In defense of Mary Midgley

I believe she is right. There are reasons religion binds, builds community, assists the under-priveleged. Those reasons are usually associated with reproduction, and more importantly successful reproduction. As a species however we must evolve beyond this. We should consider every human as important, not merely our church group: We are not far enoughed evolved to reach this utopia, and will probably destroy ourselves before we come anywhere near this evolved ideal.

Depressing? Sorry, I'm an atheist.

Honestly, Nick, if you think PZ et al. aren't aware of these aspects of religion, you don't know shit about them, and having read more of Midgley than is probably healthy, I can tell you that you're giving her far too much credit.
Good job coming off as a condescending asshole, though.

I gave up reading the PZ blast as his very rude and puerile attack didn't actually seem to have anything to do with the passages from Midgley that he was quoting.

robert van bakel said: I believe she is right. There are reasons religion binds, builds community, assists the under-priveleged. Those reasons are usually associated with reproduction, and more importantly successful reproduction. As a species however we must evolve beyond this. We should consider every human as important, not merely our church group: We are not far enoughed evolved to reach this utopia, and will probably destroy ourselves before we come anywhere near this evolved ideal. Depressing? Sorry, I'm an atheist.

Honestly, Nick, if you think PZ et al. aren’t aware of these aspects of religion, you don’t know shit about them, and having read more of Midgley than is probably healthy, I can tell you that you’re giving her far too much credit. Good job coming off as a condescending asshole, though.

Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

For crying out loud, Matzke. Midgely is a lying fool and quoting her own blurb hardly makes for a strong credential. I read her critique of THE SELFISH GENE and she simply made up stuff about Dawkins, sometimes saying things about his work that were directly contradicted by the work itself. Now with her new piece, her very first line is a screamer of a strawman:

"Science really isn't connected to the rest of life half as straightforwardly as one might wish. For instance, Isaac Newton noted gladly that his theory of gravitation gave a scientific proof of God's existence. Today's anti-god warriors, by contrast, declare that Darwin's evolutionary theory gives a scientific disproof of that existence and use this reasoning, quite as confidently as Newton used his, to convert the public."

You see, that's bullshit. Why the hell would you want to defend this crap?

More from Mary Midgley:

(via Wikipedia): 'In an interview with The Independent in September 2007, she argued that Dawkins' views on evolution are ideologically driven: "The ideology Dawkins is selling is the worship of competition. It is projecting a Thatcherite take on economics on to evolution. It's not an impartial scientific view; it's a political drama."'

But, yeah, if you want to think of that as an incisive critique, go ahead.

More from Mary Midgley:

(via an interview in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/13/philosophy):

'For instance, there are plenty of theologians who believe that God made creatures so they could know him and love him. That is a ridiculous claim on its own, but what are we to make of the remark by two prominent physicists that "a physicist is an atomÍs way of knowing about an atom?" She uses that as a classic example of folie de grandeur and adds: "It should surely be obvious that, if the universe is the kind of thing capable of knowing or wanting to know anything, it can do this on its own, and does not need help from physicists."'

Midgley fails to understand that this was a *joke* told by physicists at the expense of some of the more extreme interpretations of quantum theory. But, of course, her book blurb calls her one of the sharpest pens in the West, so she couldn't possibly be confused about that too, could she?

This is why I am an agnostic. I just don't like this much vitrol and worrying about there is or is not a G(g)od(s). I am all for defending Science and Evolution, but, I don't like trying to use Science to try and disprove the "supernatural". Don't misinterpret me, I am 99.999999999% sure they didn't happen, but as they are supernatural, they are not what Science can test.

'...that in the usual muddled human way there actually does happen to be a fair amount of good mixed in...'

There is a fair amount of good in Scientology.

And while the Aztecs and Incas had human sacrifices, at least it worked for many people much of the time.

Religion provides moral guidance for millions of people, who listen to what their Pope tells them is moral and then ignore it.

Nick Matzke said: In defense of ...

Nick Matzke said: This is what Midgley is trying to point out.

Mary Midgley says: Newton ... was not a Christian

Nick (Matzke) said: Would it really kill New Atheists to acknowledge somewhere that religion isn't pure evil, that in the usual muddled human way there actually does happen to be a fair amount of good mixed in...

Nick (Matzke) said: * providing a hopeful view of their place in the grand scheme of things (the typical atheist alternative is pretty dour and depressing)

1) providing a sense of community (in a very bad, close-minded way)

2) instilling (evil, hateful, and often times retarded and unnecessary) values in children and in themselves

3) providing a hopeful view of their place in the grand scheme of things (the typical atheist alternative is pretty dour and depressing) (except that it isn't. religion is a sedative, while atheists are somehow perfectly fine without it. there's freedom, not depression, in it)

4) providing an organizational framework for social action, charity, and/or political action (whereas atheists just give back to the community for the sake of helping people instead of because their god said so. so when you think about it, atheists are better. and have you seen what happens when religion provokes political action? *shivers*)

You, Nick, misunderstand PZ's point. Don't just look at his post on Midgley, but his entire blog. Yes, he believes we should hold religion up to the same scrutiny as we do any scientific theory, but that doesn't mean he's blind to these "positive" aspects of religion. He's simply arguing, I think correctly, that what religion does right atheists can do even better.

You can have a sense of community without retarded beliefs. You can hold values rooted in human nature instead of religion. You can view life positively without a god or an afterlife -- millions of atheists do. You be charitable and active without religion -- as Richard Dawkins has proven.

None of these things require, or are even aided by, religion. Religion is an impediment to human progress. Whatever you want to do or believe you will and you'll twist your religion to support it. That's how there's so many opposing interpretations of each religion. People who are being charitable are doing so because it is in their own nature to do so, and then they apply religion and claim to do so in its name.

Naturally, Newton's arguments scarcely need refuting today.

— Mary Midgley

SEF said: PS I failed to make one bit clear enough:

Mary Midgley says: Newton ... was not a Christian

Liar! If she were genuinely ignorant enough to believe he wasn't a Christian (by all the same sort of signs and standards with which one could evaluate anyone's Christian-ness) then she's lying about her ability (ie relevant knowledge and intelligence and hence competence) to tell one way or the other. She certainly can't expect to get away with it in a throwaway remark without specifying precisely what her peculiar definition of a True Christian™ is.

Nick (Matzke) said:

"Would it really kill New Atheists to acknowledge somewhere that religion isn’t pure evil, that in the usual muddled human way there actually does happen to be a fair amount of good mixed in… "

That's rather like saying we should acknowledge the fair amount of good mixed in Fascism. They did get the trains to run on time, after all.

It's silly to look at the 'good' side of Fascism just like it's silly to ponder a good side of religion. Both may have an element of good if you look hard enough, but goodness wasn't the point of either one.

Let’s see: (a) treating religion as if it were a scientific hypothesis;

(b) ignoring exactly all the positives I listed above;

Would it really kill New Atheists to acknowledge somewhere that religion isn’t pure evil, that in the usual muddled human way there actually does happen to be a fair amount of good mixed in, and that because of this it is at least understandable and not necessarily out of ignorant idiocy or dogmatism that some reasonably intelligent people might maintain a belief in moderate religion

RWard | June 15, 2010 7:54 AM | Reply | Edit Nick (Matzke) said: “Would it really kill New Atheists to acknowledge somewhere that religion isn’t pure evil, that in the usual muddled human way there actually does happen to be a fair amount of good mixed in… “ That’s rather like saying we should acknowledge the fair amount of good mixed in Fascism. They did get the trains to run on time, after all. It’s silly to look at the ‘good’ side of Fascism just like it’s silly to ponder a good side of religion. Both may have an element of good if you look hard enough, but goodness wasn’t the point of either one.

providing a hopeful view of their place in the grand scheme of things

Nick (Matzke) said: Would it really kill New Atheists to acknowledge somewhere that religion isn't pure evil, that in the usual muddled human way there actually does happen to be a fair amount of good mixed in....

