Ron Numbers interview and article

Perhaps there is a better choice on the Republican side. to early to tell yet

NOTE TO FEDS: Again, I AM ONLY KIDDING. Don't kidnap me tonight and secretly fly me to Gitmo.

Lenny; who is going to win the war you are fighting?

Slow down PZ! you're decades ahead of the game at this point. Currently the battle is about marginalizing those who think that "methodological materialism" is somehow "evil", and restoring the american political process to something resembling sanity. We can deal with the rest later; including the fact that creationism is NOT an entirely american evangelical xian issue; don't forget the Muslims. baby steps. it's the only way to get things done on the larger scale, short of revolution.

— Sir_Toejam

Lenny didn't vote for Bush. He voted indy, IIRC.

Perhaps Schwarzaneggar

In this country, at this time, it is not acceptable to be athiest.

So I'm guessing that, unless something interesting happens at the Republicrat convention, the Greens will get my vote again this time around, too.

Why not just vote for yourself, Lenny? Or Bozo the Clown. Same effect.

My previous post got lost but my point was simply that the commenters here who claim to be pro-science but who weep and moan about "evangelical atheists" and the alleged damage they do to the "movement" are off the reservation.

When Dawkins and Myers use the money from their cable TV station and #1 bestselling books to start Atheist University, then complain all you want.

For now, those folks who do not hesitate to articulate their seething contempt for the proud religious liars at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere are doing the most important work in the political sphere. That is because they are slowly erasing the stigma associated with questioning stupidass religion-based beliefs and opinions. This is KEY.

The fundies did not just systematically peddle creationism to Americans for the past ten years. The peddled the belief that religious people are better, smarter and more trustworthy than those atheist materialist homo-loving elites.

The blowback is just beginning. It's going to be a fun ride. And a long one.

Since I voted for Nader, Kevin is convinced that I elected Bush

Depends on the state where you voted.

? perhaps not, unless we changed the constitution when i wasn't looking.

(he's a foreign born national, remember?)

Look, the creationists and Christians are not stupid, OK? You're saying that we need to play it close to the chest and later we'll demolish their worldview, after we've finished sapping their foundations. That's fine. I'm all for it. But they already know all about it.

Every person will be a de-facto atheist until they see "God" face to face.

I don't care how much religion someone professes-they really are no more an actual believer than Richard Dawkins is until they have geniune EXPERIENCE of the supernatural.

Best regards,
apollo230

Good grief.

Lenny, you remind me of the John Adams character from 1776 - obnoxious and disliked. You are routinely arrogant, and your in your face rudeness contributes little of value to the forum or the issue as a whole.

In this case, however, you are correct. As it is currently framed, both the evolution struggle in particular and science education in general are political issues more than anything else.

And that is the problem, and that is exactly what we should be fighting against. We should not be saying, "Well, it's a political issue, so we'll treat it like one." We should be getting out there and pushing the science at people - not just the science itself, but the reasons that science is important. We should be talking about the future, and why it is important to prepare our children for it. We should be talking about how important science has become to everyday life. We should be talking about how much we've learned, and how much we have left to learn.

The issue might be political now, but that doesn't mean that we should be treating it as such. It means that we need to find ways of changing that view. It means that we must convince people that this shouldn't be political.

More importantly, we need to convince people not that religion is compatable with evolution - that is clearly not universally true - but that religion of any sort is irrelevant to the discussion. Many theists think that PZ is going to burn in hell. PZ thinks, at least as far as I can tell, that religion is a bad thing. Lenny seems to trumpet his lack of belief in places, yet object when PZ characterizes him as an atheist. Personally, my own religious views can probably best be described as somewhere between deism, agnosticism, and a constant crisis of faith. None of that is relevant to the scientific validity of evolution.

Religion comes into play, and here I'm pretty sure I'm agreeing with PZ, when a bunch of narrow-minded theists start to demand that their religious views dictate the acceptable content for the science curriculum. Religion is important to their side because it is the driving force behind their objections. Religion is irrelevant to our side because we believe that the content of science classes should be driven only by good science, and you can belong to any or no religion and share that belief.

Let me put it a little more bluntly: we don't need to go looking to turn into a big tent, you idiot, we are in one already. Anyone who is able to accept the basic concept that science matters in science classes is already here. Anyone who can't accept that doesn't belong here.

PZ is right - we need our society to be more secular. Fortunately, there are a number of people out there (Barry Lynn pops to mind) who understand that secular does not necessarily mean anti-religious. It means that religion (or irreligion, or anti-religion, or...) is a personal matter, that different people have different beliefs in these areas, and that the best way to make sure that everyone's beliefs are treated with respect is to make sure that religion stays the hell away from public policy. Oh, and by the way, that really is something that religious people can fight for just as easily as atheists can.

Why not just vote for yourself, Lenny? Or Bozo the Clown. Same effect.

Depends on the state where you voted.

Even if you hadn't announced the insidious plan right here in plain sight, they had it all figured out ages ago. Dithering now is just playing into their hands. We're not being clever by pretending science is something it isn't.

Peters says neither intelligent design nor scientific creationism have fertile research programs that can match Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of evolution. "The Darwinian models have led to progressive research and new knowledge," he says. "They also have proven themselves fertile for predicting what we would find in the fossil record, and for predicting random variation in genes that have led indirectly to research on new medicines. The Lutheran understanding of God's creation leads us to commit ourselves to the best science. ... Nothing less than hard-earned empirical truths about the natural world will measure up."

I would love to see secular humanism become the norm

I don't care how much religion someone professes-they really are no more an actual believer than Richard Dawkins is until they have geniune EXPERIENCE of the supernatural.

Species-ist.

Lenny, you remind me of the John Adams character from 1776 - obnoxious and disliked. You are routinely arrogant, and your in your face rudeness contributes little of value to the forum or the issue as a whole.

I think maybe I should join Clouser's crusade to save the zebras from the hyenas.

before i create a strawman of my own; I have to ask: is it realistic at this point in time to boot all those folks out of the tent, until after we've marginalized the fundies?

— sir_toejam

We'll call it "secular organism-ism" or something.

Anyone who is able to accept the basic concept that science matters in science classes is already here. Anyone who can't accept that doesn't belong here.

Before you create a strawman? This has gotten beyond annoying: nowhere in my article did I suggest booting the religious out of the tent, or otherwise stomping on their delicate little toes. You really have to stop believing the BS Lenny spews. Did you bother to read what I wrote, or are you just going by the fact that any statement of the atheist disbelief in the supernatural sends certain people here into spastic shrieks of, "you're planning to send the Baptists to death camps!"

...and think it represents much that is wrong in the usual conciliatory approach too many people favor.

Dude, Kevin is a cuckoo clock. Since I voted for Nader, Kevin is convinced that I elected Bush and am therefore absolutely responsible for absolutely everything that Bush has done in his entire term in office

Anyway, being that I voted in Florida, it's awfully likely that my vote didn't even *get* counted, anyway.

oh if it was not for GOre is was counted for sure....

face it Lenny ... its all your fault....now I voted in NYC so my vote was useless.....but yours...as wasted......

you can discuss this without excessive hyberbole, so can I, and so can lenny. I've seen it.

In any case, there is a crushing problem with presenting this as simply a "science" fight ---------- most people in the US don't give a rat's patootie about "science" or "sciecne education". Heck, most people in the US don't give a rat's patootite about education of ANY sort, in ANY subject. We may not like that, but it is a fact of life.

— Lenny

Oh so the truth is you ARE wasted!

well me too! !

Did you bother to read what I wrote, or are you just going by the fact that any statement of the atheist disbelief in the supernatural sends certain people here into spastic shrieks of, "you're planning to send the Baptists to death camps!"

Anyway, being that I voted in Florida, it's awfully likely that my vote didn't even *get* counted, anyway.

So Lenny gets points for shamelessness (but we already knew that).

I sort of hoped that all the people who voted for Nader in Florida had killed themselves by accidentally drinking bleach or something.

I guess Lenny got lucky. Damn statistics!

But it's still odd that Lenny continues to promote McCain as a viable option after McCain clearly signalled his willingness to kiss fundie butt. Yes, that is odd.

I wonder if Lenny is one of those characters who has great difficulty admitting errors...

We may not - do not - like it, but the answer is to change that attitude, not to work around it.

*I* don't believe in gods, PZ, and nobody here has ever condemned ME for it.

Do you think that, maybe, there's a reason for that ...?

Yeah. It's easier to condemn you for voting for Nader and promoting John McCain for President.

Lenny: No I can't. I've had too much beer.

There we have it. We can blame Florida 2000 on Viking jizz.

Well, maybe we can round them all up and shoot them or something, huh.

— lenny

In case you hand't noticed; until very recently (who replaced Delay?), folks who purport support for the creobot agenda control both houses of congress, and the administration. I'm not sure, but isn't there one on the Supreme Court now too?

— sir_toejam

Lenny continues to promote McCain as a viable option

I wonder if Lenny is one of those characters who has great difficulty admitting errors...

If you plan on fighting ID/creationism with lectures on "pre-biotic polymer chemosynthesis" or "the homology between type III secretory apparatus and the bacterial flagellum", all you're gonna do is glaze everyone's eyes over before you bore them to death.

There we have it. We can blame Florida 2000 on Viking jizz.

Note that *I* make no secret whatsoever of the fact that I think all gods, goddesses and everything else supernatural are entirely absolutely human-created. And nobody accuses ME of wanting to "send Baptists to death camps".

— lenny

And please. Don't be a condescending ass and tell me that I am screaming in a thread where Lenny is pulling his "dick swinging" act.

But surely you realize the intrinsic value of the actual science in this fight, yes?

I don't reject the value of being concilliatory from a political perspective, and I think including arguments from folks like the ELCA is useful.

However, I also agree with PZ that at the heart of this, it MUST be an evidentiary argument.

It might not carry as much polical weight as i would like

... PZ - if you just want to break out the foam bats, I can understand that too.

How 'bout we take it to ATBC and have at?

I've already made all the substantive points I intend to on this topic, and suspect I would just repeat myself at this point. Might as well move on to a more physical sport and have some fun!

(Yes! That is an invitation to argue abuse!)

if you think it's about telling atheists to "shut up", I would conclude you really just want some abuse.

Then it's useless in a political fight.

damnit, now what does it mean when i remember Behe's name, but not Rothschild.

grrr.

Indeed. But then, ID didn't die in Dover because it's bad science; it died because it's religious apologetics pretending to be science.

It's not illegal to teach bad science. It IS illegal to teach religious apologetics. And no matter how much they try to hide it, ID/creationism is nothing but religious apologetics.

Indeed, I would argue that this is the ONLY thing that has kept ID/creationism out of science classrooms. All our years of "science education" haven't done dick. The percentage of ID/creationism proponents is the same now as it was 25 years ago.

whee! I'm in the middle!

This has not been an argument. Lenny jumped in, claiming I'm planning to hunt him down and bring him before the evangelical atheist inquisition, and spewing his usual dim-witted, short-sighted dogma that maligns the evidence. As I've said repeatedly, that is not what the post was about: the Numbers article and interview are sloppy hack jobs that promote the simple-minded equation of religiosity with moral and human (!) virtues. This, apparently, is what people mean when they suggest making nice with the Christian majority--to endorse the superiority of religion as a political tool, with conciliation of theists and denigration of atheists.

Hardly anybody, especially you or lenny, have bothered to address the source. Instead, we get more of the nonsensical "fundy atheist" accusations and lenny's swaggering macho BS.

I'm utterly fed up with this asinine "it's a political fight" crap. That's a declaration of surrender. Lenny is fond of declaring that we're outnumbered as an excuse to abandon science -- but the science is our strength. We don't win by throwing away the whole point of the argument and putting it to a vote or a trial or the outcome of legislation. If that were true, then all the scientists who contribute here ought to withdraw, and we should turn the Panda's Thumb over to Lenny and people like him, and watch him win the war for us. It's political, after all. Even a drone who thinks the evidence is irrelevant ought to be able to do the job with his smooth and persuasive political skills.

(Except that he doesn't have any, unfortunately, and also lacks any competence in science. Why are we listening to him at all, again?)

I am once again ignoring all of PZ's dick-waving.

Indeed, I would argue that this is the ONLY thing that has kept ID/creationism out of science classrooms. All our years of "science education" haven't done dick. The percentage of ID/creationism proponents is the same now as it was 25 years ago.

— lenny

Lenny

This is a political fight. It is not about science. And we will not win a political fight with just 15% of the population.

...sayeth the dude who voted for Ralph Nader (!) in Florida (!!) in 2000 (!!!) and admits it (!!!!!!).

C'mon Lenny. It was a stupid thing to do. Just admit it.

And just to be clear, Lenny: is it your position that pandering to tired memes which favor or are biased towards religion is an essential part of the "political fight" you refer to? Do you find anything objectionable in the article PZ refers to in his initial post?

i know it's pointless to try to get a word in here, especially since i don't pull any weight on this blog, but i'm glad mr. myers said what he said in the post. i'm glad he is willing to point out that some of us feel very strongly that religion in general, not just fundamentalism, is a major problem for science and subsequently for our society. i'm not afraid to say it, and it's good that somebody with better credentials than me will put it out there.

now, i won't say i have enjoyed the slap-fight here in the comments, no i won't. but there's nothing i can do about that.

there are a lot of people out there who are not willing to give religion credit just because our moms still go to church, or our friends are too afraid to challenge a wrathful god. a lot of those people are not interested in pandering to or placating the religious in order to sneak in a political victory. i am one of those people, and i think mr. myers is, too.

so, thank you, mr. myers.

i hope most sincerely that something, somewhere, sometime soon will happen that will wake up our society and the world to the folly that is religion. however, i think that we will end up having to be happy that the human race will wipe itself out within a few centuries, leaving the world in peace.

until the damned dolphins invent religion.

C'mon Lenny. It was a stupid thing to do. Just admit it.

a lot of those people are not interested in pandering to or placating the religious in order to sneak in a political victory.

Your strategy is how we lose.

So this is our savvy master of the political battle? Let the theocracy come, it'll make the Democrats wise up, it won't really hurt the country if we're in a few wars, if the power of the presidency is unchecked, if our economy is wrecked to benefit a few lucky corporations and the obscenely wealthy?

Again, I ask...why does anyone listen to Lenny at all?

The percentage of ID/creationism proponents is the same now as it was 25 years ago.

— lenny

Um, Hillary Clinton is in favor of sending MORE troops to Iraq, and she refused to vote to censure Bush for the illegal spying and wiretaps (not impeach, not remove from office, just CENSURE, just say "he shouldn't have done that").

So, uh, where are all these heroic defenders of peace and democracy that I am supposed to be voting for . . . . ?

I ask one more time---why should anyone in their right mind pay any attention to you?

By the way, PZ, I really am very sorry that you don't like how I voted.

Next time, I'll be sure to call you first and ask your permission.

OK?

This has not been an argument.

Lenny is part of the problem.

Lenny jumped in, claiming I'm planning to hunt him down and bring him before the evangelical atheist inquisition,

and spewing his usual dim-witted, short-sighted dogma that maligns the evidence.

As I've said repeatedly, that is not what the post was about: the Numbers article and interview are sloppy hack jobs that promote the simple-minded equation of religiosity with moral and human (!) virtues.

This, apparently, is what people mean when they suggest making nice with the Christian majority---to endorse the superiority of religion as a political tool, with conciliation of theists and denigration of atheists.

Hardly anybody, especially you or lenny, have bothered to address the source. Instead, we get more of the nonsensical "fundy atheist" accusations and lenny's swaggering macho BS.

I'm utterly fed up with this asinine "it's a political fight" crap. That's a declaration of surrender.

Lenny is fond of declaring that we're outnumbered as an excuse to abandon science ---

but the science is our strength.

We don't win by throwing away the whole point of the argument and putting it to a vote or a trial or the outcome of legislation.

If that were true, then all the scientists who contribute here ought to withdraw, and we should turn the Panda's Thumb over to Lenny and people like him, and watch him win the war for us. It's political, after all. Even a drone who thinks the evidence is irrelevant ought to be able to do the job with his smooth and persuasive political skills.

(Except that he doesn't have any, unfortunately, and also lacks any competence in science. Why are we listening to him at all, again?)

Unending conflict, except that where the creationists tweak their game plan now and then, we just keep doing the same thing?

Clinton was not the candidate in 2000. She was not the candidate in 2004. The only people who hope she'll be the candidate in 2008 are the Republicans...oh, and maybe Joe Lieberman. Unless you live in NY, you haven't had an opportunity to vote for Clinton.

"Don't" doesn't answer the question why anyone should pay attention to your dicta. You're clearly undiplomatic and inept, you've a history of stupid political decisions, and you don't support science and call the evidence irrelevant. It sounds to me like you're nothing but a creationist mole, and a rather clumsy one at that.

Um, Hillary Clinton is in favor of sending MORE troops to Iraq, and she refused to vote to censure Bush for the illegal spying and wiretaps (not impeach, not remove from office, just CENSURE, just say "he shouldn't have done that").

All bad decisions on her part. How did John McCain vote, by the way?

But has she given a commencement speech at Liberty University or Bob Jones? Has she given George Bush a big fat smiling hug?

And has anyone else in this thread besides you brought up Hillary Clinton? What is the deal with your fascination?

I didn't see any problems with knocking the article from the intrinsic standpoint of its claiming moral superiority only belongs to the religious side.

It's an ignorant arguement on the face of it.

All bad decisions on her part.

How did John McCain vote, by the way?

PZ

It sounds to me like you're nothing but a creationist mole, and a rather clumsy one at that.

Lenny's sense of humor is too developed for him to be a creationist mole.

For the record, I endorse about 95% of Lenny's comments. The pandering strategery and the McCain business is in the 5% which I can not abide.

And has anyone else in this thread besides you brought up Hillary Clinton? What is the deal with your fascination?

"Don't" doesn't answer the question why anyone should pay attention to your dicta. You're clearly undiplomatic and inept, you've a history of stupid political decisions, and you don't support science and call the evidence irrelevant. It sounds to me like you're nothing but a creationist mole, and a rather clumsy one at that.

For the record, I endorse about 95% of Lenny's comments. The pandering strategery and the McCain business is in the 5% which I can not abide.

Given the choice between any fundie and any nonfundie, though, I'll take the nonfundie every time.

Unless there's two non-fundies in which case you'll chuck your vote the garbage. Right?

In the interests of allowing you to contin ue with your, uh, cute comebacks, I'll refrain from pointing out once again that I'm a commie, and the odds that McCain and I would agree on ... well ... virtually anything, are pretty close to zero. (shrug)

Then why did you endorse him in one of these PT threads? I can't remember your exact words but you clearly implied that he was somehow "different" from his Republican peers in a way that would matter to someone like me.

I assume you haven't fallen for the "straight talking" "maverick" garbage but if you want to disabuse yourself of that baloney I can direct you to some helpful websites.

I'm not sure if I believe the "commie" business but I'd give five dollars to see you and Tim Sandefur battle it out in one these threads.

But I can't abide your taste in beer.

Tecate? Man, nothing beats an ice cold can on a hut summer day.

Unless there's two non-fundies in which case you'll chuck your vote the garbage. Right?

Then why did you endorse him in one of these PT threads? I can't remember your exact words but you clearly implied that he was somehow "different" from his Republican peers in a way that would matter to someone like me.

I assume you haven't fallen for the "straight talking" "maverick" garbage but if you want to disabuse yourself of that baloney I can direct you to some helpful websites.

I've gotten the distinct impression that your position is that religion has no value at all, moral or otherwise. Is this a correct assesment? If not, why don't you spell it out more clearly, because obviously you haven't done so yet.

— Sir_Toejam

I'm not sure if I believe the "commie" business

I am, of course, still ignoring PZ's dick-waving.

They just don't get to expect that religiosity confers special privileges in public policy.

I am, of course, still ignoring PZ's dick-waving.

I am, of course, still ignoring the fact that PZ is kicking my butt.

Sorry, PZ, I'm still ignoring your dick-waving.

As I mentioned in passing above, the answer I like is modeled after Europe. We don't need to 'punish' or otherwise get rid of the religious --- we just need a more secular society in which people are free to practice whatever religion they want. They just don't get to expect that religiosity confers special privileges in public policy.

— PZ Myers

Religion has no place in science, whether that "religion" is Christianity, Islam, or Atheism. Whenever anyone tries to impose his religious views on me, whether that is Jack Chick, Richard Dawkins, or the Jehovah Witness at my front door, I generally stop listening. If you wish to end rational discourse the easiest, fastest, and surest way to do that is to bring in religion. However, if you wish to keep a discussion of science on topic then you need to keep religion out of it. If you want to talk about religion then it should be somewhere that other people aren't trying to talk about science.

Atheism is a religion like good health is a disease.

The problem we are confronting in the US right now is driven by religion. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Some think the science is irrelevant; some think the problem is purely political; some like to place the blame on scientists or atheists, especially the 'arrogant' kind; some like to tell us that religion has to be kept out of the discussion, but that is like telling us you want an infection cured, but you don't want to hear anything about bacteria or antibiotics, because it offends you.

(wakes up, stretches)

(yawwwwnnnnn)

Oh, my heeeaaadddd . . . . .. .

(reaches for a little "hair of the dog")

(rings bell) OK, now Round Two can begin . . .

:)

They just don't get to expect that religiosity confers special privileges in public policy.

Posted by Alan B. on June 25, 2006 05:45 AM (e) Religion has no place in science, whether that "religion" is Christianity, Islam, or Atheism. Whenever anyone tries to impose his religious views on me, whether that is Jack Chick, Richard Dawkins, or the Jehovah Witness at my front door, I generally stop listening. If you wish to end rational discourse the easiest, fastest, and surest way to do that is to bring in religion. However, if you wish to keep a discussion of science on topic then you need to keep religion out of it. If you want to talk about religion then it should be somewhere that other people aren't trying to talk about science.

Posted by PZ Myers on June 25, 2006 07:05 AM (e) Atheism is a religion like good health is a disease.

The problem we are confronting in the US right now is driven by religion.

"that is like telling us you want an infection cured, but you don't want to hear anything about bacteria or antibiotics, because it offends you."

Yet there is nothing surprising about this aspect of close-mindedness when it comes to science policies. People like to have an energy policy independent of oil, yet they don't want to hear about nuclear energy, because it offends them. People like to solve cancer, yet they don't want to hear about anti-smoking tobacco bans, for all the offense that causes. People like to know if homosexuality leads to bad parenting, yet they don't want to hear out any homosexuals, for all the offense they cause. People like to know if we can reduce global warming, but they don't want to be told how to run their cars, or to be fired from the pollution factories.

What we have learned over time is that it is quite possible to ignore science and scientists. What scientists and science policy makers have not figured out is how to make people listen. You all talk about this problem, none really talk about a feasible solution. Some like to think scientists are the mouthpiece of all that is true. Some like to think scientists are the mouthpiece of Satan, spreading all that is false. In the end, having a scientist merely speak is not at all the solution. It is, like Lenny says, pragmatically a political problem. After all, we don't have time to have a social scientist methodically figure out the right approach. So most of the time, we're all taking flying leaps of faith on various policies.

Personally, although I hate to say this, it seems to me that in the Creation-Evolution battle people like Ken Miller are more valued weapons than people like PZ. Why? Not for the differences in scientific knowledge either possesses. Rather, I suspect there is a reason for having one present at a trial, or speak to a bunch of Christians about evolution than the other. And when this person speaks, do you think people are actually paying attention to the science? or to the fact that he is Christian speaking about science?

Face it people. All the church-goers in this country get weekly continuing education sessions. Scientists cannot even dream of having that kind of audience on a regular basis. Yet that's exactly the audience they need. Not a political problem? Ha.

Whoo hoo! A pointless thread on unresolvable metaphysical questions! Somehow, we usually manage to avoid these.

I'm utterly fed up with this asinine "it's a political fight" crap. That's a declaration of surrender. Lenny is fond of declaring that we're outnumbered as an excuse to abandon science --- but the science is our strength.

— PZ

D'Agostino seems to be skeptical of Johnson's view changes.

"I think the fat lady has sung for any efforts to change the approach in the public schools...the courts are just not going to allow it. They never have."

They don't understand the first thing about relativity. If you tell them that the universe is 15 billion years old they go "Oh" and they don't have to deal with it anymore. And in fact there are a lot of physicists who as you know are very much engaged in cosmological metaphysical questions, many of which have completely non-scientific dimensions that they take very seriously. But the problem here is that once we start talking about how life changes through time it's getting closer to everybody's backyard. And people don't want to hear that they are animals, that they are mammals. They don't want to hear what they share with a gorilla. ... Well, scientists really don't go out in the world talking about how stupid religion is. It isn't that they couldn't, it's just that they don't. When pressed, you'll get people like Richard Dawkins, who'll say that it's just superstition and all of the claims it makes for its good works and uplifting effects are just balderdash, and he can point to evidence for this. This is nothing new. And no, I don't think it's the scientists' fault about that. I think the scientists are at fault for not explaining our disciplines more clearly to the public so that they can't be misconstrued. If our level of scientific literacy were higher in this country we might not have this problem. But you see, these people have been working for 85 years so that we don't even get to teach this.

— Kevin Padian

You can bet that won't get significant air time in the creationist forums

Damn, I decide to do some work and miss the biggest fight on PT, blood and everything. Lenny goes to sleep and sobers up. ....Rats.
Who won BTW?

I favor the pragmatic approach too, but I dunno, religion is getting pretty scary these days:

"End Times' Religious Groups Want Apocalypse Soon."

"For thousands of years, prophets have predicted the end of the world. Today, various religious groups, using the latest technology, are trying to hasten it."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-endtimes22jun22,0,7902314.story?track=tothtml

Lenny goes to sleep and sobers up.....Rats.

Who won BTW?

I'll add another reason to Padian's own why biology gets less respect than other scientific disciplines. It is presented at the precollegiate educational level as almost an entirely descriptive science, or a gigantic history lesson spanning the ages. What you learn are the various names for the structures found in living organisms. You learn when they lived, how they lived, and why they went extinct. You learn about functions. And, essentially, you learn about blueprints.

Unlike most sciences, biology is not presented formally as a predictive enterprise, at least not in anything that is as controlled as mixing two reagents to get a quantifiable product, or writing three physical laws to solve for a state variable. Have a student do bacterial transformation experiments, and you can't even ask him to predict the rate DNA is acquired. Get him to do gel electrophoresis, and rarely does he actually understand why a band moves as far as it does. Have him look at an E. coli under a microscope, and what else does the teacher want him to notice? Well, that is shaped like a rod, that it has flagella, that it moves, that is changes colors when treated with dies, that it makes circles when grown on media, that it dies when treated by drugs... Biology is presented as mushy science. It is no wonder that it gets treated as such.

I favor the pragmatic approach too, but I dunno, religion is getting pretty scary these days:

"End Times' Religious Groups Want Apocalypse Soon." "For thousands of years, prophets have predicted the end of the world. Today, various religious groups, using the latest technology, are trying to hasten it."

I find it funny that Lenny, who in another thread here in recent days supported his two votes for Ralph Nader on the grounds that Nader was the best man for the job, despite having no chance of winning, now wants Myers to get on the faith bus because of its plurality. I guess Lenny thinks his conscience (which contributed materially to electing an idiot) is more important than everyone else's. (Shrug, my ass)

Once again, I am very sorry that you didn't like my vote.

Next time, I will call you and ask your permission first.

OK?

Oh, and just for you -------> (shrug)

I favor the pragmatic approach too, but I dunno, religion is getting pretty scary these days: Which one? They're, uh, not all the same, ya know...

Nutters. But then, the nutters have been predicting the imminent end of the world throughout human history. (shrug)

"Once again, we have identification of the problem. But no viable solution. Americans are rather pragmatic people. Science that doesn't affect them on a day to day level is simply not relevant. This is more so for the fundamentalists, who would all much rather have _one_ source of information, that is _not changing_ over time. How should science advocates deal with this besides talking the problem to death?"

I agree that this is the major problem. Americans (other than those who make their living in science, science-heavy areas or science education) don't even think about science or science education unless it is thrown at them. Unfortunately, it is often the pulpit that brings the subject up. However, many Americans don't attend church, or attend a church that doesn't think this is an issue. Another place where this would be brought to public attention would be political web sites and publications. However, given the voting record of the American public, I am not sure many read these either. I think of my various family members as typical Americans; the only time science is even a topic of discussion is when I am around, being the only one in my extended family who gives two hoots in hell about the subject (other than my scientist husband). I wonder if speaking often, loudly and energetically, using every media outlet available, will get the public's attention. Otherwise, investments, health care, gas prices, Walmart sales, "Sex and the City" and "Brangelina" will fill their days.

Yeah, but now they actually want to make it happen.

Otherwise, investments, health care, gas prices, Walmart sales, "Sex and the City" and "Brangelina" will fill their days.

This battle is NOT only about knowledge vs. ignorance. It's also about trust vs. paranoia. Let me explain.

"Fundies", obviously, believe in God. Whats often overlooked is that they also believe in a real "devil" entity. They believe the devil has controlled the world since our "fall from grace" and will continue to control it until the return of Christ.

Think about that for a minute.

In the mind of a Fundie, the goal of the devil is to decieve Humanity. The power and intelligence of the devil is second only to God, and crafting a long-term, plausable, detailed, scientific paradigm capable of decieving Humanity is well within his abilites. And is in fact predicted by the Bible. (The great deception)

So, Fundies are wary. Cautious. They put their trust in the Bible, and anything that goes against it is dismissed as part of the devils elaborate deception. This is a responce born in paranoia, not ignorance.

It is indeed frightening that citizens of the US, the most powerful nation in human history, are by and large an utterly pig-ignorant uneducated uncaring apathetic uninvolved lot. In any modern European country, if the leader took power with a minority of the popular vote, began an illegal war, spied on political opponents, rounded up people based on "secret evidence" obtained through torture and held them indefinitely without trial or charges, there would be riots in the street and the government would fall. In the US, though, we just yawn and go back to watching "American Idol".

— The Reverend Doctor

Lenny,

My post in this thread wasn't about your vote, it was about your hypocrisy. You seem to think that people like Myers shouldn't express their views because it's not politically expedient to do so, but in your own voting, you don't seem to care much about the ramifications, so long as you can make your own little (impotent) statement.

Having faith is not incompatible with practicing science, just as knowing how to speak German is not incompatible with knowing how to speak French.

But you can't do both simultaneously.

That being said - I agree with PZ that the push to 'make nice' with the religious is at best excessive, and at worse downright offensive.

I also agree with Lenny that if we want to win the political and cultural conflict between science and religious fundamentalism, we need to not alienate religious moderates. Force people to choose between science and faith, and far too often science will lose. Just look at the Christian Scientists.

Really the main thing to do is to try and encourage religious moderates to be comfortable and strong enough in their faith and moderacy at they don't feel threatened by vocal non-theists, and *can't* be alienated by them. And that must come from within the religious community itself.

You seem to think that people like Myers shouldn't express their views because it's not politically expedient to do so

In any modern European country, if the leader took power with a minority of the popular vote, began an illegal war, spied on political opponents, rounded up people based on "secret evidence" obtained through torture and held them indefinitely without trial or charges, there would be riots in the street and the government would fall.

in your own voting, you don't seem to care much about the ramifications

I don't know, here in Britain we're pretty much already in that situation.

I said no such thing.

— Rev. Lenny

You chastized PZ for being publically antagonistic towards religion, you emphasized that evolution is no longer a scientific position but a political one, you suggested that it would be impossible for the political battle to be won without the aid of theistic evolutionists, and then said that it was stupid to annoy those allies that were needed to win a political struggle.

Like a jigsaw puzzle, we don't need to possess a missing piece if we possess all the pices around it. From that information alone, we can determine the shape of the piece we don't have, because it is defined by its surroundings.

It's true that you never once used those words. The whole meaning of your previous statements, however, has centered around that idea.

Au contraire, I voted for the guy I thought would produce the best ramifications.

