Little imaginary beings

I'm sorry. I thought PT was for pro-evolution, anti-ID, anti-creationism postings- not for stigmatizing religion and Christianity. It's one thing if they're offering scientific evidence for angels or demons, using quote-mining and false studies and political maneuvering. But if I want to read anti-religious bias, I can go to Dawkins, or start reading Pharyngula again. I'm interested in supporting evolution- not trying to drive a wedge between those who are against evolution, a wedge so great that they can never come to see the truth of evolution.

Yes, you're right to critize Dembski's back-door attempt to get more support for his pet project, ID. There was no need to attack those who have religious beliefs, without claiming scientific background, while doing it.

This isn't just about rank-and-file believers, though. This is about "serious theologians." People who teach this mumbo-jumbo at universities as if it were something real, something objectively true. That's exactly what's being put forward above, and if it's being touted as objectively and empirically the case that Angels (with or without the capital A) are real, then a scientific statement is being made.

Teaching theology at universities makes every bit as much sense as teaching a course on how to capture leprechauns' pots of gold.

We are, of course, merely after their lucky charms.

I'm not surprised or alarmed if Christian theologians believe in angels; they do, after all, figure in important parts of the Christan scripture, not just as metaphors but as personal figures. Consider, for instance, the visitation of Mary by an angel before the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke.

Angels and demons don't really enter the domain of science proper unless you make claims that their existence or activity can be demonstrated scientifically. The issue here appears to be that Dembski, as quoted, *does* at least implicitly make that claim, specifically in this sentence:

"The activity of angels in the world would clearly constitute on[e] way nature points beyond itself."

If you're claiming that *nature*, something that is well understood as subject to scientific inquiry, points "beyond itself" to angels, then *that* claim should reasonably be subject to scientific evaluation, even if a general belief in angels (or demons) might not be.

I second Jedidiah's comment.
Can we please stick to evolution here?
And tone down the hatred a bit...

I think it's posted because of the Baylor reference, but I suppose it is more of a "Why People Believe Weird Things Blog" post.

Jedidiah Palosaari is right that the theme is certainly not evolution. However, "Creationists are wacky in more ways than one" is important in the larger picture. With just the slightest urging, or under oath, they'll start on Demons, Angels, flying saucers, you name it. This is one reason so few of them will testify in court, or be allowed to testify by their lawyers. There is some small, repressed voice inside that tells them "You're nuts, you know".

a wedge so great that they can never come to see the truth of evolution.

you might try actually arguing with a creationist some time.

or perhaps you should have watched the debate between Lennox and Dawkins last night?
the people who COULD be driven away from science by attacks on RELIGION are already beyond help.

but, looking at your approach, would you encourage someone to embrace a delusion just in order to try to get them to see your point?
seems like your approach would be doing a disservice to both yourself and the person you are talking to.

What's bizarre is that ideas like "naturalism" were actually conjured up primarily in order to let theologians, and whatever species of dolt Dembski is (and my "dolt" comment is not meant to extend to theologians in general), to have their precious angels and demons, while we'd (including theistic scientists) ignore all of that nonsense and deal with what can be shown to exist. Dembski's just not willing to leave us alone, though, wanting to use the government to force acknowledgement of, and subsidies for, his religious beliefs.

Anyway, that will make a nice passage to bring up in some possible future court proceedings. Dembski can't limit himself to claiming his unknown designer whose capabilities, goals, and purposes are completely beyond our present knowing is responsible for life, he has to claim that angel-denial in science and the rest of the intellectual universe is the result of an atheist conspiracy.

And no, I don't think PT has any basis for refusing PZ's anti-religious take on the matter. He makes reasonable arguments as to the connectedness of the two issues, so that unless conclusive arguments against the connections can be produced, we ought to stick with our intellectual standards by allowing his take on the matter. My own position is, however, that such diversity prevail within an overall emphasis on science issues at PT, meaning I'm glad that the stance toward religion here is different from those at PZ's blog (I'm not faulting the latter, either, preferring merely that different voices speak differently).

The fact is that this angelology of Dembski's is highly relevant to the PT audience, and I'm glad that PZ posted it here and at Pharyngula. And again I'd emphasize that there is no justification that I can see for censoring PZ's overall opinion about it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

"And tone down the hatred a bit…"

Why do so many Christians find it necessary to lie?

I agree that this is not the best use of resources. To start off the blog entry ridiculing someone for believing in angels is bad form. If you want to be specific and focus on the absurdity of trying to make a scientific case for angels that's fair, but the beginning of the blog entry sounds like nothing more than an attack on religion. I thought we we're trying to highlight it is possible to hold a wide variety of religious views and understand evolution to have been a true historical phenomena

I’m not surprised or alarmed if Christian theologians believe in angels; they do, after all, figure in important parts of the Christan scripture, not just as metaphors but as personal figures.

So what? So do talking donkeys and serpents. Just how "personal" does a talking snake have to be before it's "personal" enough for the serious theologians?

Consider, for instance, the visitation of Mary by an angel before the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke.

Big deal. So make Mary and Jesus metaphors too. Big yippity hoo-haw. What's a matter, aren't the serious theologians serious enough? The more serious, the more metaphors. Do the math.

These sorts of 'CHRISTIANITY LOL' posts from PZ do a great disservice to the Thumb and it's mission, methinks.

"I think it’s posted because of the Baylor reference"

So you didn't click on the "continue reading" link?

Those blathering about this post about William Dembski being "an attack [on] those who have religious beliefs" or displaying "hatred" protest too much, methinks.

"These sorts of ‘CHRISTIANITY LOL’"

This post isn't about Christianity per se. I ask again, why do so many Christians find it necessary to lie?

But frankly, if a criticism of belief in angels is an attack on Christians and Christianity, then Christians and Christianity are idiotic.

I thought we we’re trying to highlight it is possible to hold a wide variety of religious views and understand evolution to have been a true historical phenomena

Why is it important to know about angels? Why is it important to know about rocks and plants and animals? It's important because all of these are aspects of reality that impinge on us. The problem with the secular intelligentsia is that they deny those aspects of reality that are inconvenient to their world-picture. And since the intelligentsia are by definition intelligent (though rarely wise), they are able to rationalize away what they find inconvenient. This is what Bishop Sheen was getting at with the previous quote when he referred to the intelligentsia rationalizing evil, and this what Williams is so successful at unmasking in the intelligentsia's rejection of angels. There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality.

I agree that people need to finish reading the post on Pharyngula before criticizing it as not belonging on PT. PZ quotes Dembski criticizing scientists for not studying angels. That is what this post is about.

Life Long Atheist Howard Storm did not believe in Angels or demons either until he had a NDE. Now he is an ordained minister!! Please Don't laugh at what you don't understand,,,or are you so foolish as to think that this is the only possible realm of existence in all of reality? Your arrogance in your ignorance is astonishing to say the least and could be a gamble that you lose drastically! PLEASE WAKE UP!

Storm describes that he felt he was dying, and after saying goodbye to his wife, eventually passed out. He was a life-long atheist and contemptuous of spiritual matters, but found himself outside of his body. He says he was drawn by voices calling his name and followed them, but eventually realized that he was being led into darkness and the creatures were malevolent. They turned on him and attacked him savagely, and his NDE became a negative experience, rather than the type of NDE typified by a "being of light" or sensations of peace and calm. His book chronicles an experience that involved being torn to pieces by the creatures, yet he retained consciousness and experienced severe pain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Storm

http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

"This post isn’t about Christianity per se. I ask again, why do so many Christians find it necessary to lie?"

Because Christians are human, plain and simple.

"But frankly, if a criticism of belief in angels is an attack on Christians and Christianity, then Christians and Christianity are idiotic."

Surely the point is that criticising that belief isn't part of the mission of this blog. We have enough trouble with people coming in saying "You're attacking Christianity!!!" without actually doing it.

Bond, James Bond: Life Long Atheist Howard Storm did not believe in Angels or demons either until he had a NDE. Now he is an ordained minister!! Please Don't laugh at what you don't understand,,,or are you so foolish as to think that this is the only possible realm of existence in all of reality? Your arrogance in your ignorance is astonishing to say the least and could be a gamble that you lose drastically! PLEASE WAKE UP! Storm describes that he felt he was dying, and after saying goodbye to his wife, eventually passed out. He was a life-long atheist and contemptuous of spiritual matters, but found himself outside of his body. He says he was drawn by voices calling his name and followed them, but eventually realized that he was being led into darkness and the creatures were malevolent. They turned on him and attacked him savagely, and his NDE became a negative experience, rather than the type of NDE typified by a "being of light" or sensations of peace and calm. His book chronicles an experience that involved being torn to pieces by the creatures, yet he retained consciousness and experienced severe pain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Storm http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

BJB said: Life Long Atheist Howard Storm did not believe in Angels or demons either until he had a NDE. Now he is an ordained minister!!

Please add my name to the list of those who don't appreciate seeing The Panda's Thumb polluted by Myers' malignant maunderings.

I quit reading Myers's blog (and several of his fellow-ilkers) precisely because of his religious need to spend so much of his time and blog-space demeaning and insulting Christianity and its adherents. It serves no useful purpose and it makes him look like a petty, stupid little putz. Which is a pity, because I'd like to think there's more to him than that.