The primary reason many people like their religion, despite its obvious problems from a scientific point of view, have to do with things like: * providing a sense of community * instilling values in children and in themselves

This unresolvable issue always stirs up a lot of emotional discussion. There are some truths to be gleaned, however. One is that religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Belief in the supernatural is older than civilization, there are billions of believers, and no amount of argumentation, no matter how accurate and logical, is going to cause many of them to abandon their beliefs.
Second, "new atheists" aren't going anywhere, either. They are correct that religion is a bad thing. Religion isn't the source of morality, it co-opts morality. If we could magically eliminate religion, people would build new secular community organizations, they would still be moral, and we would be rid of the religious baggage of hating people for violating arbitrary rules, worshiping the "wrong" God, or worshiping God the "wrong" way. To the extent that New Atheists can convince people they can live good lives without religion, its a good thing.
As atheists, we should respect each others rights to express our own opinion, without making strawman arguments to bring each other into disrepute. Nick, New Atheists do acknowledge that religion is not pure evil, and the atheist alternative is not dour and depressing-it is, IMHO, a call to live a joyful and meaningful life (meaning is not generated by immortality, in fact, an endless, never-changing afterlife pretty much drains meaning from everything). At the same time, we should recognize that the enemy are the very numerous and powerful crazies who would burn the world down in the name of Allah or Yahweh or Jesus, and moderate theists who have disposed of most of the baggage, reject hate and embrace a message of love and service to humanity are our allies against the crazies. Atheists are going to have their strongly held opinions and express them, which is good, but we should acknowledge reality and speak truth to each other and about each other.

Orthogonal is a good word to describe it. The four bullets Nick cites have nothing to do with belief in the supernatural.

At least in the U.S. we seem to lack non-religious social organizations that try to do all four. But why are we looking for such a wall-mart solution in the first place? Why do I need to shop at the same social club for everything? Maybe I'm perfectly happy with my kid getting moral advice from me, a sense of wonder about the world from summer camp, and a sense of community from school. (Or whatever; those are just illustrations and probably bad ones at that. The point is we should question the assumption that we need an uber-social club in the first place.)

Religious fanaticism is a very ugly thing. Seconded and passed by acclamation.

At the same time, we should recognize that the enemy are the very numerous and powerful crazies who would burn the world down in the name of Allah or Yahweh or Jesus, and moderate theists who have disposed of most of the baggage, reject hate and embrace a message of love and service to humanity are our allies against the crazies

truthspeaker said:

At the same time, we should recognize that the enemy are the very numerous and powerful crazies who would burn the world down in the name of Allah or Yahweh or Jesus, and moderate theists who have disposed of most of the baggage, reject hate and embrace a message of love and service to humanity are our allies against the crazies

Unfortunately, the moderates use the same language and cultural poitns of reference as the crazies, so there is no reliable way to tell them apart.

For every instance of child abuse or witch burning in history there are probably millions of instances of individuals finding good moral guidance in their religion.

This has to be one of PZ Myers's best conceived, most eloquent, denunciations that I have stumbled upon. Of course I strongly disagree with his breathtakingly inane assertion that "religion is a failure", but I do appreciate that he has taken Midgely to task for both her logical and rhetorical incoherence (She definitely sounds as bad as Elaine Pagels, who was utterly dreadful as a panelist at this year's World Science Festival Science Faith session. IMHO a very good reason why that session needs to be scrapped in the future, and not merely because I think Jerry Coyne and Sean Carroll have made a very good point in their respective blogs that a session on science and faith should not be held at a World Science Festival.

Aagcobb replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 10:08 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Unfortunately, the moderates use the same language and cultural poitns of reference as the crazies, so there is no reliable way to tell them apart. I would disagree. Does a church, for example, accept homosexual unions as deserving the same dignity and respect accorded heterosexual unions? Has a pastor signed the clergy letter in support of the teaching of evolutionary theory? Does a church recognize the right of women to make their own reproductive choices? Such a church is unlikely to support the kind of bad craziness we see coming out of fundamentalist sects.

John Kwok said: I think Jerry Coyne and Sean Carroll have made a very good point in their respective blogs that a session on science and faith should not be held at a World Science Festival.

MrG said:

John Kwok said: I think Jerry Coyne and Sean Carroll have made a very good point in their respective blogs that a session on science and faith should not be held at a World Science Festival.

I am not particularly down on religions but I would say a good case can be made for that. The unfortunate reality is that any argument about religion AND science ends up being an argument about ... religion. If indeed science is agnostic, then what religions make of it is their own business and of no real concern to science. In effect, science has nothing to discuss with religion. Religion is perfectly free to raise moral and philosophical arguments, but they don't affect the science at all: the religious may lobby for nuclear disarmament (some do, as do some scientists) but nobody can sensibly argue the fact that nuclear weapons WORK.

Ms. Midgely makes the faulty assumption that theists aren't literalists when she says "Appeals to evolution are only damaging to biblical literalism." All of them take *some* part of their supernatural beliefs and believe them literally. It's only by some magic decoder ring that they pick and choose what they do and do not accept. So, the existence of theories/laws that demonstrate that part of their religion is nonsense is a good argument that all of it is since they cannot agree on what is literal and what is metaphor. And in that way belief is a "isolated factual opinion", each is as sure that their version exists as the other. And as for "real wisdom" to be found in the bible, what is there that hasn't been around for thousands, millions of years prior. It seems that Ms. Midgely cherry picks herself. BTW, I hate the term "new atheist". Did people call black people who called for equality "new blacks"? AFAIK, no. They called them people or they called them "uppity". Which are "new" atheists?

If you had asked me a decade ago, I would have expressed far more tolerance for religious institutions like the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and its clergy. But that was partly because I was far more religious then than I am now.

Today, that tolerance is gone and I want nothing more than to see the RCC and its clergy put out of business. They are parasites on the rest of society. Any non-religious organization with the kind of track record it has would have been shut down or abandoned completely already. Look at Communism and had badly it failed because it did not live up to its promises! Why shouldn't we treat failed religion the same way as we treated Communism?

The short version of what she’s saying is that there is a lot more to life than simply scientifically assessing everything as if it was a hypothesis. The primary reason many people like their religion, despite its obvious problems from a scientific point of view, have to do with things like: * providing a sense of community * instilling values in children and in themselves * providing a hopeful view of their place in the grand scheme of things (the typical atheist alternative is pretty dour and depressing) * providing an organizational framework for social action, charity, and/or political action

John Kwok said: Unfortunately, with the exception of Francisco Ayala, none of the panelists had anything as meaningful to say, as both Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno did at last year's version of this panel, when they observed that as religously devout scientists, science can, should and must trump religion.

MrG said:

John Kwok said: Unfortunately, with the exception of Francisco Ayala, none of the panelists had anything as meaningful to say, as both Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno did at last year's version of this panel, when they observed that as religously devout scientists, science can, should and must trump religion.

I think "trump" is maybe not the best word. I come from a construction family and I think it's more like: what does religion have to say about how a bridge is built? Nothing. Science "trumps" religion in the same way that engineering "trumps" religion. Religion simply doesn't have anything to say about the matter. Now this is not the same as saying that religion has nothing to say about, again, the deployment and use doctrines of nuclear weapons. Science can prove there is such a thing as an uncontrolled fission reaction and nobody can sensibly say otherwise -- but as far as the APPLICATION of the science goes, everybody in society gets to play.

MrG said: but as far as the APPLICATION of the science goes, everybody in society gets to play.

Nick said: * providing an organizational framework for social action, charity, and/or political action

I’ve read most of Midgley’s books and articles, I don’t think you or PZ getting her at all.

Those of us who haven't read the Midgley canon have little choice but to go by what she actually said in the piece under discussion. I'll be damned if I know what it says. Maybe someone more familiar with her work can tease out the checklist of largely innocuous propositions we've been offered as her true meaning, but if the rest of us can't do that, it's her fault, not ours. If it's true that a larger acquaintance with Midgley would show that she stands for what it is suggested she stands for, then the question arises why anyone would create a body of work, and why a publisher would put its money behind a body of work, that says so little?