— Lenny

If societies tend to be favorable to religion as a moral authority, it is because religion is (or was) all about patterning and organizing the lives of people in society. I myself am glad that science can be much more idealistic and is not concerned with these mundane things. I agree that this function of religion has become increasingly complemented by other nonreligious approaches along history, and I agree the state should not favor "religion for religion" but should take into careful consideration what religions do. Favorable tretamnet, for example, should relate directly to humanitarian activities and such. This is not the case now and of course this should change as there certainly are evil and vacuous religions out there. It does have to do with religion still been held as "generally virtuous". More non-religious, proficient alternatives are needed to truly change this sentiment. Probably, more nonreligious humanitarian and altruistic enterprises is the only way.

I agree that atheists must not be apologetic, and one way of making that easy is not attacking religion or denying tht fact that it can do good, while showing high standards of civil and moral conduct ourselves (yes, NEVER insult or abuse your powers, for example). This will demonstrate that we are not arrogant, dogmatic or devoid of morality. IF that is true. Hopefully yes, but in reality we're doing a crappy job, even at something as simple as refraining from insult and violent language, which is truly NEVER ok and thus utterly damaging to our own cause.

This being said, it is important that this social reality and current politic events, however dislikable, must not cloud the philosophical issue if REALLY all religion and science are to be opposed or if they can find ways to coexist. The bad things in our current situation, and whether we must hide or atheism or not for political reasons, does not truly amount to solving the issue, but they do flow downstream from it. The answer is NO, of course we should not be apologetic, but equally obvious is that we must no be demeaning and insulting. I think it is crucial that we atheists realize that in fact religion and science are NOT forced to butt heads. This means we can take the first step as sincerely respectful people who are NOT thinking everyone should be an atheist like us.

you emphasized that evolution is no longer a scientific position but a political one

Do you mean to say that of all of the constitutionally eligble people in the country, you think that Ralph Nader was the best qualified?

you suggested that it would be impossible for the political battle to be won without the aid of theistic evolutionists, and then said that it was stupid to annoy those allies that were needed to win a political struggle.

people who are NOT thinking everyone should be an atheist like us.

.......with the explicit goal of obtaining their assistance in a psychomarketing campaign against the theistic creationists.

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

It is not at all clear that the current neoconservative strategy is sustainable over the long-term; there will likely be a backlash.

Well, now that this thread has wandered through religion and politics, what else should we argue over?

I think that baseball is an idiotic sport. Anyone disagree?

:)

Hockey Rules!

Lenny

It is the OPPOSITION to evolution that is a political position, not a scientific one.

It's political for the professional promoters and the wannabes on the second tier.

But the typical rube who opposes it does so because "they stoopit."

Which reminds how much this debate resembles similar debates here about the "appropriateness" of pointing out how sadly ignorant a huge portion of Americans are and how that problem is getting worse as we speak. It's been mentioned numerous times that telling Americans that their government is letting them down and providing them with a substandard education that leaves them susceptible to snake-oil selling liars is bad because it "alienates" those people. Apparently only religious preachers are permitted to engage in scorn and ridicule (they figured the effectiveness of this approach thousands of years ago).

I've got the preacher Kenneth Copeland on the TV right now. He's on all Sunday morning. This guy preaches essentially that if you believe in Jesus you'll be "prosperous" but you have to give first in order to receive. I have little doubt that he gets most of his money from old stupid people.

Now, here's one of my goals: in the near future, I should be able to turn my channel and find a TV show which mocks Kenneth Copeland explicitly, by taking segments of his show and debunking their vapidity and/or simply laughing at the utter theatrical bullshXt of it all. In addition to "This Week in Religion" on PBS we'll have "Stupidest Religious Moment News" which documents the atrocities.

As it stands now, the only high visible direct commentary against religious baloney and the indoctriation of children with religious baloney comes from our countries musicians and artists and comedians. Why is that?

Answer: it's because of all the people who believe, like Lenny, that criticizing religion will come back to bite you in the ass.

PZ thinks it is time to end the charade. So do I. So do a whole lot of other people.

Get used to it. Get used to defending your religious beliefs until the day comes when, in fact, your religion isn't being used on national TV to justify wars and bigotry. When that day arrives, the need to point out the stupid absurdities inherent in organized religion (i.e., Christianity mainly) will be diminished.

Or you can just leave your religion on the side of the road to wither and die. Rational folks do that by the boatload every freaking day.

Footie all the way. Go England!

And mint choc chip is heaps better than all the other flavours except lemon.

Get used to defending your religious beliefs

For those who aren't memory-challenged, let me say, yet again, one more time, that I do not assert or accept the existence of any god, gods, goddesses or any other supernatural entity whatsoever, in any way shape or form. They are all, without exception, human-made.

And if PZ didn't want a fight, he should not have picked one. (shrug)

Get used to defending your religious beliefs

It's political for the professional promoters and the wannabes on the second tier. But the typical rube who opposes it does so because "they stoopit."

Rational folks do that by the boatload every freaking day.

For those who aren't memory-challenged, let me say

I'll continue to ignore Lenny's dick waving.

(shrugs)

except lemon

I'll continue to ignore Lenny's dick waving.

I have no problem with anyone who wishes to criticize religion for any reason whatsoever. That is what freedom of speech is about. But I do resent anyone who deliberately confuses his beliefs with those of science. Science should have nothing to do with religion. Those who conflate the two end up diminishing respect for science and do little to support their playground brawls.

I dare say that from what I have heard Numbers gets the bit about Galileo wrong - I understand he was shown the instruments of torture. Moreover, it is very disingenious for him to say there was no science-religion strife duing the 17th century. The founders of the scientific revolution were almost to a man heretical. Also, why does he think that the Royal Society agreed not to discuss religion if it was so harmonious? Additionally, the folks he mentions as being religious and open to evolution aren't, at least not completely. Grey - I will simply take his word on that - is a creationist. Numbers reports that he felt that evolution did not give rise to humans and to eyes. That's creationism, like Pope John Paul II's variety. Sure, it isn't as extreme as Morris or even perhaps Dembski, but so what? Finally, to say that no scientists were put to death may be true, but there are certainly those who died because of dissent viewpoints on other subjects, such as Bruno.

----
Matt Young: You assume that morals and ethics are not cricitisable. Sure, someone can base their ethics on religion if they want to, but that just renders them subject to whatever protoanthropology, philosophy of mind, etc. that comes with the religion. Which, of course, renders the ethics a sitting duck for a secular ethical system informed by scientific research, the current situation, etc.

Comment #108052 Posted by PZ Myers on June 24, 2006 09:29 PM (e) | kill ... This has gotten beyond annoying: nowhere in my article did I suggest booting the religious out of the tent, or otherwise stomping on their delicate little toes.

Comment #108187 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 25, 2006 10:15 AM (e) | kill It is not PZ's "beliefs" that are the problem. It is his intolerance. PZ doesn't just say "I don't believe in gods" (which, after all, *I* say too) --- he follows that up with "and you're stupid if you do".

:-)

Lenny, could you give us some evidence for that?

Footie all the way. Go England!

Hey FL, can you figure this one out?

|
,,|,
[ ]'

Hmm.

Lenny goes off to sulk in a corner and then FL suddenly appears.

Lenny Flank = LF = ..... FL????

Good Lord.

Maybe Great White Wonder was a sock puppet for Sal Cordova.

I've read lots of his posts, I'm just wondering, what would you say is the strongest case against PZ's claim that

"This has gotten beyond annoying: nowhere in my article did I suggest booting the religious out of the tent, or otherwise stomping on their delicate little toes."

Maybe Great White Wonder was a sock puppet for Sal Cordova.

LENNY is proud to have elected George Bush president and is happy that we went to war in Iraq and that we want to declare a fetus a legal person and he supports drilling in ANWR and anywhere else the oil companies damm well please.
----------------------------
Official Florida result: George W Bush - 2,912,790; Al Gore - 2,912,253. Bush majority 537.
----------------------------
If 240 538 Lenny's had voted for Gore.....

I've read lots of his posts, I'm just wondering, what would you say is the strongest case against PZ's claim that "This has gotten beyond annoying: nowhere in my article did I suggest booting the religious out of the tent, or otherwise stomping on their delicate little toes."

I've read lots of his posts, I'm just wondering, what would you say is the strongest case against PZ's claim that "This has gotten beyond annoying: nowhere in my article did I suggest booting the religious out of the tent, or otherwise stomping on their delicate little toes."

Oh, Christ, now the cuckoo clock is back . . . .

(sigh)

The core of PZ's post was this:

When I hear people declare that Dawkins is the arrogant one, while they are surrounded by Robertsons and Coulters and Dobsons, I give up on them. They've just admitted that they lack any sensible perspective on the world.

People who value religion -- for whatever reason -- would be wise to focus on the psychos above and not worry about statements by Dawkins or Myers or any other atheist who has had it up to his nose with mass-marketed religious baloney mixing with our political discourse.

Whether you agree with Dawkins or Myers in their assessment of religion (no different from the conclusion that millions of others have reached after learning to become skeptical of their parental units) the arguments supporting their conclusions about the ill effect of mass-marketed religion and religious indoctrination in our society are far more solid than any argument supporting, say, some dude rising from the dead after 3 days, walking around for a while, then ascending up to a mysterious cloud paradise. Or whatever is supposed to have happened.

This, in my opinion, is the real reason that religious people hate to have the discussion: it's a losing gambit for them because at the end of the day they simply have to admit that for their own personal pleasure they have decided to subscribe to a mass-marketed psychotherapy that is directly and indirectly responsible for our country turning into a craphole of ignorance and mindless script-reciting.

I assume you wrote that before the match. Or are you expecting us to bore the opposition to death?

People who value religion --- for whatever reason --- would be wise to focus on the psychos

Flank

Of course, I didn't say that PZ wants to kick religious people out; I said he DRIVES religious people out.

He drives religious people out of where exactly? Do you have any evidence that otherwise rational person would be willing to accept the opinion of virtually every one of the world's authorities on the subject of evolution BUT FOR the words of PZ Myers?

I would like to see that evidence, Lenny.

In lieu of that, it would be nice if you stopped spouting your "atheists should shut up and let the theists speak" baloney. PZ's already explained to you why that's a doomed strategy. If you have some counterargument besides "good luck with that" then let's hear it.

Lenny

People who don't value religion, of course, would be wise to do the same.

Uh, Lenny, PZ Myers does focus on Coulter, Robertson, Falwell and their ilk on a regular basis. His withering criticism of those folks is widely appreciated.

On the other hand, we have you promoting John McCain, who happily kisses the butts of those psychos.

So once again, Lenny, you've left your corner but not before laying a hypocritical turd. Why not clean it up?

I don't see that there is a big fight among scientists about what religion (or lack there of) is better or that stamping out religious scientists will somehow make science better (pardon the strawman & I know no one said this). Are atheists more productive than their theist counterparts? Do they produce papers with higher impact factors? Heck I don't know and I don't care. It wouldn't matter to me if Dembski got a paper published in nature (no one spew their beer all over the screen) as long as it was good science (again no one spew their beer on the screen). I guess the point is that the religion or lack there of practitioners of science does not really matter for either the ID'ers or the science folks.

There's only a war between science and religion when people make one. I don't think there should be any backing off with regard to keeping religion out of science and out of schools. However, I don't think projecting an assumption about ones metaphysics and/or my poofy sky fairy did this or that on others is a good idea. There's no evidence to talk about here except waving hands and saying my assumption is better than your assumption. (insert arguments about rationality here ha ha)

If you're going to defend science, defend science with boatloads of evidence. If you're going to defend metaphysical positions let's go get a beer and have a good time and make good arguments.

we have you promoting John McCain

Uh, Lenny, PZ Myers does focus on Coulter, Robertson, Falwell and their ilk on a regular basis. >/quote>

As do I.

So what is he bitching about?

we have you promoting John McCain

A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES.

Uh, Lenny, PZ Myers does focus on Coulter, Robertson, Falwell and their ilk on a regular basis.

His withering criticism of those folks is widely appreciated.

On the other hand, we have you promoting John McCain

Why don't you give us YOUR holy opinion, Carol . . . ?

What would Landa do?

Matt Young: You assume that morals and ethics are not cricitisable.

Salman Rushdie last night on the tube made an interesting point: that morality and ethics precede religion, and religion is often our expression of morality and ethics. If some people want to express their morality and ethics in a religious motif, who are Dr. Myers and I to argue?

I know what you're up to, Lenny, in inviting me in here. But I want to enjoy what you want most to resist - a flame war between atheists. Go on, keep it up folks! Call each other names! And bring in that other pillar on PT, SIR toeJam, for added insult!

"And you, uh, do know how to riot, right?"

When it comes to football riots, we're world class (shame we're not world class on the pitch though).

Lenny, what's funny is that you pretend that you never promoted McCain here. But go right ahead and keep pretending.

Registered User: Uh, Lenny, PZ Myers does focus on Coulter, Robertson, Falwell and their ilk on a regular basis.

Lenny: As do I.

Your readership is probably less than 1% of PZ Myers' so I could care less frankly except to note that patting yourself on the back in this context is a conceited way of dodging the point of my comment: that Myers is thoughtful and consistent in the application of his political strategy while science-supporters and/or liberals who are critical of Myers and Dawkins (i.e., folks like you) are not.

So why doesn't he stick to that, whcih is at least useful, rather than ranting on all the religious people who are NOT Coulter, Robertson, Falwell and their ilk

That's been explained to you, Lenny. I guess your glib quips take more time for you to conjure up than one might expect.

Dear Dr. Clouser,

I've been wondering, since it came up in AFDave's thread at AtBC,

From the original clay tablets, should we transliterate the Ascended Beings' names as "Auri" or "Ori"?

Wiki, SciFi Channel, and Tacitus prefer the latter, and that would seem to be correct, but I wanted your take.

Funny you should show up right at this moment.

Just wonderin'

I know what you're up to, Lenny, in inviting me in here. But I want to enjoy what you want most to resist - a flame war between atheists. Go on, keep it up folks! Call each other names! And bring in that other pillar on PT, SIR toeJam, for added insult!

When Kansas convened public hearings to discuss the merits of intelligent design, most scientists stayed away, thinking that if they refused to testify, it would be obvious that the idea wasn't even worth discussing. They were shocked when the decision went so clearly against them.

At the same time, Elliott Sober hopes the next generation of scientists will learn to better communicate what they do and what it means. "Scientists didn't show up in Kansas, and they now realize that was a mistake," he says. "There's a growing awareness in the scientific community that they need to better communicate with the public, do a better job of explaining. They need to show up and make the case."

RE: Comment #1077887 and its follow-ups about Islam's take on evolution. Check this out:
http://www.islam-online.net/English/Science/Science/NaturalSciences/2006/06/01.shtml

Islam is definitely anti-science since everything must be supported by the Quran.
Here is one of the "Science" web sites:
http://www.science4islam.com/

Islam is a totally fundamentalist religion, at least as it is interpreted by all of the leading Islamic "schools". Unlike Xtians view of the bible, which, for most, is open to interpretation, since it was supposedly transcribed by men with divine guidance (right Carol?); the Quran is the direct word of Allah. As such it can never be subjected to any interpretation. Muslims believe that it was written long ago, in heaven, and passed to humans via Muhammad.

As to the religious war that is raging on this thread, I think it's quite silly for the main supporters of science on this thread to get involved is such a screaming match. What's the problem? Is ID so dull and dead that you all have to turn on each other? Religious beliefs are very personal, and even though I find them to be quite silly, people are free to believe them. They just have nothing to do with science. All you religious types who get so upset over any criticism of your particular brand, calm down. Although we generally respect the right for people to believe in some religion or other, we don't have to respect their particular beliefs. So if someone says they think your beliefs are foolish, that's their right. Not even Lenny's pizza boy's religion has the right to be exempted from criticism.

Lenny, what's funny is that you pretend that you never promoted McCain here.

You keep trying to resort to rational discourse with each other mid-flame. Hilarious.

The problem we are confronting in the US right now is driven by religion.

Myers is thoughtful and consistent in the application of his political strategy

Hey Toejam, were you aware that I voted for Bush and campaigned here for McCain?

(snicker)

PZ has invited us to argue. I'm not interested, but I will comment just once.

I am an atheist. I accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and find creationism abominable. I have also, for all intents and purposes retired from the creation/evolution debate.

The reason is simple - fanatics like PZ.

Lenny has quite sensibly pointed out that in a battle between creationism and science; making enemies of the two thirds of science supporters who happen also to be theists is absurd. It is a recipe for defeat; but that is not my main objection.

My main objection is that I am interested in defending science against creationists. I am not interested in a battle against religion - and if you try to recruit me for one, you will, effectively have already lost me as an ally. My reaction to rants like PZ's is to say a plague on the houses of all fundamentalists - fundamentalist atheists like PZ just as much as fundamentalist Christians or Islamists.

Islam is a totally fundamentalist religion, at least as it is interpreted by all of the leading Islamic "schools".

Not even Lenny's pizza boy's religion has the right to be exempted from criticism.

I don't think I've ever watched PT actually try to have a flamewar before

Lenny keeps trying to revise history to suit himself:

That's pretty funny.

In case you forgot, I'm a commie. McCain and I wouldn't speak to each other if we were in the same room.

That'll never happen, of course, because you're about as relevant to McCain as a pimple on my butt.

How about we just stick to the facts, Lenny?

Are you defying me to produce the money quote, Lenny?

Go ahead, Lenny: make my day.

If I produce the quote where you promoted McCain will you apologize and (for once) admit error?

Or will you just keep it up with your self-promoting "I've fought more political battles than you" arrogant hypocritical crap?

Lenny

Indeed, in any religion, the extremists are just a tiny but loud minority.

Including atheism.

I think the number of atheists who agree with PZ's assessment of religion and its role in our society is far from a "tiny minority."

And atheism is not a religion, of course. But you already knew that, Lenny.

But since we prefer to think that Muslims are legitimate targets for illegal wiretaps and surveillance in our, uh, "war against terror", no one ever hears much about them.

Are you defying me to produce the money quote, Lenny?

And atheism is not a religion, of course. But you already knew that, Lenny.

I confess to not actually having watched the match. Spent the time trying to get to grips with microarrays. It sounds like this meant I had a far more entertaining time than the footie fans out there...

Lenny

Doesn't strike me as much of a political strategy, though.

What doesn't? Refusing to cow down and recite the scripts of those in power is not a political strategy? Providing a forum where like-minded people can speak their mind and amplify their message is not a political strategy?

Gosh, Lenny, you seem sort of out of date. Like an old-timer who has ceased to be relevant but keeps on repeating the same garbage over and over and over.

Let's see if others share Lenny's opinion of what constitutes an effective political strategy:

BIDEN (on Cheney): He has no credibility. It's ridiculous.

ATRIOS (on Biden): That's a good response from Biden, and it's the same response Democrats should be making not just for anything that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth but anything which comes out of George Bush's mouth. Dems seem to generally lack the understanding of how effective general dismissive disdain and contempt can be. Bush has been in the 30s for about 4 months now. No one except the people who write The Note listen to him or think he has any credibility. He is, indeed, ridiculous.

Atrios' blog, Eschaton, is one of the most widely read progressive blogs on the Internets. Along with Daily Kos and a few other progressive blogs which are noted for their withering merciless assaults on conventional wisdom Atrios is succeeding in creating an alternative to the religion-pandering mainstream media by teaching people why that media is full of crap.

So like it or not, Lenny, PZ's political strategy is working. That is why you can find Daily Kos and Eschaton linking to PZ's site and that is why those folks are not aware of your existence.

Get it, Lenny? I hope so. In the battle over whose views are going to be heard and considered by the folks who hold the most compelling progressive megaphones, PZ wins and you lose -- big time.

There is a good reason for that, Lenny, and it has to do with not kissing John McCain's "non-fundy" behind and not obsessing about Hillary Clinton and the "Democans" and not voting for Ralph Nader in a contested state like Florida.

Maybe consider retiring, Lenny. Your glib defeatist crap is a sign of old age.

Lenny wrote

The Democans will nominate Hillary Clinton, who is unelectable. So I think that leaves Republicrat McCain as our best hope ---- he has no love for the fundies.

Here's hoping that the McCain-ites will finally be able to marginalize the fundie nuts within the Republicrat Party and reduce them to a screaming gesticulating crowd of ignored whackos.

This was AFTER McCain gave his speech to Falwell University.

Go ahead, Lenny. Spin away. Make me laugh.

If you say so, RU. (shrug)

Go ahead, Lenny. Spin away. Make me laugh.

Comment #105703 He needs their money and their votes. He can't get the Republicrat nomination without them (or at least without their non-opposition). He's pandering. (shrug) Comment #102515 And, more importantly, the fundies control all the party apparatus (at every level), where the all-important PURSE STRINGS are held. The fundie apparatchiks refer to their not-enthusiastic-enough fellow GOP'ers as RINO's (Republicans In Name Only), and their avowed intention is to remove them from the party. And that is why everyone from Guliani to McCain kisses fundie ass. They have no choice. No ass-kissing, no party money. Apparently the fundies have read their Lenin ("Better Fewer, But Better"). Comment #102528 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 26, 2006 07:46 PM (e) have you given up on McCain at this point? Well, I was never a fan to begin with. I'm a commie, remember? ;) The only chance of removing the fundies from the Republicrat Party, though, lies with the RINO's (Republicans In Name Only --- the fundie term for the "moderate" Republicrats who don't like them). McCain, Guliani, Schwarzeneggar (or however the hell ya spell it). Of those, McCain seems to me to be the only one with any realistic shot at gaining real power within the party, a toehold from which to dislodge the fundies and take the party back. hmm, i guess the underlying question is: Does McCain's recent kowtowing to the religious right reflect a real policy bent on his part, or just lies to grab funding? Lies to get funding. He has no choice. either way, isn't it damaging enough? It certainly doesn't represent leadership on the issue that would be conducive to getting the current GOP from sucking fundy *ock, does it? It's the only realistic chance the Republicrats have to leverage the fundies out of the party. If the RINO's can't do it, then it simply won't get done. Whether they CAN do it, remains to be seen. If they can't, then I see them bolting the Republicrats and joining the Democans. Then, the Republicrats will truly be, through and through, God's Own Party. Wll it have to be the dems themselves that help lead the opposition party out of the wilderness created by the fundies?? Pffft. The Democans couldn't organize their way out of a wet paper bag. And they are too busy falling all over themselves trying to out-Republican the Republicans. The only thing that will remove the fundies from power is ... well ... for them to lose elections. And KEEP losing them. And for anti-fundies within the Republicrat Party, that means voting against the fundies EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT THE REPUBLICANS LOSE A LOT OF ELECTIONS. If the Republican rank-and-file keep voting for the fundie-backed candidates (because they jsut can't hold their nose and vote for the Democans), then the fundies will keep winning and they will NEVER GO AWAY. Want to take your party back? Then vote against the fundies. **No matter what**. It's your only choice. And no, before anyone gets their partisan panties all in a bunch, I am not a Democan. Indeed, as my pet names for the two parties indicate, I can barely tell the difference between them --- except one. The Democans tell the fundies to go to hell. The Republicrats don't. Comment #102746 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 27, 2006 09:41 AM (e) McCain has failed. period. That is indeed more than a possibility. The RINO's, alas, are the only non-fundie power base (or potential power base) remaining within the Republicrat Party. If they fail to dislodge the fundies, then inevitably the RINO's will either leave voluntarily or (more likely) be forced out by the fundie party leadership. At that point, the Republicrat Party becomes totally lost, totally dominated forever by the fundies. It will truly be Hezballah, the Party of God. And we all know where *that* leads .... The Democans, meanwhile, should just adopt the jellyfish as their party symbol. I have little hope that EITHER political party will stop the creep to fundie fascism. My only hope is that "we the people" will stop it, ourselves. By any method that becomes necessary. Comment #95228 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 6, 2006 06:22 PM (e) Those of us who consider ourselves pro-evolution conservatives are quite well aware of, and are disgusted by, the influence of the religious right on the GOP. And, more importantly, are in a position to actually do something about it, unlike the Democans. McCain is our best chance to remove the fundies from their position of dominance. I suggest we take it. Comment #95330 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 7, 2006 07:24 AM (e) I think George Bush is the worst president in the history of this country and anyone who voted him for was clueless or deluded. Just my opinion. Couldn't agree more. Now, you can boo hoo hoo hoo about that or you can stop for a second and realize that half the country agrees with me and the an overwhelming majority of the country thinks the guy stinnks. Indeed, two-thirds of more of the country (1) disagrees with the Gulf War, and (2) disagrees with the illegal warrantless use of wiretaps. Yet, when some brave soul introduced a measure into Congres to censure Bush for it --- not impeach him, not arrest him, just CENSURE him, just say "he shouldn't have done that" ---- no one, absolutely no one at all, Democan or Republicrat, had the balls to say so out loud. Half the country, simply isn't being represented at all. By anybody. The GOP in 2006 is virtually synonymous with the "religious right." The McCain wing has been the only force to challenge the domination of the fundies in the Republicrat Party and the government. Or even ATTEMPT to challenge it. The Democans haven't done diddley. They rolled over and played dead every time. They should adopt the jellyfish as their new party mascot. If your conservative and disgusted by the fundies then you're a typical DEMOCRAT. Alas, nobody being offered by the Democans is electable --- least of all Hillary Clinton. Quite aside from the fact that the Democans have done virtually nothing to distinguish themselves from the Republicrats. That leaves McCain. If we focus on the Democans in the next election, then we will lose. Again. We need to split the Republicrat Party and force it into internal civil war. The McCain wing can do that (indeed, it's the only hope to do that). We need to have the fundie nutters start COSTING the Republicrats elections. Until that happens, we will never be able to remove them from power. And the Democans have demonstrated that they are quite unable to do this on their own. They need the McCain wing. Comment #95332 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 7, 2006 07:28 AM (e) However small the chance, Lenny does have a point. McCaine HAS been rather wishy washy in his support of the far right. If you are a republican, this is your best chance to promote the dissolution of this political right-wing lovefest. I think that has about as much a chance of happening as Hillary being elected president, which is to say very small, but still possible. Small chance, yes. But currently the ONLY chance. And even if it fails this time, it lays the foundation for further growth and a bigger chance in the future. There is (and always has been) an anti-fundie faction in the Republicrat Party. It needs to be supported. Particularly since the Democans have proven themselves utterly impotent. So Ralph Nader won't get my protest vote this year. John McCain will. Comment #95407 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 7, 2006 05:37 PM (e) So I think McCain, is not the answer, but sadly no, I do not have a better answer. Neither do I. Which is why McCain is the answer. Comment #95409 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 7, 2006 05:46 PM (e) Honestly, this notion that McCain is going to get the GOP nod is silly. I'm not saying he won't, but it sure isn't inevitable. Given that the party apparatus is STILL doing everything it can to smear him in public (just follow Drudge and his hard on for dissing McCain), I think his chances of getting the nomination aren't so hot. Well, I couldn't care less if Daffy Duck got elected, as long as he helps to remove the fundies from power. (shrug) And of course, the very reason why McCain is getting so much opposition within the Republicrat Party is that the fundies don't want him, and vice versa. Given The Shrub's latest, uh, approval ratings, this election is the Democan's to lose. I sincerely HOPE that they discover a backbone somewhere deep inside them. But alas, I won't hold my breath waiting. Comment #95435 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 7, 2006 08:56 PM (e) The answer is no Republican at all. Well, good luck with that. (shrug) Me, I'd rather have McCain running against any Democan. That way, the fundies lose no matter what. Comment #99373 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 29, 2006 03:15 PM (e) There are a lot of Republicans on the same side as you on this issue. Hyperbole like "worst administration ever" doesn't help our common cause. Yes it does. Bush is firmly in bed with the fundies. As long as Bush is in power, the fundies are in power. And as long as the fundies are in power, creationism/ID can run rampant. Bush's fundamentalist ideological crusade is the primary reason WHY it is the worst administration ever. Republicrats who want to do something to stop the fundies, need to stop the fundie wing of the Republicrat Party that controls Bush (and who want to control Bush's replacement). McCain is one of the very few Republicrats who have spoken out against the domination of the party by the fundie nutters. So, vote McCain. If the next presidential race consists of McCain versus any Democan, the fundies lose no matter WHO wins. And that outcome benefits us all. As long as the Republicrats keep winning elections by supporting the fundies, they will continue to support the fundies. The only solution is to make the Republicrats LOSE elections if necessary, and KEEP losing them, until they repudiate the nutters. And before you get your partisan panties all in bunch, no, I am not a Democan. Not a Republicrat, either. Comment #99644 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 2, 2006 07:19 AM (e) I'd like to see your evidence that not a single leftist "Leftists"? We have "leftists" in the USA? Where? Ohhhh, they just mean "anti-fundies". who reads this blog noticed that some republicans are anti-ID. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, there is a large faction within the Republicrat Party who object to having their party hijacked by the fundie nutters. McCain is one of them, Schwarzenegger (or however hell ya spell it) is another. The fundies have already targeted them for removal, calling them RINO's (Republicans In Name Only). They need to be supported within the party. The RINO's are the only hope of removing the nutters from power within the Republicrat party. Until then, the GOP will remain "God's Own Party". Maybe they can change their name to "Hezballah" (which means the same thing). Comment #99816 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 2, 2006 05:53 PM (e) Lenny, you need to catch up. McCain is showing signs of getting into bed with the fundies. He HAS to, if he wants any chance of being elected. EVERY Republicrat candidate has to kiss fundie ass if they want to get elected. The fundies control the entire Party machinery. No candidate has any chance at all without, if not the support of the fundie wing, at least not its active opposition. But to think that the RINO's are friends of the fundies, is quite mistaken. And the fundies know it. Comment #88882 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 24, 2006 08:08 AM (e) It will be quite interesting to see what comes next. The fundies will be in retreat. Under Dubya, they had the best chance they ever WILL have of reaching their goals, and they couldn't do it. They controlled the White House, the Senate, the House, and the courts ---- and they STILL couldn't pass a single portion of their social agenda. The Democans will nominate Hillary Clinton, who is unelectable. So I think that leaves Republicrat McCain as our best hope ---- he has no love for the fundies. Here's hoping that the McCain-ites will finally be able to marginalize the fundie nuts within the Republicrat Party and reduce them to a screaming gesticulating crowd of ignored whackos. Comment #84793 Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 7, 2006 07:14 PM (e) IOW, Fletcher did nothing except pander to his political base, and the newly appointed republican state school board members will not adopt an ID policy. Well it *is* an election year, after all .... If you're a Republicrat and you want to get elected, you simply MUST kiss ass with the nutters so the contributions and votes keep coming. Just ask McCain. The guys who introduce these bills *know* that none of them will pass --- most of them won't even get out of committee. That isn't why they introduce them.

What's the matter Lenny? Cat got your glib tongue?

Lenny: Republicrat McCain [is] our best hope ---- he has no love for the fundies.

Consider that quote in the context of this image:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1393272/posts

I dunno, Lenny. I think you need to reformulate the Viking Piss so it includes some memory enhancers or maybe lay off the alcohol for a while.

Well, sorry that the formatting didn't come through on that.

What's the matter Lenny? Cat got your glib tongue?

Lenny

OK. Here is every statement I've ever made at PT regarding McCain.

Go ahead and flood the stage, creep.

Pathetic.

I just handed you your freaking ass, dude. I'm not surprised that you refuse to thank me or admit your mistakes. You're incapable of that, remember?

Read it all that quickly, did you . . . ?

Go ahead and flood the stage, creep.

So like it or not, Lenny, PZ's political strategy is working. That is why you can find Daily Kos and Eschaton linking to PZ's site and that is why those folks are not aware of your existence.

as to McCain...

RU, perhaps you might want to take a look at McCain's politcal position for the last 20 years, not the last 2?

not that it's particluarly topical here, but I'd be happy to start a thread over at ATBC where everybody interested could explore the political history of McCain to see just how much of a fundy he really is('nt).

I decry the fact that the political base for the republican party has become so heavily dependent upon the fundies, and I agree that leadership within that party is needed to wean them away from dependence on the fundies, but I really don't blame McCain for pandering to the right in order to gain political and financial support to make it through the primaries.

What president in recent memory (other than Carter, maybe) didn't pander to religious right in one fashion or another?

