of an assumption as the notion that he is rational and moral.

You seem to assume that criticisms or even analyses of American behavior are automatically anti-American. Why the defensiveness? If the nation is above reproach, it's not going to be harmed by an examination of the record. If it isn't, maybe it could use some reproach. Anyhow, serious historical research on topics like the decision to drop the bomb goes a long way beyond ascribing blame or credit to long-dead politicians. It is, or should be, an attempt to understand why and how things happened the way they did. Granted the messiness of human affairs, that sort of investigation isn't likely to come up with a simple answer.

Jim, the points made in your last post have merit. I especially agree with your last four sentences. When I wrote don't kid yourself, Jim. If any of those countries thought that they had an iron-clad method of using those weapons without facing similar retaliation would have done so in a heartbeat, I was trying to make a point that, throughout human history, there have been nations willing to show unwarranted aggression towards other nations for no other reason than that they could get away with it.

If I seemed defensive about criticisms being anti-American, it is because I perceive some of these criticisms being one-way only. Maybe some of it went along with wearing the uniform. This country is far from perfect, but I think that our country has generally tried to do the right thing. Errors in policy cut across both political sides; likewise I also think that both political sides have tried to use America's military forces to correct injustices. I'd just like to see some acknowledgment of the good things that this country has done.

From one engineer to another, please accept my apologies.

— Tony

you made an overall good counter-argument. But I did take offense with you calling me a bigot.

Concerning Behe, I'm not really sure how that fits into your argument.

Yes, he has gone off the deep end and has lost the respect of his colleagues. Perhaps some day he may reflect on how badly his support of ID has affected his career, and may return to doing serious biology again. If that happened, I would hope that the scientific community would forgive him and welcome him back. In fact, he could be an ally by further exposing the lies of the DI and showing how he was duped.

As for who becomes president, that is politics (which follows its own set of rules). But as I posted earlier, the religious-right seems to have a good ability to mobilize the faithful to go and vote.

In response to Mr. Davidson, here are some points on a continuum:

jest, irony, mockery, satire, sarcasm, scorn, invective, abuse

There are some other points, like lampooning and ridicule, but I can't figure out exactly where they belong. You could quibble with my ordering if you wanted to, and no doubt someone will (for the record, that was mild sarcasm). It is at any rate possible to be hard hitting without being counterproductive and resorting to scorn, invective, or abuse.

Has anyone else noticed how Mr. Tony and Mr. Harrison quickly came to a meeting of minds by talking to each other politely but by no means dispassionately? They could have scorned each other but chose not to.

Correction -- I made a numerical mistake regarding the area needed by a Paleolithic band on the Mammoth Steppe: The corrected estimate is 10,000 km^2, so the population density just went up by a factor of 10. But then I made another mistake, but getting the right numbers: 10,000 km^2 = 100 km by 100 km. So the population density was indeed low.

Anyway, life was different then. No IDiots or A-bombs.

They could have scorned each other but chose not to.

jest, irony, mockery, satire, sarcasm, scorn, invective, abuse

It is at any rate possible to be hard hitting without being counterproductive and resorting to scorn, invective, or abuse.

Has anyone else noticed how Mr. Tony and Mr. Harrison quickly came to a meeting of minds by talking to each other politely but by no means dispassionately? They could have scorned each other but chose not to.

I wonder how many people alive today who are so critical of this decision may have had grandfathers whose lives were spared because that decision: 1) made an invasion of Japan unnecessary and, 2) helped bring a rapid end to the war.

I am sorry that I haven't been able to answer comments more timely. Even now, I will have to respond one at a time, and perhaps the answer already has been given elsewhere.

"So...if someone stands up and says that his/her holy text is a source of wisdom and strength in his/her life, and that he/she was moved by said text to quit using drugs, bring food and water to people displaced by Hurricane Katrina, and oppose the Iraq war, you would support, "rationally," an attempt to make this person's beliefs "socially embarrassing?"

If such an action can be "supported rationally," then I would have to question the assumptions that underpin your "rationality." It certainly can't be supported morally."

I was meaning factual claims, but also moral claims from a book should be embarassing. Morality must be taken seriously, thought over, and not be based on unchangeable texts.

Matt Young,

You should have realized by now what I and most other commenters here are well aware of - that Davidson resorts to shrill insults and name calling precisely because he needs to cover up his inability to respond cogently and substantively. I have long ago ceased to respond to his irrelevent, ignorant and stupid remarks.

His lengthy verbiage pertaining to the various uses and contexts for the word "fact", for example, has no bearing at all on my criticism of your employing the term "scientific fact", and the example you gave regarding the age of the earth. You clearly meant to use "fact" in the sense that an idea is established "beyond a reasonable doubt". My point was that science works by going from facts (in the sense you use the term), otherwise referred to as "data", to principles not vice versa. Science develops working hypotheses, not irrefutable proven facts. To say otherwise is just plain not scientific. Which is why I described it as scientific heresy.

To take your example into conseideration, the scientifically derived age of the earth and the universe are NOT facts, scientific or otherwise. They are scientifically developed working hypotheses in which we have much confidence. Setting aside all religions, Bibles and creationists for a moment, the contrary hypotheses, that the earth popped into existance six thousand years ago AS IS (with U-Pb ratios, for example, corresponding to an older earth), is not contradicted by any data (facts!) whatsoever. It might not have any explanatory or predictive advantages over other hypotheses, and scientists are absolutely justified in ignoring it, but it remains an uncontradicted by the facts possibility.

"Torbjorn: harold's points were far from "preposterous," even if they weren't all correct, and in my estimation, you have not addressed them sufficiently."

"On the one hand, "no diplomatic accomodation with moderates" is far more than "an intention to disagree.""

Why?

I have long ago ceased to respond to his irrelevent, ignorant and stupid remarks.

Lenny,

Everything I say is presumed to be my opinion and everything you say is nothing but your opinion, and the same is applicable to anyone who opens his/her mouth to express any idea.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating yourself?

You should have realized by now what I and most other commenters here are well aware of - that Davidson resorts to shrill insults and name calling precisely because he needs to cover up his inability to respond cogently and substantively.

I have long ago ceased to respond to his irrelevent, ignorant and stupid remarks.

His lengthy verbiage pertaining to the various uses and contexts for the word "fact", for example, has no bearing at all on my criticism of your employing the term "scientific fact", and the example you gave regarding the age of the earth. You clearly meant to use "fact" in the sense that an idea is established "beyond a reasonable doubt".

My point was that science works by going from facts (in the sense you use the term), otherwise referred to as "data", to principles not vice versa.

Science develops working hypotheses, not irrefutable proven facts. To say otherwise is just plain not scientific. Which is why I described it as scientific heresy.

To take your example into conseideration, the scientifically derived age of the earth and the universe are NOT facts, scientific or otherwise. They are scientifically developed working hypotheses in which we have much confidence.

Setting aside all religions, Bibles and creationists for a moment, the contrary hypotheses, that the earth popped into existance six thousand years ago AS IS (with U-Pb ratios, for example, corresponding to an older earth), is not contradicted by any data (facts!) whatsoever.

It might not have any explanatory or predictive advantages over other hypotheses, and scientists are absolutely justified in ignoring it, but it remains an uncontradicted by the facts possibility.

You clearly meant to use "fact" in the sense that an idea is established "beyond a reasonable doubt". My point was that science works by going from facts (in the sense you use the term), otherwise referred to as "data", to principles not vice versa. Science develops working hypotheses, not irrefutable proven facts.

"However, Einstein's theory of general relativity is used in global positioning systems, for example. However, there are substantive theoretical grounds for doubting this theory is entirely correct."

It is not correct in the sense that it does not incorporate quantum mechanics. We know that we need a quatum gravitation theory. There are also astronomical observations that could be used to change GR. However GR has no theoretical problems as such.

"Indeed, I recently read of an experiment in Germany, which if duplicated, demonstrates an entirely unexpected aspect of the theory is wrong."

Whta experiment should that be?

"For both these reasons, I doubt Einstein's general relativity, despite its predictive and engineering successes."

GR is correct as far as it goes, it is one of the best theories we have.

Everything I say is presumed to be my opinion and everything you say is nothing but your opinion, and the same is applicable to anyone who opens his/her mouth to express any idea.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating yourself?

I apologize to Mr. Davidson if he thinks I have been abusive, though frankly I think I have not. I am afraid he may be confusing mere disagreement with abuse. As far as I am concerned, I have only disagreed with him.

"I just think they are objectively wrong. I do not understand the stridency of some atheistic fundamentalists."

Are you using "atheistic fundamentalists" symmetrically here? I haven't seen many fundamentalistic atheists in the sense that they say that they will never change their position if evidence for the contrary is observed. Religious fundamentalists seems to be impervious to facts. Perhaps you mean "evangelical atheist"?