Salvatore said:

Nick said: * providing an organizational framework for social action, charity, and/or political action

I think there is a strong point here: whatever good some religious people do through their religion is very often done backwards, i.e. they are religious because they are good people and not the other way around; for them religion is an opportunistic meme exploiting their natural goodwill. I know many people like that; I have been through church associations in the past; and I changed my mind on many things since. But I would still trust blindly some of my longtime friends.

truthspeaker said:

Aagcobb replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 10:08 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Unfortunately, the moderates use the same language and cultural poitns of reference as the crazies, so there is no reliable way to tell them apart. I would disagree. Does a church, for example, accept homosexual unions as deserving the same dignity and respect accorded heterosexual unions? Has a pastor signed the clergy letter in support of the teaching of evolutionary theory? Does a church recognize the right of women to make their own reproductive choices? Such a church is unlikely to support the kind of bad craziness we see coming out of fundamentalist sects.

Those few churches are, yes. But I'm not talking about churches so much as individual Christians. If you meet someone, and they tell you they are a Christian, or you just notice the fish emblem on their car, you have no way of knowing if they are one of the crazies or not. Asking what denomination they belong to might give you a clue, but even then you would have to find out what church within that denomination they attend (if any) and what the particular clergy at that church are saying. There are Southern Baptists who strongly disagree with their denomination's past views on race and current views on women and science, and there are Southern Baptists who yearn for the old days when racism was expounded from the pulpit. Members of both groups will identify themselves as Southern Baptist and members of both groups will accuse you of prejudice and intolerance if you dare to judge the Southern Baptist faith on its leadership's official, publicly stated policies.

or every instance of child abuse or witch burning in history there are probably millions of instances of individuals finding good moral guidance in their religion. Gotta disagree with you there. In North America alone there have been 100’s of Catholic priests collectively raping 1000’s of women and children. We are only just now learning of the same activities in Europe. Church atrocities in Africa, Asia and South America have yet to be exposed but that day is coming. The ones we are aware of only go back 20-30 years. There is no reason to think that this hasn’t gone on since the inception of the church. Church leadership has covered up most cases, threatened the victims, obstructed justice. This is not an anomaly. It is the way the Catholic church has always operated. Even with the overwhelming evidence that the Catholic leadership is morally bankrupt, they still have their vocal defenders. The 40-60 million or so people in this country that identify themselves as Catholic have largely remained silent about these atrocities.

Salvatore | June 15, 2010 11:12 AM | Reply | Edit How does this differ from, for example, political party affiliation? If I see someone in a car with a bumper sticker supporting a Republican candidate, how can I tell if he is one of the crazies in the party (like several of my friends) vs. a thoughtful moderate Republican (like my mother)?

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 11:46 AM | Reply | Edit Re: child sexual abuse – obviously it and its coverup is horrible. However (a) it’s not a general feature of religion,

(b) it’s not clear to me that the Catholic Church is worse than, say, U.S. public schools in the 1980s (when there was similar massive scandal going on)

The Guardian Profile Mary, Mary, quite contrary A fiercely combative philosopher, she wrote her first book in her 50s after she raised her family. Now 81, she is our foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension' and a staunch defender of religion - although she doesn't believe in God * Digg it * Buzz up * Share on facebook (6) * Tweet this (2) * Andrew Brown * The Guardian, Saturday 13 January 2001 * Article history Mary Midgley, aged 81, may be the most frightening philosopher in the country: the one before whom it is least pleasant to appear a fool. One moment she sits by her fire in Newcastle like a round-cheeked tabby cat; the next she is deploying a savage Oxonian precision of language to dissect some error as a cat dissects a living mouse. She believes that philosophy matters, perhaps especially to the people who think it is merely a garnish on the brute facts of life - "like the bed of tulips in front of a nuclear power station", as she puts it with typical vividness. That is why she is so much fun to read and why she has become the foremost scourge of scientific pretension in this country: someone whose wit is admired even by those who feel she sometimes oversteps the mark. Perhaps the oddest thing about her career is that she did not publish her first book until 1978, when she was 56, and had for years been working in provincial obscurity. Beast And Man was highly praised by her old Oxford friend Iris Murdoch, and pitched her almost by accident into a career as the voice of acerbic sanity about science. With two others, Science And Salvation, and Evolution As A Religion, she staked out a territory all of her own, examining how science comes to function as a substitute for religion, and how very badly it does the job. It is entirely characteristic that her latest book, Science And Poetry takes its epigraph from Richard Dawkins, "Science is the only way we have of understanding the real world", and proceeds to dance all over this apparently reasonable statement. It's not that she considers science a bad way of knowing the real world. But it is only one among many, and one which must be kept in firmly its place.

I don't give a flying fuck how she is perceived, I'm only interested in what she says.

Her books may be as insightful as you say, but this article was a load of balderdash.

Naturally, Newton's arguments scarcely need refuting today. Though he was not a Christian, he reasoned that gravity cannot be physically caused because it acts at a distance and material causes were believed always to work by contact, leaving God - a "god of the gaps" - as the only possible cause. Nobody thinks like this now.

I was alive during the 1980s and I don’t remember any such scandal. Can you enlighten me? The only one I’m familiar with was the false accusations of child sex abuse based on “repressed memory” therapy.

The rise of public concern Child sexual abuse became a public issue in the 1970s and 1980s. Prior to this point in time sexual abuse remained rather secretive and socially unspeakable. Studies on child molestation were nonexistent until the 1920s and the first national estimate of the number of child sexual abuse cases was published in 1948. By 1968 44 out of 50 U.S. states had enacted mandatory laws that required physicians to report cases of suspicious child abuse. Legal action began to become more prevalent in the 1970s with the enactment of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974 in conjunction with the creation of the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect. Since the creation of the Child Abuse and Treatment Act, reported child abuse cases have increased dramatically. Finally, the National Abuse Coalition was created in 1979 to create pressure in congress to create more sexual abuse laws. Second wave feminism brought greater awareness of child sexual abuse and violence against women, and made them public, political issues. Judith Lewis Herman, Harvard professor of psychiatry, wrote the first book ever on father-daughter incest when she discovered during her medical residency that a large number of the women she was seeing had been victims of father-daughter incest. Herman notes that her approach to her clinical experience grew out of her involvement in the civil rights movement.[158] Her second book Trauma and Recovery, considered a classic and ground-breaking work[citation needed] coined the term complex post-traumatic stress disorder and included child sexual abuse as a possible cause.[159] In 1986, Congress passed the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act, giving children a civil claim in sexual abuse cases. The number of laws created in the 1980s and 1990s began to create greater prosecution and detection of child sexual abusers. During the 1970s a large transition began in the legislature related to child sexual abuse. Megan's Law which was enacted in 2004 gives the public access to knowledge of sex offenders nationwide.[160] Anne Hastings described these changes in attitudes towards child sexual abuse as "the beginning of one of history's largest social revolutions."[161]

John Kwok said: Niok expresses a point of view regarding the utility of religion that I had heard at a Darwin Day 2009 talk given by eminent Columbia University philosopher Philip Kitcher at an Upper East Side Unitarian church in Manhattan. Kitcher observed that religion has been necessary as a means of ensuring ethical standards and reinforcing social bonds between individuals in communities (And let me emphasize that he was making this observation with respect to the positive aspects of religious faith.):

Salvatore said:

Nick said: * providing an organizational framework for social action, charity, and/or political action

I think there is a strong point here: whatever good some religious people do through their religion is very often done backwards, i.e. they are religious because they are good people and not the other way around; for them religion is an opportunistic meme exploiting their natural goodwill. I know many people like that; I have been through church associations in the past; and I changed my mind on many things since. But I would still trust blindly some of my longtime friends.

Naturally, Newton’s arguments scarcely need refuting today. Though he was not a Christian, he reasoned that gravity cannot be physically caused because it acts at a distance and material causes were believed always to work by contact, leaving God - a “god of the gaps” - as the only possible cause. Nobody thinks like this now. PZ’s response of noting that god-of-the-gaps arguments are common was straight on (heck, I just dealt with one of those arguments a few days ago).

SEF said: They don't get to have additional votes from make-believe friends, let alone votes which are considered more worthy because of the make-believe.

Probably repeating others' sentiments above, but...

"providing a sense of community"

I grant that at this point religion and the weekly meetings involved are the only outlet for "local" community given the common disparities of interests that one otherwise has that lead to not talking their neighbors.

but it isn't the only means necessary. one can find fulfillment with a needed consistency elsewhere, and one can also just as easily become disillusioned with their religious community as they could with a "secular" one.