Clinton?

lol. nope. He played the religious like a shiny flute, at least to get elected.

there's the ideal, and then there's the reality.

again, I'd love to see McCain, or any republican running for pres., stand up to the fundies.

reality is, it's just not going to happen before the next primaries.

meh, strike that. carter at the time played to the fundies too.

He since has gone to battle against them though, in a big way.

again, another example of someone who's religion doesn't interfere with his ability to see the irrationality of the fundies, and fight against them.

Speaking of RINO's, check out:

http://www.gopwing.com/index.php

I really don't blame McCain for pandering to the right in order to gain political and financial support to make it through the primaries.

That's nice. What else won't you blame him for down the road, I wonder?

several times RU has hinted at blog popularity being correlated with successful political strategies.

If you have an argument with something I said, please quote what I said and address the point with a logical rebuttal. I know you can do it, Sir TJ.

And bear in mind that I do not agree that "blog popularity is correlated with successful political strategies" nor am I even sure what on Dog's Dirty Earth such a phrase actually means.

The blogs I referred to are *successful* for a reason. And I submit that the reason is not that they are clever at pulling punches in their attempt to appeal to the broadest possible base.

Of course, I didn't say that PZ wants to kick religious people out; I said he DRIVES religious people out. PZ doesn't mind if they stay --- as long as THEY don't mind him telling them occasionally that they are stupid and ignorant (shrug).

— Lenny

What president in recent memory (other than Carter, maybe) didn't pander to religious right in one fashion or another?

Clinton?

All this is irrelevant to the fact that Lenny promoted McCain as exceptional which is patently bogus.

But keep moving the goalpost. Then utter some glib defeatist garbage and shrug it off. That appears to work for some people.

RU, perhaps you might want to take a look at McCain's politcal position for the last 20 years, not the last 2?

you think that the best way to do this is to stifle the diversity of religious views (and views on religion) within our own group.

All this is irrelevant to the fact that Lenny promoted McCain as exceptional which is patently bogus.

And, given the faith I have in the Democan Party, I'm quite sure it will indeed find a way to lose it.

Or Lenny folks like you can just help them lose it by voting for a third party candidate in a closely contested state.

But you know that already, Lenny. It's just that admitting stupidity on your part isn't in any of your scripts. That's a pity, especially when your ass has been handed to you on a plate and preserved in the archives here for handy reference.

Try flooding the stage again, Lenny. I don't think your earlier attempt to evade the facts took up enough bandwidth.

earlier attempt to evade the facts

Lenny

Well, I invote everyone to read through all the comments I have ever made at this blog about McCain, instead of RU's carefully selected quote-mine.

Hilarious. I didn't "mine" your quote. I took your whole damn comment about McCain and his alleged lack of "love for the fundies" and posted it.

If you've made other comments that contradicted your earlier comment that just proves my point: your comments about political strategery are best ignored.

Of course, if you would simply admit that you effed up and you were wrong about "straight talkin'" John McCain, the "maverick," then we could proceed again.

I'm very forgiving. We all mistakes, Lenny (although voting for Nader in Florida in 2000 may take me a couple years to forget).

Where are Popper and Norm? They're pretty good howlers too, and I haven't had the opportunity to yank THEIR chains, yet . . . .

Well, RU, as I said before, I really am very sorry that you don't like how I voted.

No you're not. But you should be sorry that you voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 if you gave a crap about the status of science in this country.

But you're incapable of acknowledging the stupidity of that maneuver, it seems.

By the way, Lenny: if you expect people to avoid criticizing you for the way you vote, then keep your voting record to yourself. Duh.

Unless you believe that, like religion, we're all supposed to pretend that one's voting choices are sacred and beyond criticism.

And now cue up the Republican commenters here who will whine and complain that if I don't kiss their butts they are going to start supporting intelligent design instead of science.

They're pretty good howlers too, and I haven't had the opportunity to yank THEIR chains, yet

Talk about projecting, Lenny.

I yanked your chain and you were so full of crap that you ended up flooding the stage.

How quickly we forget ...

if you expect people to avoid criticizing you for the way you vote

I said I was sorry you didn't like it. I actually don't give a rat's patootie what ya think about it. (grin)

More dick-waving from Lenny. He doesn't care what I think. Except when he does and he feels the need to flood the stage with baloney rather than admit his mistakes.

(sigh)

Yeah, right, whatever.

carter at the time played to the fundies too.

.Is ID so dull and dead that you all have to turn on each other?

Lenny,

I really do not want to interfere with this all-out war of the atheists that I am enjoying, but I cannot resist correcting your misconception about extremism within Islam being just a tiny, loud minority. This dangerous misconception is shared by many other liberal minded folk who just cannot imagine how such unmitigated evil could get around so far and so fast.

Sure the actual jidahists are a minority within Islam. But if you consider their supportes and fans, the numbers swells into the millions. Fact - millions of Moslems demonstrated in Pakistan calling for Salman Rushdie's head. Fact - millions demonstrated and are boycotting Danish products all over the world for the "sin" perpetrated by a comic strip. Fact - millions joyfully celebrated the aftermath of 9/11 and the deaths of thousands of inocents. Fact - millions supported Zarqawi financially and consider him a martyr (as reported recently by interviewers in many countries). Fact - millions are taught in the "educational" system in Saudi Arabia to hate all non-muslims.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to be clear-headed about the threat facing civilization and not shilly-shally around the naked truth and be lulled into a false sense of security fostered by the erroneous impressions you are pushing.

Yes, Carol --- and they don't like Jews, either.

Time for yet another pointless religious war again, huh. How, again, does that help us .... . ?

— Lenny Flank

Sagan managed to largely avoid such direct attacks upon religion without censoring himself, mainly because he was too busy promoting science to engage in the negative activity of attacking religion.

It's Glen D! You forgot to mention whether you were convinced by Lenny's stage-flooding with respect to the New Hope, that "maverick" John McCain.

Also, I hope that everyone's favorite windbag and creationist coddler Professor Allen McNeill is reading this: he recently claimed over at the Cornell Creationists blog that Sagan was a deservedly forgotten footnote.

Creos will always find someone to exemplify their statements about "godless science", so let it be Myers, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. My real concern is that if others adopt their tactics

What "tactics" are you referring to, Glen?

Be specific. Other than speaking his opinion and justifying his arguments with plain English sentences, I'm not sure what other "tactics" Dawkins or Myers are guilty of promoting.

For what it's worth, Sagan was key in helping me understand why religions are crap and why they are so popular. I've no doubt that PZ Myers is performing the same service, probably on an international scale wherever his blog can be read.

But I'd like to hear more about these "tactics" you refer to. It all sounds so subversive and clever. What did you mean exactly?

It is not PZ's "beliefs" that are the problem. It is his intolerance. PZ doesn't just say "I don't believe in gods" (which, after all, *I* say too) --- he follows that up with "and you're stupid if you do".

— lenny

Glen

Isn't fratricide wonderful?

It's almost as wonderful as hyperbole.

Yes, Lenny loves to laugh at the "circular firing squad". This time he got hit in the crotch with some shrapnel --oops! That'll happen when one waves one's dick around.

For what it's worth, Sagan was key in helping me understand why religions are crap and why they are so popular. I've no doubt that PZ Myers is performing the same service, probably on an international scale wherever his blog can be read. But I'd like to hear more about these "tactics" you refer to. It all sounds so subversive and clever. What did you mean exactly?

Let's get it straight. Einstein, Sagan, and Gould, were not just "being political", please! They were RIGHT in not going out of their way to attack religion. People like Dawkins or PZ have it just WRONG. There is no such thing as fundamental clash of science and religion, as if science defined itself by opposition to religious concepts. The biggest problem is to think that the natural world revealed by science (for example, evolution or the big bang) disproves god and religion. Nonsense. To do so is to admit that science COULD actually prove the existence of god and the validity of religion (we just don't have the evidence), when the point is that invoking the supernatural is of no use to scientific explanation. Not understanding this point fuels a false, pernicious debate. In reality, science will NEVER confirm or refute god & religion, because they just do not intersect, and as a result, any one of them simply CANNOT be used discard the other. Anyone trying to do so will quickly meet huge roadblocks as he will actually pursue the irrational.

My goodness, so many dicks waving at me at once now . . . .

I really hate to say this, but *gulp* I have to agree with Carol --- just this once. Lenny, you are vastly underrating the threat that western civilization is facing from Islam. Islam, like any tiumphalist religion is more about politics than salvation. It is not just in the Middle East where this is going on. Infidels are killed daily in Muslim countries around the world. Try holding Christian church services in most Islamic states.

The only reason the Xtians in the west are not still running around burning people at the stake is because of the secularism brought forth by the Enlightenment. The Reconstuctionalists would cheerfully overthrow the Constitution and replace the law of man with the law of god (of course it would be their god).

Islam is driven to overthrow Dar al Harb (House of War, that's us) and replace it with Dar al Islam (House of Peace, that's them) by whatever means required, that's Jihad; which includes the slaughter of as many as it takes. In Europe they are succeeding using the jihad of population. Democracy, since involves humans making laws, is blasphemy against (put your gods name here) since it puts man's law above god's law.

Carol, while we are under a great threat from a very determined enemy --- they've been at this for 1400 years, more religion on our part is not the answer. More religion will only make things worse. Only more secularization and separation of religion from state can help. Otherwise we will slide into another Dark Age which will make the mediaeval one look like a picnic. Oh yeah Lenny, they do hate the Jews (and us) and have for 1400 years.

It's not Darwin vs. Christianity--Darwin was in fact a Christian until the day he died. He was an open-minded, inquisitive, thinking Christian and scientist. It's not either/or. It's both/and. He would have laughed at the idea that one can be a Christian or a scientist, but not both. Another False Dichotomy.

Thinking that a world devoid of religion will be much improved or "rational" is quite charmingly naïve.

Glen

The ruling parties only shift power between segments of the establishment, never giving us a real alternative.
"
Yeah, Gore or Bush. No "real" alternative.
Kerry or Bush. No "real" alternative.

Spoken like a true man.

Come on, Norm . . you want to pile on.

You KNOW you do . . . .

Come on . . . . . . .

I'd like to express my delight at the discussion offered here. This has been one of the most compelling threads I've seen at PT in a long time.

I especially impressed by PZ's restrained and respectful tone in the midst of some nasty comments being directed his way from Rev. Flank.

Regarding Rev. Flank, despite the fact I sense his rising unpopularity at PT, I would hope PT would continue to welcome his prolific participation as it adds to PT's unique character. I can't imagine a Panda's Thumb without a Lenny Flank.

Regarding Number's, I think PZ has a point about the poll numbers. I think Numbers has his numbers backward in interpreting the poll mentioned by nature. Although I think with the rise of ID, these numbers will eventually change. There are rising numbers of pro-ID biology majors in the nations schools.

I would expect those trends in general to continue. It is an interesting poll question, we will see.

I do not think however the dissent from Darwinism is rooted in pure politics, I think it is rooted in the serious challenges the theory is facing scientifically.

It is not wise to take that kind of stuff personally.

allow me to be the first to say this sal:

Nobody cares what you think.

I'd like to express my delight at the discussion offered here.

I agree with Sal. That wasn't even that hard to say. Except for the last sentence of course.

I think it is rooted in the serious challenges the theory is facing scientifically.

Rev. Flank

I really hate to say this, but *gulp* I have to agree with Carol

Uh oh, now the cuckoo clock is gonna be going after Glen . . . .

PLEASE tell him that you don't live in Florida . . . . .

Voting exists to gain support for the system, as if it really matters more than a little if the Tories or the Whigs win. The ruling parties only shift power between segments of the establishment, never giving us a real alternative.

Glen The ruling parties only shift power between segments of the establishment, never giving us a real alternative. " Yeah, Gore or Bush. No "real" alternative. Kerry or Bush. No "real" alternative. Spoken like a true man.

Uh oh, now the cuckoo clock is gonna be going after Glen ....

You can stop waving your dick, Lenny. It's over. You lost.

Comment #108260 Posted by Tom Curtis on June 25, 2006 02:34 PM (e) PZ has invited us to argue. I'm not interested, but I will comment just once. I am an atheist. I accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and find creationism abominable. I have also, for all intents and purposes retired from the creation/evolution debate. The reason is simple - fanatics like PZ. Lenny has quite sensibly pointed out that in a battle between creationism and science; making enemies of the two thirds of science supporters who happen also to be theists is absurd. It is a recipe for defeat; but that is not my main objection. My main objection is that I am interested in defending science against creationists. I am not interested in a battle against religion - and if you try to recruit me for one, you will, effectively have already lost me as an ally. My reaction to rants like PZ's is to say a plague on the houses of all fundamentalists - fundamentalist atheists like PZ just as much as fundamentalist Christians or Islamists.

shit

Come on, Norm . . you want to pile on. You KNOW you do .... Come on ...... .

Now Glen starts boo hoo hooing:

Too stupid to see the establishment for what it is, you resort to lying put-downs.

Oh tell us Wise Master, what is "the establishment"?

And then tell me where I lied, gasbag.

Uh oh, now the cuckoo clock is gonna be going after Glen .... PLEASE tell him that you don't live in Florida .... .

That's one reason why I put in some good words for Lenny Flank, because he has roots in a time and a movement that actually wanted to change the system, and not simply to take it over for themselves, as the boomers eventually did.

Nah, I'm blue state, Washington.

It's not enough to get the morons off your back for aiming for real change, but at least they can't blame me de facto for the mess that Bush graced us with.

Where's Popper? He's late to the party . . . .

normdoering,

Hey, are you the Norm Doering who visit our humble IDEA meeting in February when Caroline Crocker spoke?

Sal

Thinking that a world devoid of religion will be much improved or "rational" is quite charmingly naïve.

surrender monkey

are you the Norm Doering who visit our humble IDEA meeting in February when Caroline Crocker spoke?

Ask the millions of slaughtered people that religion is directly responsible for.

Come on everyone, all at once now:

"Religion is stupid !! Religion is stupid !!!"

Hey, you in the back, a little louder. Be proud, for pete's sake.

You guys are all about fighting and nothing about thinking. Most of you are not really interested in evolution but as a tool to fight religion. That is why the truly evoutionary posts get almost no comments, and thats why you wander off so easily into fighting about politics, who voted for who or whatever stupid detail of contingency. Evolution is not your field, thpugh tyhat would be the hope for "the panda's thumb". You guys are not even able to make good arguments about social sciences. Your only field is fighting. You guys dont want to hear your debate is useless, even if its true. Yoo just want ot figure out who is winning. And who cares? Who's watching that matters? Keep on playing the three stooges, "american intellectuals"

I'd like to express my delight at the discussion offered here. This has been one of the most compelling threads I've seen at PT in a long time.

I especially impressed by PZ's restrained and respectful tone in the midst of some nasty comments being directed his way from Rev. Flank.

Regarding Rev. Flank, despite the fact I sense his rising unpopularity at PT, I would hope PT would continue to welcome his prolific participation as it adds to PT's unique character. I can't imagine a Panda's Thumb without a Lenny Flank.

Regarding Number's, I think PZ has a point about the poll numbers. I think Numbers has his numbers backward in interpreting the poll mentioned by nature. Although I think with the rise of ID, these numbers will eventually change. There are rising numbers of pro-ID biology majors in the nations schools.

I would expect those trends in general to continue. It is an interesting poll question, we will see.

I do not think however the dissent from Darwinism is rooted in pure politics, I think it is rooted in the serious challenges the theory is facing scientifically.

You guys are all about fighting and nothing about thinking. Most of you are not really interested in evolution but as a tool to fight religion. That is why the truly evoutionary posts get almost no comments, and thats why you wander off so easily into fighting about politics, who voted for who or whatever stupid detail of contingency. Evolution is not your field, thpugh tyhat would be the hope for "the panda's thumb". You guys are not even able to make good arguments about social sciences. Your only field is fighting. You guys dont want to hear your debate is useless, even if its true. Yoo just want ot figure out who is winning. And who cares? Who's watching that matters? Keep on playing the three stooges, "american intellectuals"

Clouser, "Fact - millions are taught in the "educational" system in Saudi Arabia to hate all non-muslims. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We need to be clear-headed about the threat facing civilization and not shilly-shally around the naked truth and be lulled into a false sense of security fostered by the erroneous impressions you are pushing."

Frank, "Yes, Carol ---- and they don't like Jews, either."

As a metacomment on this brouhaha, I'll offer the following remark by Freeman Dyson, from a recent issue of the New York Review of Books:

"There are two kinds of atheists, ordinary atheists who do not believe in God and passionate atheists who consider God to be their personal enemy."

Btw, Lenny, John Kenneth Galbraith also writes similar things about the "freedom" to vote, though he's more inclined to point out what I did, the reason commies made people vote, so they'd be invested in the system.

Carol forgot to mention the Taliban were from Pakistan, and funded by the Republican USA CIA

They want us to "play nice" with global warming deniers, HIV deniers, species extinction deniers, ozone depletion deniers, professional antiscience huxters and con-men.

There can be no doubt what so ever that the Republican Party and its base have abandoned the Constitution (particularly the First Amendment) and are actively attacking freedom, science and reason itself.

[I do not think however the dissent from Darwinism is rooted in pure politics, I think it is rooted in the serious challenges the theory is facing scientifically.]

So, where are all these so-called 'serious challenges'?

These swine and their supporters like Gross, Krebs, Brayton, and Sandefur have no supportive role to play. They are the party of fanatics and death. They are the faults in the foundations, and a probable back channel source to our enemies. They can not be trusted.

Red Mann,

"I really hate to say this, but *gulp* I have to agree with Carol --- just this once."

Everyone here either agrees with me or will eventually agree with me, on everything I say, it is just a matter of time. I know this because common sense and the truth ultimately emerge victorious.

I am not sure what exactly you mean by "more religion" being or not being the answer. Whatever one thinks about the veracity of any particular religion, every religion has in fact become an instrument in the hands of human beings, to use for good or evil. It all depends on what we make of it. So far, in my opinion, the overall record of all religion on earth has been very decidedly negative. But certain religions and their adherants have a much better record than others. One religion in particular stands out in this regard.

Since we cannot stamp out religion, no matter how hard PZ tries, the alternative is to change the instrumentation. We need to teach and preach, yes in the public schools, a religion of tolerance, ethical behavior, respect for human rights and understanding of human limitations, humility, and the limits of science AND religion, among others.

We begin by making an example on this thread of not insulting each other. Folks are getting downright testy here. It's the wrong direction to take, friends.

Tim Sandefur [works] for these pigs and earns his living working to clear cut forests and eliminate protection of endangered species. Ed Brayton is his self-professed "libritarina" soul mate.

"I'm a lumberjack, yessirree ..."

One religion in particular stands out in this regard.

We begin by making an example on this thread of not insulting each other. Folks are getting downright testy here. It's the wrong direction to take, friends.

Gary,

There is no such thing as the "Republican USA" or the "Republican CIA". There is only the USA and the CIA.

Gary,

"....works for these .... and earns his living working to clear cut forests and eliminate protection of endangered species. ...... is his self-professed "libritarina" soul mate."

So? All this is perfectly justified by evolution. We humans are a species and we are more "fit" than those lowly creatures in the forest. We eliminate them and we survive. It's the way of the world, been going on for billions of years and will continue for billions more. Right? You reap what you sow!

Gee, Carol, I didn't think you were THAT stupid.

It's because of that whole "dominion over the earth" thingie. God wants us to kill things. After all, we're the Chosen Ones.

There is only the USA and the CIA.

Everyone here either agrees with me or will eventually agree with me, on everything I say, it is just a matter of time.

I know this because common sense and the truth ultimately emerge victorious.

See, all we need to instantly unify ourselves is a good target from the other side. . . . .

Thanks, Carol.

Want to borrow my asbestos underwear?

Hey, Lenny, I'm just taking your own advice;

you don't like siding with the nutters, right?

that's what the real issue is, it's psychology that makes a fundy, not religion; the religion just provides an acceptable framework for them to spin out of control.

and Carol represents that psychology as well as any fundy I've seen.

well, short of AFDave over on ATBC.

still surprised you haven't paid a visit to that looney bin yet.

I'm sure you'd get a kick out of ol Dave.

I'm sure you'd get a kick out of ol Dave.

Hey, Lenny, I'm just taking your own advice

I find this thread personally disgusting. The vast majority of posters should be ashamed of yourselves. I have seen better behavior and more intelligent discourse from the kindergarten level classes that occasionally toured the campus where I used to work.

You have all managed to convince me of only one thing - that no matter which side wins, we have all lost regardless if this is how people think and interact with each other.

I will not be visiting this site again nor, I think, fighting this battle.

You know, I've been pretty much sitting here on the sidelines watching two posters for whom I have a great deal of respect absolutely bash each other with verbal baseball bats. It's been a bit distressing.

I see where the Reverend Doctor is coming from. Right now, we really do need the non-fundamentalist theists in our cause. They're kinda silly, but as long as they're not trying to put their silliness into my kids' classrooms, I guess I can live with that.

But I also see where PZ is coming from. We shouldn't have to tip-toe and pander to silly ideas like sky-daddys, nor should it be necessary to coddle the folks who believe in the toothfairy all the damned time.

So I'm sitting here somewhere in the middle, pretty much accepting that we'll have to coddle the silly people for a while longer, until they out grow their need for such things,

And Carol opens her yap.

Myahhh feed 'em to the lions.

I just have one thing to ask AD:

does that stand for "attention deficit"?

Would the candidates in the ritual disembowelment sideshow please clean up their entrails before the main event!

Would the candidates in the ritual disembowelment sideshow please clean up their entrails before the main event!

That's just offal.

I dunno, I found it interintestin'

I have discovered that I am as disgusted by Lenny Flank's bullshit "Rev." and "Dr." as I am by "Rev. Dr." Kent Hovind. There really is no difference between their false claims of achievement. Hovind had never earned a doctorate, nor to my knowledge has "Rev. Dr." Lenny. Lenny has even less claim for the title "Reverend." Even less than Hovind.

I earned my doctorate with great difficulty and physical and personal sacrifice thirty years ago. I demand that it is no longer debased by frauds like Flank and Hovind.

Mr. Flank, I am done with your false pretentions. You have not managed any academic achievement greater than Hovind. Your contributiions are not any greater than the creationists you attack.

Stop debasing honest work. Go away.

Glen D

And now I'm probably going to ignore you like the stupid and uneducated person that you are. There are people who are worth discussing things with, so why should I bother with someone who thinks that the two parties offer a choice worth taking?

This "argument" for tossing one's vote away was barely credible before the 2000 election. For someone to repeat it in 2006 with a heaping tablespoon of condescension on top is nothing short of bizarre.

But again: if you're a straight cowboy, it's a much easier argument to make.

Is Lyndon LaRouche running this year?

Lenny,

"It's because of that whole "dominion over the earth" thingie. God wants us to kill things. After all, we're the Chosen Ones."

If this is your understanding of the Biblical concept of "dominion" and "chosen" your "Rev." title must be a sham, as Gary says, and you ought to return the degree and stop advertizing yourself as such. For you know NOTHING of the Bible or religion, certainly nothing of any real substance. And if your claimed Rev. title is bogus it is likely that the same is true of your "Dr." title. I think these are bannable offenses on PT.

Carol Clouser

I think these are bannable offenses on PT.

My irony detector just shat a brick.

"My irony detector just shat a brick.

Posted by Kevin from nyc on June 24, 2006 07:28 PM (e) PZ I am ver y very disappointed to hear that you do not advocate to 1. threaten to shoot all the Christians, 2. call all religious people idiots, 3. suggest that we need to convert all the religious people to atheism, or 4. deny that religious people contribute to science. because you would have been 100% in the right to do so...

Comment #107983 Posted by Kevin from nyc on June 24, 2006 07:30 PM (e) oh and did you know that LENNY voted to torture people?

if your claimed Rev. title is bogus it is likely that the same is true of your "Dr." title. I think these are bannable offenses on PT.

Everyone here either agrees with me or will eventually agree with me, on everything I say, it is just a matter of time

I have discovered that I am as disgusted by Lenny Flank's bullshit "Rev." and "Dr." as I am by "Rev. Dr." Kent Hovind. There really is no difference between their false claims of achievement. Hovind had never earned a doctorate, nor to my knowledge has "Rev. Dr." Lenny. Lenny has even less claim for the title "Reverend." Even less than Hovind.

It was rather a silly thread, wasn't it.

And I'm sure it will be a long time before PZ picks another fight and starts another one like it.

Jack Krebs was a Republican County Chairman, a position I equate with a Gruppen Fürer.

Thanks, folks - I'll still be laughing this time tomorrow. Now to put you boys to bed or to get you up or whatever happens in your part of the world at this time - here's a little something from my site - the one where origins science gets a mention and monkeying is non gratia: drink this in and reeelax;

I sat and gazed into a pond
In whimsical and vacant mind;
Methought I saw a chemi-bond;
Organo-molecules, combined!

On Saturn's finest Titan moon;
At Timbucktoo, in Africkee;
Where'ere my whimsies lead me on;
So many little ponds, I see!

Ponds in ferment; lightning striking;
Organic molecules are combining!
Oh! These things I am not liking!
When, lo! Before my widened eyes,
Ten slimey ninja turtles rise!
And now - who says there's no surprises?
Dread Franckenstein, himself, arises!

Substituting certain people's names for terms such as "Franckenstein" or "Slimey Turtle" is permissible.

This poor attempt at rhyme is titled, Ode To A Warm Little Pond. I'm tempted to re-name it, Ode To A Page At TalkRecurring". Say it slowly, it should help with the sleep process. Sweet dreams!

Hey Heywood, you are blithering again.

No doubt about it, Jack, Gary *definitely* needs to switch to decaf.

A thought experiment:

If someone fed Carol to the lions, and the lion shat a brick, and a poet took some artistic license and called it "bullshit", how would that be translated from the original Hebrew by Judah Landa?

A. Lion Shit
B. Bull Shit
C. Carol Shit

and how much would it weigh on Titan?

Lenny has even less claim for the title "Reverend." Even less than Hovind.

For you know NOTHING of the Bible or religion, certainly nothing of any real substance

your "Rev." title must be a sham,

— Clouserbot

Man, I have no idea how I was dragged into this

F.L. are you a 'Rev Dr.'?
I'm glad you are enjoying intelligent people have a good old bar room brawl.

The only reason they are, is that ID is as dead as the Dodo and nobody likes fighting extinct bags of bones.

Or the likes of you and your fellow stupid moronic culture hackers. They hardly put up any resistance at all, pretty hopeless really. What are you going to do next time? Oh that's right whine about activist Judges.

I actually think it's a pity ID isn't on it's way to the Supreme Court I could do with a good laugh, but you lost in Dover.

Remember?

Matt Young: You seemed to be saying that we shouldn't criticize the basis of someone's ethical system. "Who are [we] to argue ..." and all. One criticizes important intellectual mistakes regardless of where they occur, which is not to say at every given time.

Tom Curtis: My point (and I believe it to be PZ's and a few others') is that the "science supporters" on the theist side are continually making exceptions for their pet beliefs - e.g. Pope John Paul II denying the evolution of psychological characteristics of humans. We should criticize these antiscientific attitudes also, because they also lead to trouble. Now, this is not to say they are nearly as noxious as out right denial of evolution simplicter, or of "macroevolution", but that only says that error comes in degrees.

Glen Davidson wrote: "political, not scientific at all" or words to that effect. Lenny's mistake is assuming that the political should not be informed by scientific research, I think. My greatest issue in all of this is the bootstrapping problem - how do you educate people to think critically without the relevant infrastructure in place, and how do you build that without having enough critical thinkers to begin with.

Incidentally, this bit about whether PZ considers the religious stupid reminds me about what an Inuit friend asked me what I thought of the depiction of her kin after I saw Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner. I said that they were portrayed as intelligent, resourceful, and deeply superstitious - and she agreed with that assessment. One can be both intelligent and superstitious - some say certain sorts of intelligent people are more prone to superstition because of the danger of self-rationalization. Perhaps that is at work in certain forms of religion in general.

We need to teach and preach, yes in the public schools, a religion of tolerance, ethical behavior, respect for human rights and understanding of human limitations, humility, and the limits of science AND religion, among others.

We begin by making an example on this thread of not insulting each other. Folks are getting downright testy here. It's the wrong direction to take, friends.

This "argument" for tossing one's vote away was barely credible before the 2000 election. For someone to repeat it in 2006 with a heaping tablespoon of condescension on top is nothing short of bizarre.

"political, not scientific at all" or words to that effect.

— Keith Douglas

I do get somewhat tired of Flank telling us that anti-evolution is merely political, not scientific at all. For, even though that is the case, I think that boosting science is the best thing we can do, letting religion decline as the result of positive evidence and the rational mindset. PZ can say and write anything he likes, of course, but I have yet to see that his anti-religion posts do anything other than gratify atheists and antagonize religious folk. He seems to be pleasing the secular core, while doing little to change minds. In that sense, of course, Lenny is right to point out that anti-evolution is political, since PZ evidences no skill at massaging the "polis". In the sense of suggesting that science arguments don't matter, they're crucial to knocking the wind out of Dembski and DaveTard, though it doesn't stop them at all (but so what if RMagruder is impressed? No one intelligent and learned will be, and I don't know how to prevent dunces from liking anti-science). Numbers, however, faults people who really don't need to be faulted. Dawkins goes out of his way to antagonize the religious, while Sagan did not. True, he didn't mince words, but read his books and watch his programs, he does not attack religion as either Dawkins or Myers does. He was more politic than both of those, and Dennett, while generally demonstrating well the superiority of science.

Ben,

"What about telling a bald-faced lie in your very first post on PT? Is that a bannable offense Carol? Or does Judah Landa have a gloss on the word "lie" that allows you to pretend that telling us you just stumbled across his book on Amazon, when in fact you were employed by the publisher of that book---him---is not a lie?"

Your repeating this canard is a grand lie in itself and you know it, liar. I never lied in any post here, from my first to the last. I never said that I "just stumbled across" Landa's book on Amazon, I said that I "found" it there (sometime in the past), which was and is the truth. I repeat, I IN FACT FOUND that book on Amazon one nice day. And the point at the time was that so can you, if interested. The only valid criticism some folks here made at the time was that in the interest of the doctrine of "full disclosure" I should have disclosed, in advance, my relationship with the book before saying anything about it. Despite the fact that that is ia questionable ethical or legal requirement in this case, since I have no direct financial interest in the book, I accepted that criticism.

Now we will see if you, BEN THE LIAR, will be as forthcoming as I was and apologize for your baseless accusation.

Lou,

"I too am an ordained minister. I've even performed two weddings."

Wow. You have performed two weddings! Congratulations! And you probably are as much a minister as Lenny. Have you, Lenny, performed any weddings?

More importantly, your performing two weddings clearly demonstrated your acute understanding of the nuiances and subtleties of Biblical and religious doctrine, equal to Lenny's demonstrated understanding of the concept of "dominion". I am duly impressed.

...Or is there a certain number of ministerial acts one must accomlish? I too am an ordained minister. I've even performed two weddings...

Comment #108376 Posted by Carol Clouser on June 25, 2006 08:22 PM (e) Red Mann, "I really hate to say this, but *gulp* I have to agree with Carol --- just this once." Everyone here either agrees with me or will eventually agree with me, on everything I say, it is just a matter of time. I know this because common sense and the truth ultimately emerge victorious.

Now we will see if you, BEN THE LIAR, will be as forthcoming as I was and apologize for your baseless accusation.

Lenny has even less claim for the title "Reverend." Even less than Hovind.

Not a chance. You 'found that book on Amazon one nice day' the same way I just happen to "find" my desk when I walk into my office each day---by knowing exactly where it is and going there on purpose. You wanted to create the impression that you'd stumbled across Landa's eternal truths by chance and simply found them too compelling to ignore, the same way you, once there, "reviewed" the book by posting a puff piece on it sans disclosure that you had a role in publishing the book and hence a stake in it selling (much like I have a stake in my company's products selling---I don't get a cut, but if they don't sell I don't have a job). Of course it doesn't sell, despite your tirebrainless efforts here and no doubt elsewhere, and despite your own inability to understand the Amazon statistics which demonstrate this fact. You don't seem to be able to locate a clue, but at least you seem to have found your caps lock key. And now back to Carol "Everything-in-the-Bible-is-Literally-True-Except-the-Stuff-I-say-Isn't-Literal-All-According-to-My-Own-Personal-Singular-Definition-of-Each-Individual-Word" Clouser's irrelevant judgements on who is rightly a "reverend" and who isn't...