Repost since I apparently cut out part of the answer:

"Torbjorn: harold's points were far from "preposterous," even if they weren't all correct, and in my estimation, you have not addressed them sufficiently."

I specifically mentioned the point that were preposterous, and why.

"On the one hand, "no diplomatic accomodation with moderates" is far more than "an intention to disagree.""

Why?

It's logically possible that a statement such as "the Earth is of very great antiquity" could turn out to be false. On the other hand, we all know it and many other statements that have been established by overwhelming scientific evidence are true. If your philosophy of science leads you to pretend there is something provisional about such facts, the problem is with your philosophy of science, not the facts.

Apparently some of the things we've found out after centuries of research are so threatening that they have to be doubted even if the doubt has to be based on silly stories such as "maybe I'm dreaming" or "maybe God put the fossils in the ground to test the faithful." Skeptics used to be afraid that nothing could be shown to be true. The new skeptics are afraid that somethings can no longer be reasonably doubted.

Tony wrote:

Norm, under different circumstances, I think that either you or Brian might have made a good Christian fundamentalist.

Don't be surprised if either of them becomes one. It's happened before. Their rigid hatred of people not like themselves hides a deeper insecurity that a good manipulator will someday see and exploit.

And roger wrote:

So it's good that there are Christians that help keep religion out of public schools, but I still think there is no reason to keep quiet about the harm that I think religion causes.

This is how bigotry works: admit -- under pressure -- the obvious fact that "those people" aren't all bad; then brush the same facts aside and go on raging about how evil they are.

If someone here had said "So it's good that there are Jews who sincerely work for the betterment of all Mankind, but I still think there is no reason to keep quiet about the harm that I think the Great Jewish Conspiracy causes," would anyone take him seriously?

Torbjorn --- The experiment in Germany was explained in a Reutgers news release about 3--4 weeks ago. It had something to do with an interaction between a magnetic field and gravity, in the setting of superconductivity. The scientists were quite sure of their astounding result. Nonetheless, someone will have to replicate it before theorists need to go to work replacing GR.

The theoretical grounds for knowing that GR cannot be correct are, as you say, that it is not quantum gravity. The fact that it is internally consistent and up to now largely in accord with experiments(observations) means that we know GR is only an approximation, another in the long history of ever better approximations in mechanics.

I won't quibble about GR's being "one of the best" theories we have, since this would only be a matter of deciding how many theories belong in the category "best".

Jim Harrison --- Science NEVER establishes truths. I'll explain. For brevity, let H be the hypothesis that Terra is of great antiquity. Let E denote all the physical, geological and paleontological evidence. Then the probability of H given E is something like p(H | E) = 0.999999999999999999999999999, which is not yet certain. This makes for cumbersome writing and conversation, so one often abbreviates by saying H is 'true'.

Now compare hypothesis H with Carol C's creation hypothesis, K(t). Note well that this hypothesis has a free parameter, t. Carol says we have to set t = 6000 years ago, but a moment's reflection shows that her hypothesis works equally well for one minute or even one second ago. Hence t remains a free parameter. We cannot select between H and K(t) based on the evidence, since Carol's hypothesis has been so constructed that p(H | E) = p(K(t) | E). But we can select between the two hypotheses using the principle of parsimony: H has no free parameter and K(t) does. So H is more parsimonious and thus to be preferred (by everybody except Carol, it seems).

I could go on, but this seems enough to illustrate my points.

using "atheistic fundamentalists" symmetrically here? I haven't seen many fundamentalistic atheists in the sense that they say that they will never change their position if evidence for the contrary is observed. Religious fundamentalists seems to be impervious to facts. Perhaps you mean "evangelical atheist"?

2. A movement or point of view characterized by rigid adherence to fundamental or basic principles.

6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous.

But if you didn't vote in the last election, then you have nothing to complain about.

— Tony

Calling atheism a religion don't make it so!

Atheism is indeed a "religion" in that it constitutes a specific set of beliefs regarding the existence/nature of god(s), and Man's purpose in the larger Universe, which are based on faith and not on objective proof. Atheists tend to deny the existence of ALL gods, instead of all-but-a-selected-handful.

Also, atheists exhibiting the same flawed reasoning, disregard for facts and evidence, and bigotry toward other beliefs that we rightly condemn in fundie theists does "make it so." Slightly modified duck test: if it hates like a narrow religion, it's a narrow religion.

You realize I could've voted for John Kerry (or any other equally loathsome alternative) eleventy billion times and it would not have mattered in the least (as I live in Illinois). You fancy your vote as way more valuable than it really is.

Right -- you can't bring yourself to see the differences between the candidates, they're all "equally loathsome" to you, but you know more about the value of our votes than we do. Have you thought of getting a new hat? Don't worry about the waste of throwing the old one away -- tinfoil is recyclable.

Raging Bee:

Atheists do not "deny the existence of god(s)". You are confusing Strong Atheism with atheism, a mistake that borders on a Strawman fallacy.

For me, and every single other atheist I've EVER met in real life, atheism per se is, first and foremost, the lack of a god-belief. Nothing "fundamentalist" about this, except the "fundamentalist" refusal to adopt a belief that I (and apparently several other people) find utterly lacking in evidence.

After a few decades, repeatedly clarifying this confusion can get very trying; yet, leaving it unchallenged would be worse.

yorktank wrote: I didn't vote in the last election and I have plenty to complain about.

You realize I could've voted for John Kerry (or any other equally loathsome alternative) eleventy billion times and it would not have mattered in the least (as I live in Illinois).

You fancy your vote as way more valuable than it really is.

If the claim is that scientific conclusions are never established in the same fashion as, for example, geometrical theorems, nobody can object. On the other hand, claiming that we don't know that the earth is of great antiquity is equivalent to saying that we don't and can't know anything--the formula that suggests a probabity of .999999999999... for the antiquity of the Earth would presumably return a lesser probability for my "theory" that there's a head on the end of my neck. But I'm not making a point about Bayesian statistics; I'm recommending a nonpathological use of the common language. I'm asserting as a nonscientist that I have the right and indeed the duty to conclude certain propositions are true on the basis of scientific research and to use them as such in nonscientific contexts such as politics, philosophy, and everyday life. To speak differently creates misunderstanding and violates well-known rules of pragmatics.

The rhetoric of this issue is more interesting than the logic. The enthusiasm of many folks hereabouts for fussy, positivistic views of science reminds me of the way that Osiander and various other peace-loving people tried to promote the notion that Copernicus was just using the hypothesis that the sun was in the middle as a way of simplifying his computations. But the Polish guy wasn't kidding.

Really? I've always been told that "lack of a god-belief" is called "agnosticism," in order to separate it from "atheism" (specific belief that there is no god) and thus avoid the mistake you accuse me of making. "Agnostic," based on its root-meaning, generally means "not knowing" or "not claiming to know" -- i.e., lack of a specific belief or opinion. There's a difference, and that's why there's two different words.

Atheism is indeed a "religion" in that it constitutes a specific set of beliefs regarding the existence/nature of god(s), and Man's purpose in the larger Universe, which are based on faith and not on objective proof. Atheists tend to deny the existence of ALL gods, instead of all-but-a-selected-handful. Also, atheists exhibiting the same flawed reasoning, disregard for facts and evidence, and bigotry toward other beliefs that we rightly condemn in fundie theists does "make it so." Slightly modified duck test: if it hates like a narrow religion, it's a narrow religion.

— Raging Bee

Have you thought of getting a new hat? Don't worry about the waste of throwing the old one away --- tinfoil is recyclable.

Jim Harrison --- The use of careful reasoning. although sometimes taking much longer to state, is surely not pathological, is it? My main point was to first show that a generality, such as "Terra is of great antiquity" is not a fact, but a hypothesis strongly supported by the evidence. My second point was to rationally remove consideration of Carol C's K(t) hypothesis.

I believe I did both, without the slightest personal attack, yes?

Yorktank, you are pathetic and lazy. You, and the thousands of others like yourself are so good at whining about how bad this country is, but you refuse to get off your asses and do something positive about it. You can also vote for your representatives and senators, who influence public policy just as equally. You can also go down to the local office and volunteer to help elect the candidates you care for. You could attend and speak out at public hearings and at school board meetings and let your voice be heard. You can write letters to the editor at your local papers (they probably won't publish you the first time or the first 50 times, but don't stop trying). However, since you don't care enough to vote, then you are stuck with the government that you get.

— Tony

You fancy your vote as way more valuable than it really is.

No, I don't.....Yorktank, you are pathetic and lazy. You, and the thousands of others like yourself are so good at whining about how bad this country is, but you refuse to get off your asses and do something positive about it. You can also vote for your representatives and senators, who influence public policy just as equally. You can also go down to the local office and volunteer to help elect the candidates you care for. You could attend and speak out at public hearings and at school board meetings and let your voice be heard. You can write letters to the editor at your local papers (they probably won't publish you the first time or the first 50 times, but don't stop trying). However, since you don't care enough to vote, then you are stuck with the government that you get.