"instilling values in children and in themselves"

Sorry, but at this point the "New Atheists" questioning of "values is actually rather key, because one of the "values" often asserted is the idea that their values should be the values of ALL others (leading to that item below, "political action"), while being unable to justify that value for any reason other than "someone told me this book said so."

For a value to have enough meaning in a society to become law, it has to be defensible on philosophical grounds with recourse only to a shared axiom, which in the United States is the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, along with the justifications for those as expressed in the Federalist Papers and other contemporary documents. One can not assume that a single passage of a 2000 year old book, taken out of context, and disagreed upon even within the religions that follow it (and rarely followed by practitioners of said religions), can be in any way the justification for a law in a pluralistic society.

"providing a hopeful view of their place in the grand scheme of things (the typical atheist alternative is pretty dour and depressing)"

No, the *stereotypical* atheist alternative is, but that is not the actual view I have seen from any atheist I have read within the sci-blogging community.

"providing an organizational framework for social action, charity, and/or political action"

Again, it is not necessary, and in fact learning the skills to build an organizational framework is one of those rather important things to have, which few bother to develop because so much is already handled around them.

So to sum up, the religion provides these services, but it is not *necessary* for these services, and in some cases the service provided can be (and in the most publicized instances, often is) actually a detriment to society.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Naturally, Newton’s arguments scarcely need refuting today. Though he was not a Christian, he reasoned that gravity cannot be physically caused because it acts at a distance and material causes were believed always to work by contact, leaving God - a “god of the gaps” - as the only possible cause. Nobody thinks like this now. PZ’s response of noting that god-of-the-gaps arguments are common was straight on (heck, I just dealt with one of those arguments a few days ago).

Sigh. Once you've read some Midgley you realize that there she means "Nobody serious thinks like this now", i.e. essentially nobody in the academic, intellectual leadership. She knows creationists exist, but they are not the people she's talking to, mostly. She's always after the big fish, i.e. the mistakes made by highly influential scientist commentators and the like.

Sigh. Once you've read some Midgley you realize that there she means "Nobody serious thinks like this now", i.e. essentially nobody in the academic, intellectual leadership. She knows creationists exist, but they are not the people she's talking to, mostly. She's always after the big fish, i.e. the mistakes made by highly influential scientist commentators and the like.

Genuinely, Nick - how can you defend someone so ignorant as to claim that Newton wasn't a Christian, and that the theory of evolution claims God does not exist.

Those aren't trivialities; those aren't issues about which of Francis I's counselors led him to vacillate on the question of heresy - they are fundamental, outright falsehoods.

When she begins her piece with statements like these, why should we take anything else seriously?

Nick (Matzke) said:

Naturally, Newton’s arguments scarcely need refuting today. Though he was not a Christian, he reasoned that gravity cannot be physically caused because it acts at a distance and material causes were believed always to work by contact, leaving God - a “god of the gaps” - as the only possible cause. Nobody thinks like this now. PZ’s response of noting that god-of-the-gaps arguments are common was straight on (heck, I just dealt with one of those arguments a few days ago).

Sigh. Once you've read some Midgley you realize that there she means "Nobody serious thinks like this now", i.e. essentially nobody in the academic, intellectual leadership. She knows creationists exist, but they are not the people she's talking to, mostly. She's always after the big fish, i.e. the mistakes made by highly influential scientist commentators and the like.

Also if she's just interested in what academics have to say does she really think there are academics claiming that evolution gives a "scientific disproof" of the existence of God? Either there's a double standard here or she isn't talking about academics. Neither is good.

Joshua Zelinsky said:

Sigh. Once you've read some Midgley you realize that there she means "Nobody serious thinks like this now", i.e. essentially nobody in the academic, intellectual leadership. She knows creationists exist, but they are not the people she's talking to, mostly. She's always after the big fish, i.e. the mistakes made by highly influential scientist commentators and the like.

If that's the case I'm a bit puzzled as to why she doesn't make that clear given that the piece in question is an essay in a newspaper.

truthspeaker said:

Salvatore | June 15, 2010 11:12 AM | Reply | Edit How does this differ from, for example, political party affiliation? If I see someone in a car with a bumper sticker supporting a Republican candidate, how can I tell if he is one of the crazies in the party (like several of my friends) vs. a thoughtful moderate Republican (like my mother)?

You can't. That's kind of my point.

It is entirely characteristic that her latest book, Science And Poetry takes its epigraph from Richard Dawkins, “Science is the only way we have of understanding the real world”, and proceeds to dance all over this apparently reasonable statement. It’s not that she considers science a bad way of knowing the real world. But it is only one among many, and one which must be kept in firmly its place.

Given reviews of her works such as this: http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/midgley_poetry.html, it seems clear that she is, in fact, a fairly sloppy thinker; given to emotional and insupportable explanations and determined to misunderstand science and how it works. It is disappointing.

Malchus said: I am an evangelical Christian, and I cannot see ANY valid reason for disagreeing with Dawkins on this point.

MrG said:

Malchus said: I am an evangelical Christian, and I cannot see ANY valid reason for disagreeing with Dawkins on this point.

I think that "understanding the physical world" would have been more aptly put. I perceive that is what Dawkins meant -- but "real world" can include politics, sex relations, art, and a wide number of things to which the sciences are of arguable importance.

MrG said:

Malchus said: I am an evangelical Christian, and I cannot see ANY valid reason for disagreeing with Dawkins on this point.

I think that "understanding the physical world" would have been more aptly put. I perceive that is what Dawkins meant -- but "real world" can include politics, sex relations, art, and a wide number of things to which the sciences are of arguable importance.

So to sum up, the religion provides these services, but it is not necessary* for these services, and in some cases the service provided can be (and in the most publicized instances, often is) actually a detriment to society.

Nick (Matzke) said:

So to sum up, the religion provides these services, but it is not necessary* for these services, and in some cases the service provided can be (and in the most publicized instances, often is) actually a detriment to society.

Well, that's a nice theoretical argument, and for everyone who gets all of these things through other means, more power to you. I am merely trying to explain the social psychology of religious people and show that what they are doing actually makes a fair amount of sense and isn't raving unbelievably idiotic lunacy. Out in the real world there are lots and lots of churches/religions providing these kinds of services, and precious little in terms of alternatives (atheist or otherwise) which provide them all as a coherent unit. And when New Atheist folks go on about child abuse and witch burning and scientific irrationality, when a great many millions of peoples' actual personal experience with religion is community and child care and fairly rational moral reflection and the like, it's not hard to see why many people continue to choose religion.

It is entirely characteristic that her latest book, Science And Poetry takes its epigraph from Richard Dawkins, “Science is the only way we have of understanding the real world”, and proceeds to dance all over this apparently reasonable statement. It’s not that she considers science a bad way of knowing the real world. But it is only one among many, and one which must be kept in firmly its place. Since you’ve read more of her work than we have, Nick, perhaps you can clarify what other ways of knowing she believes exist, and why Dawkins point is invalid.

truthspeaker said:

Aagcobb replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 10:08 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Unfortunately, the moderates use the same language and cultural poitns of reference as the crazies, so there is no reliable way to tell them apart. I would disagree. Does a church, for example, accept homosexual unions as deserving the same dignity and respect accorded heterosexual unions? Has a pastor signed the clergy letter in support of the teaching of evolutionary theory? Does a church recognize the right of women to make their own reproductive choices? Such a church is unlikely to support the kind of bad craziness we see coming out of fundamentalist sects.

Those few churches are, yes. But I'm not talking about churches so much as individual Christians. If you meet someone, and they tell you they are a Christian, or you just notice the fish emblem on their car, you have no way of knowing if they are one of the crazies or not. Asking what denomination they belong to might give you a clue, but even then you would have to find out what church within that denomination they attend (if any) and what the particular clergy at that church are saying. There are Southern Baptists who strongly disagree with their denomination's past views on race and current views on women and science, and there are Southern Baptists who yearn for the old days when racism was expounded from the pulpit. Members of both groups will identify themselves as Southern Baptist and members of both groups will accuse you of prejudice and intolerance if you dare to judge the Southern Baptist faith on its leadership's official, publicly stated policies.