I come here for information on new discoveries in evolution and the latest word on the battle against the creationists. Please, can the operators of the Thumb make sure that that's what does get posted here, and that this blog doesn't decay into another vat of the feculent sludge that drove me away from Pharyngula?

"Surely the point is that criticising that belief isn’t part of the mission of this blog. "

The point is some very insecure people who are uncomfortable having their most foolish beliefs challenged trying to suppress the speech of others. Read the "about" link to find out about the "mission of this blog" is.

"We have enough trouble with people coming in saying “You’re attacking Christianity!!!” without actually doing it."

Do you have "pathetic coward" stamped on your forehead?

"feculent sludge"

I think "petty stupid little putz" counts. It is you aholes who come in whining about attacks on religion who drag this place down.

So who are you that PZ & PT should pay any attention to what you want?

"But I agree with others that directs attacks on Christian beliefs like that above are not appropriate."

In the 21st century, it is perfectly appropriate to say that belief in angels and demons is stupid, especially in the much more limited framework of PZ's post, namely Dembski's attack on "secular intelligentsia" for their lack of belief in angels (or intelligent design). As Reed says, "PZ quotes Dembski criticizing scientists for not studying angels. That is what this post is about." Those complaining about the post or failing to see how it connects to the "mission of PT" provide evidence of how religiosity tends to rot the mind.

"So who are you that PZ & PT should pay any attention to what you want?"

Indeed. These idiot whiner trolls have pulled this crap over and over, attempting to muzzle PZ and other sane people, to no avail, fortunately.

"The point is some very insecure people who are uncomfortable having their most foolish beliefs challenged trying to suppress the speech of others. Read the “about” link to find out about the “mission of this blog” is."

Ah, I see...one of those who likes to use "Free speech! FREE SPEECH!!!" as an excuse to be rude and confrontational. Gotcha.

The 'About' link says the mission is: "...giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”." I'm not sure how pointing and shouting "Ha, ha, you believe in an-gels!!!" gives a voice to science. Sounds more like giving a voice to playground bullies to me.

"Do you have “pathetic coward” stamped on your forehead?"

Nope - just "basic manners". Try looking it up.

This post over at Denialism may be relevant to divergent reactions the PZ here.

Implying that it is silly to believe in any supernatural beings that are brought up does not equal criticizing religion overall. Granted some do that as well, but they are not the same thing.
Call those invisible beings Fairies or Elves or Cupid and it's superstition. Just relabel them angels and criticism is of limits?

...rude and confrontational

"Nope - just “basic manners”. Try looking it up."

You whined about people saying PT attacks Christianity -- now you have blatantly changed the subject. That makes you an ahole and liar in addition to being a coward. The truth about some people is inherently rude.

"As if being confrontational is a bad thing."

As I said, it's cowardly, or it's dishonest -- "it's rude of you to denigrate my asinine beliefs". Sorry, but the emperor has no clothes -- belief in demons and angels is STUPID.

"Ah, I see…one of those who likes to use “Free speech! FREE SPEECH!!!” as an excuse to be rude and confrontational."

It's an "excuse" to ignore the pathetic whining of people like Jedidiah Palosaari, Tim Jones, JGB, Werrf, Dale Husband, and wolfwalker that PZ's post is "not appropriate" to PT.

The number of Angels' believers is significantly down since Josh Beckett shut them out last night.

But seriously, the idea that there are usually-invisible beings flitting around, carrying out various chores on earth, strikes me as the epitome of an anti-scientific, or more precisely a pre-scientific mindset. Presumably, one who believes in angels also believes there is a set of observable phenomena not explainable by the ordinary operation of physical laws. I know that a belief in angels is formally canonical in the Catholic church, but it was certainly downplayed in my religious training; and I doubt the non-fundamentalist variants of Christianity would regard skepticism about angels as a major conflict with their creeds.

I must say I'm surprised by the reaction to PZ's post; I'd be more surprised if there were actually a working scientist among the commenters here, who believes angels have any active role in the contemporary world.

Jedidiah Palosaari is right that the theme is certainly not evolution. However, “Creationists are wacky in more ways than one” is important in the larger picture.

Okay, for the record, and my last word...

I am not a christian. I have never been a christian. I accept the findings of science and scientists as the most effective method we have to find reality.

That doesn't mean I believe anyone has the right to make fun of those who believe something different.

I come to PT to find the latest on what these crazy creos are up to, to keep up with at least what little biology I am able to follow, and to try to learn something.

I am not sure how you could categorise me as a 'whiner' simply because I obect just as strongly against people on 'my' side making fun of others as I would against christians making fun of 'my' side. I'm sorry if having a basic sense of politeness offends you, but I'm not going to change that.

The anti-creos hold the moral high ground in the evolution/creation debate. I hate to see that being thrown away for the sake of, as I said above, playground bullying. This thread has, as far as I can see, a) nothing to do with science, b) nothing to do with creationism, and c) nothing to do with the stated purpose of this blog. Now you can go on all you want about me 'whining' or claim that I'm a christian, or a troll, or whatever you like. I have simply tried to follow my morals and do what I think is right. If you have a problem with that, then I really doub there is much we can agree on.

I know, I know. 'like you care, hawhaw'.

It is probably useful to believe that the universe is friendly. (and also useful to believe it is not) Angels can well be the metaphor of friendliness, and demons, well......

In any event (except for those who believe that children are demon possessed and therefore beat them to death, odd, why beat the child, if its the demon who is the target? See Freud, maybe), anyway in any event belief is angels is perhaps the most innocuous belief of the overly credible, and is more likely than not to lead to good results.

I doubt the non-fundamentalist variants of Christianity would regard skepticism about angels as a major conflict with their creeds

"I am not sure how you could categorise me as a ‘whiner’"

Well maybe you're just stupid.

In case you haven't noticed it's the acceptance of irrational beliefs like angels and demons running the world that leads to accepting crazy and dishonest beliefs like creationism. Believing six impossible things before breakfast isn't going to help anyone become more rational and accepting of science. So those beliefs have to be pointed out as being crazy over and over and over again.

belief is angels is perhaps the most innocuous belief of the overly credible, and is more likely than not to lead to good results.

In case you haven’t noticed it’s the acceptance of irrational beliefs like angels and demons running the world that leads to accepting crazy and dishonest beliefs like creationism. Believing six impossible things before breakfast isn’t going to help anyone become more rational and accepting of science. So those beliefs have to be pointed out as being crazy over and over and over again.

This thread has, as far as I can see, a) nothing to do with science, b) nothing to do with creationism, and c) nothing to do with the stated purpose of this blog.

Now you can go on all you want about me 'whining' or claim that I'm a christian, or a troll, or whatever you like. I have simply tried to follow my morals and do what I think is right.

I’m not sure how pointing and shouting “Ha, ha, you believe in an-gels!!!” gives a voice to science.

If Dembski is positioned by creationists as a scientist (and as far as I can tell, he's been described as one many times and does not deny it), AND if Dembski is saying angels and demons are genuine objective phenomena, then it is entirely appropriate for PT to request the opportunity to replicate Dembski's evidence, and mock such a position when (as always) his "evidence" turns out to be sheer emotional preference embedded in mendacity.

I'm not saying people shouldn't believe in the doctrines of their chosen faith, but someone who claims that the little imaginary people exclusive to that faith in fact ARE part of everyone's reality, of all faiths or none, is either lying or insane (or both).

The blurb describing this book tells us "Scientist says angels are real." Claims like that need some sort of appropriate response, and mockery is entirely appropriate. Who would take it seriously, even among sane Christians?

someone who claims that the little imaginary people exclusive to that faith in fact ARE part of everyone’s reality, of all faiths or none, is either lying or insane (or both)

If you feel uncomfortable when your beliefs in goblins, fairies, and other invisible creates are called ridiculous, maybe you ought to consider whether they in fact are ridiculous. More power to PZ for having the balls to call a spade a spade.

Hey, Pops, long time no see!

Pass the smelling salts, I may faint. As if being confrontational is a bad thing.

Hi to you too, most humble of Stevies. :-)

So you didn’t click on the “continue reading” link? - Popper's Ghost

I was unable to get to PZ's full blog entry because Websense at work blocksit. I assumed from the Baylor reference it was referencing Dembski. My mistake in being a bit too eager to respond, I suppose, but I did realize the implication of why PZ thought it was salient from the fragment posted here.

What's the deal here? Dembski represents himself as the leading proponent and interpreter of a "scientific" Intelligent Design. The fact that he assigns apparently serious empirical weight to the existence of angels makes it clear that he has lost what grip he had on reality. This is even more bizarre than Behe saying that astrology should be considered a science. It certainly should be fodder for discussion on PT.

Dembski once said that "Christ" is indispensable to science (or some such drivel). This statement about angels is more of the same. It should be crystal clear what motivates this movement. Kudos to PZ for bringing it to our attention.

Why people think that this post is an attack "stigmatizing Christianity" is just inexplicable, unless they also think that a belief in benevolent ghosts is a necessary part of religion.