I don't understand how you can bemoan the fact that some atheists paint all religious people in a bad light, ignoring counter-examples while you are allowed to consistently paint atheists in an inaccurate light...

Notice how I qualified my attacks, as in "atheists exhibiting the same flawed reasoning," etc.? that's more qualification than some atheists have put into their attacks on "religion" here. (Not that someone who labelled Bush, Kerry, and a gaggle of others as "equally loathsome" is in any position to complain...)

And no, I don't feel "persecuted" by atheists, since none of them have any real power or relevance in my life. "Irritated," maybe...

Because I always vote, contribute to candidates, man phone banks, and write letters to the editor, I wield a full .00002453% of the political power in the U.S. even though I represent a mere .0000033897% of the population.

Jokes aside. Voting makes a difference even if your candidate loses. Politicians are keenly aware of what groups of people vote. When you vote, you make it incrementally more likely that elected officials will try to cater to your opinions and interests because you belong to a fraction of the population with electoral relevance. Which is part of the reason why retired people, who tend to vote, have a disproportionate influence on legislation.

Voting would be a lot more attractive to voters if elections presented them with real choices about vital issues. The current system really is drastically anti-democratic. Voter apathy just makes things worse, however, which is why the established parties, especially but not only the Republican party, actively promote it.

The statement "Terra is of great antiquity" is not a generality. It isn't the assertion, "for any thing, if it's a Terra, it's of great antiquity;" but the assertion that "There is a Terra and it's of great antiquity." To point this out is more than a quibble. Claiming that scientific results are all mere hypotheses is easier when what's at stake really are generalities. Which is why philosophers of science like Popper were somewhat uncomfortable with historical sciences like geology that deal with particular things, Earth, for example. Unless you're going to claim that the Earth maybe never existed or something like that, it is either of great antiquity or not. The alternative is to make the Earth out as a sort of logical Schrodinger's cat. Our belief in the antiquity of the cat may be .9999999999 or whatever, but the cat either is or isn't ancient.

By the way, nobody's attacking anybody, as far as I can tell. I guess I just naturally sound grumpy!

Of course you're right Mr. Harrison. And, if I still lived in my home state of Kentucky, I would've been right there in line to vote against Bush. Honestly, I didn't mean for my comment about not voting to come down to the issue of whether voting is useful. Clearly, history shows us it is...to a point.

But I'll stand by my right to complain, regardless of whether I vote for president. Voting, as Tony pointed out whilst calling me pathetic and lazy, is only one way in which a person can be a useful citizen.

And whatever, Raging Bee. You're a bastion of virtue and compassion, and I'm an utter moron. I would think, however, if a person feels that all of the candidates are equally loathsome, he should feel justified in complaining.

Since atheism is a denial of the existence of God, or the supernatural, it simply cannot be called religion.

Religious fundies say much the same thing: you can't lump their One True Faith with all the others; their One True Faith is "Truth," everything else is "religion."

Whether or not you retreat from your point is irrelevant. "Religion" is, pretty much by the definition used and accepted by most people, a set of beliefs and/or assumptions regarding certain questions or issues, and the atheist's beliefs on these issues is that there is no god.

"Atheism" is the answer to the question "What is your religion?" What other question is it the answer to? "Atheism" is a "religion" just as much as "anarchism" is a "political philosophy."

Religious fundies say much the same thing: you can't lump their One True Faith with all the others; their One True Faith is "Truth," everything else is "religion."

— Raging Bee

Whether or not you retreat from your point is irrelevant. "Religion" is, pretty much by the definition used and accepted by most people, a set of beliefs and/or assumptions regarding certain questions or issues, and the atheist's beliefs on these issues is that there is no god.

"Atheism" is the answer to the question "What is your religion?" What other question is it the answer to? "Atheism" is a "religion" just as much as "anarchism" is a "political philosophy."

Jim Harrison --- Well, I did not care for the 'pathological', but I suppose that is past now...

The Bayesian will treat "There is a Terra" as fixed background information, and as such, part of every hypothesis. So hypothesis H consists of two parts: T = there is a Terra and A = "for all things, if the thing is Terra then the thing is of great antiquity".

Since T is directly observable, the probability of T is exactly one, even for the most thorough Bayesian. So hypothesis H, and its probability given the evidence reduces to just that of the generality A.

I agree that in some sense, either A holds or it does not. That is essentially irrelevant to our ability to determine the probability of this generality given the evidence. If you prefer to consider these as belief statements, that is perfectly acceptable. It is just terribly tedious to say it all at length for a generality as well confirmed as hypothesis A.

As for historical sciences, such as geology and archeology, there is indeed more to what is happening than the structure of purely Bayesian reasoning allows. The story-telling aspect does not yet entirely comfortably fit into the Bayesian framework. However, I have just finished reading two books on the application of Bayesian reasoning to problems in archeology. Most of the applications are to resolve chronologies. So it appears that progress is being made.

All due respect, Tony...

yorktank originally posted: I didn't vote in the last election and I have plenty to complain about. You realize I could've voted for John Kerry (or any other equally loathsome alternative) eleventy billion times and it would not have mattered in the least...

You later wrote: Now, I could've gone out into the cold and rain to exercise my democratic privilege, but I knew full well in advance which way my state would vote. I don't like the Electoral College and it's my right (just as it's my right to vote) to state as much.

You have no idea whether I spend all of my free time influencing public policy. For all you know I may have written a million letters to editors. But the point is you don't know any of this.

Jim Harrison wrote: Voting makes a difference even if your candidate loses. Politicians are keenly aware of what groups of people vote. When you vote, you make it incrementally more likely that elected officials will try to cater to your opinions and interests because you belong to a fraction of the population with electoral relevance. Which is part of the reason why retired people, who tend to vote, have a disproportionate influence on legislation.

...you're not as much of a patriot as your posturing would indicate.

Finally, ben wrote: Or maybe what's really wrong with this country is too many self-righteous pricks who resort to name-calling as soon as they identify someone who doesn't think and act as they do.

I wrote: Yorktank, you are pathetic and lazy.

David,
"Torbjorn ---- The experiment in Germany was explained in a Reutgers news release about 3---4 weeks ago. It had something to do with an interaction between a magnetic field and gravity, in the setting of superconductivity. The scientists were quite sure of their astounding result. Nonetheless, someone will have to replicate it before theorists need to go to work replacing GR."

I think you mean a recent experiment performed by Martin Tajmar (ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria) and Clovis de Matos (ESA-HQ, Paris) with an unpredicted high (and therefore measurable) gravitomagnetic London effect ( http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html ).

GR predicts it, but they claim to see it at much stronger levels than theory predict. However, the effect is a meager 3 times the noise which isn't much.

Here is a critique http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2006/03/gravitomagnetic_noise.php , which ends:

"We'll just have to wait for either some improvements in accelerometer technology, or for some clever person to come up with another way of doing the experiment that generates a cleaner signal.

As for the impact, if it holds up, this would be a big deal. But that's still a big "if" at this point."

In my experience weak experiments like these are seldom improved or repeated successfully. But you never know...

Torbjorn, thanks for the clarification and the links. We are in agreement that replication and improvement of techniques are required before the theoretical physicists would have to go to work...

Mr Young answers,

"Thus I think that atheists can be fundamentalists if they are rigid in their adherence to their belief, and they are evangelical only if they also proselytize."

Well then. As I said, I haven't seen many fundamentalistic atheists in the sense that they say that they will never change their position if evidence for the contrary is observed.

I can honestly only think of one that may be such, a libertarian, and even he claims he looks at observational evidence as part of his acceptance of their curious belief system. Maybe he is rigid in the sense you describe, maybe not. I will eagerly await to observe "the stridency of some atheistic fundamentalists" as soon as possible.

Well, I reviewed my post where I said that, and nowhere did I say that I thought my vote was more valuable than anyone else.

I reviewed my post where I talked about voting (#98179), when I told Jim Harrison "if you didn't vote in the last election, then you have nothing to complain about." Nowhere did I say that I thought my vote was more valuable than anyone else. Yorktank, I think that you read too much into it.

"Atheism is indeed a "religion" in that it constitutes a specific set of beliefs regarding the existence/nature of god(s), and Man's purpose in the larger Universe, which are based on faith and not on objective proof. Atheists tend to deny the existence of ALL gods, instead of all-but-a-selected-handful.

Also, atheists exhibiting the same flawed reasoning, disregard for facts and evidence, and bigotry toward other beliefs that we rightly condemn in fundie theists does "make it so." Slightly modified duck test: if it hates like a narrow religion, it's a narrow religion."

Sigh! This is going to be one of those forever threads, isn't it? I'm going to make a try anyway.