All of this is very interesting, but it’s not the argument she made in her column. Perhaps we could restrict our discurssion to what she actually said, since that IS filled with misrepresentation, sloppy thinking, and outright errors.

No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. … A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.

Nick (Matzke) said:

It is entirely characteristic that her latest book, Science And Poetry takes its epigraph from Richard Dawkins, “Science is the only way we have of understanding the real world”, and proceeds to dance all over this apparently reasonable statement. It’s not that she considers science a bad way of knowing the real world. But it is only one among many, and one which must be kept in firmly its place. Since you’ve read more of her work than we have, Nick, perhaps you can clarify what other ways of knowing she believes exist, and why Dawkins point is invalid.

There are many ways of understanding the world. Political, economic, emotional, artistic, moral, metaphysical etc. The scientific way is just one, and she is worried about people who go around proclaiming that science is the *only* one, since they tend to sneak in all the others without themselves or other people realizing it. Midgley is incredibly pro-evolution/pro-Darwin, but read her "Evolution as a Religion: Stranger Hopes and Stranger Fears" for the weirdness some people have come up with about the future we should go for as guided by "science."

Nick (Matzke) said:

All of this is very interesting, but it’s not the argument she made in her column. Perhaps we could restrict our discurssion to what she actually said, since that IS filled with misrepresentation, sloppy thinking, and outright errors.

Midgley said there was wisdom and truth in religion that was worth understanding. PZ and many others have said religion was a hopeless irredeemable complete failure which should be completely abandoned because it's scientifically unsupported. That's what I'm talking about, at least...

Malchus said: They may be of arguable importance, but are you suggesting that there exists any other method of understanding the universe?

Genuinely, Nick - how can you defend someone so ignorant as to claim that Newton wasn’t a Christian, and that the theory of evolution claims God does not exist.

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 12:16 PM | Reply | Edit Naturally, Newton’s arguments scarcely need refuting today. Though he was not a Christian, he reasoned that gravity cannot be physically caused because it acts at a distance and material causes were believed always to work by contact, leaving God - a “god of the gaps” - as the only possible cause. Nobody thinks like this now. PZ’s response of noting that god-of-the-gaps arguments are common was straight on (heck, I just dealt with one of those arguments a few days ago). Sigh. Once you’ve read some Midgley you realize that there she means “Nobody serious thinks like this now”, i.e. essentially nobody in the academic, intellectual leadership. She knows creationists exist, but they are not the people she’s talking to, mostly.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Genuinely, Nick - how can you defend someone so ignorant as to claim that Newton wasn’t a Christian, and that the theory of evolution claims God does not exist.

(a) Newton was at the very least not a trinitarian, it's not wildly wrong to confuse this for being a deist (b) I tend to give people a little slack when they are 91 like Midgley is (c) Midgley for decades has been irascible, curt, pointed, and painted with a broad brush. Once you're familiar with it you realize it's a far more entertaining and informative way to write and read philosophy, but it does require suspending one's penchant for hairsplitting pedantry a little...

MrG replied to comment from Malchus | June 15, 2010 1:09 PM | Reply | Edit I think that “understanding the physical world” would have been more aptly put. I perceive that is what Dawkins meant – but “real world” can include politics, sex relations, art, and a wide number of things to which the sciences are of arguable importance.

fnxtr replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 15, 2010 12:54 PM | Reply | Edit So just paint everyone with the same brush? Or get to know people before you judge them? What is your point, exactly?

Of course the attempts to smuggle fundie nutterism into public schools has to be stopped. But if the average Jane likes the idea of divine grace and unconditional love, so what?

Sometimes you have to just let other people be wrong. That’s how my parents stayed happily married all my dad’s life.

truthspeaker said: Politics, sexual relations, and art are all part of the physical world. If you want to understand how they work, science is the most reliable method for doing so.

Nick (Matzke) said:

All of this is very interesting, but it’s not the argument she made in her column. Perhaps we could restrict our discurssion to what she actually said, since that IS filled with misrepresentation, sloppy thinking, and outright errors.

Midgley said there was wisdom and truth in religion that was worth understanding. PZ and many others have said religion was a hopeless irredeemable complete failure which should be completely abandoned because it's scientifically unsupported. That's what I'm talking about, at least...

I wasn't talking about the practice of art. I was talking about understanding it. The best, most complete way to understand it, as with everything else, is scientific.

I don't need a science education to play my guitar, but if I want to know why hitting a string makes it vibrate, and why the soundboard resonates with that vibration, and why humans hear that as a musical note, then I need science.

truthspeaker said: I don't need a science education to play my guitar, but if I want to know why hitting a string makes it vibrate, and why the soundboard resonates with that vibration, and why humans hear that as a musical note, then I need science.

MrG said:

truthspeaker said: Politics, sexual relations, and art are all part of the physical world. If you want to understand how they work, science is the most reliable method for doing so.

Baloney. Artists don't need a science degree to do art. Now I suppose you might scientifically investigate the underlying psychology of art, but the practice of art would go on much the same whether anybody paid any attention to the psychological studies or not. The sciences may have insights into art but it is of no great importance to the arts community. Of course, once we want to understand weather or climate or geology or biology or whatever, sciences are irreplaceble.

Malchus replied to comment from MrG | June 15, 2010 2:12 PM | Reply | Edit The fact that for most of the history of the human race we have relied upon empirically-derived and simplistic summaries of what actually occurs in our lives should not blind us to the fact that however useful these explanations are, they are not explanations that further our understanding of the underlying truths

Else we must concede that Gone With the Wind is a valuable history because

Nick (Matzke) said: Out in the real world there are lots and lots of churches/religions providing these kinds of services, and precious little in terms of alternatives (atheist or otherwise) which provide them all as a coherent unit.

Malchus said: No one has claimed that they needed such a degree ...

You claim religion is not just a hypothesis about how the world works, but has many other functions, such as "instilling values in children and in themselves". As has already been pointed out, you don't need religion to do this. As was also already pointed out, the values themselves are often not that great. You don't want to talk about excesses like child abuse, but we don't have to. I'm thinking more about things like the bigotry against homosexuals, which is depressingly widespread in even mainstream modern religions. Prejudice against non-believers is still sadly too common as well.

But regardless of what we think of the values the religions come up with (and I'm sure there are many we can like), there is another problem. The values are generally justified by appealing to at least divine inspiration, if not outright divine revelation. Compliance of the values is often enforced by a God who watches us and will punish or reward us in the afterlife. Therefore, the validity of religious values and of our reasons to adhere to them fully depend on the validity of the hypothesis that there exists a God, who cares about how we behave, who can communicate his wishes to us, and will judge us in the afterlife.

So we are right back at the God hypothesis. If God doesn't exist, there is no reason to consider religious values as anything more than mere personal opinion. If a religion wants to claim that there is more to their values than that, they will need to provide evidence for the existence of God. It's that simple. You can't separate religious moral teachings from the question whether God exists.

The same goes for the hope that you claim religion offers. Unless there is a God who will take care of us, and who can send us to heaven, the only hope that religion offers is false hope. You can pretend that the God hypothesis doesn't matter for religion in practice, but it's always there.

I know nothing of her age nor her antecedents; I can only judge her by the article she presented. That is what Myers is reacting to, and what most of the posters here are reacting to. How much of her article would you suggest we disregard as “rhetoric”? All? None? Particular sentences? This is what makes it difficult to understand your defense of this article; your defense of the woman herself is perfectly rational.

MrG said:

Malchus said: No one has claimed that they needed such a degree ...

This is one of these scenarios where I suddenly realized: "There's an argument going on here, but I can't figure out why." My first instinct would be to clarify matters, but my second instinct is that it would not help. SO ... I will just suggest that you ignore my posting and we can all go do something interesting.

Nick (Matzke) said: To be clear, I agree it's a mistake to say that Newton was not a Christian. All I'm saying is that confusing a non-trinitarian "Christian" (standard Christians are all trinitarians!) for a Deist is a pretty small mistake, those two groups are kissing cousins. And Newton is very often mixed in with the Deists, since he was a big inspiration for them, although AFAIK he was not one himself. So it's a common and easy to make mistake. It's not the end of the world or of her credibility.