As a Christian I am always wary of making fun of people's faith. However in this case, I believe that Dembski is not just talking about faith. In fact, ID insists that there is more than regularity and chance and they call this 'intelligence'. If intelligence, as logic dictates, can in fact be broken down into regularity and chance processes then ID remains empty handed.
In addition to calling intelligence "super natural" ID also likes to add such concepts as mind, soul and now angels to the mix.
Now I understand why ID proponents seem to dislike Nancy Murphy, who has done much to show that we need no dualism to remain strong in our faith.
After all, as Nancy points out, if science shows how yet another gap is filled, where else is there for ID to hide?

I had no idea as to the depth of ID's vacuity. It truly is a black hole.

This is even more bizarre than Behe saying that astrology should be considered a science.

Wolfwalker: I'm inclined to agree that PZ's attack on Christian belief in angels and demons -- much of which I found ridiculous even when I was a Christian -- was too broad; and should have focused exclusively on Dembski's lame attempt to pretend such beliefs have scientific validity.

So, in the spirit of sticking to the original purpose of PT, would you care to comment on Dembski's specific dishonesty in this matter?

As a Christian I am always wary of making fun of people’s faith.

In threads like these, I'm always astounded how despite the sizable number of people who find it "rude" or "confrontation" or "in bad taste" or "a turn off" to criticize some particular religious belief, none of them ever actually try to defend said belief as sensible. Why is that? If a belief is indefensible, why get pissy when it is rightfully shot down?

Life Long Atheist Howard Storm did not believe in Angels or demons either until he had a NDE. Now he is an ordained minister!!

what caused the NDE?

A brain tumor?

I'm inclined to agree that PZ's attack on Christian belief in angels and demons -- much of which I found ridiculous even when I was a Christian -- was too broad

Why is that?

I had no idea as to the depth of ID's religion's vacuity. It truly is a black hole.

There. I fixed it for you.

ID may be religion, but not all religion is ID. Hope this helps

To back up Werrf as someone else who long ago gave up Christian spirituality. You act civilized in a discussion because elementary psychology quite clearly reminds us that if you invoke a flight or fight response in your intended audience they are not going to listen to you. Similarly one can deduce by the number of people who have not read the entire blog post the introduction was poorly chosen. People had already filled in the blanks essentially and many had decided that it was more ranting and raving. Clearly pointing out that Dembski was attempting to suggest that angels have a place in science. By all means talk about that and loudly. Reveal in all the utter insanity that will cause. Perhaps then we can actually convince someone that ID is just as bad theology as it is science.
I cannot understand though how anybody with any experience with reality does not understand that insulting your audience is the quickest way to be ignored. If you want to go on with anger filled speech perhaps it's best we stop the masquerade of civility all together and resort to physical violence instead of intellectual violence.

You don't have to be an atheist to think that the idea of angels and demons running around causing minor and not so minor good and evil is ridiculous.

My natal mainstream sect wasn't real big on the idea. In fact they never mentioned it once in several decades.

Bad theology IMO and scripturally dubious. Both entities rarely appear in the bible and usually only at key moments, birth and death of Christ, direct messages from god to somebody and so on. If billions of angels and demons are running around doing stuff, what is the point of getting up in the morning intending to live a good life? Just to find out some demon drained your car battery and let the slugs into the garden. Where is free will then?

The idea of an angel and demon haunted world isn't too appealing. Fortunately, the objective evidence that the world is haunted is about equal to the evidence that vampires roam the night.

sky gods, father gods, trinitarian gods, angels, afterlives, reincarnation, ID what's the difference?

what caused the NDE? A brain tumor?

If you want to go on with anger filled speech perhaps it’s best we stop the masquerade of civility all together and resort to physical violence instead of intellectual violence.

To back up Werrf ... You act civilized ...

Because arguing with people in the wrong tone of voice is exactly the same as beating them to a pulp?

Perhaps while commenting on Dembski's dishonesty, we could also give disclosure on our own belief in angels and demons. It's distracting having to guess whether the protesters are complaining of their own hurt feelings or only speculating that others will be hurt.

I have never designed an experiment nor studied someone else's data while taking the possible actions of angels into account. Not even Maxwell's.

Dembski seems motivated in all this by the filthy lucre his dishonesty can earn. He just doesn't pronounce the L in Gold when he makes his pitch to the believers.

You don't have to be an atheist to think that the idea of angels and demons running around causing minor and not so minor good and evil is ridiculous.

Jedidiah Palosaari is right that the theme is certainly not evolution. However, “Creationists are wacky in more ways than one” is important in the larger picture. With just the slightest urging, or under oath, they’ll start on Demons, Angels, flying saucers, you name it.

Whenever I see people calling PZ Myers hateful or bigoted I grin a little. To take his writings as "hateful" you have to be kind of a moron to begin with. And calling someone on being an idiot (ie, believing invisible beings control every aspect of your life, or that the amazing evidence of the natural world is no substitute for ancient goatherd myths) is no crime. They base their view of the world on what they "believe", what they're told, so having someone call them whatever should be no skin off their back. I still don't understand all the anger. Religious morons, you're going to heaven or whatever stupid crap you believe in, so who cares what sccientists say?

You act civilized in a discussion because elementary psychology quite clearly reminds us that if you invoke a flight or fight response in your intended audience they are not going to listen to you.

Far removed: Whenever I see people calling PZ Myers hateful or bigoted I grin a little. To take his writings as "hateful" you have to be kind of a moron to begin with. And calling someone on being an idiot (ie, believing invisible beings control every aspect of your life, or that the amazing evidence of the natural world is no substitute for ancient goatherd myths) is no crime. They base their view of the world on what they "believe", what they're told, so having someone call them whatever should be no skin off their back. I still don't understand all the anger. Religious morons, you're going to heaven or whatever stupid crap you believe in, so who cares what sccientists say?

I’m sorry. I thought PT was for pro-evolution, anti-ID, anti-creationism postings- not for stigmatizing religion and Christianity.

I often find PZ's articles to be showing a strong position against something he opposes.

sky gods, father gods, trinitarian gods, angels, afterlives, reincarnation, ID what’s the difference?

This seems to me as relevant to Panda's Thumb as Norman Geisler's testimony in the Arkansas creation science trial that he thought UFOs are piloted by demons under the command of Satan.

Brother Jed,

Your superstitions are silly. Go cope.

-jcr

Your superstitions are silly. Go cope.

Ichthyic: a wedge so great that they can never come to see the truth of evolution. you might try actually arguing with a creationist some time. or perhaps you should have watched the debate between Lennox and Dawkins last night? the people who COULD be driven away from science by attacks on RELIGION are already beyond help. but, looking at your approach, would you encourage someone to embrace a delusion just in order to try to get them to see your point? seems like your approach would be doing a disservice to both yourself and the person you are talking to.

Reed A. Cartwright: I agree that people need to finish reading the post on Pharyngula before criticizing it as not belonging on PT. PZ quotes Dembski criticizing scientists for not studying angels. That is what this post is about.

And I can very confidently say that the attacks on my faith at one point kept me from seeing the truth of evolution Why is it that so many Christians refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior? Pick your battles.

And I can very confidently say that the attacks on my faith at one point kept me from seeing the truth of evolution

Pick your battles.

But it was his approach of attacking all religion and Christianity in specific that was more foul.

This post over at Denialism may be relevant to divergent reactions the PZ here.

Implying that it is silly to believe in any supernatural beings that are brought up does not equal criticizing religion overall. Granted some do that as well, but they are not the same thing.
Call those invisible beings Fairies or Elves or Cupid and it's superstition. Just relabel them angels and criticism is of limits?

I don't think that those who believe in fairies, elves, or Cupid are silly. I think they're wrong, and I'd be happy to have a reasoned discussion with them. But I wouldn't claim that they are wrong because science says so. That would just put me on the same level as Dembski.

Popper's Ghost: "I am not sure how you could categorise me as a ‘whiner’" Well maybe you're just stupid.

Ah- quite your whining!

PZ's comments were posted on his blog, where they obviously aren't too broad. And they were apparently crossposted here because the bulk of his post was highly relevant to PT -- something that cretinous whining trolling ahole PZ-bashers like wolfwalker, in all their angst that, FSM forbid, something might be posted at PT that goes against Christian canon, seem unable to grasp or unwilling to address. PZ's post belongs here, it is right that it is here, its presence should be defended, and any implication that it should have been bowdlerized to satisfy the sensibilities of certain individuals is highly offensive to the notion of intellectual inquiry.

Popper's Ghost:

You act civilized in a discussion because elementary psychology quite clearly reminds us that if you invoke a flight or fight response in your intended audience they are not going to listen to you.

Ah, but I listened to Jedidiah Palosaari, wolfwalker, and the rest of these rude jackasses when they launched their ad hominem attacks against PZ and PT for this on-target post rather than addressing the substance, which they have given no clue of ever having read. Perhaps I'm odd that way.

Odd what way?

John C. Randolph: Brother Jed, Your superstitions are silly. Go cope. -jcr

Wow. Playing with my name by insulting me in comparing me to a famous Southern fundamentalist preacher on college campuses. I congratulate you. That was an approach worthy of the DI.

Popper's Ghost:

Odd what way?

You really are quite stupid.

Popper's Ghost:

Ah- quite your whining!

You're really not very good at this, Jedidiah.

Popper's Ghost:

Ah- quite your whining!

You're really not very good at this, Jedidiah.

You're right. I've just been overblown by the strength of your arguments and logic.

I just can't possibly have any cogent response to that.