This thread has been interesting to me. I am a tad amazed at some of the attacks on "Lenny".

IMO Lenny makes some of the best arguments against ID/Creationism I have read here.

His questions to creationist posters have never been answered by an ID/Creationist supporter IIRC. Isn't that a good thing?

Attacking his voting is foolish. Why should anyone vote for somebody they do not like? The 2 party argument does not wash. It makes a mockery of the idea of democracy. I hardly ever vote now. Not because I don't care, because nobody represents my views.

Attacking his scientific credentials. Why? His posts are normally informative or just fun.

Oh, Registered User, your attacks just sound spite-full. As a fairly neutral observer, you did not "hand him his ass on a plate" you sounded like a quote miner who called "foul" when Lenny showed his entire posts.

C'mon Jack, this is Darwinism at its comedic best. PT should charge admission for this kind of floor show. Don'tcha want your fair share of the limelight?

More importantly, your performing two weddings clearly demonstrated your acute understanding of the nuiances and subtleties of Biblical and religious doctrine, equal to Lenny's demonstrated understanding of the concept of "dominion". I am duly impressed.

I just want to toss in my two cents in support of Lenny, one of the clearest and most effective voices out there.

Oh god, that was a good read. I laughed out loud more than a few times.

Lenny, where can I get those mail order "Rev Dr" degrees? Oh boy...that was some good stuff. Whew...

Some people taking themselves way too fucking seriously.

Have you, Lenny, performed any weddings?

Lenny, where can I get those mail order "Rev Dr" degrees?

the difference between PT and UD is we actually KNOW when we're putting on a show

C'mon Jack, this is Darwinism at its comedic best. PT should charge admission for this kind of floor show. Don'tcha want your fair share of the limelight?

P.S., re an earlier comment: I hope Gary Hurd reads my remark about not ever holding any kind of political office, much less a Republic whatever he said I'd held. I'd just like to set the record straight with him, because I don't like being the target of unwarranted hostility based on factually incorrect information.

And another P.S. to Gary, who praises Pedro Irigonegaray's "careful questioning" at the Kansas "science hearings": I was Pedro's assistant and at least co-responsible for that questioning. Pedro and I were in contact throughout the questioning by various wireless means, and we colloborated on what to ask and what not to ask - another "for the record".

So, now we've established that PZ doesn't like me, B Spitzer doesn't like PZ, Kevin from NYC doesn't like me (and is a cuckoo clock), Alexander doesn't like PZ, Registered User doesn't like me, Norm doesn't like me, Popper doesn't like me either but he never showed up at the party, Registered User doesn't like Glen, nobody likes Sal, nobody likes Carol, and Gary doesn't like anybody.

I, of course, still love everyone. :>

Now then, is there anyone else out there who doesn't like someone here, and wants to tell the whole world all about it? Here's your chance . . . .

I'm betting it's a long long long time before PZ or anyone else makes the attempt to pick a similar fight again.

— lenny

I abhor FL and Don M.

I hate fire ants.

..and dontchya just hate it when...

The only reason they are, is that ID is as dead as the Dodo and nobody likes fighting extinct bags of bones.

I don't like AFDave.

I also don't like Carol the lying, pandering book publisher, but you already mentioned that.

Hmmm...

Dubya comes to mind.

Oh, and hyenas. They torture zebras.

And spiders. They do bad things to defenseless flies. (just kidding PZ, I LOVE spiders)

And Priors of the Ori. They're just dumb.

And you know that one guy on that one TV commercial? I don't like him either.

And Howie Ahmawhatsits. He's a bonehead.

I am of course ignoring PZ's dick-waving.

And another P.S. to Gary, who praises Pedro Irigonegaray's "careful questioning" at the Kansas "science hearings": I was Pedro's assistant and at least co-responsible for that questioning.

fyi lenny, for future reference, saying you're ignoring somebody isn't exactly ignoring them.

Well, I'd like to say that PZ, along Carl Zimmer, has what is probably one of the two best blogs in all the internet in providing well informed hot evolutionary news, and I really appreciate that. Moreover he is more onto evo-devo than Carl, and thats very cool. It is this that makes me want to engage specially HIM in conversation (rather uselessly, Im afraid he is too busy getting angry and figthting his enemies). Otherwise, really, I would not even care. I think its too bad he delivers good science alongside a majority of sensationalist, simplistic content, insulting even science-friendly religious people. He gives too much credit to those who want to use religion to refute science, he should only poitn out that that is a mistake but he makes thing symmetrically wrong by saying that science refutes religion.
Then again, it is possible he is too entrenched in the lifestyle and is not interested in ever changing.

fyi lenny, for future reference, saying you're ignoring somebody isn't exactly ignoring them.

OOOOO! GoP just insulted the muppets. He just made the list. He's a butthead.

Just in case anyone was wonderin'.

Matt Young: You seemed to be saying that we shouldn't criticize the basis of someone's ethical system. "Who are [we] to argue ..." and all. One criticizes important intellectual mistakes regardless of where they occur, which is not to say at every given time.

So, now we've established that PZ doesn't like me, B Spitzer doesn't like PZ, Kevin from NYC doesn't like me (and is a cuckoo clock), Alexander doesn't like PZ, Registered User doesn't like me, Norm doesn't like me, Popper doesn't like me either but he never showed up at the party, Registered User doesn't like Glen, nobody likes Sal, nobody likes Carol, and Gary doesn't like anybody. I, of course, still love everyone. :> Now then, is there anyone else out there who doesn't like someone here, and wants to tell the whole world all about it? Here's your chance ....

I abhor FL and Don M. I hate fire ants...and dontchya just hate it when...

I don't like AFDave. I also don't like Carol the lying, pandering book publisher, but you already mentioned that. Hmmm... Dubya comes to mind. Oh, and hyenas. They torture zebras. And spiders. They do bad things to defenseless flies. (just kidding PZ, I LOVE spiders) And Priors of the Ori. They're just dumb. And you know that one guy on that one TV commercial? I don't like him either. And Howie Ahmawhatsits. He's a bonehead.

We love you Pizza Guy!!! And Mrs. Pizza Guy...eh Mrs. Pizza, too.

But Ghost of Paley is still a butthead.

I, of course, still love everyone. :)

Fortunately for Pizza Woman and myself, almost everybody likes pizza!!!

OK, group hug. Everyone gather round . . . .

Come on over here PZ, ya big lug. . . . .

It'll probably get lost in the comments here, but I wasn't sure where else to stick this.

There's a great article over at Stanford Medicine Magazine on Evolution and the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax. Seems well laid out, well supported and argued. The comments are pretty sad, though. Even our old friend Larry Farfarman spouted his usual claptrap.

(sigh)

Anyways, check it out, it's a good read.

Oh, and Hat tip goes to Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy for the link on that.

So, now we've established that PZ doesn't like me, B Spitzer doesn't like PZ, Kevin from NYC doesn't like me (and is a cuckoo clock).

— Lenny

Right. Is that all out of everybody's system? Yes, yes. You over in the corner? Yes, no? Still some vestige of resentment? Spit it out man. That's better.

PZ AND Lenny - we still love ya both. Now focus on the common goal and keep the brawling for the ring at ATBC.

It was fun though.

What a pointless waste of time.

Gentlemen, can we get off this thread and on to news about new discoveries and/or the political attack (posing as religion) that we must continue to expose?

Thanks, both of you, for your great PT contributions in the past. Can we have some new ones now...please?

- K.

What? You didn't get the memo? New discoveries are unimportant. Science is irrelevant. This is a political fight, so we're going to turn PT over to the lawyers.

Stop it PZ, or I'll send you to your room!

Popper doesn't like me either

What a pointless waste of time.

Im afraid [PZ] is too busy getting angry and figthting his enemies

Ahem....

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

So should people just let monsters hijack their threads?

You only get angry about lies if you think they are believable.
When people insist on pushing literal interpretation of the details of their religions on science, of course evidence is relevant, and will effectively prove them wrong. But science will never prove or disprove god. Actually, when you wrongly say evolution means all religion is nonsense, some people will inmediatley feel there is something fishy in such a wholesale denial, even if only because they have had positive experiences through religion. So you practically invite them to think "This person looks like he only wants to deny religon. Are all evolutionists like this? Maybe all that evolution thing is BS". Thye will naturally reject evolution if you falsely equate it with godlessnes.
Therefore you fuel the very problem you moan about so much. AND it is only "their" fault.. why? Becasue they are... "stupid". Veeeery nice.

Hijack?
PZ if I understand him, was miffed that his hard (science) work is compared to the low art of Politics, while he stooped to add insult to injury.

Lenny, I imagine, was cheered by Theists who accept science and would like to keep their deeply held beliefs apart from cold reality.

Funny game, politics, you make the rules up as you go along.

In any case, to vaguely quote some American revolutionary fighting the redcoats (and losing).

"We do not have to win any battles, the people will decide who have won"

So if the Viet Kong had pissed off all their support base would they still have won? I think not.

Being right is much better with icing on top.

Lenny

Registered User doesn't like me, ... Registered User doesn't like Glen

Yo Lenny I still like you. I am only disappointed you didn't cop to your McCain promoting baloney. Admit error! Admit error! It's not a big deal.

As for Glen, he's a self-important windbag and a shameless blogwhore but hardly the worse offender in either category. I also agree with much of what he says but his reaction when I called him on his Democrats=Republicans bullcrap was beyond childish.

I don't like "the system" either. But until I know that I've got an army behind me to execute the coup, I'm opting to change the system from within, Ebola style.

If you guys go around saying "science has proven there is no god" then you must specifiy what scientific evidence would have proven the alternative hypothesis, that there IS a god. As simple as that.

Yep. We're a room full of highly motivated well-trained big-game hunters armed with large-caliber weapons, who suddenly find themselves without a live target. So we begin to fidget a bit, glance sideways at the person next to us and say, "ya know, I never *did* like the way that guy looks at me ...." Blam blam blam.

k.e.,

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you - Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146"

The Talmud said it much more poignantly about 1500 years before Nietzsche. "He who wrestles with a filty one, becomes filty like him."

Ben,

"Not a chance."

Why am I not surprized?

"You 'found that book on Amazon one nice day' the same way I just happen to "find" my desk when I walk into my office each day---by knowing exactly where it is and going there on purpose."

I certainly knew where to look on Amazon. But I didn't put it there and therefore could not know that it was there. Therefore?

"You wanted to create the impression that you'd stumbled across Landa's eternal truths by chance and simply found them too compelling to ignore,"

Now you are reading my mind. If words can be interpreted in a variety of ways, some negative and others not so, the general procedure for decent folk is to give the person the benefit of the doubt and interpret positively. Or ask a direct question. But you are just interested in lying. I have no doubt that had the book I "found" on Amazon been in total agreement with your views, you would have been inclined to interpret positively.

"the same way you, once there, "reviewed" the book by posting a puff piece on it sans disclosure that you had a role in publishing the book and hence a stake in it selling (much like I have a stake in my company's products selling---I don't get a cut, but if they don't sell I don't have a job)."

Only the author and publisher have a stake in a particular book. I am not even a steady employee of the publisher, but a freelance editor currently working on certain projects for them and others. It is standard practice in the industry that editors remain in the background (unless the author chooses to thank them and then needs their permission). As a human being I am therefore entitled to express my opinion on Amazon just like anyone else, and this is within the boundaries of Amazon's rules. As a book's editor I am in an even better position to discuss its contents than most reviewers who don't even bother to thoroughly read the book they are reviewing.

There are major college science textbooks used around the country on which I served either as the sole editor or as a member of a team of editors, and nobody knows or should ever know.

"Of course it doesn't sell, despite your tirebrainless efforts here and no doubt elsewhere,"

To sell a book by talking about it on a blog like this is preposterous. The mere thought of it can only come from a moronic, ignorant brain such as yours. And the odds are that you do not earn in ten years what that book has already earned in the year since it appeared. And not by selling to PTers. And I still work for that publisher.

"and despite your own inability to understand the Amazon statistics which demonstrate this fact."

So YOU purport to tell ME how amazon statistics work. What a joke.

"You don't seem to be able to locate a clue, but at least you seem to have found your caps lock key."

Go ahead, throw insults. See my comment above to k.e.

Glen,

"It was one of those misleading statements that literalists often make. The thing is that what Carol wrote is not literally false, and the fact that it is more than a little misleading is not all that important to many literalists."

The key issue is, did I intend to mislead? You know my response.

May I also add that literalism is to be equated with honesty. To arbitrarily take problematic verses in the Bible, for example, and eviscerate their words from their ordinary meaning just to save them from conflict with the facts, is dishonest. Which is why I would rather abandon the Bible than adopt such an approach.

Lou,

You have gone from addressing me as "Dr. Clouser" to "ClouserBot". And you expect me to respond to your questions?

Carol.... old chinese saying

"Don't wrestle with pig, you get dirty, and pig enjoys it"

oink!!

Now you are reading my mind.

So YOU purport to tell ME how amazon statistics work. What a joke.

The key issue is, did I intend to mislead? You know my response.

Lou, You have gone from addressing me as "Dr. Clouser" to "ClouserBot". And you expect me to respond to your questions?

WOOOOOHOOOOOO! Post # 500! WOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Hey Popper, I *knew* you would show up, if I just waited long enough.

Bark for us, would you?

Maybe that will be good for another 500 posts.

ah Lenny... remind me NEVER to go hunting with you

I think those who have defended your tactics in this thread should be ashamed of themselves.

Yo Lenny I still like you.

If you guys go around saying "science has proven there is no god"...

— Alexander Vargas

AND it is only "their" fault.. why? Becasue they are... "stupid".

— Alexander Vargas

Fun thread. It's a shame it degenerated to the point it has.

Two friendly comments:

Lenny, I love your wit and prose dude, but you were way out of line here.

PZM, You're an intelligent man, you should have known where this was going.

Now, let's all wait for the next dumb statement from the Creationists so we can all be on the same side again.

PZM, You're an intelligent man, you should have known where this was going.

Out of curiosity, how long has the longest thread in PT history been? Maybe we can take this one all the way up to 666, with me and PZ both vying for that magic number.

He, uh, doesn't like me, in case you didn't know.

;)

Lou, You have gone from addressing me as "Dr. Clouser" to "ClouserBot".

— Dr. Clouserbot

Right, as is my duty as a synthetic chemist, it's time to pour diethyl ether on the flames followed by some acetic acid (which burns nice and hot) and watch the thread reignite.

Of course, since y'all have already started the love in, I might just grease on up and join in. Hell, it's lunchtime, I've had a quadruple espresso and my chemistry is going well, who know's where this will take us?

1. PZ et al are totally 100% correct. There is too much pandering to religion in general in an automatic "respect" kind of way.

2. Lenny et al totally 100% correct. There is FAR too much name calling and "stupid theist" "atheist baby rapist" bullshyte from both "sides" in this equation.

Are these positions mutually exclusive?

Nope.

However it would appear that neither camp is guilty of the rampant strawmen of which the other camp accuses them, and is busy beating the shit out of. I know all our weapons are hanging about and fully loaded (to use someone else's analogy) but dudes, the bar's this way, guns are left in the rack outside. Grab a cold one and tell lies about the size of game you hunt.

I am an atheist. I disagree that theism is in any technical sense rational (it isn't). It *might* be rational in a colloquial sense under certain given circumstances (an unnecessarily extreme e.g. if you are a heathen in a society of people who perform human sacrifices on heathens, then claim you believe. A LOT!). I think that belief in the "supernatural" (whatvever that might be) is deluded or at best misguided. I think that belief for belief's sake is a massive engine of societal problems. I deplore the "magical thinking" that infects us humans (myself included) on occasion. And guess what? So fuhucking what! I am also capable of admitting a plurality of viewpoints, just like PZ and Lenny have both said they are, VERY clearly. My "ideal society", my utopia, does NOT contain people of just one "group". That would be exceedingly dull. I know the two gents mentioned agree.

YES we should try to improve basic education so we can teach kids HOW to think, not just to rote memorise factoids and vomit them onto an exam paper. YES we should start critical thinking classes a la Sagan. We need the Sagans for one job, we need the Millers for another and we need the Dawkins for another. Whatever you think of each of them and their tactics they appeal to some and not to others. A modern army doen't only have infantrymen in it. Different tools for different jobs and all that.

I can see how some theistic evolutionists would be upset by Dawkins'/PZ's/my comments. So guess what, I don't ram these comments down their throats unless they damned well need it! And we all have to admit that on occasion there are those that do need it. We also only ask for the same courtesy, don't ram your theism down our throats. Be EQUALLY unramming! Don't preference one group over another in this matter.

What PZ is saying VERY clearly is that we atheists/agnostics/secularists shouldn't be forced into the background so we don't scare the fawnlike, tender theists from the clearing. In fact I find such a view patronising to theists, and discriminatory to atheists etc. Where are the suggestions that theistic evolutionists should be silent about their faith so that the atheists don't skitter away like frightened bunnies?

Theistic evolutionists, or better in my opinion Deistic evolutionists are not my "enemies". Their religious views are simply irrelevant to the science. As are mine. What matters IS the science full stop. Science works for ANYONE. Gravity pulls on black and white, gay and straight, male and female, and atheist and theist in exactly the same manner. Not because I SAY so, but because I can DEMONSTRATE so. Nullius in verbia, anyone?

Those theists who apart from their theism have a technically rational world view are our friends. While it's a good idea not to piss off your friends, it's also a good idea to have honest and reasonable disagreements. Friends don't have to be homogenous. Not once have I seen PZ suggest that theists should shut up totally/be shot/ etc etc. All PZ wants is exactly what I want, an equal voice, and equal place at the table, and an opportunity to build a society on reason to the best of our abilities to do so. The people of whatever stripe who want to turn the world away from the ethical, political and above all scientific values of the Enlightenment are the one's we must resist. No one else.

I know that most of this is pie in the sky, an ideal to be striven towards but never achieved or achievable. Humans are believing machines. We are never going to be without the Dembskis, the Johnsons, the Falwells. There will always be demagogues that seek to exploit our natural limitations and fears to further their own ends. There is only one force that can minimise their effect: education.

While the creationists are fighting a purely political "hearts and mind" battle we also have to fight one. Of course the science is relevant, Lenny doesn't say differently. Like someone above mentioned the stack of papers that we're dropped in front of Behe at Dover were a bloody good illustration of what a dishonest/naughty little ball sack the man was being. What Lenny is very correctly saying is that the science battle was fought over a century ago, "we" won. End of story. The evidence is in, the fat lady has sung, and everyone is now in the bar with a gin and tonic. THAT is what we need to communicate. Science is far from irrelevant, it's our most potent weapon. All the spin, bluster, rhetoric and politicking we can muster is effectively equalled by that of the creationists, for they can do exactly the same. What we can do that they cannot is point to a huge mound of evidence and a proven track record of massive success. They don't have this, not one tiny shred of it. Granted they have prejudice on their side, but we have things vastly more powerful like reason, evidence, openness, honesty. We also can appeal to the profit motive. Psychics and creationists find no oil and cure no cancers. We do. For all the ills that our use of science as technology has brought us, think of the good it has brought too.

What we need to do now is also win "hearts and minds". Granted, the hearts and minds that matter, those of the scientists doing the work are already won. That's because we care about little things like evidence. To expect the general public of any nation to be able to grasp, or even care about, the detail of science is highly patronising. It's as if we are saying that if you don't comprehend or get passionate about this stuff then you aren't worth a dime. Now I KNOW no one is saying that, that's why I said "it's AS IF...".

What we need to do is show that under our big tent ANYONE is welcome, and always has been. We need to show science works for anyone (and we have, but people are born and people die, it's an ongoing job). We need a continuing process of demonstrating the power of reason by it's use.

So tactics ARE important, again no one is saying they're not. Endless rounds of "deluded theist" and "buttfucking atheist" don't do the job. I have no problem standing beside Miller and saying "Despite our differences, on THIS we agree, the evidence is in" and especially as long as Miller is willing to do the same.

What theistic evolutionists should NOT do is shush the atheistic evolutionists behind the curtain and tell us to shut up. We need to vocally celebrate the VAST amount we have in common as opposed to the few details we don't.

What atheistic evolutionists need to do is calmly debate the theism/atheism stuff as a very clearly seperate issue from the evolution/creationism pseudo-debate. Granted the theists of a certain stripe on the opposite team keep bringing up their chosen invisible buddy, but all we need to do is ask them how it is relevant. When they try the old atheist/materialist/communist/ reductionist bias bullpoopy, we whistle up our good chums from the theistic bench and vice versa.

Other than this, I am sick to death of all the strawmen flying about. Dudes, we NEED that straw. Donkeys like Dembski need something to feed on.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks (badly):

[In reference to creationists/IDCists]

I've never seen an issue so divisive. Some of my firends think these creationists are evil fucks. Some of my friends think they are annoying idiots.

Brothers, Sisters, can't we all come together and agree that they're annoying evil idiot fucks?

Louis

I can see how some theistic evolutionists would be upset by Dawkins'/PZ's/my comments.

That's an interesting summary, Louis, and I agree with most of what you say. However, you miss the lesson of this thread.

As you noted, I did not say theists are stupid, let alone that they should be shot -- I commented on a very poor article about Ron Numbers that associated religion with humanity, among other absurd gaffes. It's basically an anti-atheist article, and I criticized it for that.

So look what happened: the political brigade led by arch-idiot Lenny decides that criticizing the bigotry of a theist is the same as saying all Christians are stupid, and oh, no...the precious support of the theists is imperiled. They rushed to slime the unrepentant atheist who would dare argue that being an atheist does not make you inhuman.

I expected that would happen.

PT tries so hard to avoid antagonizing the sensitive (and entirely hypothetical) flowers of Christianity that it has become another haven of anti-secular bigotry. Hey, we don't make them ride in the back of the bus -- we pretend they don't exist and don't let them get on the bus at all unless they hide the color of their opinions, and we'll just make sure we've got a crowd of happy lily-white Christian folk front and center.

You want political? That's political. Christians aren't stupid. They can learn that atheists aren't planning to rape their babies if they're exposed to them, and I don't think the sensible, intelligent ones are going to run off and join the creationists because people with different religious beliefs are in the same tent with them. The ones who do run away aren't the ones we can persuade anyway. But the political mistake we make and that ninnies like Lenny promote is that the atheists are our terrible shame, they must be hidden away, and they must say only nice things about religious belief. The Lennies here work very, very hard to turn an asset into an embarrassment.

It's going to be very interesting in the fall. Dawkins' new book is going to be like a cannon fired into the apologists' chicken house -- there will be squawks and feathers flying everywhere. It's going to be great fun.

Dawkins is a threat because he is powerfully persuasive and so darned right. The only way to defeat him, as we see here in this thread, is to put words in his mouth that are false and will sufficiently antagonize the persuadable that they won't read him.

It's a POLITICAL fight, remember? That means we ignore the actual evidence and say whatever we feel like.

Matt Young: Fair enough. I consider the matter closed.

Oooops

3rd person alert!

PZ said PZ asserts

geez bring on Chekov.

lemmme buy you guys another round.

BTW Frau dSS if you got this far UD is not ANTWHERE near as amusing PT even on a BAD day!!!

F.L. go frig yourself. And Carol PLEASE go have a long hot bath and DONN'T call.
\
Ding!
next round

PZ, some people (a lot) call religious people stupid, others like you just substitute for "ignorant" or "irrational". Not a world of difference, huh?
You want to watch exactly how do you invoke "the evidence". Because you are so ill-mannered with religion, it does not seem to me you have any clarity at all that refuting intromissons of religion on science does not imply science can prove there is no god. You and Dawkins think there is "this inevitable clash" of religion and science. And now you go and say with a stiff face you've never mean to say that science disproves god??? Then why do you sneer at all religious people, even those who accept evolution? That is simply no good, and I don't mean for merely political reasons.

And "bright" Dawkins is silly, arrogant and wrong.

Bah! Chekov=Anton Chekhov ( a minimalist)
and more particularly his American counterpart
Raymond Carver
and his story about the fat guy who speaks about himself in the third person (the basis of which was a description by his waitress wife of her encounter with a customer).

Sorry to those living in a post literate age (NOT!)

Alexander Vargas what the Hell is wrong with you?

hi diddley ho there

Just because some really smart guys say "god" doesn't exist. Or God doesn't "exist" you get all hot and bothered.

What ever happened to "turn the other cheek".

AND don't moon me.

geez.

PZ said PZ asserts

— k.e.

And now you go and say with a stiff face you've never mean to say that science disproves god??? Then why do you sneer at all religious people, even those who accept evolution?

— Alexander Vargas

Myers thinks Flank is harming the cause because Flank refuses to agree that theists need to be lined up and shot

— DaveScot

And "bright" Dawkins is silly, arrogant and wrong.

Myers thinks Flank is harming the cause because Flank refuses to agree that theists need to be lined up and shot

Bugger!!

PZ I misread PT tries so hard to avoid antagonizing the sensitive

as

PZ tries so hard to avoid antagonizing the sensitive

And yes Down Under it is 10:30 PM and I am NOT sober.

SO humble apologies sir.

I do not however, take back my reference to Chekhov or Carver (Berlinski might be reading this) , I do take back any literal connection with you (PZ) though.

Cheers. (snicker)

You should have known I never try to avoid antagonizing the sensitive, so your interpretation made no sense.

Religion may hold that god is "true", but this does not imply an invasion contrary to science, nor does it justify your rabid behavior. I still think you are confused. For instance, you have said

"I do encourage people to question evolution. How else can you do science?"

There is no scientific option to evolution, only the supernatural. So I wonder how can you affirm that you expect them to question evolution. What scientific alternative do you have in mind?

Ah well, PZ of course, logically, but I'm only getting to know you.
Again Cheers.

Let me just correct you there Alexander.

invasion contrary = invasion country

please continue.

Alexander Vargas,

Being ignorant is not a slur or a crime. I am ignorant of about a billion things I could name, and more billions of things I can't name. I admit my ignorance, and I damned well try to change it in the limited time I have available to me. That's what being a scientist is pretty much all about.

Being irrational is not a slur or a crime. "Irrational" in the TECHNICAL sense means "not based on reason" in rough shorthand. How many things do you and I do on a daily basis that aren't based on closely worked empirical reason? Quite a few I imagine. Irrational in the COLLOQUIAL sense means something quite different, and I guess you and I are both that on occasion too.

No one is, or should be, singling any group out as particularly irrational or ignorant in any sense of the word. What we CAN do is demonstrate that certain ideas are less rational (technically) than others, and certain people hold these ideas. (Again neither crime nor slur). We can also demonstrate that certain people are ignorant of certain basic facts,pieces of evidence and data. Hell, I bet you could demonstrate my ignorance on several topics in about 30 seconds and vice versa. (Again neither crime nor slur).

We can demonstrate that certain ideas that are demonstrably less rational (technically) are prevalent in groups of people that are demonstrably ignorant of certain data. We can also demonstrate a correlation with certain religious beliefs. That expressedly DOES NOT mean that these religious beliefs automatically equal ignorance and irrationality (although in some cases they do). What we want to do is NOT condemn these people, or point and laugh or anything like it, we want to educate and enlighten them. Being wrong is not a bad thing. I do it on a daily basis, I'm sure you do too.

As Dawkins said, there are four types of people who deny evolutionary biology: the mistaken, the misled, the ignorant and the dishonest. Only the last one is derogatory or perjorative in any way. The first three are easily correctable by expose to the data. After all a baby is born ignorant of evolutionary biology (and a whole lot else) do you really think we are standing about pointing and laughing at babies because of their ignorance? I don't expect people who have not encountered evolutionary biology in education to accept or understand it. I'm curious as to why anyone does. However, when they have encountered it, that's a different matter.

Please read none of this as an insult, a slur or in anyway as a derogatory commentary on anyone's religion. I could make those comments, but this is NOT one of them.

Cheers

Louis

Well, you can try blaming ignorance for people that deny common descent in favor of special creation. But I think you don't need to know that much of the evidence on evolution, to understand that invoking the participation of god does not add up to much of a scientific explanation. It is an appeal to the supernatural. I believe most people can realize that, easily.
So even if ignorance is not necessarily and insult, it is not cogent to invoke it, or in pilatus fashion state it "just happens to cluster within religion". I don't think it is the problem. The real problem is the false equation evolution=godlessnes, which is paradoxiclly agreed upon by extremists at both sides.

PZ:
"I do encourage people to question evolution. How else can you do science?"

Alexander Vargas:
"There is no scientific option to evolution, only the supernatural. So I wonder how can you affirm that you expect them to question evolution. What scientific alternative do you have in mind?"

You're right, there is no scientific alternative to evolution. You can, however, question the details within the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium? lots to question there. The role of stochastic processes? Lots of questions. The relationship between Neanderhals and modern man? Still a few questions unresolved.

Every answer raises new questions. Evolutionary theory has provided a mass of answers. The questions that remain are fascinating. Dr. Myers is right to encourage his students to question evolution. The answers they provide will only strengthen the theory.

PZ,

Thanks for your comments. I don't think I did miss your point about the "hiding" of atheists by theistic evolutionists, but perhaps I didn't make my self clear.

I agree with you that this happens and that the apologists for mild-mannered "Clarke Kent" religion with his bumbling ways, cheeky smile and cowlick seem to forget that "Clarke Kent" religion sometimes takes off it's trousers, puts it's tight red pants on the outside of it's nice blue shorts and becomes "Superman" religion that can sweep all in it's path. The two "religions" are one and the same, you don't get one without the other. Oh sure you do in specific individuals, but I mean in groups. By necessity there are going to be people at the other end of the secular-religious bell curve. No news to an evolutionary biologist!

I also agree with Sam Harris, Dawkins, Wolpert and Dennett (to name a few I have read recently) that this overwhelming apologism and tolerance of MODERATE (and harmless) religion by people does pave the way for tolerance of EXTREME (and harmful) religion.

The thing you, I, the theistic evolutionists on this board, the vast majority of theists across the planet have in common is not one of us wants EXTREME religion to take ahold. This also applies to extreme applications and adherence to other dogma like certain types of communism or facism. Again, as I know you know, what unites us is far more significant in every sense of the word than what divides us.

What has always amused me about religion is that it is so touchy. In a limited way, it's a hobby. Not a particularly offensive one at that. I used to keep snakes (a fact that will no doubt warm Lenny's heart). Most people recoil in horror at the very idea, at least in Europe where snakes are comparatively uncommon. My love of all things snake is akin in some limited ways to someone's love of their religion. Granted this is only in a limited sense. I don't get all defensive when someone has a pop at my snanke keeping, I don't understand why someone would get so mortally offended at someone having a pop at their religion. After all, different strokes for different folks. And any religionists that think my analogy is bonkers, why are there so many different and mutually contradictory religions in the world, all claiming to have the truth?

Religion's a social phenomenon, nothing more. And that doesn't cheapen it one tiny bit. Why do I like snakes and why do some not? Why do I not have religious faith and why do some do? Well there's more to it than simple preferences obviously. Conditioning, education, background, and quite probably genetics all play a role.

Like all social phenomena that are adhered to passionately by large groups, religion has a massive power. That power has been and is occasionally used for great good, it's also used for great evil. So what? The same can be said of bath soap. This says nothing about religion per se. What DOES say something about it is the evidence. A different story for a different day perhaps, and certainly not germaine to the evolution of organsisms on earth, unless someone has some evidence....

.....and isn't that where we came in?

Bill? Mike? Phil? Nobody?

Hmmm, I thought as much.

Louis

Nice to see that Lenny and DaveScot are on exactly the same wavelength, with about the same level of honesty.