I know nothing of her age nor her antecedents; I can only judge her by the article she presented. That is what Myers is reacting to, and what most of the posters here are reacting to. How much of her article would you suggest we disregard as “rhetoric”? All? None? Particular sentences? This is what makes it difficult to understand your defense of this article; your defense of the woman herself is perfectly rational.

All I'm saying is that viewed in the context of her philosophical output over the decades it's far from being the horrendous sin against science and rationality that many indignant commentators have made it out to be. Sometimes readers need to be sympathetic readers and realize that how the words come across to them might not be how the writer intended them, and that it might conceivably be useful to try to get what the writer meant, even if you wish to disagree, before unloading on them with the bazooka.

I'm a complete apatheist, and find many religious people to be as enlightened and decent as anyone else.

Having said that, Midgley may be a good philosopher, and an atheist, but her comments quoted here are certainly inaccurate and unfair, as others have noted.

It's not often that I defend Dawkins. Not that I have anything major against him, just that I think he's already getting a heck of a lot of money and praise for providing very simple summaries of a few basic things from biology, in an upper class British accent.

But the suggestion that Dawkins is silly enough to claim that the theory of evolution helps us to decide, in any serious ways, which economic policies are "best" - a decision entirely dependent on subjective, normative preferences - struck me as odd. That does not sound like a logic error that Dawkins would make. Cursory research seems to indicate that Dawkins most certainly does not defend the theory of evolution for "ideological" reasons related to economics, but rather, because he understands the scientific evidence in favor of it. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please let me know. If Midgley made such a claim about Dawkins, as seems to be the case, she was being very inaccurate and unfair.

You don’t want to talk about excesses like child abuse, but we don’t have to. I’m thinking more about things like the bigotry against homosexuals, which is depressingly widespread in even mainstream modern religions. Prejudice against non-believers is still sadly too common as well.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Else we must concede that Gone With the Wind is a valuable history because

Surely Gone with the Wind is valuable for something no? Or is it just stupid nonsense just like religion because it's scientifically inaccurate? Re: science and guitars -- sure, a scientific understanding of sound, vibrations, etc., is grand and worthwhile. But understanding that stuff has pretty much jack squat to do with being a genius guitar player. The fundamental thing Midgley objects to is the extremely common (amongst scientism fans) tendency to think that the most important, truest thing to do is always to reduce some phenomenon to objective, scientific terms; and especially the pretension that people who do this have some kind of lock on truth and some special authority in commentating on and guiding the culture. Art is just an easy example, but it comes up again and again with morality, politics, etc. And religion.

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 2:18 PM | Reply | Edit Surely Gone with the Wind is valuable for something no?

Or is it just stupid nonsense just like religion because it’s scientifically inaccurate?

Re: science and guitars – sure, a scientific understanding of sound, vibrations, etc., is grand and worthwhile. But understanding that stuff has pretty much jack squat to do with being a genius guitar player.

The fundamental thing Midgley objects to is the extremely common (amongst scientism fans) tendency to think that the most important, truest thing to do is always to reduce some phenomenon to objective, scientific terms;

and especially the pretension that people who do this have some kind of lock on truth and some special authority in commentating on and guiding the culture.

Surely Gone with the Wind is valuable for something no? Or is it just stupid nonsense just like religion because it’s scientifically inaccurate?

By the way, I'm still waiting for evidence of a public school child abuse scandal in the 1980s. You posted a link to how awareness of child sexual abuse increased in the 1980s, which nobody would argue with, but no mention of a scandal or even the public school system.

truthspeaker said:

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 2:18 PM | Reply | Edit Surely Gone with the Wind is valuable for something no?

Yes - (well actually no, it's torrid pulp fiction as far as I'm concerned, but we'll pretend it's literature for the sake of this exercise) - but not as history. It's useful for exploring feelings and our subjective experience of the human condition. It's not very useful for learning about how people lived in the antebellum South.

Or is it just stupid nonsense just like religion because it’s scientifically inaccurate?

It's not stupid nonsense because, unlike religion, it doesn't claim to be an accurate account of that period of history.

Re: science and guitars – sure, a scientific understanding of sound, vibrations, etc., is grand and worthwhile. But understanding that stuff has pretty much jack squat to do with being a genius guitar player.

Which - again - I was not talking about. Being a genius guitar player is doing. We were talking - and Midgely's quote talks - about understanding. You do need knowledge to play the guitar - knowledge of technique and of music theory, all of which is empirical knowledge and reducible to scientific explanations. We don't have all those explanations yet. We know a minor chord will sound sad or angry in many contexts, but we don't know why. That's because we have to fumble around with heuristics and intuition until we can get at the scientific explanation. If we do ever find that information, it will be more complete and more precise than the non-scientific ones we have now.

The fundamental thing Midgley objects to is the extremely common (amongst scientism fans) tendency to think that the most important, truest thing to do is always to reduce some phenomenon to objective, scientific terms;

That is the truest thing to do. It isn't always the most important, but if you want to understand something, it is.

and especially the pretension that people who do this have some kind of lock on truth and some special authority in commentating on and guiding the culture.

Then she's attacking a straw man, because I have never seen nor heard of anybody doing this. What she seems to be doing - and what you have just done - is to confuse two different meanings of the word "truth". The traditional, more literal definition has to do with corresponding with reality. That's what "truth" means in a scientific context, although in formal science writing scientists are careful to avoid words like "true" and "truth". The second, literary-criticsm meaning has to do with how something makes us feel. Something is "true" if it feels "right" to us, if it resonates with our feelings. I don't like that usage of the word and I don't use it myself, because it's confusing. I tend to use "truth" only for the objective, not the subjective. PZ claims, and I agree with him, that science is by far the most reliable way to get at the "truth" defined by the first defintion. Rather than concede this blindingly obvious point, you are pretending - even though I know damn well you know better - that PZ, and the commenters here, are claiming that science is the most reliable way to get at the truth as defined by the second definition.

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 2:41 PM | Reply | Edit All I’m trying to promote here is a little realism and balance on religion. Some commentators have moved from saying Religion Is Just Nasty Bad Stuff to saying OK Religion Has a Few Good Points But Then So Did the Nazis. This is progress. Once we get to saying that religion is vaguely like capitalism in terms of plusses and minuses, then we’ll be getting close.

^is not as

Oh wait, I thought New Atheists didn't believe in evil, that's what someone else said...

And pretending like these factors don’t exist and don’t matter and that it’s all just a simple matter of scientifically assessing religion based on the worst claims of its craziest proponents, or on the unsupported nature of some very fuzzy theological claims of moderates – which is basically what the atheist campaigners do – is a pretty silly thing to do. This is what Midgley is trying to point out.

Then she’s attacking a straw man, because I have never seen nor heard of anybody doing this.

Nick (Matzke) said: All I'm saying is that viewed in the context of her philosophical output over the decades it's far from being the horrendous sin against science and rationality that many indignant commentators have made it out to be. Sometimes readers need to be sympathetic readers and realize that how the words come across to them might not be how the writer intended them, and that it might conceivably be useful to try to get what the writer meant, even if you wish to disagree, before unloading on them with the bazooka.

Well, prejudice against believers is pretty undeniable in certain crowds as well, so I’m not sure anyone’s got the high ground here.

All I’m trying to promote here is a little realism and balance on religion. Some commentators have moved from saying Religion Is Just Nasty Bad Stuff to saying OK Religion Has a Few Good Points But Then So Did the Nazis. This is progress. Once we get to saying that religion is vaguely like capitalism in terms of plusses and minuses, then we’ll be getting close.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Else we must concede that Gone With the Wind is a valuable history because

Surely Gone with the Wind is valuable for something no? Or is it just stupid nonsense just like religion because it's scientifically inaccurate? ...