Popper's Ghost:

You're right. I've just been overblown by the strength of your arguments and logic.

It was an observation, not an argument.

I just can't possibly have any cogent response to that.

You indeed have no cogent response to the arguments I've made, which is why you're reduced to trolling. There could have been an intelligent discussion here of Dembski's comments that PZ highlighted, if you hadn't derailed the thread with your stupid whine about denigrating religious belief.

Popper, you seem to be unwilling to respond to any of the arguments I make

PZ's comments were posted on his blog, where they obviously aren't too broad. And they were apparently crossposted here because the bulk of his post was highly relevant to PT -- something that cretinous whining trolling ahole PZ-bashers like wolfwalker, in all their angst that, FSM forbid, something might be posted at PT that goes against Christian canon, seem unable to grasp or unwilling to address. PZ's post belongs here, it is right that it is here, its presence should be defended, and any implication that it should have been bowdlerized to satisfy the sensibilities of certain individuals is highly offensive to the notion of intellectual inquiry.

Popper's Ghost: Have I mentioned how dishonest you are?

Certainly stupid ad hominem comments about my intelligence or what I can do better than are non responsive.

Evolution is more important than trying to undermine spiritual beliefs, especially if those beliefs are not trying to masquerade as science.

he comment on your intelligence was not intended as an ad hominem attack

P.S.

I of course already said that, more succinctly, by characterizing your comments as "non responsive".

Popper's Ghost: PZ does far more for explaining evolution in a week than Jedidiah has done in a lifetime.

b) The specific spiritual beliefs that PZ is addressing here are trying to masquerade as science. The "serious theologicians" he refers to compare exorcism to cosmetic surgery, and Dembski's comments about "secular intelligentsia" and angels and "The Nature of Nature" is all about science -- it's directly related to the DI wedge. But I've already said that above -- an argument not addressed.

Popper's Ghost:

he comment on your intelligence was not intended as an ad hominem attack

I didn't say it was an attack. You are clearly too stupid and ignorant to understand what "ad hominem" means. It's a matter of addressing the characteristics of a person who makes an argument, rather than the argument itself. My intelligence and what I can or can't do better than are not subjects at all relevant to PT.

You're probably right.

I said that in the initial post, though not as eloquently as you do here.

PZ's comments were posted on his blog, where they obviously aren't too broad. And they were apparently crossposted here because the bulk of his post was highly relevant to PT -- something that cretinous whining trolling ahole PZ-bashers like wolfwalker, in all their angst that, FSM forbid, something might be posted at PT that goes against Christian canon, seem unable to grasp or unwilling to address. PZ's post belongs here, it is right that it is here, its presence should be defended, and any implication that it should have been bowdlerized to satisfy the sensibilities of certain individuals is highly offensive to the notion of intellectual inquiry.

Okay.

This whole thread has almost completely disregarded the major point of PZ Myer's post. Bill Dembski, far from being a moderate who is pushing ID as a slightly more rigorous theistic evolution (as ID originally presented itself) is, in fact, hostile, not only to mainstream biology, but to much of mainstream Christianity.

Dembski characterizes anyone who does not literally believe in angels as "the secular intelligensia," even if they are church-going Christians. Knowing the IDs' tendency to play to the media, I'm sure Dembski's use of the Marxist term "intelligensia" is quite deliberate.

I found PZ's post quite appropriate when I read it on Pharyngula. However, because he simply copied his post there, instead of editing it to be more focused on the specific interests of Panda's Thumb, he missed an opportunity to make a strong point about ID.

People came away with the impression that it's the "evolutionists" (!) who are intolerant of religious differences. In fact, most mainstream Christians will get much more tolerance from biologists than from the ID crowd. That's partly, frankly, because scientists often don't much care about religion, one way or the other. But, still, that seems to me to be far preferable to being told you're part of the "the secular intelligensia" if you don't literally believe the Archangel Michael is going to come down with a flaming sword to slay your dragons (bosses? in-laws?) for you.

This whole thread has almost completely disregarded the major point of PZ Myer's post.

it's about Dembski's attack on "secular intelligentsia" and his attack on "Christian intelligentsia" who treat angels as metaphors

One of Dembski's targets for attack is "a Christian intelligentsia that increasingly regards angels only as figurative or literary devices"

People came away with the impression that it’s the “evolutionists” (!) who are intolerant of religious differences.

I'm way behind in joining this discussion, and just jumped over about 90 posts, but I'll add that Dembski, when asked about how design is put into the word, has mentioned angels as a surrogate or secondary intelligence as a possible cause.

I'll also mention that evolution is only one of the IDists' target: the nature of the brain and the mind is another, and if you read the news you'll see that people have been killed as others tried to exorcise their demons.

Given that the Panda's Thumb is about attacks on science, and about the Intelligent Design movement, PZ's post is entirely appropriate here.

I have not addressed the substance of the post Popper's Ghost because that had nothing to do with the what I was concerned about. Unfortunately I was drawn into too much snarky intellectual posturing last night. Your only address to the point of my critique and that of others has been to call me stupid and intellectually dishonest. When exactly did I become a troll? Did I post something like Cr8tionists rule! Or you suck? I attempted to say clearly I felt that the tenor of the blog post was not productive.
I will stand by that assertion. The world is not the House of Commons where people can argue themselves red in the face and go out for a beer afterwards. I am never going to convince my students evolution is real if I stand up in front of them and call them ignorant whelps. I don't hold an sort of delusions that we can change the minds of people in late adulthood, but again we know based on science (psychology) that beginning a conversation by confrontation is not the best way to change their minds. SO I have "conceded" the content of the post, is it your assertion Popper's Ghost that immediate ridicule is the best way to convince people of the reality of evolution?

I don’t think anyone “came away” with that impression; rather, a few axe grinders brought it with them.

Gee, Dr. Dembksi, could you tell us again the difference between angels and hearing voices in your head?

This should be the #1 Question for Demsbksi, every time he steps away from his little Seminary Sanctuary, and ventures out into the wicked world.

I doubt the non-fundamentalist variants of Christianity would regard skepticism about angels as a major conflict with their creeds.

I'd be more surprised if there were actually a working scientist among the commenters here, who believes angels have any active role in the contemporary world.

I finally get back, and read all the posts...
Some people use a lot of words and never really say much.
By the way, I did read the entire post before I commented. I agree that Dembski's silly anytime he wants to 'scientificize' religion. In the past, however, the posts on PT have been more tolerant of religious beliefs (as crazy as they may seem). This post spent considerable time ridiculing Christian beliefs, and is a step towards alienating some theistic evolutionists (and, apparently, some tolerant non-theists as well) who have, in the past, enjoyed PT.

We all have our own private dilusions- every one of us on this board. Of course, each of us will never admit that, including myself. But I submit that some things are more important than others. Pick your battles. Evolution is more important than trying to undermine spiritual beliefs, especially if those beliefs are not trying to masquerade as science.

People came away with the impression that it's the "evolutionists" (!) who are intolerant of religious differences. In fact, most mainstream Christians will get much more tolerance from biologists than from the ID crowd. That's partly, frankly, because scientists often don't much care about religion, one way or the other. But, still, that seems to me to be far preferable to being told you're part of the "the secular intelligensia" if you don't literally believe the Archangel Michael is going to come down with a flaming sword to slay your dragons (bosses? in-laws?) for you.

Those compaining about what PZ has said seem to be going in for special pleading.

Imagine for a moment how you would have responded if he had said that belief in alien abduction was idiotic. How many of you protesters would have said he had no business saying that ? Not many of you I would imagine. So why do you protest when he says it about belief in angels and demons ? The evidence to support either contention amounts to the same, nil!

I would also point that believing things exist for which there is no evidence is not not scientific, it is also anti-scientific as it assumes that there are material events and objects science cannot explain.

Myers's post was specifically concerned with the characteristics of creationists - or at least one prominent specimen thereof - and thus entirely fitting for the purposes of Panda's Thumb.

To put the same point another way: why weren't these same critics hollering "Stick to the biology!" when PT reported on Kent Hovind's trial and sentencing? Violations of the tax code aren't scientifically relevant, either. Similarly, if Dembski robbed a bank, molested a stuffed panda, or leg-pressed 2000 pounds, commentary on that would be suitable grist for this mill.

As for the scientific issues, Myers is correct in pointing out the lack of material evidence for studies in angelology. He is, however, remiss in not calling for systematic research into the abundant phenomena we might justifiably, if tentatively, label trollology.

"Well, I’m not sure I can surprise you given how this was worded, but I am a working scientist and I believe in angels, although I have never seen anything that I attribute to them. I certainly believe they are capable of interacting with people, but I am not sure that in this age of full revelation they still are."

I expected little else from you Heddle. After all you are on record as saying you would object strongly to your daughter marrying an atheist so we know that you in for bigotry. Still I must admit I am surprised you were willing to admit to be a scientist who refuses to think scientifically.

"Sorry, but the emperor has no clothes – belief in demons and angels is STUPID."

Oh yeah?

Well, what about the talking snake?

Nothing stupid about that...

Creationism with Ricky Gervais (10min)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=creationism

Matt,

I am not a scientist "who refuses to think scientifically." I am a scientist who doesn't feel the need to claim that all I care about is all science, all the time. I have quite a few interests, in fact, that do not require application of the scientific method.