Atheism is not a belief or a disregard for facts or evidence. I will copy a long part of a post I made over at Pharyngula, since it adresses this well:

"4) On methods of science (Bram):
Methodological naturalism has been a result of the successful use of the methods of science. Science use observations to make and verify theories beyond reasonable doubt. It has been a result, not a priori given by any philosophy of yours, that these theories has converged to be about nature. Dualistic theories of spirited mechanisms, souls, et cetera has lacked testable support.

5) On atheism and 'proofs of gods':
While atheism certainly is vaguely defined, it is clear that it is no faith or belief.

An acceptable definition of atheism could be 'We know there are no gods' and of agnosticism 'We can't know if there are no gods'. It is clear by now that no philosophical 'proof' of gods or not can be made.

However, there are at least four observational methods that supports the atheist claim. PZ mentions one: assaying specific claims enables decisions. Keith Douglas mentions one: increasing lack of evidence enables decisions. One other is to take it as an axiom and observe if it is consistent with evidence. It is, and as it makes away with dualistic objects such as gods it is most parsimonious, but it is not falsifiable. The one I prefer is falsifiable and relies on observing the natural dual of any universal dualism claims.

Shygetz raises some problems with this. The detection problem is answered by observing conservation properties of natural phenomena, since we then know what nonnatural properties are. The idea that we need to search the entire universe is ludicrous. We need only verify beyond reasonable doubt, and we have known properties of universal isotrophy on natural properties. For example QM, or chemical reactions, are the same through the universe by theory - and we can even support that with observations. So a sieve of local observations for a restricted time with a restricted set of phenomena are fine to verify such a theory beyond reasonable doubt - and we can probably make supplemental nonlocal observations, depending on exactly which phenomena we are observing.

It is the application of observational evidence that raises atheism above the simple ideas of 'belief'. How much is up to everyone to decide.

Secularism is an option, but I am happy with following the evidence where it leads. Doing that I find that deism is to use different criteria in different areas indiscriminately. It is tolerable, but not respectable. It is also faith based.

I also find that agnosticism is to use different criterias in the same observational area where science resides and I indeed think *is* acceptable methods of knowledge. It remains to be shown that it can be made part of science and properly verified of course, but it is very hard to show that all sorts of evidence should be rejected indefinitely. However the exact status, for agnosticism the usual concept of beyond reasonable doubt is said to be not reasonable for the specific theory we discuss and residual doubt or possible falsifiability should be promoted to a special status. It is tolerable, but not respectable. It is also faith based.

While science does not 'prove' that gods does not exist, it seems able to verify beyond reasonable doubt that dualistic phenomena and their causes, such as gods, does not exist. This is the more general claim of atheism I can respect until evidence says otherwise."

Their rigid hatred of people not like themselves hides a deeper insecurity that a good manipulator will someday see and exploit.

"If elections could really change things, they'd be illegal".

;)

Torbjorn, I can't tell in your last paragraph whether you are quoting Shygetz or these are your own thoughts. In either case, I (in my role as the compleat Bayesian) only somewhat agree with this sentiment, due to the following: If a god never supernaturally intervenes, there can never be any evidence. Hence science can never make any statements whatsoever about 'passive gods'. However, on the grounds of parsimony, there is no need to introduce such entities and they are irrelevant to scientific predictions.

With this change, the Bayesian is forced into the position of an agnostic with respect to 'gods' which never supernaturally intervene. However, the parsimonious Bayesian might consider parsimony to be much the same as atheism. Along with Lenny Flank, I'll just (shrug) and then try to get back to actually doing some science.

Really? I've always been told that "lack of a god-belief" is called "agnosticism," in order to separate it from "atheism" (specific belief that there is no god) and thus avoid the mistake you accuse me of making. "Agnostic," based on its root-meaning, generally means "not knowing" or "not claiming to know" --- i.e., lack of a specific belief or opinion. There's a difference, and that's why there's two different words.

Raging Bee,

please note that Aureola Nominee is quite correct. Agnosticism is often mistaken for a 'less dogmatic' version of atheism, whereas is is actually possible to be both at the same time.

There are a lot of resources like this one here which help to explain the difference.

I know you get frustrated by ignorant mischaracterisations of religions and religious people, so you should also take care to fully understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and that you can have both strong and weaker positions in both. Atheism is a statement about belief - in this case lack of belief in any gods. Strong atheists (a small minority of atheists) go further and deny the existance of all gods.

I am an agnostic atheist (weaker varieties of both), same as Aureola.

Agnostic : "I don't know and cannot yet know, so I am neutral" - reserved judgement

Weak Atheist : "I don't believe any gods exist"

Strong Atheist : "I believe no gods exist."

It should be noted that it is often difficult to draw a line of distinction between the various categories.

I rate myself as "strong atheist", in that (for myself) I feel pretty sure that no gods exist.

However, would it not be great if all people took a creed like "Do what you want to, as long as you harm no-one"?

Renier:

I, too, feel pretty sure that no gods exist. However, I do not claim to know that for a fact; therefore, I am a Weak Atheist (shorthand for "agnostic atheist").

Torbjorn wrote:

While atheism certainly is vaguely defined, it is clear that it is no faith or belief.

Not quite. Most of the atheists I have encountered (right here no less) do indeed have a "faith or belief" that: a) their belief in no deity is somehow superior to others' belief in one or more gods, regardless of what, specifically, those others actually believe; b) belief in any god(s) is useless if not dangerous; and c) no one has any good reason to believe in god(s) anymore. These beliefs are expressed without regard to huge amounts of (admittedly anecdotal and personal) evidence to the contrary, and no visible effort to obtain or analyze such evidence, or even admit it exists. These atheists pretty much fit your reference to "fundamentalistic atheists in the sense that they say that they will never change their position if evidence for the contrary is observed."

If atheists don't like being called a "religion," they should stop acting like one.

Raging Bee:

Please consider that the first time someone says that "atheism is a religion", this can be a honest mistake; but any repetition of this age-old canard, after having been gently corrected, is a wilful misrepresentation.

Atheism is no religion, and nobody here has shown anything to the contrary, your insistence notwithstanding. I kindly invite you to refrain from repeating this slander.

Atheism is the lack of a god-belief, not a belief in itself; thus it lacks one of the essential qualities of religion.

Thank you.

A case can also be built that if there WERE any gods who actually DO anything, their activities would be all but impossible to miss. The only actual detections of the activities of gods that I'm aware of fall into two categories: personal testimony (my god has spoken to me) and attribution of observable reality to the activities of gods (yes it rains, but gods direct this).

So I agree that atheism is the belief that there are no gods, but this is much like a belief that there are no indetectable automobiles sharing our highways, driven by whatever-drives-them forever beyond any possibility of observation. Yes, this *might* be true, but believing it is not true doesn't qualify as a religious belief, but as the default: that it's more sensible to reject the existence of anything for which there is no evidence (or for which *everything* is evidence).

Over time, it's pretty clear that acting the basis that gods and indetectable vehicles don't exist has been pretty productive, while factoring in gods and dodging autos that aren't there has been notoriously otherwise. So the case continues to build...

Bee

I think you compare atheists who are very passionate about their lack of belief with the fundies. To be fair, I think the comparison can be made in good faith. Fundies that turn atheist (like me) still act like fundies for a while, until the extreme mental attitude starts relaxing a bit.

In short, saying atheism is a belief is not correct, IMHO. Reason is that you are calling a total lack of belief (although it might be passionate) a belief. I, for myself, don't like to really "believe" anything, I prefer to know. I don't think there is a god in the same way that I don't think there is a yellow elephant with pink spots to be found on the moon. I lack total belief in this regard.

Now, just to throw a stick in the spokes, but I think your own attitude against atheists might have a touch of the fundie in it, but of course, I might be wrong and you might just be the most tolerant person on earth.

So I agree that atheism is the belief that there are no gods

David,
The part where I answered Shygetz concerns were the paragraph he was mentioned. ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/look_ma_im_a_secular_whackjob.php )

I don't know much about the use of bayesian methods. A frequentist probably says that probabilities are factual statements derived from the specific theory it applies to, while bayesian probabilities are grade of beliefs. OTOH, in the same manner that PZ, Keith Douglas or observations assert decision beyond reasonable doubt, I don't see why bayesian methods could not. They are useful in algorithms or to make sense of such things as SETI partial data, and bayesian probability has a more parsimonous axiom set (1) than frequentist probability (3). So I am comfortable with at least using bayesian methods, if not the philosophy yet.

Over time, it's pretty clear that acting the basis that gods and indetectable vehicles don't exist has been pretty productive, while factoring in gods and dodging autos that aren't there has been notoriously otherwise. So the case continues to build...

A "case" that indiscriminately lumps belief in god(s) -- for which LOTS of personal testimony has been recorded (with varying degrees of credibility) -- with belief in indetectable vehicles -- for which VERY LITTLE IF ANY personal testimony has been recorded IIRC -- is only "continuing to build" in your own mind.