States target teacher sexual misconduct Officials pledge to close loopholes in system that allow abuse to persist Video: Education More video TODAY Tony Danza goes back to school The actor, best known for his roles on classic TV shows like "Taxi" and "Who’s the Boss?", has spent the last year teaching 10th -grade English to inner-city kids in Philadelphia for a new reality TV show. NBC’s Jamie Gangel reports. Measuring the fight to tenure Teacher fired for having premarital sex Report: Black students drop out at higher rate than whites Michelle Obama on parental sacrifice Text alerts on msnbc.com Breaking news alerts (about 1 per day) Click here to sign up or text NEWS to MSNBC (67622). Find more alerts at alerts.msnbc.com NBC Field Notes NBC News correspondents and producers across the U.S. shed light on the news of the day. Photo features More Image: AP The Week in Pictures A tornado-ravaged neighborhood in Ohio, flood-scarred fields in Hungary, an oil-soaked pelican in the Louisiana surf, and more noteworthy pictures from around the world. Image: Receding waters in Hungary EPA PhotoBlog View and discuss the pictures and issues that caught our eyes. Most popular • Most viewed • Top rated • Most e-mailed Built to spill: 15 shocking book confessions So long! She chops 2 feet of hair 6-story Jesus statue in Ohio struck by lightning Aftershocks rattle Calif-Mexico border region Petraeus briefly collapses during hearing Most viewed on msnbc.com Australian 'angel' saves lives at suicide spot 60 years on, ex-GIs remember 'forgotten' war Biggest radiation threat is due to medical scans Ark. survivors recount narrow escape Documents reveal BP's missteps before blowout Most viewed on msnbc.com 6-story Jesus statue in Ohio struck by lightning Aftershocks rattle Calif-Mexico border region Greece’s tourism industry under threat Some early cancer overtreated; few want to wait Eating brown rice may cut risk of diabetes Most viewed on msnbc.com updated 5:09 p.m. MT, Fri., Nov . 2, 2007 The state government would open its now-secret books on teacher sexual misconduct in Maine. Missouri school districts would be barred from backroom deals that let misbehaving teachers quietly move on. New York would be able to swiftly remove convicted teachers’ licenses. Across the country, governors, legislative leaders and top education officials are pledging to close loopholes that have allowed teacher sexual misconduct to persist. In Congress, legislation that targets such misbehavior has gathered more sponsors. The efforts follow an Associated Press investigation last month that found 2,570 educators nationwide whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned from 2001-2005 following allegations of sexual misconduct. Experts who track sexual abuse say those cases are representative of a much deeper problem.

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

truthspeaker said: We know a minor chord will sound sad or angry in many contexts, but we don't know why.

Minor seventh chords always sound happy to me.

And there are those who would claim that capitalism is "based on a faulty premise", too.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Then she’s attacking a straw man, because I have never seen nor heard of anybody doing this.

Really? There are many people who, although they started out as science writers, have become prominent commentators on Life, The Universe, and Everything, including politics and rest. Dawkins is just one. I don't have a huge objection to this, but I do object when they say science is the one true way of understanding everything and every other approach is basically pointless, which is pretty much the message they convey.

Nick (Matzke) said: What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest?

fnxtr said: Minor seventh chords always sound happy to me.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest?

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Nick (Matzke) said: Once you've read some Midgley you realize that there she means "Nobody serious thinks like this now", i.e. essentially nobody in the academic, intellectual leadership. She knows creationists exist, but they are not the people she's talking to, mostly. She's always after the big fish, i.e. the mistakes made by highly influential scientist commentators and the like.

Besides which, Newton was not converting people to religion with religion. (I'd like to see Midgley's evidence for the number of Newtonic converts! They are as lacking as her strawman anti-god warriors.) Nor was he converting religious people away from religion. Newton was converting (sane) scientific people to a better understanding of gravity with his mathematics and someone else's hard evidence (astronomical observations). That's what science does, regardless of how crazy the proponent may be in other ways.

Meanwhile, as already mentioned, Newton is a rubbish example of her alleged point in the context. He doesn't accurately represent someone maintaining a prevalent and respected world-view against attack. Religiously, he was attacking an established world-view - being so much of a heretic that Midgley can't even bring herself to acknowledge his extremely devout Christianity! Scientifically (and mathematically), he was proposing something so new it's worthy of being called a paradigm shift. Guess which subset was the one capable of being influenced by reason and evidence (barely raising a quibble) and from which group he had to hide his views to keep his job.

But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Finally, if you believe (as Midgley's chief interpreter on Earth?, since she's seemingly too inept to express things adequately for herself!) that she's got "mistakes made by highly influential scientist commentators" then you should be able to name them (both the individuals and their specific points) and also justify the claim. It looks to me as though she's firing blanks at largely non-existent windmills and defaming the real people who haven't done what she has claimed of them.

woodchuck64 | June 15, 2010 2:58 PM | Reply | Edit Agreed, Nick. Despite being a die-hard atheist myself, I don’t see that we can let loose and blast religion with all we’ve got until we can also provide something that will rapidly, easily and practically meet the same human needs that religion currently co-opts.

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Nick,
Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of a religion, any religion? Is it to do things like providing a sense of community or instilling values in children and in themselves?

I don't believe so. Organized religion, like many bureaucracies, is primarily concerned with its own power, control, and resources. Any good they do is an outgrowth of tactics and strategies to develop a larger follower base. And any negative gets swept away where the members of the bureaucracy hopes it will never see the light of day.

Does a sense of community and instilling values require deification? Look at the power weilded by the Catholic or Mormon Church, their power is more secular than not. They own vast resources, nearly incomprehesible resources, and all because they wish to instill values and a sense of community? I don't believe so. Now take a look at Scientology and I think you find a religion nearer to the truth.

John Harshman said: Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me.

Deen | June 15, 2010 3:42 PM | Reply | Edit Massive straw-man. No New Atheist thinks that moderate religion is equally bad and stupid as fundamentalism.

Ted raises an interesting point: the primary benefits of religion to society are incidental to the ostensible purpose of religion.

I have actually had moderate theists try to convince me that believing in something with no evidence was less stupid in believing in something that contradicted known evidence. In that way fundamentalism is a more honest stupidity - if you're going to believe something that has no supporting evidence, such that there is a benevolent deity who cares about us, you might as well believe in something that contradicts what we know about the natural world, such as that the earth is 6000 years old.

Malchus said: Myers actual argument is somewhat longer, I don't know if you read the entirety of it:

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Myers is not commenting at all on the ancillary social benefits that religion provides - which I personally consider to be remarkable and irreplaceable. Myers is commenting on the ability of religion to advance us towards "truth" and some understanding of the universe that we dwell in. This is a very different point.

Ted Herrlich said: Nick, Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of a religion, any religion? Is it to do things like providing a sense of community or instilling values in children and in themselves? I don't believe so. Organized religion, like many bureaucracies, is primarily concerned with its own power, control, and resources. Any good they do is an outgrowth of tactics and strategies to develop a larger follower base. And any negative gets swept away where the members of the bureaucracy hopes it will never see the light of day. Does a sense of community and instilling values require deification? Look at the power weilded by the Catholic or Mormon Church, their power is more secular than not. They own vast resources, nearly incomprehesible resources, and all because they wish to instill values and a sense of community? I don't believe so. Now take a look at Scientology and I think you find a religion nearer to the truth.

The obvious moderate religions which are effectively atheism tend to be very recent modifications of existing religions. These are either counted in or out of being a religion, depending on who you ask and which side of the divide they are trying to boost (eg Christians saying give us power because all these people are among our adherents vs those same Christians saying to the sheeple that they need money to claw back converts because numbers are falling).

There's the most modern form of Unitarianism - which in the US seems to go around under the name Unitarian Universalist. In the UK, the descendent of the original form (of which Newton was among the earliest members!) still tends to be very strongly Christian in identity (including paraphernalia and hymns) but quite a few of those attending try to be as vague and fluffy and inclusive and non-assertive as they can about believing (or claiming to believe) in anything much.

There's an atheistic form of Buddhism which is really just about the meditation type stuff. Whereas the original Buddhist proponents very firmly believed in their local gods, but thought that the doings of the gods were no concern of humans. So knowing that someone self-identifies as "Buddhist" isn't enough to know which camp they're really in.

Then there's stuff like that Spinozan deist position of relabelling nature/universe as god.

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist.

Malchus said: Dawkins himself would never suggest using science in that fashion. Consider his remarks on Darwinian evolution, for example:

No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. … A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.

Zen isn’t really even a philosphy as such, more advocating a certain mindset and a related discipline.

Nick (Matzke) said:

So to sum up, the religion provides these services, but it is not necessary* for these services, and in some cases the service provided can be (and in the most publicized instances, often is) actually a detriment to society.