Since Laser seemed to be making a call above for data on 'readers' as opposed to 'posters', I'll jump in as a longish-term reader who's never felt the need to post a comment before -- it looks to me like a lot of concern trolling going on. Hey, I'm not statistically significant, but you did ask.

Heddle,

"I am not a scientist “who refuses to think scientifically.” I am a scientist who doesn’t feel the need to claim that all I care about is all science, all the time. I have quite a few interests, in fact, that do not require application of the scientific method."

That is not the problem. The problem is your willfull disregard for the scientific method in areas which in within its purview.

Matt Penfold: Imagine for a moment how you would have responded if he had said that belief in alien abduction was idiotic. I would also point that believing things exist for which there is no evidence is not not scientific, it is also anti-scientific as it assumes that there are material events and objects science cannot explain.

That is not the problem. The problem is your willfull disregard for the scientific method in areas which in within its purview.

Popper's Ghost: On that note, I'll bid you goodnight. If you want a response to whatever else you might have to say, just refer to what I have already written.

Jedidiah, in my ever so humble opinion there is no point encouraging people who make personal remarks.

Heddle,

First you said:

"Well, I’m not sure I can surprise you given how this was worded, but I am a working scientist and I believe in angels, although I have never seen anything that I attribute to them. I certainly believe they are capable of interacting with people, but I am not sure that in this age of full revelation they still are."

Here you are saying Angels are, or at least were, within the purview of science.

"So you are siding with Dembski on this? Or is this a “have your cake and eat it too” kind of thing? That is, are you criticizing both Dembski, who appears to be arguing that angels are within the purview of science, and scientists/theists such as myself who say they are not and have no interest whatsoever in bringing science to bear on the question?"

And here you say the opposite.

Can I ask you to at least be consistant in your idiocy ?

I suspect you are yet another example of a Christian who thinks lying for Jesus is Ok.

but to direct to the first, I’d say the difference between aliens and angels is that the former belief argues that it can be proven/is proven. Perhaps it can be, but it hasn’t, therefore faith in them is ludicrous. The belief in the existence of angels is not one that can be proven, and therefore is of a different matter.

TheBlackCat: They cannot be proven? If angels interact in any way with the natural world then such interactions should leave evidence behind. The only way in which beings like that would be unprovable is if they are being careful to never appear under situations under which their existence could be conclusively determined and intentionally never leave any conclusive physical evidence of their activities, instead appearing only in ambiguous cases to small numbers of people and behaving in a way that could have natural explanations. In other words, if they were trying to hide their existence. If you look at the arguments used by UFOlogists, you will see that this is exactly the same argument used by them to explain the lack of conclusive physical evidence or conclusive sightings needed to prove the existence of aliens (or creatures from another dimension, people from the future, demons, or whatever it is that person thinks pilots UFOs). There really is no difference between the two. They are both beings with supposedly superhuman but not omnipotent abilities that supposedly interact with the natural world on a routine basis, supposedly leave evidence of their existence, and supposedly have appeared to individuals or small groups of people, but so far have left no even remotely strong evidence that they exist. In both cases those who believe in it claim that this is either because the people who don't believe are just closed-minded or because the beings are careful to hide their presence from proof. Am I missing anything? What differences do you see between the two?

I guess I’m saying that angels are like God- inherently unprovable. I believe God works in the world, but in such a way that it is the same as what we find in physical laws operating on their own.

[...] If angels interact in any way with the natural world then such interactions should leave evidence behind. [...]

TheBlackCat:

I guess I’m saying that angels are like God- inherently unprovable. I believe God works in the world, but in such a way that it is the same as what we find in physical laws operating on their own.

In other words they are intentionally hiding their existence. That is exactly what I said, and no different from what UFOlogists think. I still fail to see the distinction.

TheBlackCat:

but to direct to the first, I’d say the difference between aliens and angels is that the former belief argues that it can be proven/is proven. Perhaps it can be, but it hasn’t, therefore faith in them is ludicrous. The belief in the existence of angels is not one that can be proven, and therefore is of a different matter.

They cannot be proven? If angels interact in any way with the natural world then such interactions should leave evidence behind. The only way in which beings like that would be unprovable is if they are being careful to never appear under situations under which their existence could be conclusively determined and intentionally never leave any conclusive physical evidence of their activities, instead appearing only in ambiguous cases to small numbers of people and behaving in a way that could have natural explanations. In other words, if they were trying to hide their existence. If you look at the arguments used by UFOlogists, you will see that this is exactly the same argument used by them to explain the lack of conclusive physical evidence or conclusive sightings needed to prove the existence of aliens (or creatures from another dimension, people from the future, demons, or whatever it is that person thinks pilots UFOs). There really is no difference between the two. They are both beings with supposedly superhuman but not omnipotent abilities that supposedly interact with the natural world on a routine basis, supposedly leave evidence of their existence, and supposedly have appeared to individuals or small groups of people, but so far have left no even remotely strong evidence that they exist. In both cases those who believe in it claim that this is either because the people who don't believe are just closed-minded or because the beings are careful to hide their presence from proof. Am I missing anything? What differences do you see between the two?

Eric Finn:

[...] If angels interact in any way with the natural world then such interactions should leave evidence behind. [...]

Yes, we might expect them to leave traces. On the other hand, if they intervene only occasionally, then it would be difficult to find the evidence. Sorry, I am only nitpicking. I do not seriously have objections to the point you made. Regards Eric

I suspect you are yet another example of a Christian who thinks lying for Jesus is Ok.

What differences do you see between the two?

I believe God works in the world, but in such a way that it is the same as what we find in physical laws operating on their own.

I beleive if you check your primary literature for 1984, Drs. Venkman, Spengler and Stantz did some original research in the area that produced positive results.

heddle: Matt Penfold, No inconsistency. I never once stated that angels are in the purview of science. I said I believe they are capable of interacting with people, although I have never seen it.

I'm saying that God's presence in the world is not something that can be scientifically measured or proven, ever, and I think the same is true of angels.

Yes, we might expect them to leave traces. On the other hand, if they intervene only occasionally, then it would be difficult to find the evidence.

It strikes me that there is a split here between people who think that Anges interacting with the universe are within the purview if science and those who claim Angels can interact, and presumably have a material effect since that is what is implied by the word intervene in this context, but are not within the purview of science.

It also strikes me that this latter group are rather ignorant of what science is and how it works, even if they do claim to work as scientists. All I can say is I hope that such people never get involved in anything that effects me.

There is the inconsistency. If they can interact with people they are within the purview of science.

Heddle,

"Look at it this way. Suppose tomorrow Dawkins announced that he had accepted Christianity and his behavior and writing changed radically. That would be a visible, measurable effect. How could you use science to prove or disprove his claim that it was the result of God’s interacting in his life? You couldn’t. "

Correct, I could not. Therefore there is no reason to suppose he had any kind of visitation. In fact the most sensible thing to assume was he had suffered some kind of mental illness or brain injury.

If you want to claim Angel intervene with people it is for you to show how we can differentiate that from them having lost the plot. You have failed to do so, and yet persist in claiming Angels can interact with people. All I can say to you is prove it or admit you lied.

You know Heddle, I do know people who believe in god, and in the most part I can accept that. It is people like you who claim be to scientists and yet clearly are not, who claim that Angel (or God) interact with the world, but fail to offer evidence to support thaty claim, who bring their religion into disrepute.

You are nothing but a lying bastard as far as I am concerned.

If you want to claim Angel intervene with people it is for you to show how we can differentiate that from them having lost the plot. You have failed to do so, and yet persist in claiming Angels can interact with people. All I can say to you is prove it or admit you lied.

You know Heddle, I do know people who believe in god, and in the most part I can accept that. It is people like you who claim be to scientists and yet clearly are not, who claim that Angel (or God) interact with the world, but fail to offer evidence to support thaty claim, who bring their religion into disrepute. You are nothing but a lying bastard as far as I am concerned.

heddle: Also, the major creeds say nothing about angels, so the question of their conflict with angels is meaningless.

Well, I'm not sure I can surprise you given how this was worded, but I am a working scientist and I believe in angels, although I have never seen anything that I attribute to them. I certainly believe they are capable of interacting with people, but I am not sure that in this age of full revelation they still are.

"No I clearly am a scientist. Perhaps not that good of one, but a scientist I am. I work as a scientist, do science in a national lab, and get paid as a scientist. Why, even on my 1040 I list “physicist” as my occupation!"

I can see why this would confuse you. You may have job in science, doing science but you are not a scientist as by your own admission you reject the scientific method.

I have no idea what a 1040 is so I cannot comment on that.

You lied and you lack the guts to admit it.

Typical.

Gerard Harbison: The Roman Catholic Church is a major creed, and the existence of angels is a matter of dogma. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm

Heddle is indeed a scientist, in any sense of the term you care to use. We exchanged CVs once, IIRC. There's really no call for the personal attacks.

I don't understand scientists who believe in the supernatural; the traditional role of the supernatural was to explain what could not be explained naturalistically, and we're running short on such material. Belief in an unnecessary supernatural strikes me as distinctly odd. But I accept that there are indeed scientists who believe in the supernatural, and some are, in fact, much better than I am at what they do.