For example, Louis, Dawkins is not a man that is ignorant about the facts of evolution. Yet he explicitly maintains that evolution implies godlessness and thus has contributed greatly to the problems we are currently facing.

Alexander,

You and I both heartily agree that evolution=/=godlessness. Evolutionary biology, like all of science, has nothing to say on, and nothing to do with god or gods in general.

Specific gods with specified attributes and claimed properties that have empirically testable consequences are a different matter.

The only reason evolutionary biology is singled out by religious fanatics is because it neatly demolishes the core of the teleological argument for a deity. Which historically has been a lynchpin argument used by the religious. This expressedly does not mean that "evolution disproves god" or anything remotely like it.

Reason is the antithesis of faith however. Again, this does not mean people with faith cannot use reason or people of reason cannot have faith. Just that as epistemological methods they are the antithesis of one another. As we humans are want to do, we use what we have to hand at the time and fits the bill, i.e. a little of each. No great harm in that.

Science and religion are in conflict precisely because religion makes testable claims that science has tested and found to be not representative of reality. Since religion is at its core based on faith and science on reason, there is a fundamental tension set up. That tension is what underlies the evolution/creation pseudo-debate. Creationists don't want to change their faith, and the evidence is not going to dissuade them very often because to them it's not the evidence that matters, it's the adherence to a percieved doctrine of faith. More moderate religious people are basing their outlook more on reason and evidence, and so own along the spectrum to atheists.

I have to say in all honesty that I find the use of reason by creationists starkly hypocritical, however. They deny it's power but benefit fully from its use and products. Does one fly a plane based on faith alone? Or even just buy a second hand car on faith alone? I doubt very much that any religion is based on faith alone, but it certainly has no empirical evidence to support it. What it does have is reems of social and anecdotal evidence, which while they aren't rational (technical, epistemological sense) certainly are rational (colloquial sense) and are certainly compelling for billions of people. I don't see any value in deliberately insulting those people, but then I also see no value in hiding the facts away because some of those people find them uncomfortable.

One last word on offense. People often forget two things about offense. 1) Not everything that offends you (or me etc) is INTENDED to be offensive. Tolerance again is king. 2) The person offended rarely considers what offends the person who has offended them.

I was once told off by a Jehovah's Witness who I normally invited in for a polite chat because when he came calling one morning he got a load of verbal abuse from my highly annoyed self as he stood at the front door (opened by my embarassed wife) and I sat on the couch eyes glued to the TV. He wasn't to know that he had rung the doorbell in the 79th minute of normal time of the 2003 Rugby World Cup (a tense moment as any Englishman or Aussie will tell you), which mortally offended me because it disturbed, briefly, my concentration on this important game.

As I said, I was rather overexcited, and I believe I shouted "I don't care if it's the fucking Nobel committee come to give me the prize. Tell whichever inconsiderate wanker is at the door to fuck off!". Obviously my candour offended him, and (luckily in the gap between extra time and normal time. Luckily for his kneecaps that is) he preceded to berate me. I pointedly explained to him that over our many conversations he knew I was an ardent rugby fan and England supporter. He also knew the rugby world cup final was on when he called. Had he ever considered that this might be important to me, and that his disturbing me at a crucial moment was highly inconsiderate and offensive?

He went away subdued.

Louis

I often see a related attitude in the comments at the Panda's Thumb, too, and I'm beginning to find it wearing thin. The flip side of assuming a false virtue in religion is the denial of the power of science.

Alas, much as I enjoy hearing about the latest scientific findings, I also recognize that they are, in the evolution/creation "debate", utterly irrelevant. The "debate" simply isn't about science. IDers weren't won to ID because of science. And they won't be won away from it by science, either.

— Myers

There is a strong cultural aspect to this struggle that is independent of the facts, I won't deny that. But calling the science "irrelevant" is throwing away the sharpest tool in our toolbox. We are going to win people to the side of science and reason by promoting, well, science and reason. Stop running away from it! Stop being ashamed of the fact that the evidence is on our side! We aren't going to win by engaging in theological debates, or by getting the right legislation, or by winning court battles---the way to win is by taking the ignorant by the scruff of the neck and dragging them outside and showing them that yes, the sky is blue, water is wet, the planet is round, and the earth is old. The science must be the linchpin of our strategy. When we teach people to think, science wins.

— PZ Myers

But back to Ron Numbers and this annoying article. Here's how the author wraps it up. But Numbers is a realist, and he recognizes that the bigger problem for science is something that John Tyndall never considered: if it came down to an either-or scenario between science and religion, the ultimate loser may be our own humanity. For all its illuminating power, scientific knowledge rarely leads to absolute certainty, and few of us would be satisfied with strict facts alone to help us comprehend our existence. As Albert Einstein famously noted, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." If, as scientists argue, accepting intelligent design is choosing blind faith, is the alternative something more than lameness? "The will to believe is so strong," says Numbers, "that it can trump any empirical evidence."

— PZ Myers

Albert Einstein could be such an asshole.

— PZ Myers

Why should I, or anybody, accept such a silly assertion? Religion adds nothing to science, let alone sight.

— PZ Myers

If he wanted to argue that we need to add ethics or social awareness to properly integrate the execution of science into culture, sure, I'd agree...but there's a big difference between a proper perspective on societal issues and religion, and I find it extremely annoying that people so blithely and stupidly equate religion with morality and due regard for culture. Look way back at the beginning of this article; most scientists are operating sans religion, and to suggest that it's only the ones indoctrinated into some religious dogma who are leading the way is (heh) arrogant.

— PZ Myers

Of course, Einstein's arrogance has nothing on the author's, who believes that religion is the source of our humanity, and that we need absolute certainty to find satisfaction in life.

— PZ Myers

If that's the case, I gladly renounce humanity, if humanity means ignorance and the dumb acceptance of superstition.

— PZ Myers

I'll happily embrace uncertainty, provisional truth, and a method that guarantees a lifelong search for new knowledge over the false certainty given by the liars for gods.

— PZ Myers

Alexander,

Sorry but Dawkins does not equate evolutionary biology with atheism. What he actually said was that evolutionary biology allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. He said this in specific reference to the argument from design (teleological argument), which as I said has historically been a powerful argument in favour of the existence of a deity.

Atheists prior to evolutionary biology had little or no explanation for the diversity and complexity of life around them. They had no mechanism and little data, and little to no coherent theoretical framework. Note that I did not say before Darwin, but before evolutionary biology.

The teleological argument was often used as a knock down argument against atheists. Honest atheists had to admit a certain degree of intellectual discomfort at this argument because they had nothing but vague rejoinders. However, with the advent of evolutionary biology, the teleological argument was shown to be flawed not only on philosophical grounds (which had been done before), but also on factual grounds. Here were mechanisms that could produce that diversity and complexity, and here was evidence to support the existence and operation of those mechanisms.

That's what Dawkins explicitly means, and if read in context this is obvious, when he says that evolution permits one to be an intellectually fulilled atheist, and I agree with him. But I would go further, all branches of science permit one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, for they close those gaps in our ignorance into which people often slot a stop-gap deity or supernatural explanation.

Louis

Posted by normdoering on June 27, 2006 11:11 AM (e) PZ Myers wrote: Nice to see that Lenny and DaveScot are on exactly the same wavelength, with about the same level of honesty.

Alexander,

Sorry but Dawkins does not equate evolutionary biology with atheism. What he actually said was that evolutionary biology allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. He said this in specific reference to the argument from design (teleological argument), which as I said has historically been a powerful argument in favour of the existence of a deity.

Atheists prior to evolutionary biology had little or no explanation for the diversity and complexity of life around them. They had no mechanism and little data, and little to no coherent theoretical framework. Note that I did not say before Darwin, but before evolutionary biology.

The teleological argument was often used as a knock down argument against atheists. Honest atheists had to admit a certain degree of intellectual discomfort at this argument because they had nothing but vague rejoinders. However, with the advent of evolutionary biology, the teleological argument was shown to be flawed not only on philosophical grounds (which had been done before), but also on factual grounds. Here were mechanisms that could produce that diversity and complexity, and here was evidence to support the existence and operation of those mechanisms.

That's what Dawkins explicitly means, and if read in context this is obvious, when he says that evolution permits one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and I agree with him. But I would go further, all branches of science permit one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, for they close those gaps in our ignorance into which people often slot a stop-gap deity or supernatural explanation.

Louis

GT, I guess you realize that I say that evolution is a scientific fact, and that any alternative to common descent is unscientific. So when PZ presents himself as an eclectic chap that encourages to question evolution, I don't think he really does. To question evolutionary mechanisms and specific topics is totally fine, necessary and exciting, and really, biology could use more of that (too many hard-headed leftovers of the ultradarwinian synthesis of the 50's are out there) . I guess you understand the difference between the fact of common descent, and the discussion within full ackowledgment of this fact on the mechanisms of this descent with modification.

Glen,

I think that the use of "ignorant" is entirely justified provided that one clearly defines how one is using it. The sense in which I used it still appears in the dictionary, and it is still used in this sense in modern parlance. I clearly stated what I meant by the use of that word, I clearly stated that I meant no insult by it's use.

I think it's a little uncharitable for people to pull a Humpty Dumpty and say "A word means precisely what I choose it to mean" despite having it quite clearly pointed out to them that, in the several available senses a word can be used in, it is expressedly not being used in the one they might otherwise think it is. While ignorant=stupid in some contexts, ignorant does not always=stupid. Given the average level of intellect here is VASTLY above average, I would expect that this is a simple concept to grasp for anyone.

And given that the word a) has the meaning I use it in, b) has expressedly not been used in a perjorative manner, and c) is a bog standard English word frequently used in that context, I am a little perturbed that anyone is so ready to see "enemies" or "insults" where none exist, and to resort to equivocatory nonsense in order to support this assumption of hostility and persecution. If anyone gets hostility or insult from anything I've written, then they were a) looking for it, and b) assuming it was there from the start and are damned well going to find it whether it is there or not.

Honestly, if we have to debase the language and bowdlerise ourselves because people can't stand to be told there is stuff they don't know then we are fucking well doomed.

Louis

Louis, Dawkins lives in the 21st century. Its not like he lived through an era without scientifi explanatiosn on evolution and dawned into the next (hopefully, haha) He can step aside from history and realize that, well, atheism or theism doesn't REALLY have nothing to do with evolution.

and Dawkins certainly has said maaaany things in the lines leading to evolution=godlessnes, even though he may thereafter try to water down his nonsensical core messages by hanging a few disclaimers. That is just SO Dawkins. Remember his Necker's cube?

Alexander,

Yes he does live in the 21st century (although it was 20th when he made that remark) but that's utterly irrelevant. He wasn't talking about his experiences alone, he was discussing the historical relevance of evolutionary biology to atheist philosophy.

Like I said, the context of his comment is exceedingly relevant, and it clarifies his meaning absolutely. The canard about Dawkins claiming evolution implies atheism is nothing more than an urban myth based on silly quote mines. I know for a fact that he would be annoyed to be misrepresented in this way.

Louis

PT tries so hard to avoid antagonizing the sensitive (and entirely hypothetical) flowers of Christianity that it has become another haven of anti-secular bigotry.

But the political mistake we make and that ninnies like Lenny promote is that the atheists are our terrible shame, they must be hidden away, and they must say only nice things about religious belief. The Lennies here work very, very hard to turn an asset into an embarrassment.

It's going to be very interesting in the fall. Dawkins' new book is going to be like a cannon fired into the apologists' chicken house --- there will be squawks and feathers flying everywhere. It's going to be great fun.

— PZM

And given that the word a) has the meaning I use it in, b) has expressedly not been used in a perjorative manner, and

— Louis

Of course, Einstein's arrogance has nothing on the author's, who believes that religion is the source of our humanity, and that we need absolute certainty to find satisfaction in life. If that's the case, I gladly renounce humanity, if humanity means ignorance and the dumb acceptance of superstition.

— PZ Myers

Sorry Glen, I thought we were referring to MY use of the word "ignorant", after all you addressed me by name. My bad.

I do know how to spell pejorative, I must be having a mindfart, thanks for correcting me.

Fuck it! I appear to have mindfarted on expressly as well. Cheers on that one. Always happy for it to be pointed out when I'm wrong.

And erm, which false claims have I made?

Louis

Louis, you are evidently deceiving yourself. It would not be necesary to look too far to find several staments of dawkins on how evolution realtes to godlessnes, and veeery few, if any, stating anything like "evolution does not imply there is no god". I won't look it up, anyone can. I just wish to make a call to sincerety.
Many get their minds a little clouded over their love for this Dawkins guy. You only have to side with Dawkins and a flock of religion-haters of all sorts will come to show their support. But not too many evolutionary biologists.

Oh and P.S. I don't read PZ's use of "ignorant" there as anything other than the sense I used it in (i.e. lack of knowledge about something etc). However, I am happy to admit that YMMV.

IS that so difficult to understand?

Wait a minute...you found a quote where someone is saying religion is the source of our humanity, and you call me to the carpet for pejoratively referring to religion as a superstition?

That's just screwed up, man.

I think we got up to somewhere in the 900s on some long thread or other, one that somehow involved Farfarfrombright, as best I recall.

But the last few hundred comments were getting pretty strained and silly.

Of course, the same might well be said of a fair few of the first several hundred comments here...

Which is no reason not to go for a record.

Maybe we could start nominating hunting parties: kinda like the missionaries and cannibals trying to get across the river (or foxes and geese, or however you learned it): you'd have to carefully sort out the party members to make sure that no one splinter group of hair-triggered hunters had a clear numerical advantage over the members of the other factions.

And, of course, the overlapping and cross-cutting alignments, alliances, and schisms just make the hunting party-composition game all the more comples (=fun).

Let's see: does Lenny go into the same party as PZ, or should we split them up?

Nah, same group definitely, makes it much more interesting.

But I'm gonna go into whichever group gets Lenny's Pizza Guy (I'm supposing that Lenny is gonna try to lure Pizza Woman into his group with the promise of plenty of Viking Piss, but Pizza Guy's been around longer, and I value long-term performance when it comes to fast delivery of hunting-party essentials like piping-hot pizza...).

Hmmm, now where to put Carol?

Sure, who really cares about that stuff by now? I don't.

I just wish that PZ would understand that not all complaints are really attacks on his right to say what he wants.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Flame wars at PT remind me of burning man.

Some people unprepared for the desert. They are found wandering around naked, baked red, and without water, when any self respecting desert rat would be out of the midday sun dressed in long sleeves, wearing a hat, and carrying water. Others though are prepared for a flame war. Burning man attracts people with strange views on religion, the comment section is filled with bizarre encounters and less we forget IDs role in these flame wars, space aliens always show up. Like Burning man, flame wars culminate in a grand explosion of fireworks and the ritual burning of the man.

Everyone then slowly packs up what's left of their vocabulary, cognitive skills, and slowly wanders off. Going home sunburned, dehydrated, exhausted. It seems to be an exercise in venting and ritual more than anything else.

I hope you'll return next year when PZ will wave his dead chicken, and Lenny's karma will be abused. Along with various other participants who will join in the fray steering the thread into new and unexpected directions. Hopefully it never becomes an exercise in this.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Dawkins lives in the 21st century. Its not like he lived through an era without scientifi explanatiosn on evolution and dawned into the next (hopefully, haha) He can step aside from history and realize that, well, atheism or theism doesn't REALLY have nothing to do with evolution.

For example, Louis, Dawkins is not a man that is ignorant about the facts of evolution. Yet he explicitly maintains that evolution implies godlessness and thus has contributed greatly to the problems we are currently facing.

Ummm, I appreciate the piping-hot and long-term performance accolades, I think.

But the boss--reliably profit-motivated in almost all circumstances as he is--does not allow us to deliver to, ahem, hunting parties.

Any more than we are allowed to deliver to known neighborhood meth houses, crack houses, or the like...

So, by all means have fun, bang away with vim and vigah, and all that, but PW and I can't come out into the boonies and play with y'all this time around.

Needless to say (and, no, boss, you don't need to keep tugging on my elbow, I do have a certain amount of profit motivation myself, low-tipping Lenny not to the contrary), we will continue to deliver all individual orders from PT regulars to their usual addresses--or any other "safe" address--with our usual alacrity.

Alexander,

That's nice, I bend over backwards to accomodate everyone, to be polite to you and all concerned and get told I am decieving myself. So apparently I am some intellectually subnormal irrational idiot because I have the temerity to disagree with your august self. Should I be offended?

Well I'm not, don't worry. Unlike many here, I don't see insult where none is intended, and I assume you intend none.

However, I challenge you to provide me with a quote in which Dawkins says that evolutionary biology relates to godlessness in anything other than the sense I mentioned above. I have read pretty much everything Dawkins has written, and to be honest I don't remember such a comment. That might, I admit, be a product of my fallible memory, but I'd like you to demonstrate the link you claim exists. Thanks.

Also, could you provide some evidence that other evolutionary biologists somehow revile Dawkins and his work, that has not been my experience either at university or in my dealing with various evolutionary biologists the world over, when I have met them online or in person. Sure, there are some who do this, but by no means many or all. Again, only in my limited experience, I'll happily bow to superior knowledge.

I have noticed how, like you say Dawkins tends to be a focus for some of the less than savoury people that claim to be both theists and atheists. I've also noticed his remarks are often taken massively out of context and assumed to have meanings they clearly (expressedly Glen ;-)) don't have. Like this thread many readers bring their ideas to the table and inflict them on the unsuspecting words of the person they are arguing with. I have to say that if Dawkins DID say those things then I would cheerfully disagree with him. As far as I am aware he hasn't said them, and I'd be happy to see evidence that he had.

Appeals to "we all know" etc don't work. Oh and I've done a quick google or two and can find nothing of the sort, perhaps you know where these mythical quotes and comments exist.

Cheers

Louis

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the only need for caution on this front is to not confirm the creationist myth that evolution = atheism. Many lukewarm creationists who are creationists simply because everyone else around them is really believe this. There would be much less trouble about teaching evolution in schools if this myth were demolished.

— George

Wait a minute...you found a quote where someone is saying religion is the source of our humanity, and you call me to the carpet for pejoratively referring to religion as a superstition? That's just screwed up, man.

— PZ Myers

Wait a minute...you found a quote where someone is saying religion is the source of our humanity, and you call me to the carpet for pejoratively referring to religion as a superstition? That's just screwed up, man.

— PZ Myers

Yo, pinhead!

I'm a busy guy, so I don't really care if you want to talk to yourself all day long. Knock yourself out...

But, as I've told you before, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't take my name in vain in your imaginary conversations.

Now, I recognize that your comment # 108760 wasn't actually posted under my name. But I get the distinct impression you were trying to comment using my "voice."

I don't usually get up on my high horse about it, but I do have a certain economic investment in my moniker, which--my lawyers assure me--amounts to a "natural" trademark.

And, as I think was made clear in the whole Far-Far foofarah, Panda's Thumb will eventually take action to prevent multiple-identity postings (maybe that's why you didn't actually post under my name, but a casual reader would certainly get the impression that that was me talking).

I'm not complaining to the management at this point--in part because most of what you conjectures about my management forbidding us from making deliveries to obviously-dangerous locations happens to be true.

And I'm not convinced your occasional habit of posing as me is maliciously-motivated.

Yet. But, fair warning: don't overdo the funny business.

I've just been flipping through a couple of his books, looking for a 'money quote' other than the "intellectually fulfilled" one.

The best I can do is
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bootom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." River ouut of Eden p.133.

This is in response to a priest, quoted in the newspaper as saying, regarding "the problem of evil" in the context of a story about a schoolbus that mysteriously crashed:

"...we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe were just electrons, there would be no problem of evil or suffering."

Again, Dawkins just says that atheism is consistent with the world we observe, that there are no big mysteries that god, and only god, can clear up for us. I'm still not getting "science has disproved god" out of that.

Posted by Steviepinhead on June 27, 2006 12:44 PM (e) Ummm, I appreciate the piping-hot and long-term performance accolades, I think. But the boss---reliably profit-motivated in almost all circumstances as he is---does not allow us to deliver to, ahem, hunting parties. Any more than we are allowed to deliver to known neighborhood meth houses, crack houses, or the like... So, by all means have fun, bang away with vim and vigah, and all that, but PW and I can't come out into the boonies and play with y'all this time around. Needless to say (and, no, boss, you don't need to keep tugging on my elbow, I do have a certain amount of profit motivation myself, low-tipping Lenny not to the contrary), we will continue to deliver all individual orders from PT regulars to their usual addresses---or any other "safe" address---with our usual alacrity.

Or is he just channeling?

I LOVE the commentary over at UD btw. They seem to be relishing in the conflict between Lenny and PZ. What they forget is that, in a fight between a lion and a tiger, it doesn't matter if the lion wins or the tiger wins, the rabbit always loses!

Louis

Sorry for going O-T, but has anyone else followed the track-back to UD?

Could anybody imagine that a thread such as this could exist over on that back-slapping site?

DaveScot, now try and convince people evolutionists (read science appreciators) are in some mouth-closing conspiracy.

Uh, whoops! Lenny's Pizza Guy is a hard-working young Florida business-person. I'm an evolution defender from Seattle. So, self-evidently, we can't really be the same person...

So, first, my abject apologies to LPG. I was just trying to inject a little humor, and lend some semblance of reality to my proposed "hunting party composition game." But, however entertaining LPG's interactions with Lenny may be, that gives me no right to take a free ride on that entertainment value.

In retrospect, my "posing" as voice-of-Lenny's Pizza Guy (even if I didn't actually use his name on the post) was obviously improper. That my intent was non-malicious and "humorous" is plainly no excuse.

Though many of us commenters post under "screen names" for obvious reasons, our credibility is one of our strongest weapons against the IDiots. As LPG has properly reminded me, that credibility should be carefully cherished, and not lightly squandered.

Sorry, folks.

But, uh, how about that hunting party composition game, huh?

Again, Dawkins just says that atheism is consistent with the world we observe, that there are no big mysteries that god, and only god, can clear up for us. I'm still not getting "science has disproved god" out of that.

— O'Brien

Science is never the cause for atheism. And as for the "critical thinking". I thought that "critical analysis" was the same as "creationism" ? Or is it creationism when the critical eye is upon Darwinism ?

Glen,

I believe I explained why Dawkins' comment was accurate above. Of course no one's compelling you to agree with me!

Dawkins' comment was framed in both a personal and historical manner, as is expressed by the context from which it is taken. He explains the personal "secular road to Damascus" journey he had when he began to understand evolutionary biology, and thus its personal significance to him. He also explains its importance as a factual (as opposed to merely philsophical) refutation of the teleological argument for the existence of a deity. As you correctly pointed out, many other people had explained that there were perfectly adequate logical refutations of teleological arguments for a deity. Evolutionary biology is one of many facets of science, and it's important not to underestimate how important a facet, that neatly refuted specific claims made by prevalent religions.

Louis

C'MON, Louis, good grief. Everyone knows that Dakwins wanst to come off as a hero of rationalism by fighting evil religion. You obviously deny the man's essence. How about this?

"The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism"
-- Richard Dawkins, from The New Humanist, the Journal of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2

More pearls right here
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

Yes, Lenny should have responded more like I did now, rather than using glib retorts, hyperbolic remarks about PZ lining up the religious and shooting them, and his non-ignoring of PZ by repeated claims that he will ignore PZ's "dick-waving".

— Glen Davidson

Science is never the cause for atheism. And as for the "critical thinking". I thought that "critical analysis" was the same as "creationism" ? Or is it creationism when the critical eye is upon Darwinism ?

There must be a Lenny, otherwise the world would be Lennyless.

— Lou FCD

Agreed, CJ.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Evolution and science are not necessary causes of atheism. However, any fool can look at the end result of an education in science and see that it does predispose individuals to abandon faith. At the very least, they end up with a much more liberal, less fundamentalist faith than those who don't get that education. And it's not because professors are proselytizing for atheism, but because they insist on critical and evidence-based thinking. In other words, the myth can't be demolished, because it is not a myth. It's the way things are.

— PZ

Why do you assume its OK for people to be bigots and fear freethought?

— PZ

Who would wave Lenny's dick if there were no Lenny? Who would ignore anyone else waving their dick, if there were no Lenny? I for one am glad we have Lenny. I love him just the way his is, too. In a purely platonic way, of course. Not that there's anything wrong with loving Lenny in any other way. As long as it's consentual.

What is this, pick-on-the-pizza-kid day? If my manager see's any more of this kind of stuff, Lenny's gonna need a new pizza delivery service. Now, maybe the lack of non-tips wouldn't do much damage to my bottom line, but how's depriving Lenny of high-quality hot-when-he-wants-it pizza gonna serve the forces of Evolution against the rascally ID-yots, huh? Let's leave the speculation about Lenny's sexual proclivities to some other blog. Little kids---and pizza delivery managers---read this one. (Although Pizza Woman could probably tell a few tales, she doesn't talk out of school.)

— Lenny's Pizza Guy

I am chastened, and bow to your wisdom. For I cannot refute the truths that you have related of Lenny, notably the awesomely-radiant doctrine written above.

— Glen Davidson

Makes me feel privileged to have Uncommon Descent. The contrast is amazing. Comment by Atom --- June 27, 2006 @ 11:36 am

— A UD Toady

Yeah, screw you Dembski.
We're just havin' us some street theater.

I am chastened, and bow to your wisdom. For I cannot refute the truths that you have related of Lenny, notably the awesomely-radiant doctrine written above.

— george

"I suspect the reason is that most people ... have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution. I want to add one thing more. The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things."

Just doing my part to push the number of comments over 600...

But as long as I'm here, this thread reminds me of an annoying teacher I had in elementary school who hijacked our english classes to wage war on various prejudices: racism, sexism, anti-gay, etc. Her problem was she was on a witchhunt, finding enemies everywhere. She even went so far as to attack a great ally for equality as being racist: Star Trek. Her beef was with an early TNG episode where they visited a planet populated by black people with strange, seemingly barbaric customs. If she had paid attention for more than the 5 minutes it took for her blood to boil over in hatred, she would have realized that this was an anti-racism episode.

My point? To PZ and Lenny: when you're on a crusade, try to not sack Constantinople on the way to Jerusalem.

Good gracious! You kids are a mess.

Love,

Scott from UD

PT tries so hard to avoid antagonizing the sensitive (and entirely hypothetical) flowers of Christianity that it has become another haven of anti-secular bigotry.

Posted by Scott on June 27, 2006 03:10 PM (e) Good gracious! You kids are a mess. Love, Scott from UD

Charles Darwin must be turning over in his grave at the caliber of intellect claiming to be his "friends".

PeeZee, do share how facts like: - Digitally encoded information along the spine of the DNA molecule with all of it's error protection safeguards, etc... etc... - Irreducible cellular machinery with complex interlocking components assembled to accomplish a specific function - The abrupt appearance of fully formed and distinct body plans and subsequent sudden bursts of biological novelty in the fossil record ...demonstrate that science is on the side of the Darwinian Materialist. I'll be waiting along with the chirping crickets.

— Scott bootlicking at UD

Charles Darwin must be turning over in his grave at the caliber of intellect claiming to be his "friends".

— My Dearest Dr. ClouserBot

Posted by Carol Clouser on June 27, 2006 03:43 PM (e) Charles Darwin must be turning over in his grave at the caliber of intellect claiming to be his "friends".

I'm gettin pretty sick of the contributors deciding they want to air their dirty laundry out on PT itself, rather than taking it to an OT rant on ATBC, where it belongs. first Hurd, now Myers. I guess Myers now considers PT the place where he can dump his more wearisome rants that would otherwise pollute his personal blog. So does Hurd.

— Sir TJ

Finally, what would a partially-formed, indistinct body plan look like?

— C.J. O'Brien

PZ,
Yes, I have yet to see a creationist say something coherent about the fossil record in general, much less about the Cambrian explosion.

I was sort of parodying the straw-man version of what we'd expect a "transitional" form to look like.

PZ, you describe how in American society evolution helps atheism, to actually say that evolution=atheism is not a myth, but "the way things are". If we manage to isolate ourselves from this specific american scenario of cultural war conflict, you will have to acknowledge that, philosophically, evolution=atheism is an aberration to both faith and science. When you try to overlook this by stating this is just "the way things are" you are being condescending to a false concept by invocating some sort of pessimistic "staunch realism".This is just totally misleading. We must not conform to "they way things are" when these things simply should not be.

You're basically playing into the artifacts of the specific history and society of America and can't seem to pull away from it. Step aside and take some fresh air. The reason why you guys have this relation between evolution and religion, is because in first place even religious people in America want to feel they are backed up by science and reason. Exactly so: the veneration of rationalism (a persisting problem) was and still is a defaut condition of American society and this is what has confused religious Americans into arguing their beliefs are dictated by reason or scientifically demonstrable. So it is important to point out that this has not happened in other cultures. How many more people have abandoned Buddhism in japan because of evolution? I doubt buddhism ever had much need to disguise itself as a science. Religions posing as science is quite an American, XIXth century thing, think of the dispensationalist calculations, etc. So of course, here in America, dissapointment on the religious intromissions in science result is atheism, but it is a merely social-historic phenomenon. Not all religions are like this, others may have been like this but have painstakingly tried to adapt, like Catholicism for example.
So no man, evolution=atheism is by no means "just the way things are".

Alexander,

There is a difference between evolution predisposes people towards atheism and saying that evolution equals evolution. I don't think that saying that evolution predisposes people towards atheism is entirely unreasonable. I don't know if there are any studies that would support the assertion, but I think that a decent argument can be made that this is the case - and I think it's definitely a point that's worth discussing.

At the same time, I think that it is also entirely reasonable to point out, as PZ did, that evolution does not necessitate atheism. That is a myth that creationists love to use, and I think it can reasonably be called just that.

HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, Hoo, HO, HAW, ho, sputter, gasp, snort! Wow! Giggle...

There is a difference between evolution predisposes people towards atheism and saying that evolution equals evolution. I don't think that saying that evolution predisposes people towards atheism is entirely unreasonable. I don't know if there are any studies that would support the assertion, but I think that a decent argument can be made that this is the case - and I think it's definitely a point that's worth discussing.

— Mike Dunford

"If religion is important to you, the fear that sending your children off to get educated about science will lead to apostasy is a rational conclusion."

Fear is hardly always rational and acting upon it hardly ever leads to rational conclusions. This is true especially of fear in the absence of knowledge. This is therefore the reason why we must promote compatibility of science and religion.

And Dr. PZ, correlation is not causation. No one has really knows the primary cause of irreligiousness of educated people in the sciences. One can surmise that it is an education, but then when we generalize to the other educated people in the non-sciences, we find trend doesn't really hold. It could be a self-selective process in which religious people find other endeavours more important than natural sciences. Let's not jump to premature conclusions.

Fear is hardly always rational and acting upon it hardly ever leads to rational conclusions. This is true especially of fear in the absence of knowledge. This is therefore the reason why we must promote compatibility of science and religion.

— lurker

It's going to sting only if you're brought up in a religion that poses as rationalist. And instead of loving the way things are, so we can form bands, fight and insult, we should try untangling the ugly confusion. I sincerely don't think evolution leads to atheism!!! It doesn't depend on evolution, it depends on what does your religion think of evolution.Religious people can certainly realize that the best thing about religion is not thumping the table with literalist interpretations on the details of nature's origin. And religious parents can tell their children evolution is real and cool, and really, they won't drop out the faith about it. These are the messages that we must get through. Clash-enhancing attitudes like Pz's (insults and constant sneering included, let's not forget since he sounds so peaceful right now) are no help at all. They just reinforce the persistent lie evolution=golessness and spin the clash of religion and science into a self-fulfilled prophesy.
I don't like metaphors as they can lead to passional distortion but I think that PZ is not the doctor saying "this will sting a bit" His angry attitudes are more in accord with a doctor that says "This will knock you out".

Posted by Uncommon Descent on June 27, 2006 12:51 PM DaveScot beat me to the punch (see previous post). Just so you don't have to wade through the 515 (and counting) comments on the Ron Numbers thread (if you must consult it, go here), here are some highlights. It is heavily edited, of course, but ...