PS: Perhaps, if certain militant atheists spent less time trashing all forms of "religion," without regard to anyone's specific facts or testimony, then atheists in general might be a little less sensitive about being labelled a "religion." I've been mistaken for a Christian more than once here, but I don't have much of a problem with that because I know there are decent Christians all over the place.

"Torbjorn wrote:

While atheism certainly is vaguely defined, it is clear that it is no faith or belief.

Not quite. Most of the atheists I have encountered (right here no less) do indeed have a "faith or belief" that: a) their belief in no deity is somehow superior to others' belief in one or more gods, regardless of what, specifically, those others actually believe; b) belief in any god(s) is useless if not dangerous; and c) no one has any good reason to believe in god(s) anymore."

That is pretty much the result if you either think the whole question shouldn't be raised, or know that the evidence supports you. I have provided ample reasons for the later, which you totally discount.

"These beliefs are expressed without regard to huge amounts of (admittedly anecdotal and personal) evidence to the contrary, and no visible effort to obtain or analyze such evidence, or even admit it exists."

I am terribly sorry, but in the expert area of using observational evidence, science, anecdotal evidence has been shown to mean squat. This is not something we can disregard.

"These atheists pretty much fit your reference to "fundamentalistic atheists in the sense that they say that they will never change their position if evidence for the contrary is observed.""

Preposterous. I have yet to meet any atheist or agnostic that says that observational evidence for gods wont change their knowledge and position.

Most of the atheists I have encountered (right here no less) do indeed have a "faith or belief" that: a) their belief in no deity is somehow superior to others' belief in one or more gods, regardless of what, specifically, those others actually believe; b) belief in any god(s) is useless if not dangerous; and c) no one has any good reason to believe in god(s) anymore. These beliefs are expressed without regard to huge amounts of (admittedly anecdotal and personal) evidence to the contrary, and no visible effort to obtain or analyze such evidence, or even admit it exists.

— Raging Bee

"Nope, that's part of the confusion. "Agnosticism" refers to knowledge, as in "I don't know whether a god exists or not."

I am an agnostic.

"Atheism" refers to belief, as in "I don't believe any god exists."

I am an atheist."

Here knowledge is used specifically in some, not even all as I think ben and Renier asserts, philosophical truth sense.

My point is that this is wrong since we have, and can make unboundedly more, observational evidence of various sorts. The correct usage for observational evidence is the way science does it, verifying beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case these positions revert. Agnosticism corresponds to blowing up the meaning of residual doubts or possible falsification for this claim specifically, which is inconsistent with the use of other empirical knowledge. The reason for this is because one wish to insert faith into a fact theory. Atheism corresponds to accepting the conclusion verified beyond reasonable doubt. It is conditionally, but not more so than other knowledge based on observations. It is specifically not a "belief".

Perhaps, if certain militant atheists spent less time trashing all forms of "religion," without regard to anyone's specific facts or testimony, then atheists in general might be a little less sensitive about being labelled a "religion." I've been mistaken for a Christian more than once here, but I don't have much of a problem with that because I know there are decent Christians all over the place.

A "case" that indiscriminately lumps belief in god(s) --- for which LOTS of personal testimony has been recorded (with varying degrees of credibility) --- with belief in indetectable vehicles --- for which VERY LITTLE IF ANY personal testimony has been recorded IIRC --- is only "continuing to build" in your own mind.

"The reason for this is because one wish to insert faith into a fact theory."

That was unduly conspirational. Let me correct the mistake: "This act converts it from a fact theory to a faith theory."

In this case these positions revert. Agnosticism corresponds to blowing up the meaning of residual doubts or possible falsification for this claim specifically, which is inconsistent with the use of other empirical knowledge. The reason for this is because one wish to insert faith into a fact theory. Atheism corresponds to accepting the conclusion verified beyond reasonable doubt. It is conditionally, but not more so than other knowledge based on observations. It is specifically not a "belief".

Actually, they are expressed with the knowledge that anecdotal and personal "evidence" is useless to anyone but the believer.

But clearly very useful to the believers, of which there are billions all over the world. So, given that, how "useless" is it really? Subjective and untestable, sure, but useless? (How do we measure or quantify usefulness?)

Getting back to my favorite example, the recovering addict (which y'all consistently ignore without a mention): he can't prove his "higher power" exists, but he doesn't have to, because it's useful to him regardless. And this personal usefulness makes it subjectively real, sorta like the objective usefulness of the theory of evolution makes it objectively real.

... and in fact, no atheist denies the existence of religion, i.e. of beliefs in god(s). We simply do not share in any of these beliefs. Is that really so hard to understand?

Getting back to my favorite example, the recovering addict (which y'all consistently ignore without a mention)

"I think you may have missed my point. The condition of atheism is about belief, it is certainly not a belief in itself, much like baldness is a condition about hair, though definitely not a hair colour."

I don't think so. The term "atheist" and "agnostic" is vaguely defined and depending on who does the definition - they are used in a theory depending manner. The manner in which you defined them is peculiar to me, you adhere both philosophical absolute truth (I think) and (perhaps religious instead of philosophical?) belief to the same object. I thought they were mutually exclusive. Perhaps you can explain?

However, I think philosophical definitions doesn't matter because they deny that we have observational evidence to consider. Yes, it is a statement about belief, but it is also more. It is a statement about knowledge from observations.

Maybe this statement is wrongly put; but I think it is impossible to show that all sorts of evidence should be rejected indefinitely. I have mentioned some methods I think are reasonable to use, even falsifiable ones.

Even though untestable predictions of a theory are perfectly legitimate science, so long as the theory makes other testable predictions, which I think already unfalsifiable ontological naturalism does. But of course I can be mistaken, perhaps there is a loophole such as a no-go theorem I don't know about.

Duh! The need for falsifiability was the no-go theorem I knew about. (According to Keith Douglas it doesn't really matter, increasing lack of evidence against enables decisions anyway. It seems reasonable.) What I mean is if there are others like that.

Torbjorn:

My definition of atheism is observationally-based, based on what prominent atheist thinkers have been saying and writing for centuries now, and on what the most representative organizations calling themselves "atheistic" adopt as their official statements.

It is my considered opinion that if one wants to know what Marxists (for instance) say and think, one would be well advised to look at their actual words, and not to some Platonic ideal of "Marxism". The same holds for atheists: what they say and think is solely determined by what they say and think, and not by some Platonic ideal of "Atheism".

Almost unanimously, atheists say and write that they do not find any god-claim convincing. If someone wants me (for instance) to agree with them that one or more gods exist, it's up to them to state their case. It is a very clear-cut case of burden of proof, and one that many theists have unsuccessfully tried to reverse.

Atheism, as defined by the very words of most atheist thinkers, is not a truth claim.

Since the discussion has meandered into an area I care strongly about, I will offer my thoughts on the topic:

No one KNOWS if there is a God. OK? No One.

We all, every last one of us, BELIEVE one way or another on the topic. And we all, every last one of us, base that belief on --- something.

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this makes us ALL "agnostics", and thus "agnostic" is a superfluous and useless term.

If there exists out there a person who is NOT an agnostic, which is to say, a person who KNOWS, well I invite that person to step forward, present the PROOF, and end the millennia of argument and hostility that has occurred over the question.

And when I say, "present the PROOF" I mean the real proof, the unquestionable, undeniable, clear, obvious "no one can deny it" proof. Anything less, of course, you have to take on FAITH.

This past August, at age 53, I stopped believing that there was a God and started believing that there was not. I was a Roman Catholic. I became an atheist. This was the culmination of many years of thinking hard about God.

I do not consider myself to have "changed religions" but rather to have "given up" a religion. Merely having a belief regarding the existence of God is not a religion. A religion is a set of SPECIFIC beliefs and rituals about God. If you have a "Religion", it assumes that you believe there IS a God.

"Atheist" is no more a religion than is "Theist". They are both too "high-level" terms. "Religion" is a subset of "Theist".

Now I suppose one could argue that "Religion" is a subset of "Atheist" as well, if you consider the different strains of moral codes that atheists follow: Humanism, Objectivism, and, uh, any others there may be.

But I would argue that these are not "religions", but are only "moral codes". It seems foolish to stretch the word "religion" to include non-god-believers; the word is serving so well as it is, why dilute it?

Which leads me to the question, what supposed rhetorical advantage does a Theist gain from claiming that Atheism is just another kind of religion?

Anyway, thanks for reading my rant.

"My definition of atheism is observationally-based, based on what prominent atheist thinkers have been saying and writing for centuries now, and on what the most representative organizations calling themselves "atheistic" adopt as their official statements."

I confess to having not yet studied those thinkers or organisations.

From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html I get:
""What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials."