I can see why this would confuse you. You may have job in science, doing science but you are not a scientist as by your own admission you reject the scientific method. I have no idea what a 1040 is so I cannot comment on that. You lied and you lack the guts to admit it.

According to my limited knowledge, and even more limited understanding, human beings have a desire to find explanations of whatever they observe. In most cases, they are seeking some advantage by understanding the phenomena involved. The scientific method, often called methodological naturalism, has proven to be a good tool. We start with a set of observations, then try to make a model (a hypothesis) that could explain the observations. There are plenty of possible explanations for a given set of observations. The scientific method puts further restrictions to the hypotheses. It demands that the hypothesis shall be able to predict something new. Then we may try to find out, if our observations confirm or refute the said hypothesis.

According to my personal understanding, the hypothesis may contain whatever elements, including angels. The observations to confirm or refute a hypothesis, on the other hand, need to be naturalistic. They can not include revelations or other individual experiences. Hindus, Muslims, Christians and others measure the same mass for an electron. This is the naturalistic part of the scientific method. On the other hand, a Christian might see a touch of her or his God in the change of the behaviour of a friend, while a Hindu might have a totally different interpretation.

Now, what does science say about angels? If we agree with the above paragraphs, science accepts angels as parts of a hypothesis, if that hypothesis predicts successfully a natural phenomenon.

What does science say about persons, who believe in angels, but do not put forward any hypotheses?
I presume, science says nothing.

Regards

Eric

No, I gave you a perfect example to prove my point. When a person is saved there is usually a detectable change in their behavior. Most people get the “you are different” comments. Said believer believes that God changed him. His unbelieving friends would say that the change they see, whether they consider it good or bad, is ultimately based on a delusion.

I was a big fan of Buffy and charmed and I'm sorry they've ended.All good harmless fun, in my opinion.

However, I'm sure I've read somewhere that the fundies approved of TV shows like Buffy etc. as they assumed an after life.

What is this, an online group freakout? Heddle repeatedly admitted he couldn't prove any of his beliefs to our satisfaction, and wasn't trying to force us to toe his line, and still he gets called a liar by someone who refuses to describe what lie, exactly, Heddle allegedly told.

I don't share Heddle's beliefs either, but he's done us no wrong deserving of such groundless insults. Can we please stick to trashing people who HAVE done wrong?

heddle: I was indeed referring to the historic creeds of the church.

MyaR, thanks for posting, even if you're the only one!

Peter Henderson said: I was a big fan of Buffy and charmed and I’m sorry they’ve ended. All good harmless fun, in my opinion. However, I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that the fundies approved of TV shows like Buffy etc. as they assumed an after life.

I don't think anyone "came away" with that impression; rather, a few axe grinders brought it with them.

MyaR, thanks for posting, even if you’re the only one!

You may have job in science, doing science but you are not a scientist as by your own admission you reject the scientific method.

I have no idea what a 1040 is so I cannot comment on that.

You lied and you lack the guts to admit it.

Jedidiah, in my ever so humble opinion there is no point encouraging people who make personal remarks.

You were right earlier. I should have let you have your say and not responded.

But that point is almost obscured by the mocking of those who believe in angels

and such mocking (which doesn't bother me in the least) would seem better suited for Pharyngula.

PZ's comments were posted on his blog, where they obviously aren't too broad. And they were apparently crossposted here because the bulk of his post was highly relevant to PT -- something that [...] PZ-bashers like wolfwalker, in all their angst that, FSM forbid, something might be posted at PT that goes against Christian canon, seem unable to grasp or unwilling to address. PZ's post belongs here, it is right that it is here, its presence should be defended, and any implication that it should have been bowdlerized to satisfy the sensibilities of certain individuals is highly offensive to the notion of intellectual inquiry.

P.S. As noted previously, it isn't the people who are mocked so much as the beliefs themselves, and folks like Nick Matze, Mike Haubrich, and even Pete Dunkelberg have explained above why.

In the past, however, the posts on PT have been more tolerant of religious beliefs (as crazy as they may seem).

This post spent considerable time ridiculing Christian beliefs

and is a step towards alienating some theistic evolutionists (and, apparently, some tolerant non-theists as well) who have, in the past, enjoyed PT

My $.02:

I see several examples of people talking past each other. If "heddle" who works as a physicist cares to believe in the existence of a supernatural agency that directs cosmic rays to interact with DNA such that a particular series of mutations occurs that leads to conscious beings that said supernatural agency can interact with by causing thoughts to pop into their heads, there's nothing in that belief that prevents anyone from performing the functions of a physicist. If that's compartmentalization, fine, it's just human nature, and no sense railing against that as long as it affects no one else. Someone else mentioned that the universe we see is indistinguishable from one in which there is no supernatural. I agree, and I would submit that this fact implies that the only way a religion can remain viable for 2K years or more is if it proclaims that faith is necessary, which would imply that God did not leave scientifically verifiable fingerprints that would negate the necessity for faith.

All I ask of the spiritually-minded is that they admit the difference between objective (that which happens in the real world and for which there is evidence) and subjective (that which happens within the mind and for which there is no evidence), and that science is objective and faith is subjective. Such a position encourages doubt, which (far from being a sin) is healthy and necessary in the world. Doubt usually carries a little compassion in it's back pocket; certainty has none. It is that lack of compassion that frightens me about fundamentalists, and especially the theocratic variety, no matter if their book is the Bible or the Koran. That is the true danger of "the Wedge," and I believe it is the ultimate reason for our opposition to creationism/ID/teach-the-controversy. There's no reason to believe these people would stop at corrupting science.

P.S. I find absurd this notion that expressing the view that belief in angels is ludicrous is "intolerant". That's like saying that those who claim that GWB is the worst president ever and should be impeached are intolerant of Bush supporters. It is those who wish to squelch the expression of views they don't like who are intolerant.

Really? They considered that more important than the routine use of witchcraft by main characters in those shows?

Well, here is one Christian complaining about Buffy, Charmed, etc.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/teenwitchcraft.html

Whee!

Now this is more like it. PT's been far too humdrum lately.

In the immortal words of Marvin Gaye, "Let's get it on!"

___________
Notes:
"Immortal" was used for literary effect; no supernatural or religious connotations intended, one way or the other.
And, yes, I know the original concept was Ed Townsend, but the final version was co-authored/arranged with Marvin.

my $.02

PZ pointed out a few things that I agree with:

Dembski's comments about angels/demons reveal that he believes that :
a) angels/demons are objectively REAL and to ignore their existence in SCIENTIFIC endeavors is ignoring an aspect of reality.

b) Christians who don't believe in the objective reality of angels/demons (in the same way that Dembski does) are not REALLY CHRISTIANS

c) Members of group "b" above are just as bad as atheists

d) all scientists except for those that believe "a" above are atheists

e) atheists are evil

These beliefs by Dembski are relevant to the creationism/evolution discussion - it illustrates the scope of Dembski's worldview.

Here's what I don't agree with about PZ's post. PZ says that THEOLOGIANS' beliefs that angels/demons are real- are ridiculous.

I can see how some would take offense to this.

Here's what I don't agree with about PZ's post. PZ says that THEOLOGIANS' beliefs that angels/demons are real- are ridiculous.

I can see how some would take offense to this.

Matt Penfold: Those compaining about what PZ has said seem to be going in for special pleading. Imagine for a moment how you would have responded if he had said that belief in alien abduction was idiotic. How many of you protesters would have said he had no business saying that ? Not many of you I would imagine. So why do you protest when he says it about belief in angels and demons ? The evidence to support either contention amounts to the same, nil! I would also point that believing things exist for which there is no evidence is not not scientific, it is also anti-scientific as it assumes that there are material events and objects science cannot explain.

Pierce R. Butler: Myers's post was specifically concerned with the characteristics of creationists - or at least one prominent specimen thereof - and thus entirely fitting for the purposes of Panda's Thumb. To put the same point another way: why weren't these same critics hollering "Stick to the biology!" when PT reported on Kent Hovind's trial and sentencing? Violations of the tax code aren't scientifically relevant, either. Similarly, if Dembski robbed a bank, molested a stuffed panda, or leg-pressed 2000 pounds, commentary on that would be suitable grist for this mill. As for the scientific issues, Myers is correct in pointing out the lack of material evidence for studies in angelology. He is, however, remiss in not calling for systematic research into the abundant phenomena we might justifiably, if tentatively, label trollology.

It always seemed to me that comments by Christians about people arguing over the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, were in fact ridiculing theologians.

They may not have had sufficient theological training to know why such a concept was developed, but they still found the theologians to be laughable.

Maybe I could argue that PZ is just carrying on an ancient and time tested tradition.

Now as to why the angels feel they have to remain undetected... And only since the Enlightenment.

Now this is more like it. PT’s been far too humdrum lately.

They may not have had sufficient theological training to know why such a concept was developed .... .... only since the Enlightenment.

Some ghosts should not be invoked. Naming does that, they say.

Peter Henderson:

Really? They considered that more important than the routine use of witchcraft by main characters in those shows?

Yes, I thought that as well Henry. I'm sure I've read somewhere though, that they weren't against shows like Buffy for the reasons I've mentioned. Certainly I've seen nothing on the AiG website condemning them. Ham doesn't like either Star Trek TNG or any of the CSI shows because of the atheistic/anti-Christian themes in many of the episodes, or so he claims.