"Individuals can partition their beliefs --- science in the lab, religion in the church --- but they do not work together and cause major problems when you mix them up"
Exactly, they do not intersect and a such can totally avoid bumping into each other. Thye only bump when you make the bad mix and isnist on it as crucial. This is why you are wrong whenare condescending with the notion that "evolution=atheism", searching for ways of making it valid. This notion makes the bad mix of taking science, to prove a religious point. Not fair to science or religion.
By the way I'm glad that the guys of uncommon descent keep showing their usual troll behaviour of repeatedly pasting the same two paragraphs at the bottom of the page over and over again. It proves they are all about propaganda. No honest thinking there.

I'm not sure that a basic education in scientific realities is all that big of a predisposing factor toward atheism. For most people, unfortunately, the scientific method and what actually goes on in science class are not very well linked.

A better case could be made for a link between graduate education in the sciences and atheism, but even there I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg question - is it the scientific method, with it's semi-structured skepticism that predisposes people toward atheism, or are people who are already predisposed toward skepticism also predisposed toward going into the sciences?

I sincerely don't think evolution leads to atheism!!! It doesn't depend on evolution, it depends on what does your religion think of evolution.Religious people can certainly realize that the best thing about religion is not thumping the table with literalist interpretations on the details of nature's origin. And religious parents can tell their children evolution is real and cool, and really, they won't drop out the faith about it.

— Alexander Vargas

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

— Carl Sagan

Ah yes, what a contrast. A place where you can enjoy the "privilege" of being a sycophantic lickspittle with the absolute freedom to toe the party line.

— george

And after all our comments would be intelligent bold face remarks, like How's this for a toe to lick? You're outta here, homo. -dt

A better case could be made for a link between graduate education in the sciences and atheism, but even there I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg question - is it the scientific method, with it's semi-structured skepticism that predisposes people toward atheism, or are people who are already predisposed toward skepticism also predisposed toward going into the sciences?

— Mike Dunford

But skepticism is the common link there, and skepticism is learned. Or are you suggesting that skepticism is a fixed property, and that all we'll get with more science education is more credulous people who think they are scientists?

— PZ

Well, I'm only saying how things should be, what we should aim for, untangling things out. Call it naive, your way of thinking only perpetuates old chestmuts that should be dead, both to scientists and religious people and keeps us submerged is in a a dead-end situation.
And all this nonsense of science=skepticism is sooo silly I don't even want to talk about it. Or to think there is no rational elements in religion (several of which science rarely cares to deal about). science=rational truth delivered on a silver platter , religion = mindless insistence on myths, yeah right blablabla
Such dichotomous thinking is quite boring, predictable, and repititive. As detestable as worn out TV ads. Not much challenging subtleness there, no smart solutions either. Totally unatractive. Just a perpetuation of the mindless war of sneers and insults until one of the two is dead. Let's hope it will not be evolution, and that a more peaceful situation may be achieved, at least in some other part of the world.
I think I will leave it here for now

Lou, it was brilliant as it was! I thought it was a dig at how anti-ID posts at UD often get mangled beyond recognition. Besides, I'm seriously considering joining the Reformed Church of Lenny...

Hey, I wonder at what point this one thread will pass the number of comments of the entire Uncommon Dipsticks blog.

We should have an office pool.

Takers? We could bet insults and cheap shots. A whole thread of insults that... oh wait.

People, you may not have noticed, but the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness. Don't derail it.

And yes, that means no Lenny allowed.

Brilliant???? Brilliant????

In that case I take it back. I meant to post it exactly like I posted it.

I'm brilliant and you're outta here, dipstick - dt

Aww. Sorry PZ. It was kinda hard to tell after 600 posts of nonsense.

See you in the funny papers.

Posted by PZ Myers on June 27, 2006 06:07 PM (e) People, you may not have noticed, but the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness. Don't derail it. And yes, that means no Lenny allowed.

Science and religion are not compatible. Individuals can partition their beliefs --- science in the lab, religion in the church --- but they do not work together and cause major problems when you mix them up.

— PZ

I sincerely don't think evolution leads to atheism!!! It doesn't depend on evolution, it depends on what does your religion think of evolution.Religious people can certainly realize that the best thing about religion is not thumping the table with literalist interpretations on the details of nature's origin. And religious parents can tell their children evolution is real and cool, and really, they won't drop out the faith about it.

— PZ

That's touchingly naive. Remember, though, we're dealing with religion that says a book is the word of God, and that is true of even liberal Christianity. And I think even with this optimistically open-minded religion you're inventing, there are still going to be people like me, who thought their church was a nice place full of nice people, but when you got right down to it they could provide no rational reason I should believe in their god.

As I said before, you really need to understand that not all religious people are fundamentalists.

— George

"Science and religion are not compatible. Individuals can partition their beliefs --- science in the lab, religion in the church --- but they do not work together and cause major problems when you mix them up."

Yet, that is in of itself a method of reconciling science and religion. In your proposed form of NOMA, science and religion are as incompatible as orange and A-flat. We don't coherently use sounds to represent colors, nor do we use colors to represent sounds. But they are not incompatible, in that we must have one sensation in the complete exclusion of the other.

"If fear of what they don't know is the problem we have to confront, and they are afraid their kids will become atheists, then we should let them get to know atheists. Get rid of the fear."

Fine with me. But I highly dislike the notion of introducing one novelty (atheism and atheists) by misrepresenting another (science). Your reality of science eroding religion is not provably necessary. What you are doing is hyping the fear of others. In particular, you are exploiting someone else's fear of science to promote atheism. I find that this is undesirable both for atheism and science.

I'll put this another way. There is another group who feeds on fear: the fundamentalist theists. Their fear is truly irrational. And what they like is something to keep that fear growing.

Unfortunately, their strategy works presently. Why? Because they currently hold more political power than the rational people in the world. If many moderate Christian theists are presently on the brink of fundamentalist irrationality and secular rationality, I would imagine that the best scenario those nut cases can hope for is another political storm that pushes people over to one side. Do you think fear of atheism will lead people to secular rationality?

Fear. It is a potent double-edged sword.

But I highly dislike the notion of introducing one novelty (atheism and atheists) by misrepresenting another (science). Your reality of science eroding religion is not provably necessary. What you are doing is hyping the fear of others. In particular, you are exploiting someone else's fear of science to promote atheism. I find that this is undesirable both for atheism and science.

— lurker

Do you think fear of atheism will lead people to secular rationality?

— Lurker

"Science eroding religion is an empirical observation. It happens."
Ah, but, science coexisting with religion is also an empirical observation. It also happens. We can disagree on how it happens (whether it is because of a general illiteracy of selective sciences, or because individuals actually _work_ at methods of reconciliation, or if they are just generally clueless about how untenable their theistic position is), but we should not discount those data points. Especially, we should not discount based on philosophical considerations such as religions being completely nonexplanatory that are not even universally shared.

"I'm not suggesting that we promote atheism. It's the other way around --- I'm saying we need to get rid of the fear of atheists so we can promote science."

I agree we should reduce a fear of atheism. However, I think we can reasonably disagree on how best to get rid of the fear of atheists. I also think we can reasonably _agree_ that we should not hijack the promotion of science for a platform on atheism promotion *given the political climate*. In my view, I say we should not promote the concept that science *necessarily* leads to atheism as a means of reducing fear of atheism. No doubt you can try. But, I just think the resulting victory will be Pyrrhic.

Oh, no...here we go again. I wish people wouldn't project their strange ideas of what atheism means on me. Nowhere did I say that atheism is a necessary consequence of science education. I explicitly denied it.

If religions are not completely nonexplanatory, I wish someone could tell me one thing that they actually explain. And no, just making up an answer is not an explanation -- if I could swallow that, I'd still believe in Santa Claus.

If religions are not completely nonexplanatory, I wish someone could tell me one thing that they actually explain.

I'm not sure that anyone could ever present you with a question that religion answers without "making things up." That doesn't mean that religion doesn't present them with answers that they are comfortable with. Some people find religion to provide comfort in times of need. Other people think that type of comfort is a crutch. The value, when it comes to religion, is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Two people might look at exactly the same things, and come away with completely different feelings.

In my own case, I'm unable to describe myself as either an atheist or a firm agnostic because I have a very hard time accepting the idea that everything that is, was, or will be was the result of a gigantic cosmic accident, without any meaning other than the ones we provide. I can find absolutely no rational reason to believe that the universe is anything but an accident, yet the concept still leaves me feeling acutely uncomfortable. Perhaps that is just a sign of intellectual weakness on my part. Perhaps my ego is unable to accept that I am really that insignificant. I don't know. I'm not even sure that my beliefs are firm enough to call religious. What I do know is that I am finding it impossible to be a "spiritually" (for lack of a better term) fulfilled atheist.

OK. So we agree that science education does not necessarily result in atheism. But then you write,

"If religions are not completely nonexplanatory, I wish someone could tell me one thing that they actually explain. And no, just making up an answer is not an explanation --- if I could swallow that, I'd still believe in Santa Claus."

I just don't get how you plan to reduce fear of atheists/atheism with remarks like these: Science erodes religion. You as an atheist find religions to be completely nonexplanatory, unlike science. Further, according to you, acceptance of atheism is prerequisite to promoting science.

I think there are problems with this strategy of conditioning science acceptance on tolerance of philosophical viewpoints, especially those views that are opposed to the views of current majority and to the pervading political climate. It is simply confusing. If people observe science eroding religion, and there is a fear of eroded faiths leading to atheism, and atheists cannot accept any explanatory purpose to religion, then the solution is to get people to accept atheism?

Well, it is possible. I'll admit it. But I don't think it is likely. The word that comes to mind is: radical. History is full of radical ideas.

HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, HO, Hoo, HO, HAW, ho, sputter, gasp, snort! Wow! Giggle...

I do not consider atheism a prerequisite to promoting science. I'm saying it sure would help if people didn't gawp and call for the smelling salts when they notice all those godless freethinkers roaming the halls of science.

I will say it always surprises me when people express shock that atheists see no explanatory power in religion. We're atheists, remember? Do you think we're all sitting around admiring the lovely religious edifice that we have no desire of entering?

"I'm saying it sure would help if people didn't gawp and call for the smelling salts when they notice all those godless freethinkers roaming the halls of science."

Yeah, so I just don't know how you're planning to accomplish this acceptance. As I said it is certainly possible, but I just don't think it is necessary or likely. I find it as plausible as advocating that less atheists roam the godless halls of science...

Certainly, I don't see how you do it without antagonizing theists at every step. Personally, I'd just rather divorce science promotion in the current political climate from discussions of minority philosophical viewpoints altogether. If I had my way, I'd prefer not having to discuss theistic acceptance of science -- because it is really a bad distraction. However, I'm a pragmatist. If it helps to show how one may reconcile God with science so that morons can take it easy, then so be it. I could also talk about how Science takes God out of the picture. But, if doing so pisses people off so that I may lose research funding, or my life may be endangered, or that children will be subject to worse science education, then my pragmatism demands that I seek other talking points.

"I will say it always surprises me when people express shock that atheists see no explanatory power in religion. We're atheists, remember? Do you think we're all sitting around admiring the lovely religious edifice that we have no desire of entering?"

When atheists and theists both wonder why I am an atheist, I guess I must be doing something right =). Actually I see explanatory power in religion, just as I see how abstract art can be intellectually stimulating, or how raw fish might be tasty. I just have no preference for them. In the grand total of how much both theists and atheists _do not know_, they are both equally nonexplanatory. So whatever. I am fairly confident in my worldview not to require the complete decimation of other alternatives to adhere to it.

George said:
Example: I live in Ireland, where the vast majority of schools are run by the Catholic church. The course material and final exams for the equivalent of 9th and 12th grade are set by the state. This includes evolution. And the church-run schools teach it.

I believe that earlier in the thread, PZ discussed the European model as the kind of model of scientific-religious co-existence that he preferred.

One of his quotes was:

Could it have something to do with having a secular society that sees religion as something completely inappropriate in a public school, that thinks only a nutcase would believe his personal beliefs about invisible phantasms trumps science?

PZ, you are aware that a large number of European countries - Poland, Italy, Ireland, among others - are significantly religious? That the majority of European citizens believe in some form of spiritual existence beyond the physical?

I would be curious to know if you have lived in Europe, for any length of time. I have, and George has, and I would say my experience of Europe was better described by George than your view.

Statements such as:
If religion is important to you, the fear that sending your children off to get educated about science will lead to apostasy is a rational conclusion.
are not supported by the evidence, as observed by myself (and George) that many religious schools in Europe (and Australia for that matter) also provide a comprehensive scientific education.

The people of Europe are, in the majority, religious, and in the majority, trust science to describe the physical world. There's plenty of atheists around, and they generally don't have to pretend to be otherwise, but they co-exist with religion rather than displacing it.

No one is arguing for the complete decimation of other alternatives. If the frequency of the godless stays at 5-15%, it's no problem...as long as the other 85-95% stop freaking out and assuming they are amoral monsters.

There's short-term and long-term pragmatism. Staying silent may help now, for a little while...but if it feeds a growing bigotry, if it lets the others continue to assume and become more certain that the godless are amoral monsters, you aren't doing us or yourself any favors.

3 comments: #1 Praise Jesus and pass the bible oops I mean the biologey textbook cuz Intelligent Jesus I mean Intelligent Design Theory has obvoisly obletetra uh oblatrrat uh oblitura uh ruined Darwinian Religion which is NOT SCIENCE it is a NEW AGE RELIGION and the high priests of Darwinianism Sternberg Anthony Flew Gallileo. Comment by SomeEngineerWhoseFamilyThinksHe'sAKnowitallAsshole --- June 27, 2006 @ 4:37 pm #2 Jesus I love Jesus I dont' undurstand why them sientistz ain't accept that creationism ain't abuot religon It's about THE TRUTH and they don't wanna see taht because they is all athiestses good night and GOD BLESS. Comment by GodsWalkman --- June 27, 2006 @ 4:38 pm #3 You are too arrogant, and you're going to turn off religious people. I have a right to be arrogant. I read Scientific American. You're banned. And comments are closed. -pzm Comment by lflank --- June 27, 2006 @ 4:37 pm

"There's short-term and long-term pragmatism. Staying silent may help now, for a little while...but if it feeds a growing bigotry, if it lets the others continue to assume and become more certain that the godless are amoral monsters, you aren't doing us or yourself any favors."

Well, I am not advocating silence. I am advocating restraint, and less radicalism. My long term pragmatism is to side with the majority on interest that we both share. In this case it is science education, unadulterated by fundamentalist ideologies. I personally have placed the well being of the scientific enterprise above my political status as an atheist. For me, it is the one common ground on which I can relate to my other fellow man.

By comparison, European countries are godless paradises. As I just wrote, I am not suggesting we need to replace the religious, or even become a majority -- we need to get to the point where atheism is seen as just another choice, and where, for instance, not being a member of a church doesn't mean you can't get elected to any public office.

I know that Europe has not eradicated religion, which is why I'm really baffled at how people interpret an admiration for the tolerance of a European society that does not strongly discriminate against the irreligious as a call for a pogrom to line up and shoot the Christians.

I'm afraid that in the US the idea that universities are places that are feared for their power to turn people into wicked, hedonistic atheists is real. I've had parents say as much to me. Private religious colleges that teach nothing but sectarian nonsense are rather popular.

Staying silent may help now, for a little while...but if it feeds a growing bigotry, if it lets the others continue to assume and become more certain that the godless are amoral monsters, you aren't doing us or yourself any favors.

But I'm not sure how your comments actually address this issue. That the godless are 'amoral' or not is a philosophical question that has little or no tie to science. And broadly criticising the arrogance of religion doesn't strike me as a useful step in combatting this bigotry, considering that the people you are seeking to sway are religious in some way or another.

a) Jack, if I only misremembered that you were a Republican Party "elected" hack then I am surprised at my ability for drunken recollection. I have run through my files and found that you were central in denying that PT should have supported Professor Mirecki. His physical abuse was the least of his injuries. You did send Emails related to this attack which cautioned aginst supporting Mirecki. You justified this by refering to your pending political hook-ups. These anti-Mirecki emails were cited by several PT contributers as reason to abandon Mirecki. You finally admitted that you had no valid information about this attack. Your anti Mirecki position was merely and totally political- you were personally afraid to oppose the Republican machine in Kansas.

Ed Bryton, and others refered to your "cautions" about Mirecki and you never demurred. Matt Brauer insisted that since PT had "inside information" from Krebs, we could not support Mirecki, and then he also wrote for non-PT readers that, "... we don't have any inside information." Scientists are only trusted until they are known to be liars. Sadly Brauer has lost this credibility. He has demonstrated a willingness to lie for political advantage. This obviously could extend to manuscripts, peer reviews of publication manuscripts and grant proposals. A liar is a liar. I could never believe anything pubished by Brauer.

b) I am glad that you claim you provided the direction for Pedro Irigonegaray. I'll believe it when he acknowledges your inspiration and direction.

Re "Finally, what would a partially-formed, indistinct body plan look like?"

It'd have two half eyeballs, and two half-wings. Obviously. :)

Henry

I know that Europe has not eradicated religion, which is why I'm really baffled at how people interpret an admiration for the tolerance of a European society that does not strongly discriminate against the irreligious

It's probably because a fair number of the comments on these threads make value judgements on the validity of certain aspects of religious belief. In terms of evolution versus ID, this is more of an issue, and it's certainly a good issue to discuss anyway, but if you're trying to make atheists more accepted in the community, it's not going to help. How do other groups that are victims of bigotry convince the greater community to stop their bigotry?

3 comments: #1 Praise Jesus and pass the bible oops I mean the biologey textbook cuz Intelligent Jesus I mean Intelligent Design Theory has obvoisly obletetra uh oblatrrat uh oblitura uh ruined Darwinian Religion which is NOT SCIENCE it is a NEW AGE RELIGION and the high priests of Darwinianism Sternberg Anthony Flew Gallileo. Comment by SomeEngineerWhoseFamilyThinksHe'sAKnowitallAsshole ---- June 27, 2006 @ 4:37 pm #2 Jesus I love Jesus I dont' undurstand why them sientistz ain't accept that creationism ain't abuot religon It's about THE TRUTH and they don't wanna see taht because they is all athiestses good night and GOD BLESS. Comment by GodsWalkman ---- June 27, 2006 @ 4:38 pm #3 You are too arrogant, and you're going to turn off religious people. I have a right to be arrogant. I read Scientific American. You're banned. And comments are closed. -pzm Comment by lflank --- June 27, 2006 @ 4:37 pm

People, you may not have noticed, but the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness. Don't derail it. And yes, that means no Lenny allowed.

I'm gettin pretty sick of the contributors deciding they want to air their dirty laundry out on PT itself, rather than taking it to an OT rant on ATBC, where it belongs.

My point? To PZ and Lenny: when you're on a crusade, try to not sack Constantinople on the way to Jerusalem.

I just wish that PZ would understand that not all complaints are really attacks on his right to say what he wants.

You only get angry about lies if you think they are believable.

Hijack?

Well, I freely admit that my entire aim throughout this whole thread was to yank as many chains as possible and get all the dogs barking at once. That accomplished three things: (1) it allowed me to flip the bird at PZ and thus return the favor, (2) it allowed everyone who wanted to, to jump all over me, get it all out of their systems, and leave everyone else alone in the meantime, and (3) it filled this whole thread with such ridiculousness (ridiculosity? ridiculanity?) that I'm betting it's a long long long time before PZ or anyone else makes the attempt to pick a similar fight again.

Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 27, 2006 11:07 PM (e) ... This thread is an excellent example of the effectiveness of DI's "controversy" strategy. Many people see a dispute and treat the disputants as equally valid or equally at fault, even when it should be obvious that one is creating a disturbance in order to prevent the other from being heard.

Lenny, I love your wit and prose dude, but you were way out of line here. PZM, You're an intelligent man, you should have known where this was going.PZM, You're an intelligent man, you should have known where this was going.

Oh bull shit! This thread has nothing what so ever to do with the interesting and active controversies in biology, or the other sciences.

When IDiocy or other cretinism's are presented they are logically and factually destroyed.

Jeez, Gary.

I remember your outrage/flameout over Mirecki. I remember agreeing with you, for what it's worth, but also sensing that the 'official' caution around here was about a little more than personal ass-covering.

I don't know you, but I do know Jack Krebs (via the ether). Your vitriol is misplaced. Your continued fixation on the Mirecki incident, seemingly to the exclusion of all else, speaking as someone who, in the past, has been sympathetic to your views, makes you look a little unhinged right now.

Jack is very solidly on our side. Why do you feel the need to have it out with him in public, to the extent of calling him a liar?

Good morning all,

It's a bright British morning here in my lab. I see no one responded to the substance of my posts overnight. Ah well we can all hope for such anonymity!

PZ, gotta say it, you're right on the money with this one. I see the straw has been cleared from the floor around you and people are noticing that what you want is eminently reasonable, i.e. tolerance of atheists/non-theists in public life and discourse, and not a secularist pogrom.

I wonder, by use of a not entirely perfectly apt analogy, what people would be saying if we were discussing the "hushing up" and "hiding behind the curtain" of...oooh let's say black people, women, handicapped people or homosexuals? I can see the posts now:

"Look, for fuck's sake, if you blacks/women/handicapped people/homosexuals stand up and announce clearly that you are what you are you'll offend the huge number of KKK members/misogynists/disability bigots/homophobes that are out their. Those KKK members/misogynists/disability bigots/homophobes all understand that evolutionary biology is the best explanation for the diversity and development of organisms on earth. If you offend them you'll defeat our purpose of successfully demolishing the REAL enemy, the creationsts.".

Now before high horses are reached for I want to make it perfectly clear that in that analogy you could substitute "theist" OR "atheist" at any point in that analogy. I.e. "Look, for fuck's sake, if you atheists stand up and...." or "Look, for fuck's sake, if you theists stand up and...". I am also expressedly NOT accusing anyone of, nor likening anyone to, the KKK, homophobes, misogynists, etc. I am merely making the point that this sort of justificaton is used by many different and vastly less savoury people than the erudite crowd here.

The point PZ is making excellently is that if we have to stick ANYONE behind a curtain or tell them to hush then we are promoting, at least by complicity if not by action, the prejudice against that person or group of people. That's why, like I said before I, an atheist, will more than happily stand shoulder to shoulder with Ken Miller, a theist, and say "Despite the things we disagree on, on THIS we agree: the evidence is in, evolutionary biology is the best explanation we have for these phenomena." if he will do the same, which I am certain he will should the opportunity ever arise.

Luckily, I live in PZ's roughly secular Europe, granted in the UK which harks after the US a tad too much on occasion, so this prejudice against atheism is pretty non existant and is subsumed into the standard British prejudice against anyone who passionately expresses any firm conviction!

The science vs faith debate is germaine to the evolution vs creationism pseudo debate because the differing "sides" are using different methods. The science side have to show that the religion side are making claims which their evidence does not support and why.

This is why PZ is not saying science education=>atheism, because it doesn't. Nor is PZ saying skepticism=>atheism. What PZ IS saying is that in an environment where evidence based thinking is paramount reason with by neccessity take precedence over faith, and thus a higher proportion of people in that environment will lose their faith in certain religious claims. The facts support this argument, it really AIN'T controversial.

Where people are getting this "there's no practical reason in religion" or "there's no practical faith in science" strawman bullshit from I don't know. Or "atheists deserve an equal voice and not to be discriminated against for their lack of religious faith" somehow equates to "VE MUSSEN KILL ALL DER THEISTS UND VE MUST LINE ZEM UP AND SHOOT ZEM UND ZER LIDDLE KIDDIES AND BURN CHURCHES AND INFECT EVERYVUN VIZ EBOLA!!11!!one!!!".

Try reading what's there, not what you think is there. Cor, that almost sounds like a scientific principle!

Louis

Well, I see alliances emerging with folks attacking or supporting other folks for no other reason than that they uttered a good or bad word about another member of one side or the other. Sort of like pre-World war I.

Next, one side's favorite prince will be "assassinated", that is, publicly humiliated, and the "shooting", that is, never ending vitriolic attacks, will commence. And that will be the war to end all wars.

Anyone sensible ready to step in here and become alessed peacemaker? Elliott?

I have a hard time with creationists claiming scientific "arrogance" when the entire concept of creationism is arrogant. An invisible man, in the sky, one we can't comprehend, beyond all of our understanding, created us ... but did so to create us as "lords and masters" of all other creation. Men are created to rule over women. We are created in "God's" image, etc. etc. etc. et al ad nauseum.

I'm sorry, but traditional religions are the height of arrogance. For two thousand years they've wiped one another our because their enemy's invisible man in the sky isn't "quite right." Jews, Christians, and Muslims trace their roots to the same bullshyte collection of patriarchal documents created 3000 years ago to dominate people and force them to procreate, produce, and be fruitful, within limitations.

My question remains for the religious ... if God can do all, he/she can do ANYTHING ... can he/she create a rock that he/she can't lift?

P.S. By the way, I should make the point that Lenny and others are also making a very excellent point. Specifically that of "abuse rarely wins anyone over". We have to be very careful that we are clear about the meanings of certain words we are using so that we don't distract from our points by pissing people off, whether or not those people are right to be pissed off.

Good tactics that.

P.P.S. Clouser, as someone I have no compunction pissing off, do stop gleefully rubbing your hands over what is nothing more than a tiny spat. When we have no silly creationists and literalists (in whatever langauge) available to bounce about the bar can get a little rowdy. I personally think it's all the people drinking Stella Artois, after all it is known colloquially as "wifebeater" in the UK. An unpleasantly accurate sobriquet for a vile lager.

Yes, they are logically and factually destroyed, but that doesn't mean that everyone stops giving them credence. Have you forgotten everything you wrote in response to Michael Balter and his talk of public debates?

CJ O'Brien on June 28, 2006 12:00 AM (e) Jeez, Gary. I remember your outrage/flameout over Mirecki. I remember agreeing with you, for what it's worth, but also sensing that the 'official' caution around here was about a little more than personal ass-covering. I don't know you, but I do know Jack Krebs (via the ether). Your vitriol is misplaced. Your continued fixation on the "Mirecki incident, seemingly to the exclusion of all else, speaking as someone who, in the past, has been sympathetic to your views, makes you look a little unhinged right now. Jack is very solidly on our side. Why do you feel the need to have it out with him in public, to the extent of calling him a liar?

Gary,

I'm sure all this bile is due to somethings I am unaware of, but is it all really necessary?

Care to enlighten us unenlightened many? I followed the Mirecki story on PT, and I know there were some behind the scenes wranglings. But what the hell is going on? Given the standards of "debate" in this thread and the talking past one another and the deliberate strawmen, I can only assume that the wranglings were of similar "quality".

Louis

"The point PZ is making excellently is that if we have to stick ANYONE behind a curtain or tell them to hush then we are promoting, at least by complicity if not by action, the prejudice against that person or group of people."

I find that this is the gigantic strawman, constructed by the hardline atheists, that has the potential to distract from promoting good science. I doubt anyone is telling the atheists to hide behind a curtain in _all_ circumstances. A request for moderation in a politically sensitive topic has somehow turned into an active agendae to censor atheists everywhere? I don't think so.

Still, atheists have this insatiable need to coopt science agendae for the sake of promoting atheism. When atheists feel the need to use science as a currency for selling their atheism, when atheists feel the need to have their atheism accepted _before_ their science can be, you get exactly the sort of reaction that you see in the ID movement. Namely, you have idiots trying to filter out science with objectionable philosophical implications, as promoted by atheists, and a general backlash against atheistic scientists. This is an undesirable outcome, the sort of outcome as, say, when Phelps and his cronies go to military funerals to lambast homosexuals, or Ann Coulter picks on 9/11 victims to lambast libealism. For each cause, there is simply an inappropriate forum.

I don't understand why it is so hard for the hardline atheists to discuss the science in the absence of any reference to atheism? Nor do I understand why there are so little other fora for atheists to promote atheism. Seriously, now. Everytime I visit a blog, I find the science ones to be jam packed with vocal atheists. Is there really nothing else going for atheism than science? How about moral issues? political issues? cultural issues? other non-science intellectual issues?

Still, atheists have this insatiable need to coopt science agendae for the sake of promoting atheism.

— Lurker

Everytime I visit a blog, I find the science ones to be jam packed with vocal atheists.

— Lurker

Hmmm, there is a new Myth here, in it's making.

Narcissus.

Live and let die, for thou may end the trail on a broken old horse charging windmills à la the quixotic Dembski.

By all means state what can be proved and express deeply held personal beliefs while at the same time not discounting others beliefs. They are after all, just beliefs.

Any rational person who is not purely objective ( which unfortunately will only lead to a totalitarian world where subjectivity is a worthless currency ) must allow for relative measuring of values.

In other words.

In heaven, all the interesting people are missing. Friedrich Nietzsche

Lurker,

Mmm nice, quote someone out of context and accuse THEM of the strawman, then for extra brownie points, disappear up a rat hole of your own making whilst ignoring what was actually said by anyone. Good show! Way to raise the bar.

Since we are discussing the evolution vs creationism pseudo-debate, and the relevance of the atheism vs theism debate, and since PZ's original post is about the fact that the Numbers article (and many like it) are overtly pandering to theist sensibilities, I think it's perfectly relevant to bring it all up. Of course you are free to disagree.

Note that I never said anything about cesnoring all atheists everywhere, that has come only out of your own mind. Again, way to raise that bar.

Perhaps you don't know that atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods, not the belief of lack in god or gods. Lack of belief =/= belief of lack. There IS a subset of atheists who go so far as to BELIEVE that no god or gods exist, but I for one don't go so far. I, and other atheists, merely say that there has been no reliable, reproducible evidence to suggest that a god or gods exist, therefore we take the position that this claim remains unproven. Nothing more.

The agnostic position is simply the belief that we CANNOT know if a god or gods exist, which is a different thing altogether. Of course there are many subtleties in these descriptions that a brief description can't encompass, but I hope you'll get my drift.

As for coopting science to promote atheism, well atheism, like science is based on rational, evidence based thinking at it's very core. The methodology of science and the epistemology of science when applied to religious claims shows the vast majority of those religious claims (especially what might be considered the "supernatural" ones) to have no basis in demonstrable fact. Now you and I both know we could have a long, ultimately pointless argument about not being alble to measure the supernatural using science etc, but that's not the point. The atheist, like the scientist, like the skeptic, when faced with a claim says "Where's the evidence and how good is it?". Since we are discussing an evidence based debate, it is this aspect of atheism on which we are concentrating.

Like PZ has said several times, which hasn't sunk in it would appear, science and atheism are not necessarily causally related. They CAN be causally related in certain individuals, but this is not NECESSARY. Please read what people are REALLY saying, NOT what you THINK they are saying.

As for atheists and morals, cultural issues, political issues etc, what the fuck do you think the creationism vs evolution pseudodebate is? It sure as shit isn't about the science, the science was settled long ago. It's our most potent weapon precisely BECAUSE it isn't in doubt and is so established. The creationism vs evolution pseudodebate is entirely political, moral and cultural. If only because we as members of the evidence based community (be we theist or atheist) should be very vocal about people who lie to support their agendas (creationists), who are trying to dominate a pluralistic culture with their false claims (creationists), and who are trying to do this by usurping the political mechanisms of their nations (creationists).

Moderation is not the problem, no one has said anything immoderate. That some people don't like the fact that others don't share their beliefs is a moot point. The point being that science works for anyone, like I said above. These people will only stop being "politically sensitive" to atheists if they meet them and find out, hey, we're good people too!

I would enjoy it very much if you re-read your own post again, this time substituting the word "atheist" for the word "black" or "woman" or "christian".

Cheers

Louis

Of course you are free to disagree.

Too easy Louis, tell that to the Americans who were chopped down by their own countrymen because they wanted to to join British General and colonial governor Charles Cornwallis while he was chasing the Continentals.

War is just a game, Louis, if you die, you were too trusting.

"It's about getting people to overcome their revulsion at atheism so we can promote science."