I don't see your model or definition here, I however see the type of philosophical definitions I claim are beside the point. However, later on they say:

"Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe."

Which I believe covers the site definitions and this discussion well.

I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Torbjorn:

Here is (reproduced on an atheist's website) the entry for "Atheism" on Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/martin.htm

And here (from the same site) a brief article on "Defining Atheism" by George H. Smith
from his 1990 book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

Both are quite good at clarifying both the range of definitions actually used and their relative prevalence.

Aureola wrote:

If I were you, I'd ask myself some hard questions about why atheists would mistake me for a fundamentalist Christian...

I didn't say I was mistaken for a fundamentalist Christian. Do you have ANY clue what I'm talking about?

"It is my considered opinion that if one wants to know what Marxists (for instance) say and think, one would be well advised to look at their actual words, and not to some Platonic ideal of "Marxism". The same holds for atheists: what they say and think is solely determined by what they say and think, and not by some Platonic ideal of "Atheism"."

That is well and good, except if you already are an atheist and are exploring the area after the fact. Any person in such a position can only state what he knows so far. It is also a reasonable position, even though it is not well informed. This is not peer-reviewed science with a license to kill.

I am arguing against a common ideal of defining atheism that I believe is beside the point, or at least not inclusive enough.

"Atheism, as defined by the very words of most atheist thinkers, is not a truth claim."

I think it is a claim about truth, if it uses the words "believe". What they say is that it can't be shown inferentially to be true.

My view is that it can be about observational knowledge instead. I don't think philosophical truth adheres to statements inside observational theories since they are based on observations.

Torbjorn:

Please read the articles I referenced. I think any further discussion would risk running in circles otherwise. By the way, I've been an atheist for the past 46 years, and I've consistently studied atheism, agnosticism, and Christianity for most of that time. Please do not assume that I am not well informed on these issues.

Raging Bee:

Yes, I know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the perception you gave me (for instance) when I first read your diatribes against atheists; the only people I've ever encountered that were so eager to lash out at atheists were fundamentalist Christians. Except, of course, for you, who are not one, yet adopt many traits of their modus operandi, e.g. misdefining atheism.

Aureola,
thank you. The first site was giving a definition I think is more inclusive and could allow observational knowledge:

"Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The term atheism comes from the Greek prefix a-, meaning "without," and the Greek word theos, meaning "deity." The denial of god's existence is also known as strong, or positive, atheism, whereas the lack of belief in god is known as negative, or weak, atheism. Although atheism is often contrasted with agnosticism -- the view that we cannot know whether a deity exists or not and should therefore suspend belief -- negative atheism is in fact compatible with agnosticism."

but goes on to say that only the weak position is supportable by philosophically means. Confusingly, the second site is making an argument that the strong atheist position is supported by philosophers, while atheists prefer the weak position.

As I said waaay up above, the definitions are vague. :-) However, what I see coming back as a general theme is the reliance on philosophy, which I believe is besides the point.

"Please do not assume that I am not well informed on these issues."

Umm, are you perhaps misreading my explanation of my own position?

That is well and good, except if you already are an atheist and are exploring the area after the fact. Any person in such a position can only state what he knows so far. It is also a reasonable position, even though it is not well informed.

Oh, I missed that: "Please read the articles I referenced." Well, I am going to study atheism more. I am intrigued, as so often, by the insistence of using philosophy when there are more tools in the tool set.

But this isn't peer-reviewed science. If you are going to dismiss my arguments without attempting to answer the essence of it because you are insisting that I must reason as some vague picture of how atheism should be, we can stop here for now. I will probably not learn more here.

Concerning "philosophical support": the two articles use two different meanings of those words.

The Encarta entry means "Negative atheism is the only position that can be supported on philosophical grounds;" the problem being that Strong Atheism runs afoul of the onus probandi just as much as Strong Theism does.

The second article means "contemporary philosophers usually define atheism on the basis of Strong Atheism, whereas actual atheists are far (far!) more likely to define themselves and their stance on the basis of Negative (or Weak) atheism."

The invisible and nonexistent look much alike.

Well! The last three dozen or so posts have made for quite interesting reading. Whilst going through these, the following ditty once again came into my head. I do hope you will all take this is the friendly spirit which is intended:

I met a bear upon the stair,
I met a bear who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today...
Oh, how I wish he'd go away!

It's easy to regard the umpteenth version of the "what is atheism?" debate with amused detachment. Since it's not a crime to believe things that aren't true or much of an accomplishment to notice that there aren't any gods, nothing very much is at stake, especially since the prospects of anybody convincing anybody of anything are negligible.

These arguments do, however, provide good evidence of how difficult it is to reach meaningful disagreement in a public forum. Since the erstwhile combatants are seldom on the same page, their strokes and parries mostly hit the vacant air, which explains why so little blood is drawn despite an obvious abundance of ill will.

"The brick is obviously 10 inches long!"

"Idiot! It's 5 inches wide!"

Meanwhile, they usually aren't talking about the same brick.

I suspect the biliousness characteristic of comment-section arguments results from the frustrating difficulty of finding the others in the vast space of discursive possibilities.

Mr. Harrison:

Whenever I turn "bilious" or call people "idiots", I hereby authorize you to hit me on the head with your metaphorical 10"x5" brick.

David B. Benson

I haven't heard the "bear" version of the William Hughes Mearns rhyme before

As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there

But he wasn't talking about ghosts it was talking about The Man from CIA.

how about A Purple Cow By Mr. Gelett Burgess ?

I never saw a Purple Cow,
I never hope to see one;
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one.

k.e. --- The 'bear' version is much older, predating the existence of the CIA. And are you sure that this is a ghost? It's the bear who isn't there...

David
The man who got the royalties (apparently) wrote it in 1910, the CIA thing is a parody in the same style an amusing pastime for the lesser talented among us.(of which I make a claim)

But clearly very useful to the believers, of which there are billions all over the world. So, given that, how "useless" is it really? Subjective and untestable, sure, but useless? (How do we measure or quantify usefulness?)

— Raging Bee

Getting back to my favorite example, the recovering addict (which y'all consistently ignore without a mention): he can't prove his "higher power" exists, but he doesn't have to, because it's useful to him regardless.

Raging Bee: But clearly very useful to the believers, of which there are billions all over the world. So, given that, how "useless" is it really? Subjective and untestable, sure, but useless? (How do we measure or quantify usefulness?)

I didn't say I was mistaken for a fundamentalist Christian.

And here we are again, back to the pointless Holy War.

(sigh)

*Old codger, kicked back in rocking chair, on porch*

Aayyup. Sh*tstorm's a-brewin'.

ben: my thoughts on your questions are best expressed by Jim Harrison's Comment #97846 above:

Since religion is so ubiquitous, it makes a pretty lousy candidate as the independent variable in an explanation of human skullduggery. The fact that religion is absurd doesn't mean that its evil. Mostly it isn't. Indeed, lots of utterly atheistical folks----Nietzsche, for example---have argued that the various organized churches are useful because in practice they bridle the dangerous spiritual impulses of the population.

Pick any deed -- good or evil, greedy or selfless, well-thought-out or blindly impulsive -- and you'll find that deed done by people of all faiths, no faith, all places, eras and ethnicities, etc. etc.

As a character in a Tom Robbins novel once said, the human animal -- and the factors that influence us -- are simply too complex to be explained solely by (or blamed solely on) any one factor. Blaming "religion" for all human evil is just plain simpleminded; and if one does not also credit "religion" for all human goodness, it's logically inconsistent, hypocritical and bigoted as well.

As for your comments on the "usefulness" of religion, I am talking about its usefulness in improving individuals' lives, attitudes, and happiness (whether or not their gods actually exist in any objective sense). The "assumptions" you speak of are based on what I've observed so far. There are indeed cases in which a person's religion "in some way displace[s] a more useful means to a more positive result" (i.e., violent exorcism instead of psychiatry); but if persons of the same religion oppose such practices as support them, then how can the religion itself be blamed for them? People make choices, with or without a religion, and it's those choices that have consequences.

I'm starting to ramble here, but that's kinda my point: these issues are too complex to be blamed on any single factor, and attempts to do so serve no useful purpose.

Hi, norm. Just to put your accusations in perspective, I'd like to quote your own words from comment #97679 above:

No, what I assume is that moderates, Hindus and others would have more problems with science if they really understood it. I don't think they do understand it because they're constantly being lied to about what its real conclusions are.

Note the word I've emphasized here. You didn't do a lick of research; you show no personal experience in the matter of which you spoke; you simply, and shamelessly, made up an assumption to reinforce an unshakable prejudice that could not be supported by the available evidence. Which is at least as lame as Casey Luskin "inferring design" because he knows he can't "prove" it.

You have proven by your own words that you are no more capable of honest, mature dialogue than Larry Farfromaman. There is clearly no point in arguing with you. Buh-bye.

from comment #97679 above: No, what I assume is that moderates, Hindus and others would have more problems with science if they really understood it. I don't think they do understand it because they're constantly being lied to about what its real conclusions are.