Some ghosts should not be invoked.

Naming does that, they say.

I see my words inspired an entirely different train of thought.

Be careful. I should think even just the appearance of quote mining would get you into trouble in these parts.

That's the trouble with being intentionally ambiguous. I was referring to he whose name begins with L.

I see my words inspired an entirely different train of thought.

Be careful. I should think even just the appearance of quote mining would get you into trouble in these parts.

I was referring to he whose name begins with L.

In his weekly chapel address today, Mr. Roberts said God had spoken to him this morning and advised him to respond to the lawsuit. "Here's what he told me to say to you," Mr. Roberts told the students and professors gathered at the service, according to the Associated Press. "'We live in a litigious society. Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not.' "'This lawsuit ... is not about wrongful termination,'" Mr. Roberts said God added. "'It is about intimidation, blackmail, and extortion,'" he said, according to the wire service.

It comes down to this: Whose report are we going to believe? Are we going to believe God's report--what He tells us in His Word...or are we going to believe the enemy's report--the circumstances we see all around us?

Seems you all are on top of this.

Oh, something of substance? Um, well, Popper's Ghost is correct in that this is about Dembski and his beliefs, more precisely that he now concretely describes his designer to some degree. (And Tim Jones is wrong that there is hatred in the post's description.) So there.

To quote PZ (hey, who reads him?), "or, at least, the designer's assistants".

Uh, wha-?

Whaddaya mean, I was "invoked." I'm sleeping soundly, for a change, in between arduous shifts of delivering tasty pizza hot'n'quick for too-few tips, and I'm woken out of said sound sleep, because somebody invoked me?

What does that even mean?

And why doesn't Congress do something useful, like make it illegal?

Instead of reauthorizing funds to kill endangered gerbils in far places.

[fumes, steams, hisses, and finally grumps to a finish]

Yawn! Ah, well, at least Torbjorn's awake, too. That's something, anyway.

Next we'll probably see Nurse Bettinke...

But if "Dr." Michael Martin shows up, I'm outta here.

One thing that always made me suspicious of the billions of free lance angels flying around, doing stuff theory. Such as filling the bird feeder, killing dandelions, sorting the junk mail, leaving a saucer of milk out for the brownies and being and generally benign and helpful. Plus flipping a few nucleotides here and there to keep evolution marching on.

The existence of hordes of angels automatically implies the existence of hordes of demons. Burning out the light bulbs, encouraging the snails to eat the roses, scaring away the brownies, pulling the plugs on the life support systems in the ICU, and generally being malevolent and mean.

So Dembski believes in the invisible armies of angels. This means he also believes in the invisible armies of demons. The angel half seems to be a fun and harmless belief. The demon half of the theory can and does get people killed pretty often. During exorcisms, and lately there have been cases where mentally ill people are left untreated. So Andea Yates drowns her kids, and Cho Seung kills 30 people. Medicine left the demon theory of illness behind a century ago.

I've argued elsewhere that this is a scripturally unsound interpretation without evidence that calls free will into question and am not going to repeat it.

The demon half of the theory can and does get people killed pretty often. During exorcisms

One thing that always made me suspicious of the billions of free lance angels flying around, doing stuff theory. Such as filling the bird feeder, killing dandelions, sorting the junk mail, leaving a saucer of milk out for the brownies and being and generally benign and helpful.

I think you have angels confused with, ahem, undocumented alien nannies.

Yoikes! The first paragraph of the above was, of course, quoting Raven!

There really are angels that kill dandelions?? GET ME ONE. QUICK!

On a more serious note, I was the person who said that people were coming away with the impression that "evolutionists" were more intolerant of religious differences than IDers are. My only point being, I think PZ should have edited his post to be more on-topic for Panda's Thumb.

I, myself, read Pharyngula, and find PZ's anti-religious snark entertaining. That's because PZ virtually always criticizes a particular statement or action by a religious believer. It's not just a hate-filled rant against all religion. But for people who don't read Pharyngula, getting one blog entry out of context doesn't allow the generally constructive tone of the blog to come across.

In this case, Bill Dembski's belief in the literal existence of angels-- and his eagerness to demonize anyone who doesn't share that belief-- is definitely important news relevant to Panda's Thumb. Theistic evolutionists need to know what the Christian-dominionist IDers really stand for-- and it's not religious tolerance. That message needs to get out loud and clear.

In wishing that PZ had written something more on topic for Panda's Thumb, rather than simply cutting and pasting his Pharyngula entry, I am emphatically not saying he should have "bowdlerized" his entry, as Popper's Ghost would have it. Clear writing always involves editing, and editing that entry so that it made the main point up front and didn't stray off into PZ's personal beliefs first would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, I think.

The only what? Do you understand what a “concern troll” is? It’s pretty much a synonym for my term “axe grinder”.

I’m not making a claim one way or the other, but you are.

You said you didn’t think so, and I asked for evidence for your claim.

The only datum point! Go re-read MyaR’s post, and it will become clear.

And BTW, as I already noted, MyaR didn't post an opinion on the "claim" that you challenged -- my null hypothesis universal negative opinion that I already justified -- but rather on the claim that I actually did make -- "a few axe grinders brought it with them" -- and MyaR agreed: "it looks to me like a lot of concern trolling going on".

PG: I don't think there are any pink ravens with yellow polka dots; rather, they are mostly black

unlit Laser: What's your evidence for that claim?

As far as I know, if you discount the birds of paradise and bowerbirds, which are closely related to crows and ravens, the closest I can think of to a pink raven with yellow polka dots is the rosy starling, which looks vaguely like a raven with a black head and pink body and wings. But, it's a starling, and not a raven.

Right, starlings aren't ravens.

Coming back here I am again impressed by how mind-bogglingly intellectually inept this "Laser" person is. I said "I don't think ..." ... I didn't make any assertion about anything other than my own mental state, I didn't demand assent to my belief or even imply that someone who didn't share it was mistaken. Laser says "You made the statement, you provide evidence". Evidence that I don't think a certain thing? One's claim to have an opinion is all the evidence that is usually required to establish that they have it. As to the content of my opinion, it was a universal negative, and as any non-retard knows, the sort of evidence that is commonly provided for a universal negative is the absence of evidence of its negation -- that no pink ravens with yellow polka dots have ever been observed is evidence that there are none. Of course there are other sorts of justifications for such claims; there are all sorts of biological reasons why we should expect never to see a (naturally colored) pink raven with yellow polka dots. And I gave some justifications for my opinion: Of course there might be someone who came away from this thread with the impression that "the evolutionists" are intolerant of religious expression, but they would be rather stupid for doing so, wouldn't they? After all, PZ isn't "the evolutionists", his views of religion are already well known, a number of evolutionists have distanced themselves from his views in this thread and previously, and in any case his personally finding religious superstitions to be silly is not "intolerance". So that's the basis for my belief, or suspicion, or expectation, or hypothesis, or speculation (any of which would be consistent with "I don't think ...") that there are no such people, while granting that there could be people that stupid (there is, all, Laser). But even after that explanation. Laser writes "Otherwise, it's unsubstantiated speculation." Well of course it's unsubstantiated speculation! Who ever claimed otherwise? I didn't formally prove it (I can't), and I didn't state it as a fact, I said "I don't think ..." ... that's speculating, duh. But it's not an unjustified speculation.

If we've got people so utterly clueless as Laser on "our side", just think what we're up against in educating our populace.

hoary puccoon: On a more serious note, I was the person who said that people were coming away with the impression that "evolutionists" were more intolerant of religious differences than IDers are. My only point being, I think PZ should have edited his post to be more on-topic for Panda's Thumb. I, myself, read Pharyngula, and find PZ's anti-religious snark entertaining. That's because PZ virtually always criticizes a particular statement or action by a religious believer. It's not just a hate-filled rant against all religion. But for people who don't read Pharyngula, getting one blog entry out of context doesn't allow the generally constructive tone of the blog to come across. In this case, Bill Dembski's belief in the literal existence of angels-- and his eagerness to demonize anyone who doesn't share that belief-- is definitely important news relevant to Panda's Thumb. Theistic evolutionists need to know what the Christian-dominionist IDers really stand for-- and it's not religious tolerance. That message needs to get out loud and clear. In wishing that PZ had written something more on topic for Panda's Thumb, rather than simply cutting and pasting his Pharyngula entry, I am emphatically not saying he should have "bowdlerized" his entry, as Popper's Ghost would have it. Clear writing always involves editing, and editing that entry so that it made the main point up front and didn't stray off into PZ's personal beliefs first would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, I think.

I did find his anti-religious anti-Christian messages rather hate-filled.

It was sad, because I really enjoyed the science, but I got tired of post after post being directed against something rather than for science.

I was the person who said that people were coming away with the impression that “evolutionists” were more intolerant of religious differences than IDers are.

BTW, that's not what you said. Previously you said that "it's the "evolutionists" (!) who are intolerant of religious differences". I think even you are bright enough to understand the difference between that and your latter statement, which is a comparison, as opposed to an absolute, and is about members of sets rather than a whole set. Well, maybe you are, but truly bright people simply don't misuse group classifications that way. No doubt there is some "evolutionist" somewhere -- perhaps PZ -- who is more intolerant of religious differences than some IDer is (although I can't think of one), but the more general conclusion is quite groundless, especially when, as I noted, some "evolutionists" are disclaiming PZ in this very thread so, as I noted, it would take particularly stupid people to come away with that impression. Aside from it being unfair to blame PZ for the impressions that particularly stupid people come away with, it is pathetic cowardice to whine about the possibility. If this is what you call "serious", you should stick with humor.