I think the link between revulsion at atheism and science promotion is tenuous. For me, it's like arguing that Americans have to work on the international revulsion towards American policies in order for us to promote any scientific discoveries. There's nothing inherently atheistic or American about the current state of science. People get it. I just don't see the need for a case to be made that modern science is predominatly done by atheists or in America. There are likely multiple factors that have led up to this current demographics, but the final makeup is not necessary. People get it.

So, I think you honestly have to believe that theists of any stripe have an irrational aversion to anything an atheist does or says. If that were the case, then the only possible solutions I guess are radical ones. You can't kill them all. So you're left jabbing them with pointed sticks. All of them. I guess it could work. Maybe some will decide that they don't want to be jabbed any longer.

"What is wrong is the inappropriate comparisons you make. The atheists are not telling people they're going to hell for being gay, or that they need to conquer countries and convert them to godlessness. You say there is a backlash, but there is no justifiable reason for a backlash, other than that some people are bigots who want an excuse to hate."

Backlashes, as political phenomena, require no rational reasons. The backlash against the Japanese-born Americans during WWII was irrational. The backlash against gays for seeking marriage accomodations is also irrational.

My comparisons are a bit of hyperbole, but they are apt in so far as that atheists who use charged words to elicit irrational responses should be told to stop. There is a difference between constructive dialogue on controversial subjects and offensive screeds that serve only to inflame. In the end Coulter and Phelps used only words. But, words are effective given the right audience. So what is the hardline atheist's audience supposed to be? Theists? or other hardline atheists?

"As for atheists and morals, cultural issues, political issues etc, what the fuck do you think the creationism vs evolution pseudodebate is? It sure as shit isn't about the science, the science was settled long ago. "

You know, Louis, the funny thing is that I believe this is exactly what Flank and Matzke said, the same damn thing... I happen to agree, and I thought that sentiment was what got PZ all fired up for the first 400 posts (Read from the top up to Comment #107925, e.g.).

"The methodology of science and the epistemology of science when applied to religious claims shows the vast majority of those religious claims (especially what might be considered the "supernatural" ones) to have no basis in demonstrable fact."

Yes, well, good for the scientist. But a priori assumptions of epistemological frameworks are not themselves subject to scientific verification. A theist could very well assume a God that is not open to testing via science, and still propose other methods of understanding of God. That you and I find them unappealing is not in of themselves evidence that this epistemology is flawed. But this is my last word on this subject. I am not a theologist, and this is not a thread about theology.

"I, and other atheists, merely say that there has been no reliable, reproducible evidence to suggest that a god or gods exist, therefore we take the position that this claim remains unproven. Nothing more."

No, there's quite a bit more. Fellow atheists also routinely claim that theists are intellectually dishonest, ethically challenged, and irrational. They also blame a lot of social issues, including scientific illiteracy, on religion. If it were merely a constructive dialogue on religion, most of us wouldn't be calling for moderation. Dawkins for instance calls religion a virus of the mind. He recently published a video that called religion the root of all evil. I mean come on.

-oh and for all dead soldiers.

If you died, you were a Martyr.

In the real world, Generals just award medals instead, its a lot easier.

Except if you were Napoleon, you got to die on an Island, alone.

the calm before the SATANIC STORM....

One final point, Louis, then I have to go.

You write,

"The atheist, like the scientist, like the skeptic, when faced with a claim says "Where's the evidence and how good is it?". Since we are discussing an evidence based debate, it is this aspect of atheism on which we are concentrating.

Like PZ has said several times, which hasn't sunk in it would appear, science and atheism are not necessarily causally related. They CAN be causally related in certain individuals, but this is not NECESSARY."

Yet, you also write,

"The methodology of science and the epistemology of science when applied to religious claims shows the vast majority of those religious claims (especially what might be considered the "supernatural" ones) to have no basis in demonstrable fact."

So the methodology of science has consistently disproved religious claims, according to the atheist. Yet science does not necessarily cause atheism. Yet, you don't complete the argument. Why, if science continually disproves religious claims, does science not necessarily lead to atheism?

This is, btw, a perfect example of what I mean by inapproriate discussion about science in the context of atheism.

YAYYYYY!!!! 666!!!!

Blast you Erasmus!

Time to show the instruments of torture.

1. A Comfortable Chair.
2. A fanatical devotion to
3. The lovely red uniforms

Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 27, 2006 10:45 PM (e) People, you may not have noticed, but the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness. Don't derail it. And yes, that means no Lenny allowed. Cheap shot!

People, you may not have noticed, but the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness. Don't derail it. And yes, that means no Lenny allowed.

"The methodology of science and the epistemology of science when applied to religious claims shows the vast majority of those religious claims (especially what might be considered the "supernatural" ones) to have no basis in demonstrable fact." So the methodology of science has consistently disproved religious claims, according to the atheist. Yet science does not necessarily cause atheism. Yet, you don't complete the argument. Why, if science continually disproves religious claims, does science not necessarily lead to atheism?

— Lurker

Hi Louis
Well, I don't know if your classification is official, but it certainly is unsatisafctory to me. For example, I don't believe there is a god, I truly don't. And I'm not talking about the "supreme reality" or what have ya, I mean you know GOD, a conscious intelligent superpowerful entity that cares blablabla. I have a big list of less weird thing I could believe in before we get to that one, hahaha. So I don't believe in God and therefore I've always considered myself an atheist, I sincerely don't believe. Then you come and say that an atheist is someone who does not believe in god because there just isn't any evidence. No! no no that's terrible, because to me it implies that there actually could be scientitic evidence for god. If THAT is being "an atheists" it sucks pretty bad, it legitimates a way of thinking that provides the foothold for "religion scientists" to see religion reflected in evidence and aaaaall the crap we have to put up with. Science has absolutely nothing to do with god, "evidence" will never prove the existence or nonexistence of god. This to me is stating the way thing are. Does this make me and agnostic? I don't consider myself and agnosticist becuase being totally sincere, I do not believe in God, and just won't waste two seconds of my time thinking about any chance there is a god. It's a personal decision, folks are entitled to believe if they want. It is my decision, I'm not telling folks they have to be like me. They should also know that their belief is a decision they cannot push unto others like an obligation imposed by "reason", as Dembski & co. would have it.
By the way, I disapprove that the Rev Dr has ben banned. Let him say whatever, the worse you thing you can do is honor him with an answer. Maybe he WAS proving something. Really, there was no NEED to ban him. You don't ban others who add no content, like Popper's ghost. Just don't answer to mere provocation. That's not too difficult, isn't it?

"The methodology of science and the epistemology of science when applied to religious claims shows the vast majority of those religious claims (especially what might be considered the "supernatural" ones) to have no basis in demonstrable fact." So the methodology of science has consistently disproved religious claims, according to the atheist. Yet science does not necessarily cause atheism. Yet, you don't complete the argument. Why, if science continually disproves religious claims, does science not necessarily lead to atheism?

— Lurker

Lurker,

You're wittering. There are no "sides" here, at least with me, I too agree with a lot of what Lenny and others are saying. Stop reading what you want to be there and read what IS there.

As for how science and atheism are not necessarily causally related, easy. One can be an atheist and have no idea of science. One can be a scientist and not an athiest. Ta dah! There are other reasons that one can arrive at an atheist philosophy, for example the logical invalidity of the arguments for theism etc.

As for the appeal or otherwise of potential theist epistemologies, it's irrelevant. Their appeal has nothing to do with their veracity, their applicability, their universality or their reproducibility. In the end all these theist/supernatural claims rest on assertion and nothing more. I assert supernatural experience that you cannot repeat, end of story. Science doesn't do that, the very core of science is its independance from the scientist (philsophically speaking of course). I can do an experiment that you can repeat. If you can't, then the experiment is probably invalid. Atheism works the same way. There's no predisposition not to believe in something, it's just that we'd like to see the data please.

As for the behaviour of other atheists, sorry but that's a red herring. You're confused. What has the (admittedly deplorable) conduct of some other atheists got to do with the simple philosophical viewpoint of atheism? Nothing. Perhaps you are conflating conduct of individuals with details of philosophical positions. Very different things.

Try reading back over what I have actually written, it might surprise you that (unlike many people who appear to be talking past each other like yourself) I agree with much of what is being said by BOTH parties.

What PZ and Lenny are getting pissed off about is the ridiculous strawmen being thrown around at each other by themselves and others. See through the cloud of straw Lurker! Use the Force Lurk(er)!

Happily both Lenny and PZ both know full well that the debate isn't ALL politics or ALL science and nothing else. Lenny knows that the science, although settled, is an integral part of the defense/prosecution case against the claims of the creationists. PZ knows that, sadly, the science, although settled, won't win without some politics. The problem is there's so much soap opera history and fucking idiocy pounding through this thread that people are cluthing at the nearest availble strawman and giving it a damned good thrashing. Again, like yourself.

If you read the ACTUAL points of both posters, you will find a great deal of sense in both of them. Unfortunately you have to see through the acrimonious bullshit to do so. Go figure!

Louis

Hi Alex,

First, they're not MY definitions at all, they're the standard ones. They foten get misused I'm afraid.

If you lack a belief in god you are an atheist. If you believe god does not exist you are also an atheist but of a different sub type. Lack of belief = weak atheism, implicit atheism, soft atheism etc, or more correctly just atheism. Belief of lack = strong atheism, explicit atheism, hard atheism etc, or more correctly antitheism (I prefer anterotheism, but that's a linguistic issue).

As for you, well you sound like an atheist agnostic, i.e. one who lacks a belief in a god but believes the question of god to be unknowable. That's all good, there are many shades of grey here etc. Personally I think that evidence for god depends on what sort of god is being claim. If I claim a god for whom the properties are exactly like my desk, then wahay I have proved god. Mind you, it's a shitty dull god, and proving it created the universe might be a tad tricky! Do you see my point? Science has demonstrated that the descriptions given of certain gods are inconsistent with reality. This is because theists made claims for their god that were open to disproof. As PZ rightly says, theists are mostly learning not to try this anymore. Creationists are lagging behind the times.

HTH, HAND

Louis

"As for the behaviour of other atheists, sorry but that's a red herring. You're confused."

Not at all. It is the very subject of the last few exchanges between PZ and myself. You know: if you're an ass towards the target audience, can you be an effective supporter of science? And if the general public perception is already that atheists are asses what do you do to disabuse people of that image?

Well, there are two approaches. One is what PZ called in his opening post, a nonconciliatory approach. I have no idea what entails, but PZ feels strongly that atheists must be accepted publically before they can do promotion of science. The other method is to focus on the reconciliation. Which one should you pick if you people consider you an ass?

Now consider that PZ himself asserts: "Dawkins and Dennett and Tyndall aren't arrogant: they're right."

How can you then say that Dawkins is not relevant to this discussion? How can we dismiss Dawkins' assertion that religion is the root of all evil?

"What has the (admittedly deplorable) conduct of some other atheists got to do with the simple philosophical viewpoint of atheism? Nothing."

Logically speaking that is true. Politically speaking, that holds no water. And we both know politics does not work strictly on logic. Unfortunately, Louis, you are not a public figure of atheism. You do write as if you are a True Atheist. But that simply doesn't cut it. Meanwhile you have the Dawkins, Dennetts, Sagans, and Provines coopting the message that science cannot be reconciled with religion. You have PZ who thinks that religions are completely nonexplanatory to his satisfaction. Suppose even if these people are in the vocal minority of atheists, the unfortunate political situation is that you have vocal minority in a vocal minority. And people will tune in to the more radical messages, and generalize.

So what do you plan to do about it? That's the unanswered question. Spare me the lecture about True Atheism. That's simply a nonissue here. The issue is how to stop sounding like an ass.

Anyone who has had a basic introduction to the philosophy of science knows that science operates under certain crucial assumptions. Those assumptions are not proven, but have emerged over time because they seem to "work." The present assumption that excludes ID from science is that natural phenomena have natural causes. If ID advocates were to present compelling evidence that, say, information were entering the natural universe from without, scientists would abandon their commitment to methodological naturalism. (ID advocates have given absolutely no compelling evidence to date, and thus science rightly continues to exclude ID.)

Everything discovered in scientific endeavor depends upon the fundamental assumptions of science. Different assumptions would probably lead to different findings. Thus science cannot be considered a way of getting at reality or Truth. Science is a way of forming consensual belief about the universe of phenomena.

Many atheists and all IDists err identically in believing that science discovers reality. The fact is that both groups greatly overvalue science, assigning ontological status to its findings. There is simply no philosophical basis for doing that. Something we all have learned, yet tend to forget, is that all theories are tentative, no matter their support.

In sum, atheists have just as little basis for making reality of scientific results as IDists do in demanding that they be True.

You have PZ who thinks that religions are completely nonexplanatory to his satisfaction.

— Lurker

Suppose even if these people are in the vocal minority of atheists, the unfortunate political situation is that you have vocal minority in a vocal minority. And people will tune in to the more radical messages, and generalize.

— Lurker

I agree with Tom English. Cheap rationalism is the problem, both with religion-bashers and creationists. Creationists say the ONLY rational conclusion is that god was inolved, religion-bashers say the only RATIONAL thing to do is to be an atheist. Americans should spend less time forcing others into their own line by vacuously inoking reason, and be a little more sincere on the internal component of reality. Maybe the fact that philosophers and scientists in Europe have been more interested in constructivism has avoided a greater clash between religious and atheist "rationalists" (who are closer to each other than they think).

You keep complaining about Dawkins. Can you point to any comment by him that is anywhere close to as repugnant as the long list of things I could cite from Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, Kennedy, Coulter, Ahmadinejad, etc., etc., etc.? Either you're complaining about the wrong side in this fight, or atheists need to get louder and more obnoxious to compete.

— PZ Myers

Lurker,

You're simply missing my point. Atheism itself nothing to do with Dawkins etc. I am certainly not a True Atheist or anything like it by the way. Nice strawman AGAIN. The difference is I am sticking to me clear definitions, and several other people are moving theirs about, you included. See the discussion I had re: irrational above for example.

Also not I am not saying that delivery is not important, in fact I am explicitly saying it IS important, as is PZ. We're ALSO saying that telling atheists to shut up is a BAD idea for our delivery. Philosophically, science is anathema to religion. That does not equate to religious people are anathema to scientists, or that scientists can't be religious or any of the lovely strawcombinations you keep coming out with.

If we're dealing with the evolution vs creationism pseudodebate in the sense of communicating facts about evolution/science then I would say that comments on religion or lack of are simply irrelevant. If, however, asked where god fits into the scientific picture the honest answer is that he doesn't. Do you want people to lie about that?

The simple facts of the matter is that it is NOT the atheists like Dawkins who think that evolutionary biology proves there is no god (it doesn't), it's the fundamentalists who cry this foul at every turn. When asked the question, like me, Dawkins et al answer that evolutionary biology does in fact factually demonstrate the invalidity of the teleological argument for god, but then it was already logically flawed to start with. That's it.

Dawkins' atheism is a different matter. And yes, as a candidate for the root of all evil (the programme had a question mark after it, the title asks a question) religion fits many of the bills needed, but then so do many things. Which was the POINT of the question.

In theory aspects of religion COULD be reconciled with the findings of science, a testable deity that passed the test would suffice. However, the processes by which they ultimately operate are incompatible (faith and reason) and that cannot change sadly. That doesn't mean that we cannot use both individually, just that the findings of reason can be reproduced by anyone, whereas the findings of faith cannot.

As for the political strategy, I think, like PZ, that hiding the atheists away or asking them to be quiet about what scientific thought really does to arbitrary faiths is counterproductive. We are simply never going to reach EVERYONE. What we CAN do is show that atheism is not a necessary consequence of science (i.e. atheism can be reached by other routes, which I note you ignored) and atheists are moral, thinking people just like anyone. It's the kneejerk atheism=bad or atheists=bad that we need to combat. The whole fundamentalist movement in every religion is based on the denial of the subconscious recognition that there is simply no real evidence for thier beliefs, and that evidence trumps all.

We need to show that atheists are not demons or devil worshippers, we just disagree on a specific issue. If we moderate or censor people we are giving the wrong message, that either what they are saying is incorrect (which it isn't) or that they are somehow a shameful subsection of the group (which they aren't). Like I said we need Dawkins and Miller front and centre saying very loudly "On religion we disagree, but on evolutionary biology we agree 100%, the evidence is in, end of story.". That sends a FAR more powerful message than "Pay no attention to the nasty atheists, we're nice christians like you and we can tell you that it's evolution all the way baby!". It looks like a front for a con! Get the atheists up next to the theists and show people that when it comes to the science, that individuals' beliefs matter not one bit.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. Tom. No one is saying science produces 100% unalloyed TRUTH, certainly no self respecting atheist should say that. Scientific knowledge is provisional. Like evreything else is.

Re "Creationists say the ONLY rational conclusion is that god was inolved,"

But that has nothing to do with the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the science.

Re "religion-bashers say the only RATIONAL thing to do is to be an atheist."

See above.

Henry

You know, Louis your entire post is just nonresponsive. I have never claimed atheism is bad. I have never advocated atheists shut up. And I have never insinuated that we should be ashamed of atheists. Atheists who are so focused on being able to speak for to even think about what to speak. It's ironic. You reject moderation of the message, and therein we part ways. For instance, I cannot agree with any of the below:

"Philosophically, science is anathema to religion."

"If, however, asked where god fits into the scientific picture the honest answer is that he doesn't."

"The whole fundamentalist movement in every religion is based on the denial of the subconscious recognition that there is simply no real evidence for thier beliefs, and that evidence trumps all."

"As for the political strategy, I think, like PZ, that hiding the atheists away or asking them to be quiet about what scientific thought really does to arbitrary faiths is counterproductive."

I don't even know where to begin. For starters, these statements are so laden with previous philosophical committments, that you are completely oblivious to the point of view of the people they are directed against. And this is exactly the sort of assertions regarding possible realtionships between science and religion that I do not approve of a promoter of science to convey. It is obnoxious. It is vague, if generally untrue. And it is designed to be inflammatory. More importantly, it absolutely requires people _be_ atheists before they can accept this version of "science."

We should want scientists to speak about the science. This request comes with no recognition about the religious orientation of the scientists. Those who heed the request should recognize the political climate they are entering, and adjust their commentary to best effect promotion of science. Saying things like "Philosophically science is anathema to religion" is simply counter to these goal. It is cooption of a science platform for personal advertisement of a philosophical viewpoint and completely inappropriate.

"We need to show that atheists are not demons or devil worshippers, we just disagree on a specific issue."

You and PZ say this a lot. But I continue to miss your detailed plans. How exactly do you wish to show people you are not demons or devil worshippers? If to a theist the devil is someone who wishes to persuade that faith in God is irrational, then how do you plan to change their views regarding atheists?

Creationists say the ONLY rational conclusion is that god was inolved, religion-bashers say the only RATIONAL thing to do is to be an atheist.

— Alexander Vargas

You have PZ who thinks that religions are completely nonexplanatory to his satisfaction.

— PZ Myers

Exactly right. Also to a Dawkins or a Dennett. Can you specify any satisfactory explanations from religion that aren't simply made up? I don't mean satisfactory in the sense of "I feel better imagining Grandma is in heaven," but satisfactory in the sense that they explain something in the world in a way that all people, even nonbelievers, can evaluate and potentially agree upon. I don't think there are any.

But I continue to miss your detailed plans.

— Lurker

How exactly do you wish to show people you are not demons or devil worshippers?

— Lurker

If to a theist the devil is someone who wishes to persuade that faith in God is irrational, then how do you plan to change their views regarding atheists?

— Lurker

Lurker,

I simply think we're talking past one another. I am trying to dissect the philosophical underpinnings of what people seem to be worried about, you're worried that we atheists are coopting science for some message that we simply aren't and that this is a tactical blunder (which if it were what was happening I would agree with you about btw).

You talk about my assumptions and yet seem to miss the context of everything I am saying and seize the bits you think mean I am hostile to religion, which I'm simply not.

So in the interest of furthering the discussion please show me how the method of religious faith and the method of science are compatible, or in any way not diametrically opposed.

Cheers

Louis

Wow this thread is starting to look like John Davisons blog.

Well of course I realize that religious literalists are not being rational even if they think they are and they say so loudly. But the particular brand of atheism "a la Dawkins" is hardly rational, too. Things like saying that religion is "the root of all evil".. sorry, silly generalizations like that do not resist even passing sociological-historical analysis.

Take history seriously. AMERICA has this big problem that stems from the fact that american religions have been unable to get over the XIXth century boom of rationalism. You know, in a time full of discovery, light bulbs, phonographs, daguerrotyes and dinosaurs, several new american religons were springing up, and they naturally wanted to get legimitimacy through science. You got several religions trying to make "biblical science" in calculating past and future prophesy, looking for "proof" . Several religions shared and passed around these and other "scientificist" ideas. So what I'm telling you is that the specific problem with america was, and is the greatly accentuated veneration of reason an science, which is why religion in America has felt forced to disguise itself as science. It is not about a fundamental clash. It's a specific country with a specificproblem stemming from a specific history and situation leading into great admiration of science an reason, such that even religions (wrongly) claim to be science. Fair to say, America is also the greatest country in science, with an impressive and admirable list of thinkers and achievements in natural history and evolution.
Kind of makes sense, huh?

Alexander,

But that is not what Dawkins actually said. Look I'm no apologist for the man, for the record he says things I disagree with on occasion. The title was "The Root of All Evil?". See the question mark? It was intended to make a particular point, which as it happened I didn't think the programmes did particularly well, but that's a different issue.

I wish that the "Great Satan" Richard Dawkins Theist Hating Motherfucker to the Stars would occasionally be quoted IN CONTEXT for what he DID say rather that what people THINK he said. He's usually a VAST amount more reasonable that people seem to think, as I can personally attest.

Louis

Posted by Louis on June 28, 2006 05:47 PM (e) Alexander, But that is not what Dawkins actually said. Look I'm no apologist for the man, for the record he says things I disagree with on occasion. The title was "The Root of All Evil?". See the question mark?

As I said, this kind of disclaimers or last-minute relativizations are SO dawkisn. I guess that question mark is there to remind us that all he says may well be BS, but he anyway wants to say it. So just *remember* that.

And I anyway get pissed because relativization is an important subject on its own and to be taken very seriously, and should never be used as footline excuse for pushing extremist thinking.

"I simply think we're talking past one another. I am trying to dissect the philosophical underpinnings of what people seem to be worried about, you're worried that we atheists are coopting science for some message that we simply aren't and that this is a tactical blunder (which if it were what was happening I would agree with you about btw)."

Well, Louis, this is about as close to an agreement as I can find with you. I believe my fears of inappropriate science coption are being realized. And I believe that this is something that requires vigilance. So long as you agree with the need for vigiliance, then you are agreeing with me to some need for moderation. Which is all I was looking for.

As to dissecting philosophical underpinnings of theists, I must respectfully decline. I find this whole "show me the money" game that you and pz are playing to be slightly disingenuous, because no one would ever mistake you for objective evaluators in this discussion. It's no reflection on your ability to be objective in any number of subjects, but we are discussing about a highly charged philosophical issue in which you have displayed (as I have summarized in your quotes above) strong committments to prior worldviews. And plus, we're all atheists. So what's the point?

You haven't yet made any kind of case that Dawkins or other atheists are at all guilty of this "extremist thinking". Please give us some examples of this extremism. Is he burning young women at the stake? Flying airplanes into building? Shooting abortion doctors? Sawing the heads off people?

Posted by PZ Myers on June 28, 2006 06:29 PM (e) You haven't yet made any kind of case that Dawkins or other atheists are at all guilty of this "extremist thinking". Please give us some examples of this extremism. Is he burning young women at the stake? Flying airplanes into building? Shooting abortion doctors? Sawing the heads off people?

"Honesty and openness are a good start.
You seem to have this misapprehension that we need to be organized and have a grand campaign to achieve some specific end. Why?"

I actually have no intention of requiring a formal written manual on how atheists should behave. This isn't an NIH grant where I need specific aims, and proposed timelines. I merely wanted a sense of how you would generally convey to people that you are not Devil incarnate, or evil people. I mean this is the real political problem, isn't it?

You mention honesty and openness. Well, Kennedy, Phelps, Robertson, Coulter, etc. etc. etc. all believe themselves to be honest and open people. And they practice their honesty and openness too. Yet, do you find them to be actually honest and open? Or do you actually believe them to be dishonest and closed-minded?

But, if you can't get people to accept atheists, then from your point of view, science promotion is doomed. I don't think for a second this is the final word on the matter. There simply has to be another way.

See, all through this discussion there's been a focus on this self-centered portrayal of how an atheist views himself. This is all damn good. I mean on a good day, I like to see myself the way you see atheists. But we do not live in social isolation. How we are viewed is what I am interested in... in particular, how it affects our ability to promote science.

So, like you, in order to promote science, I like to have scientists accepted socially for what they do, independent of religious issues. On the other hand, you'd like to have scientists _as atheists_ socially accepted for what they do. This cannot be done in a religiously neutral manner (not that many of us like to think we can). And it adds an unnecessary layer to the whole discussion, which in my opinion is distracting.

So now we can start narrowing it down a little bit. What is "extremist thinking"?

Is believing that a super-powerful being who controls everything in the universe is talking to you and telling you that gay people are damned "extremist thinking"?

Is saying that that is a ridiculous load of horse-puckey "extremist thinking"?

So, like you, in order to promote science, I like to have scientists accepted socially for what they do, independent of religious issues. On the other hand, you'd like to have scientists _as atheists_ socially accepted for what they do. This cannot be done in a religiously neutral manner (not that many of us like to think we can). And it adds an unnecessary layer to the whole discussion, which in my opinion is distracting.

— Lurker

Posted by PZ Myers on June 28, 2006 06:45 PM (e) So now we can start narrowing it down a little bit. What is "extremist thinking"? Is believing that a super-powerful being who controls everything in the universe is talking to you and 1.telling you that gay people are damned "extremist thinking"? 2.Is saying that that is a ridiculous load of horse-puckey "extremist thinking"?

Well, let's turn it around, and explore some possible extremist extension of Dawkins' remarks, which logically follow. If religion is a virus/cancer of the mind, what is the proper antidote? How do we cure people of this disease? And if we can't, is this disease terminally debilitating? Can we experiment on infected subjects? Or should we just euthanize carriers and be done with it, before the disease spreads further? Also, should we start setting up a quarantine? Catholics can go to zone A, Muslism in zone B, Jews in zone C, so on and so forth? How about vaccinations? If religion is tantamount to child abuse, should we impose forced adoptions of children of infected parents?

I mean this is all meant to be exaggerations, but that's exactly what carefully chosen inflammatory remarks are meant to suggest. Come on, people, do we have to stoop to _their_ level of rhetoric to get things done?

"Never, ever mention their disbelief to avoid adding that unnecessary layer?"

No, just do it vigilantly. Here's an idea (which you are under no obligation to consider). Distinguish between whether you are speaking as a scientist or as an atheist. If the two labels are not necessarily linked, then it helps to minimize the confusion by clearly stating on a particular matter, whether you are pissed off as a scientist, or as an atheist.

If you must say, "Religion is irrational," I think a theist would like to know if you are speaking as a scientist or an atheist. Scientist: Is irrationality a scientific concept? On what quantitative measure do we evaluate irrationality? Atheist: Why do I reject God premises? Why is materialism a superior philosophy?

If you must say, "Religion is a cancer of the mind," I think a theist would like to know if you are speaking as a scientist or an atheist. Scientist: What properties do religions and cancers share? What are the undesirable symptoms of a mind cancer? Is the cancer organic or psychological? Atheist: How does religion destroy the mind? How can atheism rescue the mind?

PZ, you say

"Please give us some examples of this extremism. Is he burning young women at the stake? Flying airplanes into building? Shooting abortion doctors? Sawing the heads off people?"

If you think that Dawkins must do these thing so I may call him extremist, dont you think you are being a little..EXTREMIST??? No Sir, all it takes for me to find that dawkins or anyone (ehem) is being extremist is for him to say something silly and simplistic like "religion is the root of all evil"

It amazes me that someone who has been in the gamee so long would flop into this kind of tabloid shock argument. Sounds more like something Stephen Colbert would say. Only you don't seem to have been joking. I sincerely hope this kind of mind-clouding is not at the core of your philosophy...although that would certainly explain things...

...all it takes for me to find that dawkins or anyone (ehem) is being extremist is for him to say something silly and simplistic like "religion is the root of all evil"

jeez Norm...

"it's just factual to say that religion is, indeed, the root of all evil"

You make me feel thankful that Dawkins at least put that question mark hahaha

About your 1 paragraph argument for that... yeah, good luck. Present that to historians, sociologists and philosophers. Yeah you'll get lots of pats on the shoulder. We wish WE came up with that argument, that's what they'll say, for sure. Oh, and I mean real historians and academia, not those people trying to sell as many paperbacks as possible by packing them with silly ("controversial") extreme thinking.

No excuses Norm, tabloid shock is just that, nothing more elevated than hot air-warming talk. And Dawkins needs to sell his paper backs, like coulter, dennet, and others looking forward to earning a living from a bit of good old war mongering...you see, plain, good science is never THAT rewarding.

I find this whole "show me the money" game that you and pz are playing to be slightly disingenuous, because no one would ever mistake you for objective evaluators in this discussion.

Leaving the religious fundies to one side for the moment...

Theists who accept science, believe things that atheists don't but which don't conflict with science.

If this is irrational, how do atheists rationally justify the non-scientific beliefs that they hold? A human cannot function without beliefs - what should they do? What is their purpose in life? But these questions are entirely subjective. I'm not suggesting atheists can't get perfectly fulfilling answers to these questions, but they do so the same way as the theists - by making assumptions.

When it comes to believing things that science shows to be not true, atheists and a large proportion of theists are on the same page. But as this large group of theists would indicate, religion is used by a lot of people to deal with questions that science cannot answer. And if atheists claim this is irrational, I'm curious as to what evidence these people have that their method is any more rational.

About your 1 paragraph argument for that... yeah, good luck. Present that to historians, sociologists and philosophers. Yeah you'll get lots of pats on the shoulder. We wish WE came up with that argument, that's what they'll say, for sure.

Shinobi made a great point there. It seems to me that what both creationists and PZ fail to understand is that the interesting thing about religion is not the attempts to scientifically prove the existence of god or any literal detail of a bible story. This is truly a vacuous, play-around activity. The more interesting parts of religion have to do with the edifice of ideas it has developed to deal with the praxis of complex human existence. In this sense I think it is quite useless to simply ignore the fact that true progress in humanistic thinking has been achieved through religion by true geniuses in human affairs, you know, Buddha, Gandhi, Jesus, and so on. Every old religion has its collection of wise thoughts and teachings. And it is pretty clear that these thoughts are accomplishments, old accomplishments made despite what we could now call conditions of poor scientific progress and great obscurity.
So PZ for example says that religion has not helped to explain anything. Sure, as a way of knowing and describing the natural world, no, thats what science is for. But as or dealing with the more "inner" realities of lving and interacting as humans beings, I'd say many discoveries and achievements have been made within religion. If we throw away the intellectual baggage of religions to the trash as worthless superstition, we would have actually go back several steps in our process of discovering these inner, human realities. T
This does not mean of course that these human realities cannot be discovered by atheists, as has also occurred. Economists, social scientists, historians and philosophers have many a good lesson. But no very enlightening achievements of this kind have come from dedicated creationists or religion-bashers. They are too busy fighting each other, I guess.

Glen D, the infamous windbag, wrote

That is to say, do the Pythagorean/Platonic claims about the world, which were incorporated into Xianity, fail completely to explain the world? Wasn't science in fact based upon such conceptions early on, conceptually facilitating the work of the highly religious Newton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Nice script, Glen.

I know so-called "historians" and philospher types love to pretend that simple concepts such as the scientific method only recently "evolved." Horsecrap.

Fricking animals reason through trial and error. And that's what science is, in a nutshell. It's a systematic way of learning about the world and removing the gods, gremlins and other garbage from the explanations. People have been doing this since there were people. It's just that for some less tractable subjects it's taken people longer to figure out the details.

But the idea that religious beliefs -- of any kind -- were necessary to discover that the earth orbits the sun is 100% pure apologetic bullcrap.

Glen probably is aware of this but the gasbag is so intent on his pointy-headed attempt to get on PZ's case that he forgot.