Oh yes, I did say "they were constantly lied to" and I have presented evidence of that and here again is a key bit of evidence:

http://www.randi.org/

Almost everything on James Randi's website is a kind of religious scam, it's John Edward claiming to talk to dead people, it's Sylvia Browne attacking Randi for being an atheist, it's books about quantum mysticism, it's people who claim to heal by touch and faith healers.

Note the word I've emphasized here.

Wow! Over 400 replies to the topic about God ...

OK ... I might as well jump in too ...

AF Dave's Creator God Hypothesis

I will use the general outline proposed by someone which shares the majority viewpoint on this blog--the 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank--so as not to be accused of "setting my own Creationist Rules for scientific endeavor." Here's what Lenny said ...
1) Observe some aspect of the universe
2) Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3) Make testable predictions from that hypothesis
4) Make observations and experiments that can test those predictions
5) Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

One thing to keep in mind ... I cannot "prove" the Biblical account of origins and that there is a Creator God any more than you can "prove" that all living things evolved from a common ancestor by random mutation and natural selection. Neither of us were there to observe either one. But we can both follow the outline above, then make a "faith" decision in both cases about what we think most reasonable to believe.

Another note ... I will only give my outline, then provide links to my support ... while I like to explain things in my own words and like others to also, someone correctly pointed out that limiting oneself to their own words only is not possible in scientific investigation. The sources that I deem reliable are AIG, ICR and the TrueOrigins.org archive. I see "Dr. Dino" being refuted alot on TalkOrigins and some of this may be well deserved. I do not consider him and certain others to be a responsible spokesman for the Creationist viewpoint. I also do not claim to be a professional geologist, biologist, genetecist or paleontologist. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering, flew supersonic jets in the Air Force and have successfully built and sold a telecommunications business which has allowed me to now pursue non-profit endeavors such as posting to this blog, among other things.

If you want to see if what I look like (surely this guy must have an eye in the middle of his forehead and a severely red neck!), check out my own blog site at airdave.blogspot.com. I have only published a handful of articles, but I hope to become more active from this point forward ... come on over!

Are you ready? Here we go ...

1) OBSERVE SOME ASPECT OF THE UNIVERSE
I make observation of Planet Earth and all of Life within it--that is, everything that has DNA

2) FORM A HYPOTHESIS -- I don't want any criticism of my hypothesis -- according to the rules above, it can be anything I want it to be. You can save your criticism for my evidence which purports to support it.

(a) There is a God -- My hypothesis is that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans. These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command. This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.
(b) This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose. This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will. Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."
(c) Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future. These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.
(d) God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly. Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.
(e) The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.
(f) The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval. It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, and climate change. The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.
(g) Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood. It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.
(h) We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.
(i) The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations. Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document. He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.
(j) God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures. This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers. This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.
(k) Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above. The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed. Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.
(l) The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.
(m) Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth. Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament. These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.
(n) The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure. They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it. As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.

So now you have the "AFDave Creator God Hypothesis" ... this is my first draft and alomost completely my own words. While it is true that I have done extensive study, the only sentence to my knowledge "lifted" from an outside source is the first sentence of para (b). This hypothesis covers many of the main points that I believe should be included, but I would welcome any constructive comments suggesting additions, modifications, or clarifications.

Please remember ... this is MY HYPOTHESIS, and as such, I have only completed Steps (1) and (2) outlined at the first of this post. Steps (3) - (5) are coming later.

And now ... let the games begin! (And let the rotten tomatoes fly!)

I welcome your comments!

afdave:

There is nothing to comment on yet. Start working on item 3 in the list, though - and show how any such prediction follow necessarily from items 1 and 2.

This should be fun.

Indeed. You might as well stop at #2, Dave. That's what your religion does, and that is why it is scientifically useless.

afdave --- Your hypothesis appears to be essentially the same as Carol C's K(t). In earlier postings regarding the hypothesis H that Terra is of great antiquity, I compared the two hypotheses, H and K(t), on the grounds of parsimony. As K(t) has a free and unobservable parameter t while H does not, we reject K(t) in favor of H.

Your hypothesis already suffers from similar defects, in comparison to the standard hypothesis of physics + biological evolution.

There is nothing to comment on yet.

this is MY HYPOTHESIS

norm:

Clearly, as long as afdave does not use his hypothesis to formulate predictions, there is nothing to comment on from a scientific standpoint.

I can claim that the sixth moon of planet Kangaruh is entirely made of green cheese, and everybody would probably (and rightly) respond "so what?"

The real fun is to watch the efforts required to derive some predictions from such hypotheses, in consideration of the fact that a claim that A => B is equivalent to a claim that ~B => ~A.

So, if afdave's hypothesis implies prediction P, and we were to verify that ~P is true instead, what would that imply? Let him figure that out, if he can.

...as long as afdave does not use his hypothesis to formulate predictions, there is nothing to comment on from a scientific standpoint. I can claim that the sixth moon of planet Kangaruh is entirely made of green cheese, and everybody would probably (and rightly) respond "so what?"

The real fun is to watch the efforts required to derive some predictions from such hypotheses, in consideration of the fact that a claim that A => B is equivalent to a claim that ~B => ~A.

So, if afdave's hypothesis implies prediction P, and we were to verify that ~P is true instead, what would that imply? Let him figure that out, if he can.

norm:

Way before I get to verify ~P, afdave gets to show how P necessarily derives from his hypothesis. That's where he will run aground.

Just one of the hurdles is that his "hypothesis" is not consistent; as a result, both P and ~P can be logically implied from it!

But I think you see where I'm going. Give afdave all the rope he wants, I say. Heck, give him soap and a tall tree, too! He sounds like that kind of guy...

Way before I get to verify ~P, ...

afdave gets to show how P necessarily derives from his hypothesis. That's where he will run aground.

Give afdave all the rope he wants, I say. Heck, give him soap and a tall tree, too! He sounds like that kind of guy...

norm:

I see I wasn't clear. afdave's hypothesis is God, plus several mutually contradictory corollaries; P would be any specific prediction he might care to state is implied by this hypothesis.

Something like, "blah blah God is Almighty blah blah, therefore [insert any speciifc prediction that is implied by the first part] but not [insert opposite prediction].

Example: ...therefore we should expect to see evil only as a consequence of Man's disobedience to God, and never as a natural event (or, as insurance companies frequently put it, an Act of God).

Other example: ...therefore we should expect everybody to acknowledge the existence of God, and nobody to be an atheist.

I see I wasn't clear. afdave's hypothesis is God, plus several mutually contradictory corollaries...

I don't want any criticism of my hypothesis --- according to the rules above, it can be anything I want it to be.

No wonder the Creationists are winning in the polls ... no ordinary person can even understand what you guys are talking about ...

Let me suggest something ...

Imagine that all of us "non-intellectuals" speak a different language from you, the highly exalted scientists, and imagine that you are "missionaries" to us poor, deluded savages ...

Then maybe we would all "convert" to YOUR religion and we would all live in perfect bliss.

Now that we have both exchanged rude comments, does anyone have anything polite to say?

No wonder the Creationists are winning in the polls ... no ordinary person can even understand what you guys are talking about

afdave --- If you are going to comment on this thread you ought, as a good engineer, to prepare by reading all the background. I pointed out that your hypothesis is highly similar to Carol C's hypothesis, which I dealt with in a previous post.

If you have questions regarding any of the terms or concepts I used, I'll attempt to respond. You, perhaps, will have to do some reading reading Bayesian reasoning and ordinary, classical logic. Starting from your BSEE that should not be so difficult.

I hope that I have not written anything which might be considered to be insulting or demeaning in any of my posts. If this seems incorrect to you, I apologize in advance.

Thanks, David Benson ... I'll check it out!

afdave:

Whining already? Considering that not so long ago everybody was (or claimed to be) a creationist, I'd say that you guys have been steadily losing ground, despite your proclamations.

Anyway, back to your self-inflicted challenge: I am eagerly waiting for you to follow up on your boast by stating a prediction that necessarily follows from your hypothesis, so that we may test it and see whether you know what you are talking about or not.

Of course, I don't really expect you to actually go out on a limb and make your hypothesis testable. You can't afford to, after all.

Thanks for showing up, dave. That'll give everyone a target to shoot at, and end the pointless and silly Holy War.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to point to the portion of the Constitution that establishes the US as a "Christian Nation".

What seems to be the problem . . . . ?

No WONDER nobody takes creationuts seriously. (shrug)

If his God hypothesis already has several mutually contradictory corollaries (I agree, it already does) then I think that might have been something to comment on, wouldn't it?

Lenny said -- BTW, I'm still waiting for you to point to the portion of the Constitution that establishes the US as a "Christian Nation".