That's not hate and intolerance -- that's what is coming from you, who can't tolerate people saying what they believe, just because what they believe is that your beliefs are foolish.

But for people who don't read Pharyngula, getting one blog entry out of context doesn't allow the generally constructive tone of the blog to come across.

Clear writing always involves editing, and editing that entry so that it made the main point up front and didn't stray off into PZ's personal beliefs first would have saved everyone a lot of trouble, I think.

BTW, PZ's writing was clear -- he thinks belief in angels, demons, and similar religious superstitions are both foolish and destructive -- not only because of the role in plays in DI's culture war, although that's an important case. And asking him to edit that out most certainly is a request for bowdlerization. What the godheads and appeasers want to sweep under the rug is that many scientists and other rational people have a great deal of sympathy with PZ's view.

PG--
Excuse me, but *I* have a great deal of sympathy for PZ's views. I know pretty well from reading a lot of Pharyngula what PZ's views and actions are. And I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone who believed in theistic evolution that he could expect a lot fairer treatment from PZ Myers (and a number of other outspoken atheists) than from Bill Dembski and the ID crowd. Just consider the way Ken Miller gets treated by the two groups.

I think that's the important point here, because the ID's 'don't ask don't tell' tactic is partly aimed at convincing vaguely religious people that ID represents a mild sort of theistic evolution (while simultaneously letting the YECers think ID represents biblical inerrancy, of course.) Dembski's trash job on Christians who don't literally believe in angels shows just how far IDers are from the middle of the road.

Excuse me, but *I* have a great deal of sympathy for PZ’s views.

hoary puccoon: I think that's the important point here, because the ID's 'don't ask don't tell' tactic is partly aimed at convincing vaguely religious people that ID represents a mild sort of theistic evolution (while simultaneously letting the YECers think ID represents biblical inerrancy, of course.)

idiot

moron

Popper's Ghost--

You are so totally, totally correct. I did fail to address anything you wrote, and just went back to what I thought was important. I'm terribly sorry about that.

Have a lovely day.

Popper's Ghost:

Here's what I don't agree with about PZ's post. PZ says that THEOLOGIANS' beliefs that angels/demons are real- are ridiculous.

Did you read his piece in which he explains why? Where JP Moreland makes false analogies between cosmetic surgery and exorcism?

I can see how some would take offense to this.

Some people take offense at all sorts of things, like people of different skin color, sexual preference, or political views, so of course there are people who take offense at someone thinking that their superstitions are ridiculous. But so what? Why should PZ or anyone else have to hide their (quite rational) views just because someone might be offended by their expression? How does the existence of such people support your disagreement about PZ's post? Do you think he doesn't find those superstitions ridiculous? After all, that's all he said: "I can't help it; I find these notions ridiculous to an extreme, and the absurdity of serious scholars blaming diseases on demonic possession in the 21st century is something one has to find laughable." Perhaps it's not so much laughable as sad, but it certainly is a propos to the concerns here about science education and the evaluation of biological cause. Do you find serious scholars blaming diseases on demonic possession unproblematic?

I can't believe there are people actually defending belief in angels and demons here. Damn, people, it's the 21st Century, not the 12th. Respecting people's rights to practice religion doesn't mean you have to respect people who willingly live in a fantasy world.

I enjoy Buffy the Vampire Slayer as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's a documentary.

it is legitimate for theologians to express their expert opinion about their religion it is legitimate for scientists to express their expert opinion about science

I have a great deal of respect for PZ

oh yes, that comes through soooo clearly...

not only do you not have respect for PZ, you don't have respect for any argument from evidence, most likely.

for the record, I am a Catholic. I also have a B.S, in Biology from the University of Illinois. I am a certified high school Biology teacher (but not currently employed as one) I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to creationism or religious apologetics of any kind being part of public school curricula - I do have respect for PZ (that does not mean I have to agree w/him on every post he makes)

Ichthyic said:
apples and oranges....
that is my entire point
Dembski shouldn't call himself a scientist if he believes that disease is caused by demons etc.

NDT said:
I can’t believe there are people actually defending belief in angels and demons here. Damn, people, it’s the 21st Century, not the 12th. Respecting people’s rights to practice religion doesn’t mean you have to respect people who willingly live in a fantasy world.

I'm not defending the belief in angels I'm not qualified to do so nor do I personally hold the belief that angels/demons literally exist- I'm saying its silly to expect some christian theologians not to believe in angels or to ridicule his/her belief. its like saying "the pope is so stupid - he actually believes in Jesus"

My point was that some would percieve PZ’s disdain of those beliefs held by religious scholars (theologians) about a religious subject matter to be offensive

I’m saying its silly to expect some christian theologians not to believe in angels or to ridicule his/her belief.

its like saying “the pope is so stupid - he actually believes in Jesus”

it is legitimate for theologians to express their expert opinion about their religion

PZ is entitled to his opinion, and to write whatever he wants, and believe whatever he wants. My point was that some would percieve PZ’s disdain of those beliefs held by religious scholars (theologians) about a religious subject matter to be offensive - here’s why

Here’s what I don’t agree with about PZ’s post. PZ says that THEOLOGIANS’ beliefs that angels/demons are real- are ridiculous. I can see how some would take offense to this.

“how can a scholar/ educated person in the 21st century believe in angels, only uneducated, stupid, unsophisticated, or brainwashed individuals literally believe in angels”

IMO PZ’s comments (about the belief in angels/demons being ridiculous)are out of line, he is expressing a religious viewpoint in a scientific context. ... PZ is entitled to his opinion, and to write whatever he wants, and believe whatever he wants.

I think I have failed in communicating clearly
I was trying to answer, objectively, if any of PZ's comments could reasonable be found to be offensive (as some were saying)

I saw some comments on the thread reacting to PZ's comments - (who seemed to be offended, specifically about comments about the belief in angels/demons)

and many responses to these comments basically defended PZ's statements - and implied that PZ's post wasn't offensive

I merely stated that I could see how some of PZ's comments COULD BE offensive and WHY I believed this- I also observed that the passages that some seemed to be taking offense to- weren't even about the POINT that PZ was making (which I agreed with)

the main point IMO = here's more evidence that Dembski is a wacko- He not only literally believes in angels/demons but believes that science should take into consideration the actions of angels/demons. (science that does not account for the MIRACULOUS is incomplete)

PZ is entitled to post in his own style, even if that is intentionally provocative. It's a free country, it's OK to offend, provoke, push people outside of thier comfort zone etc.

Do I think PZ's post was offensive? NO - and I never said I believed his POST was- I agree with his point.

Do I think that the implication that people of faith are somehow less rational/ less intelligent (as people) because faith by its nature isn't rational - yes

I think I have failed in communicating clearly I was trying to answer

I merely stated that I could see how some of PZ’s comments COULD BE offensive and WHY I believed this

Do I think that the implication that people of faith are somehow less rational/ less intelligent (as people) because faith by its nature isn’t rational - yes

I have a friend with very high IQ (over 170)who is a buddhist and believes in ghosts, and claims to have "seen" them through meditation. I used to make fun of her and call her "nuts" in her face and "idiot" in private thoughts.
The point I want to make is this: religion is basically childhood brainwashing. Highly intelligent people are also susceptible to it. So belief in Angels and Demons may have nothing to do with intelligence.
Second point. When seemingly normal people say they "see" spirits, are they crazy, or are we narrow-minded if we laugh at them?
Another point. Most people's thoughts are influenced by their instincts and emotions, and we have no "rationality meter" by which we can judge other people's thoughts, just our own subjective judgement. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but its not always reliable.

Indeed there are very bright people who believe ridiculous things. But that doesn't make the beliefs any less ridiculous, and no one is "out of line" to ridicule the beliefs. When people start whining about being offended and all that, they actually imply that the ridiculousness of the beliefs attaches to the believers, as if it were impossible for intelligent people to abandon ridiculous beliefs.

When seemingly normal people say they “see” spirits, are they crazy

Popper, I see your point, but we can tell our dreams apart from reality, generally, and in case of my friend seeing "spirits" she is not taking any hallucinogenic drugs, and no probes are attached to her brain. Also, according to her, meditation is a state of higher consciousness, not subcon. as in the case of sleep.
As I said, before I dismissed my friends claims as proof positive that she needs to be institutionalized. But some events in my life made me more open to consideration that maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny possibility that somehow our consciousness survives death, and on occasion communicates with starange people for no apparent reason. I tried meditating, and even chanting, but aside from my brain telling me I am a moron, received no other communication.

I see your point, but we can tell our dreams apart from reality, generally

in case of my friend seeing “spirits” she is not taking any hallucinogenic drugs, and no probes are attached to her brain

Also, according to her, meditation is a state of higher consciousness, not subcon. as in the case of sleep.

As I said, before I dismissed my friends claims as proof positive that she needs to be institutionalized.

But some events in my life made me more open to consideration that maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny possibility that somehow our consciousness survives death

and on occasion communicates with starange people for no apparent reason