By the way, Glen, up above you called me a liar and I asked you to tell me what you were referring to. You got real quiet all of a sudden. What's the problem? Were you projecting, perhaps?

But as this large group of theists would indicate, religion is used by a lot of people to deal with questions that science cannot answer. And if atheists claim this is irrational, I'm curious as to what evidence these people have that their method is any more rational.

It's not unreasonable to pretend that an invisible protective poodle exists if believing such a thing makes you personally feel better. It's like meditative chanting "om" or fingering some crystals. Whatever works, dude! Go for it.

What's irrational is jumping from that bit of self-psychotherapy to the claim that your invisible protective poodle is just as real as the snot in my nose.

If so-called "religious" people actually admitted up front that their religion is nothing more than self-psychotherapy to make them feel happier about themselves, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Religious people seem to really dislike it, in fact, when you point out that from a purely objective standpoint their religion is simply a form of self-psychotherapy. I want to emphasize the word "their" in that statement because when it comes to discussing other people's religions -- especially weirdass religions that hardly anyone practices -- religious people are typically very happy to characterize those other self-psychotherapy practicioners as freakazoid cult members or just plain flakes.

The thing is with we atheists is we simply have found ways to cope with living our lives without subscribing to some mental baloney that comes with a whole lot of baloney baggage. Some religions come with a lot less baggage than others but Christianity???? Islam???? Judaism???? Hinduism???? That's the Madonna, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Backstreet Boys of world religions, if you get my drift. Bad fast food.

My advice is to run away from that garbage and start living your life. Shortly after you do so, you'll understand just how vile these fundie scumbags really are and where their power actually comes from. You will not like what you see.

I can see that evil deeds have been done in the name of religion. Yet when you analyse the motivation of historical (evil) actions carried out in it's name, there always seems to be some secular advantage to the deed doer (pardon my use of words here). So possibly the motivation was not religious, merely the excuse.

Posted by Louis on June 29, 2006 02:30 AM (e) Stephen Elliot, Hi mate!...

Argh.

Okay, I give up. I've been following these arguments from the beginning, and I still don't think I really understand what everyone is shouting about. The main message seems to be getting lost in all the noise (for me at least). Feel free to ignore me, but I'd really appreciate some clarification.

To whit: what does anyone's religious belief have to do with evolution, as long as they don't believe/disbelieve in evolution because of their religion?

If I say: "I am an atheist, therefore I believe in evolution", that strikes me as just as bad as "I am a Christian, therefore I believe that evolution is rubbish" (or suchlike). Dogmatism is a problem wherever it appears (he asserts dogmatically...).

What matters is the evidence, and the reasoning that follows. If someone can reconcile their religious (or otherwise) beliefs with evolution, then what does it matter that they are religious (or otherwise)?

All this is strictly in the context of evolution, not the irrationality (or otherwise) of religious beliefs in general. Since most people are irrational to some degree about something, I don't see any point making a fuss about one sort of (potential) irrationality if it doesn't affect the subject under discussion.

I freely admit I may have missed the point. I welcome correction.

Owen

You know, Prof. Dawkins seemed much "nicer" in person than he did on his programme. I gotta admit I have not read his books. My first impression of him was from "root of all evil?" Could you recommend 1 of his books as a good introduction?

— Stephen Elliot

Quick question to PZ. Is "Kevin from nyc" banned from your threads? IMO his comments were far more "gutter" than Lenny's.

Lenny is just rude, Kevin is damn near invoking Godwin's law.

Posted by Owen Phelps on June 29, 2006 05:07 AM (e) ... I know you asked the question of someone else, but since I'm on my third Dawkins in recent months I thought I'd chime in. You have to read one or both of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene. I hear a lot about how arrogant Dawkins is,...

Registered User.

The way in which you live your life is just as irrational as theirs. If not - prove it to me. Provide the evidentiary basis for your beliefs.

How do you justify, for example, a belief that murder is wrong? Most people take this as an axiom, held without justification. Others might argue, for example, that it is better for society that people can continue their lives. In this case, why does society matter? Is that an axiom?

You will end up with axioms. Those axioms have just as much rational basis as the gods of theists who accept the rules of science.

Stephen,

Yes I am Louis from SJS. We all need to meet up for beers again I reckon.

Yes on occasion I do HAVE to work long hours like that, the chemistry necessitates it. Such are the joys of research. Of course I'm a bit more....erm....enthusiastic than most of my friends and colleagues on occasion, but it does me good!

As for Dawkins' books, I recommend them all. If you want his ideas on science and society and on atheism read "Unweaving the Rainbow" and "A Devil's Chaplain", and the forthcoming book that Owen mentioned.

"The Selfish Gene" "The Extended Phenotype" "Climbing Mount Improbable" "The River Out of Eden" and "The Ancestor's Tale" are all more biological, but a real set of eye openers.

BTW I also agree with you about the general lack of caring about someone's religious beliefs. But hey, gotta have SOME fun! ;-)

Cheers

Louis

"IS this clear yet?"

"If so-called "religious" people actually admitted up front that their religion is nothing more than self-psychotherapy to make them feel happier about themselves, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.. Religious people seem to really dislike it, in fact, when you point out that from a purely objective standpoint their religion is simply a form of self-psychotherapy. "

So, Registered User, can you describe for us this objective methodology of evaluating religion as psychotherapy. Is it scientific?

Lurker,

Sorry I missed your post in a quick skim of the thread.

You are seriously misrepresenting what PZ and I are saying, both where it is similar and where it is different.

You make vague allusions to axioms/prejudices I simply don't have. I'll tell you my two axioms: 1. There is something that is me (my mind, inside my head, whatever you want to call it). 2. There is something that is not me (the stuff outside my head/mind if you like). I have one axiom that is derivative of those two: 1. If I wish to acquire knowledge about the stuff outside my head, then the best place to look is outside my head (i.e. compare what I think is outside my head with observations of what is outside my head). That's it. End of story. The fat lady has sung on my axioms. These, by the way, are open to change on the basis of evidence.

I think that you think that I think (get through THAT!) theism/theists are "bad" (for whatever sense of "bad" you wish) and deserve to be abused/told they are irrational in the sense that they cannot form coherent thoughts etc. I have never said anything remotely LIKE "religion is a mind cancer", and nor would I. It isn't.

I ONLY use the word irrational with respect to theism when I am discussing the technical aspects of the underlying epistemology, which to be blunt is what I was doing above. Whether you want to consider the philosophical aspects of theism or not is moot, I had made it VERY VERY clear that this was what I was talking about earlier in the thread, and in what sense I was using the word "irrational". After all you don't think that irrational numbers break down and cry if they don't get to be used in a sum do you? There IS more than one use of the word irrational, and I took some pains to point out which one I was using. Of course you'd know ALL this having read what I wrote above....right?

So please stop ascribing positions to me that I simply don't hold. You don't realise just how much we DO agree, you also don't relaise that you are quoting me out of context, telling me I am saying something I have not, and that you appear blissfully unaware of what has been written by me in this very thread.

SO to tactics. I think that going up to an overweight person and going "You are fat!" is a very poor way of communicating that it might possibly be healthier for them to lose weight. I also think that going up to a theist and saying "Your theism is irrational!" Is a very poor idea. Get it? They both might be accurate, but in the absence of context they are probably offensive. This is why I urge people to read what Dawkins HAS written not the few quotes and snippets that people recount and what people SAY he has written. Just as an example.

The "irrational" comment has an additional dimension to the "fat" comment. "Irrational" has more potentially applicable meanings in that sentence than "fat" does in its sentence. You are quite right whern you say that it COULD be taken in a derogatory fashion. It could indeed be. It does depend on the context as to how it is intended to be taken, and how it should be taken however. It is THAT context which I think is so vital.

I have had myriad conversations with theists and used the word "irrational" and they have taken no offense whatsoever. Guess why? Because I placed it in its proper context and was extremely careful (like I was above) to show precisely how I was using it and what I meant. Just like the comment "You look a little green" could be taken to mean that you look sick or a bit new to the situation, the context defines which it is. Just like they have used the word "immoral" with respect to atheism and I have taken no offense, because they stated exactly what they meant by that word up front, and no offense was intended.

This is why you and I agree that we atheists DO need to be careful in how we communicate. But we need to be no more careful than anyone else, we just need to make sure that what we are saying is clearly understood. BTW this is why I am getting frustrated with you, because you are claiming I am saying things I am not, especially when you consider the full context of my remarks. I also agree that to debase science for a personal unscientific agenda is abhorrent. I am a scientist first and foremost, and if I have feelings of holiness, then they are about absolute honesty with regards to the method and findings of science.

The reason I was trying to get you to go through the process of theist epistemology was not so I could knock you down, but so that I could make clear what I was saying. I'm not interested in "winning" some silly message board fight, I am interested in being understood. Nothing more. With all your claims of my prior commitment to some highly charged philosophical ideals, you ahve yet to point out what they are, and have only succeeded in quoting me out of context. A conversation or discussion follows an evolution of ideas, not merely the context free repetition or dissection of single, recent comments.

All I ask of theism is that it is demonstrable in an objective sense, like the findings of science are. That is it and no more. I simply couldn't care either way about a god or the existence of god(s). Until someone shows me something other than special pleading or appeals to prejudice and mystery I will remain skeptical on the matter. This does not mean religion or theism is without value. Of course it has positive values. Simply because something is not demonstrably true, or even demonstrably untrue, does not mean it is useless. Look for example at the illusion of solidity. The gaps between particles in the desk on which this PC stands are FAR bigger than the particles that comprise it, but to me it looks homogenously solid. That illusion is simply untrue when examined in any detail, however it is extremely useful!

I view theism the same way, it doesn't matter that it has no evidence to support its claims, it's usefulness is not in how true it IS, but how true it FEELS to the believer, and THAT is a matter of psychology. Not negative psychology either, as in I am NOT saying that theism is a disease.

Is it possible that you get this yet?

Louis

Oh and for the record, I LIKE theists, I have no problem with people believing in anything at all. End of story again. I don't want my laws based on their unsupported beliefs, but I am happy to have my laws based on their supported beliefs, whatever they might be. I also don't divide the world into "THEM and "US", I leave that to other people better equipped for such dichotomous nonsense.

"This is why you and I agree that we atheists DO need to be careful in how we communicate. But we need to be no more careful than anyone else, we just need to make sure that what we are saying is clearly understood. BTW this is why I am getting frustrated with you, because you are claiming I am saying things I am not, especially when you consider the full context of my remarks. I also agree that to debase science for a personal unscientific agenda is abhorrent. I am a scientist first and foremost, and if I have feelings of holiness, then they are about absolute honesty with regards to the method and findings of science."

And with that I am in complete agreement.

"All I ask of theism is that it is demonstrable in an objective sense, like the findings of science are. That is it and no more. I simply couldn't care either way about a god or the existence of god(s)."

Yeah, and so the theist says: who cares about the atheist's notion of objective reality. There is a god, and I couldn't care either way what an atheist is.

Then you both stop caring. And then the dialogue ends. Isn't this how the whole debate started?

If you must evaluate theism, my point has always been that you can't do it on your own grounds, when those grounds start from a priori assumptions that do not mesh with the theist's. You do evaluate theism, but you give them no benefit of the doubt. This is why the whole discussion on your technical meaning of "irrationality" is simply ... irrational. You cannot be sure that you are actually employing the reasons a theist might.

Objectivity is a such a metaphysically loaded concept. I mean consider a theist who has one more axiom than you: There is objectively something else, beyond me, and beyond what I see that is not me. It's axiomatic. And technically that means it is not subject to disproof. Either you accept it or you don't. Then, you have the theist tell you that all he wants is for some materialist to demonstrate that _objectively_ there is nothing else to the physical world. Then what? Then, he applies the terms "irrationality" to atheists loosely without clarifying what he means each time he uses it. It's a recipe for noncommunication of ideas.

Frankly, the first response to "All I ask of X is...", why does X care about what you want? And that's the gorilla in this whole discussion: who cares what a scientist _as an atheist_ wants? That's why I think bringing science into discussions of "objectivity" and "reality" and "truth", especially with an atheistic bent, is overly distracting. By all means, as I wrote to PZ, talk about it, if you need to. However, find the right forum and audience. Do it with a lot of vigilance... at least until atheists rule the world. But that ain't happening anytime soon.

It does seem that Lenny has been banned from this thread, since he hasn't posted for quite a stretch.

I strongly protest such action and will not participate in any such thread. No matter how frequently and strongly he and I disagree, to the point that he uses vile and insulting language, banning him is not in the spirit of free inquiry upon which science is based nor upon the spirit of tolerance upon which atheism claims to be based (in contrast to religion, they say). It is based on the spirit of exclusion of undesireable ideas upon which fanaticism is based. And I am surprised folks here are not speaking out loudly against this.

Posted by Louis on June 29, 2006 06:39 AM (e) Stephen, Yes I am Louis from SJS. We all need to meet up for beers again I reckon.

Posted by Lurker on June 29, 2006 08:11 AM (e) ... "All I ask of theism is that it is demonstrable in an objective sense, like the findings of science are. That is it and no more. I simply couldn't care either way about a god or the existence of god(s)." Yeah, and so the theist says: who cares about the atheist's notion of objective reality. There is a god, and I couldn't care either way what an atheist is...

Posted by Carol Clouser on June 29, 2006 08:55 AM (e) It does seem that Lenny has been banned from this thread, since he hasn't posted for quite a stretch.

I just think it would be a tad bad mannered to atack Lenny on a forum thread where he is not allowed to answer. I read (probably in error) the comment here People, you may not have noticed, but the thread has taken a major upswing in seriousness. Don't derail it. And yes, that means no Lenny allowed.

P.S. By the way, I should make the point that Lenny and others are also making a very excellent point. Specifically that of "abuse rarely wins anyone over".

Yes, they are logically and factually destroyed, but that doesn't mean that everyone stops giving them credence. Have you forgotten everything you wrote in response to Michael Balter and his talk of public debates?

The problem is not the factual basis of the argument, it is the venue and presentation.

Scheesch. Why bother?

PZ,

Maybe you have spent too much time looking at the IDiots and fundies and you need to broaden your reporting to include things like this:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html

It's Senator Barack Obama's speech on religion in politics.

Lenny's vile despicable disgusting anti-intellectual anti-rational bullying and thuggery, with his repeatedly lying about and mischaracterizing PZ.

— Popper's Ghost

Things are getting out of hand again. Stop fretting over who should and who shouldn't be here.

Yes, Lenny is banned. He doesn't have to be the last and only one. If you want to carp about evil draconian censors, do it at the bathroom wall.

Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 29, 2006 09:45 AM (e) ... Probably in error, indeed. Lenny not being allowed to post is not some law of physics, it's a choice that PZ made --- to keep a serious discussion from being derailed. To announce that decision is no "atack" (sic) when Lenny has explicitly said that his intent was to derail the discussion. It wasn't a "cheap" shot at all --- PZ paid dearly for it, through Lenny's vile despicable disgusting anti-intellectual anti-rational bullying and thuggery, with his repeatedly lying about and mischaracterizing PZ. (Now that is an attack, but it's entirely true and deserved.)

I just sent a half dozen comments off to the bathroom wall. I could do more, but it would be easier just to close the whole thread.

This is NOT the "Lenny is evil" / "Lenny is good" thread. Nor do you get to substitute some other name in there.

So, Registered User, can you describe for us this objective methodology of evaluating religion as psychotherapy. Is it scientific?

Provide me with an alternative explanation, consistent with the observed facts about the world's religious people and their beliefs.

Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time explaining something that is rather obvious.

Shinobi

The way in which you live your life is just as irrational as theirs.

Not quite. I don't pretend there is an invisible sky daddy or some paradise waiting for after I die in order to make my life "more meaningful and fulfilling."

How do you justify, for example, a belief that murder is wrong?

Are you serious? Here's a worthy answer to that inane question: "I ask religious people."

I'm going to repeat my earlier comment, in part, because of all the boo hoo hooing for Lenny that happened in the meantime:

If so-called "religious" people actually admitted up front that their religion is nothing more than self-psychotherapy to make them feel happier about themselves, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Religious people seem to really dislike it, in fact, when you point out that from a purely objective standpoint their religion is simply a form of self-psychotherapy. I want to emphasize the word "their" in that statement because when it comes to discussing other people's religions --- especially weirdass religions that hardly anyone practices --- religious people are typically very happy to characterize those other self-psychotherapy practicioners as freakazoid cult members or just plain flakes.

The thing is with we atheists is we simply have found ways to cope with living our lives without subscribing to some mental baloney that comes with a whole lot of baloney baggage.

Are religious people willing to take the tiny step and admit what they're up to (I'm ignoring the power-consolidating aspects the huge organized religions)? Or is it the deal that atheists simply must keep their opinions about religion to themselves or risk diminishing the ability a person's religion to produce its beneficial psychotherapeutic effects?

The way people react to PZ and Dawkins, I suspect the latter. I think religious people should try to concentrate their religous energy into some other form to preserve it. Perhaps a piece of quartzite or something.

FOR THE LAST TIME: COOL IT.

If this is irrational, how do atheists rationally justify the non-scientific beliefs that they hold?

— Shinobi

A human cannot function without beliefs - what should they do? What is their purpose in life? But these questions are entirely subjective.

— Shinobi

I'm not suggesting atheists can't get perfectly fulfilling answers to these questions, but they do so the same way as the theists - by making assumptions.

— Shinobi

When it comes to believing things that science shows to be not true, atheists and a large proportion of theists are on the same page. But as this large group of theists would indicate, religion is used by a lot of people to deal with questions that science cannot answer. And if atheists claim this is irrational, I'm curious as to what evidence these people have that their method is any more rational.

— Shinobi

Posted by PZ Myers on June 29, 2006 10:55 AM (e) FOR THE LAST TIME: COOL IT.

In the second comment on this thread, PZ's opening sentence is "Lenny is part of the problem".

I'm not particularly interested in a religion-vs.-atheism flame war

Now what was the serious discussion?

In our focus on fundies, right wing politics and IDiots we've built up a more negative view of religion than it deserves. Religious people have done a lot of "good."

Lurker,

But what you are advocating is purest postmodern relativism. I don't require that the theist agrees with my axioms, but that is in fact what they do. For starters, that extra axiom you give as an example is in no way excluded by my axioms, in fact it's really just the second one restated. More than that, the theist is making an explicit claim about the universe, i.e. god exists. I make no such claim, and certainly not the negative claim. I think we can both agree that a universe with a god and a universe without a god are different universes.

You appear to be forgetting I neither assume nor believe there is no god. I neither assume nor believe that the universe is totally material. I neither assume nor believe that any observation (not just "seeing" but experiments, measurements, interactions etc etc) is 100% valid. I neither assume nor believe that any knowledge or objectivity is absolute. I am not interested in what is "true" because I know that everything I know and understand COULD be wrong. Even that! All knowledge is provisional. All I care about is what can be reliably demonstrated in as impartial and objective (by ANYONE'S standard, not my own special one) a manner as is possible.

All I DO assume, is as I state above that the best way to get to know that stuff that isn't in my mind is by interacting with it in the most appropriate fashion. If I choose that "appropriate fashion" to be ONLY meditation, prayer or internal mental reflection then how can we tell between a fraudulent experience and a real one? No matter how passionately I believe/state/claim the experience of my internal mental process/meditation/prayer/revelation is real, no matter what patterns I draw with the world outside my head, if it is not an observable facet of the world outside my head, i.e. observable in the sense that it can be reproduced, then how can anyone tell if it is real or fantasy? This is the conundrum for the theist (and many others).

I don't claim to have the answers, I don't claim to know the truth. I DO claim that absolutist claims to knowledge are suspect and should be subject to the same standards of evidence that anything else is.

Why can I say this?

Imagine a theist and an atheist stood by a tree. The athiest says to the theist "Did you know that our father's both planted this tree together as a sign of friendship".

"Yes," says the theist "but do you know what sort of tree it is?"

"Yes," says the atheist "it is an oak"
(granted they're fucking terrible conversationalists!)

"Yes," says the theist " but do you know that my god inspired them to plant this tree as a sign of friendship? For I know the oak is my god's chosen tree of friendship."

"No," says the atheist "I do not know this."

"Ah," says the theist "but I do know this."

Are the meanings of the word "know", as in "to have knowledge of", in that conversation, all the same?

Imagine if it were two theists who believed in different gods. Same basic conversation, but theist A claims the oak is a symbol of friendship (based on the word of his god) and theist B claims the oak is a symbol of hatred (based on the word of his god). The two claims are mutually exclusive (unless both gods exist) and both theists claim their god is the one true god. How can this be resolved? They both "know" they are right based on their belief in a specific god.

The theists would perhaps reach for their holy books and start spouting scripture at each other. Whatever they do, they are explicitly making a play for external corroboration of their beliefs. This is one reason I can say that theists, like the rest of us, use the two basic axioms I mentioned previously.

Another reason would be that nobody (or very few unlucky people) buy a second hand car (for example) on faith alone. Most if not all people, kick the tyres, check the service record etc. Theists, just like atheists, use reason all the time to find out about the world around them. By the way, this is one reason I say that theists are just as reasonable and lovely as atheists, and I get quite irate with kneejerk theist bashing and abuse etc.

Reason is good enough for your car but not for your universe!

Also, if I believe that the law of gravity is optional I don't simply float off into space or land unharmed after a plummet from the top of a building. It might be that in my swandive I am mystically transported to a magical dimension where all is paradise, but nobody else has anyway of knowing if that is the case or not. However, they can know if the tyres on the car they are about to buy are flat. They can also know just how difficult it is to scrape brains off pavement.

My point is that there appears to be (I cannot claim there absolutely is) something that doesn't go away no matter how hard I believe it will nor how much really good acid I have taken. Of course I cannot know this for certain, but it appears to be the case. All that one can achieve in terms of knowledge is this "It appears to be the case based on X".

Now when the theist says "Ah but this appears to be the case based on my faith that it is the case" then we enter into logical fallacy territory. Basically I think the simplest way to regard a statement like that is to imagine if (like my example above) we were faced with two equal but mutually exclusive choices presented by two people who had no corroborating evidence and were asserting the rightness or truth of their choise on the basis of their faith alone. This is a simple assertion, we know one of them must be wrong (the choices are mutually exclusive remember) but how do we tell which one?

So it really isn't about the axioms, Lurker. It's about HOW we know what we think we know, and HOW we can demonstrate we know it, and HOW reliable that knowledge appears to be.

Louis

What I liked about Shinobi's comment was specially this

"Theists who accept science, believe things that atheists don't but which don't conflict with science.
If this is irrational, how do atheists rationally justify the non-scientific beliefs that they hold?"

This I think helped me realize the following: not all our beliefs that are rational, are precisely "scientific".
Now of course shinobi goes on to argue that we operate on irrational asumptions, which makes sense since there is asbolutely no univocal reason or purpose to existence, as philosophers discover again and again. I clearly understand that rationality must be used you know, "in parenthesis" but we always use reason, paradoxically even to question it or demonstrate its limitaions. there is always a gap, however limited sometimes, in which things can be coherent. So I personally would take the other possible view, that is, to acknowledge that religion has an important rational component. All this about religion being inherently irrational is just the mindless repetition of an old chestnut. As I said before, every old religion has a set of wise teachings which are true discoveries and achievements. It seems to me this is the rational part of religion. To deny it and lump all of religion as merely irrational will therefore come off as something evidently false to anyone who has realized that several things upheld by religions truly DO make sense.

In our focus on fundies, right wing politics and IDiots we've built up a more negative view of religion than it deserves. Religious people have done a lot of "good."

... perhaps those people would have been motivated to do good even if they had never had any religious training.

... social conscience and ethics without metaphysics.

But then, doing good, in any sense, isn't the end-all and be-all of life.

Weighing the goodness of all our actions and customs is itself beyond science, and trying to weed out "irrational" practices leads to the circular fallacy of logical positivism.

I've replied to some of the sentiments expressed here at greater length on Pharyngula.

If you must say, "Religion is irrational," I think a theist would like to know if you are speaking as a scientist or an atheist. Scientist: Is irrationality a scientific concept? On what quantitative measure do we evaluate irrationality?

— Lurker

"Of course, that means the commenter's question above is completely backwards. Atheist scientists are consistent, and don't need to announce whether they are speaking as a scientist or an atheist---those two voices are the same. Religious scientists are the ones who have to be careful, because they are the ones who are living with two very different worldviews. They are also the ones with incentives to blur the boundaries, not just to promote preferred religious ideas with the credibility of science, but because groups like the Templeton Foundation pay hefty bribes to get scientists to cross that line."

So then, the only logical conclusion to this statement is that science has discovered religion to be irrational. For the atheists who proclaim it so are essentially speaking as scientists. And by this logic, as well, there is nothing rational/scientific that is not also atheistic. This means that we must have recently finished a gigantic social experiment and concluded that theists of any stripe have a completely incoherent and unreasonable worldview. If someone can hand me that publication, please let me know.

Until then, I disagree with the above sentiment. Strongly. But I should take my own advice and ask, who cares? Apparently no one. So I'll take my message elsewhere.

Caledonian, _of course_ I was kidding. But apparently the joke was lost. I was not expecting anybody to be able to respond to the notion that "Religion is irrational" is a _scientific_ assesrtion. But PZ has done it, and in a manner that cut out the more reasonable analogy of religion to a cancer or a virus. There's this game of last-wordism being played on the blogosphere that I can't compete with. And PZ knows he's got the upper hand. He can take any one of my comments and cut it completely out of context, label me as backwards and so forth, and respond with it on an unlevel playing field. So, I think that's a sign that this discussion is no longer for me.

Focus on the Family blames atheism and evolution on violence....

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/282006h.asp

...A Christian pro-family advocate is linking youth violence to a godless, Darwinist worldview. Focus on the Family vice president Bill Maier says atheistic beliefs have led to an alarming increase in youth violence. Young people are more aggressive than ever, he asserts, with many participating in fight clubs and posting violent videos on the Internet. But that is what you get from Darwinist evolution, the Focus on the Family official contends. "If we have a prevailing worldview that teaches that, basically, human beings evolved from the slime and we have no intrinsic worth or value or meaning," he explains, "then naturally we are going to see individuals begin to gravitate toward behavior such as this. It's basically Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' concept carried to its logical conclusion." Maier says parents need to help kids learn to distinguish between necessary defense and excessive violence and can do this, in part, by limiting their children's exposure to media violence. [Natalie Harris]

But PZ has done it, and in a manner that cut out the more reasonable analogy of religion to a cancer or a virus. There's this game of last-wordism being played on the blogosphere that I can't compete with. And PZ knows he's got the upper hand. He can take any one of my comments and cut it completely out of context, label me as backwards and so forth, and respond with it on an unlevel playing field. So, I think that's a sign that this discussion is no longer for me.

— Lurker

Well, PZ, I suppose I should be flattered that a highly visible blogger took time to respond to an anonymous poster's comments to such length. Still, it leaves me in an uncomfortable position of having to address the substance of this thread *plus* the substance of your new thread. At this point, I simply can't respond adequately to your post (and the hundreds more I am sure that will be coming from your site) in the amount of free time I have.

You know, PZ, I am of the same mind as you on the synergies of atheism and science. But it's just _too tidy_ of a package to think that they are nearly equivalent modes of thinking. Even if we could attack theology or religion on a scientific basis, the system is so complex that to boil it down to a few pejorative adjectives ('irrational', 'cancerous', etc.) seems highly unfair, and unintuitive... even for an atheist like me.

So, this is my breaking point (plus real life duty calls). I have no regrets. I am sure this topic will come up again between you and Louis and myself sometime in the near future.

His real problem is that he's a drunk, which only makes his fanatical hatred of all things religious and non-liberal that much more unstable and likely to result in him making an ass of himself in public.

Well, It is really no good that you quote someone only to add a long post flattening it and bringing up so many unfair and non-cogent arguments in your post. Lurker simply does not want to tire himself answering to things he has not said at all.
For instance, PZ, you treat us like we are ivory tower scientists who don't care about the imperiled situation of evolution education, and moreover, you paint us as if we think we should hide our atheism so we don't alienate people from evolution. All that is plain rubbish. As usual, you let the peculiarites of your war cloud your thinking and avoid the central issue of whether science in general REALLY has to clash with religion in general. Since the answer is NO, you can keep these false and unfair political scenarios to yourself. We basically do not agre with you because you are WRONG at the root.
And yes, PZ, we care, we care a lot and that is why we are baffled when we see your simplistic and false extremist thinking, and angry , vacuos ravings and insulting, mixed with the fair cause of the defense of evolution education. YOU HURT THE CAUSE, PZ you hurt it very bad and then you treat us unfairly for not being like you. Do not be surprised, then, that we do not like you.
I think there is no chance that we get an apology for your misrepresentation. I also feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, so I think I will also leave it here for now.

Oh, as it should be obvious to the most naive observer, I have not tried to post to Ed's blog. He and DaveScot are soulmates, and I would only be deleted.

Posted by Popper's Ghost on June 29, 2006 11:27 AM (e) In the second comment on this thread, PZ's opening sentence is "Lenny is part of the problem".

@Stephen Elliot

Dawkins's latest work "The Ancestor's Tale" is a good investment. I thoroughly recommend it as an antidote to the nonsense on this thread.

@ PZ

I hope you have learned from this. I admire your posts on evo-devo immensely.

Most Americans just love being the ones that are right fighting those that are wrong. Once they have chosen sides, they only get more stupid from then onwards.

Guess who else is criticizing R. Numbers:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/whats_up_with_ronald_numbers_a_2.html

Lyin' Luskin (this guy gets more loathesome with every passing month):

And the ID explanation can also yield fruitful insights into biology. Pro-ID biologist Jonathan Wells has suggested in a peer-reviewed ID journal that intelligent design can help us to understand function of Junk-DNA

A peer-reviewed ID journal? That's hilarious.

The article by Numbers and his co-authors nicely encapsulates the Darwinist metanarrative about ID. A close analysis exposes that this metanarrative--though widely promulgated--is factually bankrupt.

The Darwinist metanarrative? Oy, my stomach feels yucky.

It's too bad Luskin has squandered the microdrop of credibility he had when he graduated from Jesus Moron High School on "intelligent design" promotion. Karl Rove could use Luskin, I'm sure. For something or the other.

But then, doing good, in any sense, isn't the end-all and be-all of life.

Karl Rove could use Luskin, I'm sure.

Lyin' Luskin (this guy gets more loathsome with every passing month)

... Emma Goldman's comment, "if I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution". I don't see much difference in practice between the religiously motivated good-doers and secular good-doers who often seem compelled by equally strong psychological forces.

I find that, generally, those who are the most earnest about end-alls and be-alls are not activists but judgmental screechers and stone throwers.

Lurker,

It's a shame you don't want to continue what could become an interesting discussion.

Feel free to contact me by email to continue it if you wish.

Let me know if you're interested.

Louis

I don't know what you've seen, but the psychological forces in my life don't have me running off to Africa or do much else besides dancing.

But wasn't Jesus one of the screechers in the end?

He may not have thrown any stones but that whole dyin-fer-yer-sins bit kind of splashed a huge, stinking pile of unnecessary guilt all over the world.

particularly nasty = tickle your @$$ when the projection is turned upside down as those of the opposite (or apostate) view see things.

I think you should read more carefully what I wrote. In particular, that bit where I mention that accusing scientists of arrogance is absurd, when we've got plenty of theists spreading arrogance far and wide. I should have mentioned condescension, too --- do you think I know nothing about religion? I was brought up in one, I live in a highly religious culture, I get religion chucked at me every single day. I've read religious books with far more critical thought than I see from most of the people who demand automatic respect for religion. I see religion day after day, I see people practicing their religion regularly, I get to share my mornings at the coffee shop with the men's bible study group that meets there...and everyone tells me that none of that is religion. It gets annoying. Religion, apparently, is some ineffable ideal that floats in a space of perfect perfection, unsmeared by grubby human hands, and no, no one gets to criticize it. It's too pure. And if you do criticize it, you don't know anything about it, because if you did, you wouldn't complain.