Oh are you? It's not in the Constitution ... where did you hear that?

Their "theories", pardon my French, fail on multiple levels, not just one. So, each of us is free to choose a different angle of attack: they sure offer ample targets of opportunity.

David Benson,

Please stop misrepresenting Afdave's hypothesis as similar to my hypothesis. First, I offered no "hypothsis" in this thread. Second, I do not remotely agree with Afdave's post and find parts of his hypothesis to be ridiculous and abhorent. Third, your response to my posts are as vacuous as your response to his post.

Only PARTS are ridiculous and abhorrent?

I'm encouraged ...

Which parts?

I ... find parts of his hypothesis to be ridiculous and abhorent.

Only PARTS are ridiculous and abhorrent?

It's not in the Constitution

Afdave wrote:

"Only PARTS are ridiculous and abhorrent? I'm encouraged. Which parts?"

The parts, for example, where you grotesquely distort the original Hebrew bible with ignorance and sloppiness. Those are abhorrent. (I do generously assume though that you are only partly to blame for these, since you probably are repeating things you heard from others whom you trust but who should know better.) And the parts, for example, where you matter of factly state things that have been rendered highly unlikely by science (such as the global flood).

Pinhead,

I deliberately plant one spelling error per post so that you may know that I did not use the spell check feature and that therefore all the other correctly spelled words are the result of my superior knowledge of spelling!

This post is an exception to the rule.

Carol-- Not sure exactly what you're finding abhorrent ... maybe the Genesis Tablet Theory? This comes from Assyriologist Donald J. Wiseman and his son, P. J. Wiseman ... you might check out his book "Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis." Or maybe the Documentary Hypothesis? This has been thoroughly discredited in part because we now know that writing goes back far earlier than Moses. Also, no trace of JEDP documents have ever been found.

I'll be commenting on this more fully later at "After the Bar Closes." Come on over!

Lenny-- Maybe we'll cover the "America Was Founded as a Christian Nation" topic later. It is a fun one! But it's not my focus for the moment.

afdave:

Just a reminder. You said (Comment #98885) you were going to give us some predictions necessarily implied by your hypothesis. We are still waiting.

Pinhead, I deliberately plant one spelling error per post so that you may know that I did not use the spell check feature and that therefore all the other correctly spelled words are the result of my superior knowledge of spelling! This post is an exception to the rule.

— Carol

Please stop misrepresenting Afdave's hypothesis as similar to my hypothesis. First, I offered no "hypothsis" in this thread. Second, I do not remotely agree with Afdave's post and find parts of his hypothesis to be ridiculous and abhorent. Third, your response to my posts are as vacuous as your response to his post.

— Carol

afdave: Just a reminder. You said (Comment #98885) you were going to give us some predictions necessarily implied by your hypothesis. We are still waiting.

OK, Aureola and friends ...

As promised, you can find my testable predictions and observations for Point 1 of my Creator God Hypothesis here ...

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4451eac5c56d6336;act=ST;f=14;t=1952;st=30

If the link doesn't work, just go to "After the Bar Closes" and click on "AFDave's God Hypothesis" ...

If nothing else, it will give you a good laugh after a hard day's work!

Hope to see you there!

afdave:

Sorry, I don't post on After the Bar Closes. However, I've read your post there, and of course - as expected - your "predictions" do not follow necessarily from your premises.

A hint: a Super Intelligent Creator can create very very complex stuff... so why do we also see very very simple stuff? (in other words, A => B and also A => ~B).

Another hint: very very complex stuff has been shown to arise from the repeated interaction of some very very simple rules on very sery simple raw materials. (in other words, A => B but also ~A => B).

So, there is no causal relation between A and B (respectively, your premise and your conclusion).

Try again, avoiding these two glaring logical mistakes, and see if you can improve your very weak case.

Carol C is correct in stating that I didn't post K(t) on this thread. So for afdave, K(t) is his hypothesis, with the parameter t being just how long ago Terra was created.
The same objection, lack of parsimony, applies.

Don't post over there, huh ... hmmm ... maybe we should ask our moderators to start a new "God" topic over here. This one sure was popular, but it's getting kinda long.

Why don't you ask them to do that so I can post over here and you can refute me properly? They'll probably listen to your request better that mine because you go to the same "church" ...

afdave:

Too bad then. I'm just a commenter here, without any special privileges of any kind. But let me rectify your misunderstanding: there is nothing to refute yet. You have as yet failed to produce any prediction that follow necessarily from your premises.

That is not accidental.

It is intrinsic to your choice of premises, and any way you slice'n'dice them, you're bound to founder on the very same rock: your premises are contradictory, and as such literally anything can be shown to follow from them.

Your 'predictions' are nothing of the kind. They are post-hoc and ad-hoc rationalizations, something we humans are very good at (much like the retrofitting of Jewish 'prophecies' to make the Jesus character 'fulfil' them).

Aureola-- The reason why Creationists are winning the public over is because the only people that actually understand your A>=B stuff and Bayesian logic, etc. is YOUR OWN KIND, i.e. self proclaimed intellectuals who think anyone who believes anything but Evolution as an explanation of Origins is not a true scientist.

If your type would lower yourself to the level of us mere mortals and try to explain your position in terms we understand (Dawkins makes some valiant attempts), you might have a chance of hanging on to your monopoly in academia.

Otherwise, who can tell?

afdave:... You have as yet failed to produce any prediction that follow necessarily from your premises.

Y'know, afdave, I'm not an engineer, but I've got some ideas about how all you engineers don't design things right. Also, I've never been a part of the military, but I'm sure that I could fight a war better than y'all. And the reason that the public agrees with me is 'cause all you high-an'-mighty engineering and military types won't lower yourselves to the level of us mere mortals and stop using all that technical jargon like "force shaping" and "fourth-generation warfare."

Now, why aren't y'all out there fighting the way I think you should fight? Why aren't y'all adopting my methods of designing stuff? Must be a military-engineering-complex conspiracy, see. Y'all know I'm right, 'cause it's so freaking obvious I am right that not even an intellectual could miss it, so y'all must be covering it up.

'Cause I couldn't possibly, y'know, not actually know what the hell I'm talking about or anything. 'Cause, y'know, it's me....

YOUR OWN KIND, i.e. self proclaimed intellectuals who think anyone who believes anything but Evolution as an explanation of Origins is not a true scientist.

... try to explain your position in terms we understand ...

If your type would lower yourself to the level of us mere mortals and try to explain your position in terms we understand

afdave:

It's not that difficult, you know. Thinking logically takes a little training, but everybody can do it. Even creationists, when they are careless and lower their mental blocks, can do it.

Now, let me restate what I said in terms that anyone willing to listen and think would understand them:

Your... hypothesis... cannot... produce... any... prediction,... because... an omnipotent... omnipresent... and omnibenevolent... god... can... literally... do... whatever... he... wants... and therefore... nobody... can say... that such a being... MUST... or MUST NOT... produce... any... given... phenomenon.

There. Got it? This does not mean that your hypothesis is false, or true, or anything in between. That was not what I set out to prove. This does mean that your hypothesis cannot follow the scientific method.

Which was your original claim. So, once again you are shown not to know what you are talking about. Thank you for showing that so very clearly.

Cosmology is undergoing a revolution. With recent precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, large galaxy redshift surveys, better measurements of the expansion rate of the Universe and a host of other astrophysical observations, there is now a standard, highly constrained cosmological model. It is not a cosmology that was predicted. Unidentified dark particles dominate the matter content of our Universe, and mysteries surround the processes responsible for the accelerated expansion at its earliest moments (inflation?) and for its recent acceleration (dark energy?). New measurements must address the fundamental questions: what happened at the birth of the Universe, and what is its ultimate fate? * Insight: Early Universe / 27 April 2006 / Nature, v.440, n.7088, p.1125-1156 o "Cosmology from start to finish" / Charles L. Bennett / p.1126-1131 [Abstract is from page 1126]

Closing off old threads, I see this that I stopped responding to because it took to much time at the time.

Aureola,
"Concerning "philosophical support": the two articles use two different meanings of those words."

You are still dismissing my arguments here and later. But I see that you at least acknowledge that there is no unanimous definition of atheism even by atheists, and that it seems to be your only argument.

I have argued above that a falsifiable case can easily be made that gods doesn't exist. This means that the burden of proof is on those who claim that they don't know or that gods exist. You should look at those arguments.

David,
The claim that a universal negative can be excluded is different from the claim that a particular one is, and so is the method of doing it.

Jim,
I agree that nothing much is at stake by verifying gods doesn't exist. However, every claim that we can attack with observational methods should be done.

Dualisms have confused our knowledge for a long time, and while it is not the priority of science to kill them it has been a consequence of advancing knowledge.

As I see it the purpose and methods of science are secular, but the consequence is atheism by what we have now learned about natural systems.