Well, that's a nice theoretical argument, and for everyone who gets all of these things through other means, more power to you. I am merely trying to explain the social psychology of religious people and show that what they are doing actually makes a fair amount of sense and isn't raving unbelievably idiotic lunacy. Out in the real world there are lots and lots of churches/religions providing these kinds of services, and precious little in terms of alternatives (atheist or otherwise) which provide them all as a coherent unit. And when New Atheist folks go on about child abuse and witch burning and scientific irrationality, when a great many millions of peoples' actual personal experience with religion is community and child care and fairly rational moral reflection and the like, it's not hard to see why many people continue to choose religion.

Massive straw-man. No New Atheist thinks that moderate religion is equally bad and stupid as fundamentalism.

Biblical literalism is crazy nonsense, but no more so than transubstantiation or doctrines of salvation or any accounts of what happens in heaven or hell. What drives our rejection of religion isn't that a few bits and pieces of specific religious beliefs, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, have been falsified, but that no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all...yet every religion claims to provide knowledge about the nature of the universe.

Nick (Matzke) said: Never mind that much of the fundamental law and structure of western thought was bred and developed by Christian or heavily Christian-influenced thinkers.

Nick (Matzke) said: Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science.

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist. That may be the only instance I am aware of where substantial numbers of people do practice religious rites of different faiths as individuals who recognized the values for belonging to them:

Malchus said: Myers actual argument is somewhat longer, I don't know if you read the entirety of it:

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Myers is not commenting at all on the ancillary social benefits that religion provides - which I personally consider to be remarkable and irreplaceable. Myers is commenting on the ability of religion to advance us towards "truth" and some understanding of the universe that we dwell in. This is a very different point.

John Kwok said: Maybe you ought to ask noted philosopher of science Philip Kitcher, since he believes that religions arose out of a need to provide a "sense of community" and instilling ethical values. Yours is an assessment that I would expect from an atheist who has become so intolerant of any kind of religious tolerance, simply because this individual has become an adherent of the "stealth religion" - to borrow David Sloan Wilson's term - known as Atheism:

Ted Herrlich said: Nick, Just out of curiosity what is the purpose of a religion, any religion? Is it to do things like providing a sense of community or instilling values in children and in themselves? I don't believe so. Organized religion, like many bureaucracies, is primarily concerned with its own power, control, and resources. Any good they do is an outgrowth of tactics and strategies to develop a larger follower base. And any negative gets swept away where the members of the bureaucracy hopes it will never see the light of day. Does a sense of community and instilling values require deification? Look at the power weilded by the Catholic or Mormon Church, their power is more secular than not. They own vast resources, nearly incomprehesible resources, and all because they wish to instill values and a sense of community? I don't believe so. Now take a look at Scientology and I think you find a religion nearer to the truth.

MrG said:

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist.

The other interesting item is that, from what I know about Taoism and its hybrid offspring Zen Buddhism ... they're not really religions as Westerners consider such things -- fundies have no idea what to make of them -- lacking much or any concern with gods or the like. Zen isn't really even a philosphy as such, more advocating a certain mindset and a related discipline.

It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA.

It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue.

As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -,

it will always be evil.

There’s just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity.

Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science.

Nope. Believing that stuff is just as “crazy nonsense” as the biblical literalism stuff. (You gave your strawman away too easily there by actually quoting PZ for everyone to see.)

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Massive straw-man. No New Atheist thinks that moderate religion is equally bad and stupid as fundamentalism.

Hmm. Do you guys even read what PZ writes?

Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science. Gimme a break!

Moving on to the statement "no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all" -- Never mind that, say, my whole family on both sides has been moderate and religious for generations (well, except my grandma who's a fundamentalist), and that they came out to be quite excellent people without the sorts of trouble that many people get afflicted by, and that their own personal experience is that their religious upbringing helped them achieve this. Never mind that much of the fundamental law and structure of western thought was bred and developed by Christian or heavily Christian-influenced thinkers. Never mind about how separation of church and state, the concept of a scientific law, universities, and many of the progressive movements in the U.S. largely had their origins in religious sentiments. Nope, "no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all" -- about anything!

PZ's characterization is extreme and unfair. Like I said, religion is like capitalism. Lots of good, lots of bad, a crucial actor in history, extremely difficult to get rid of even if a better alternative existed, and massively important to understand rather than just bash at every possible instance. Listening to New Atheists talk about religion is an awful lot like listening to the old-fashioned tone-deaf communists go on about capitalism.

Malchus said: Regrettably, that still doesn't obviate Myers point that religions don't converge on truths. One can practice Taoism and be a physical chemist - there are no real points of convergence. Similarly with Taoism and Confucianism. But Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism do not reach the same conclusions about the universe, which is the point Myers appears to be making.

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist. That may be the only instance I am aware of where substantial numbers of people do practice religious rites of different faiths as individuals who recognized the values for belonging to them:

Malchus said: Myers actual argument is somewhat longer, I don't know if you read the entirety of it:

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Myers is not commenting at all on the ancillary social benefits that religion provides - which I personally consider to be remarkable and irreplaceable. Myers is commenting on the ability of religion to advance us towards "truth" and some understanding of the universe that we dwell in. This is a very different point.

John Kwok said: And neither you nor PZ Myers understand that at least in China, one can be simultaneously a Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist depending on the circumstances. You completely missed my point. Moreover, who are we to say to distant relatives of mine in China and other Chinese who believe that one can reach some kind of religious "truth" by choosing rituals and traditions amongst several religions simultaneously:

Malchus said: Regrettably, that still doesn't obviate Myers point that religions don't converge on truths. One can practice Taoism and be a physical chemist - there are no real points of convergence. Similarly with Taoism and Confucianism. But Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism do not reach the same conclusions about the universe, which is the point Myers appears to be making.

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist. That may be the only instance I am aware of where substantial numbers of people do practice religious rites of different faiths as individuals who recognized the values for belonging to them:

Malchus said: Myers actual argument is somewhat longer, I don't know if you read the entirety of it:

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Myers is not commenting at all on the ancillary social benefits that religion provides - which I personally consider to be remarkable and irreplaceable. Myers is commenting on the ability of religion to advance us towards "truth" and some understanding of the universe that we dwell in. This is a very different point.

John Kwok said: And neither you nor PZ Myers understand that at least in China, one can be simultaneously a Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist depending on the circumstances. You completely missed my point. Moreover, who are we to say to distant relatives of mine in China and other Chinese who believe that one can reach some kind of religious "truth" by choosing rituals and traditions amongst several religions simultaneously:

Malchus said: Regrettably, that still doesn't obviate Myers point that religions don't converge on truths. One can practice Taoism and be a physical chemist - there are no real points of convergence. Similarly with Taoism and Confucianism. But Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism do not reach the same conclusions about the universe, which is the point Myers appears to be making.

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist. That may be the only instance I am aware of where substantial numbers of people do practice religious rites of different faiths as individuals who recognized the values for belonging to them:

Malchus said: Myers actual argument is somewhat longer, I don't know if you read the entirety of it:

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Myers is not commenting at all on the ancillary social benefits that religion provides - which I personally consider to be remarkable and irreplaceable. Myers is commenting on the ability of religion to advance us towards "truth" and some understanding of the universe that we dwell in. This is a very different point.

Nick (Matzke) said: Hmm. Do you guys even read what PZ writes? E.g.:

Biblical literalism is crazy nonsense, but no more so than transubstantiation or doctrines of salvation or any accounts of what happens in heaven or hell...

Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad

PZ means that rhetorically, of course, and frankly, the arguments for transubstantiation are no better than those for YEC.

sorry, but he's right, and you are entirely misinterpreting what he is saying.

I've never seen you so far off the mark before, Nick.

It has me wondering if this was a deliberate experiment on your part?

did someone put you up to this?

'cause your thinking here is little better than Midgley's.

..IOW, ditto Chris Lawson ^

obviously I'm not the only one who noticed.

Sigh. This comes up again and again and again. "We all KNOW religion is phony, wink wink, nudge nudge, but it has Positive Social Effects, so we shouldn't be TOO hard on the poor dears that would strangle kittens if they weren't afraid of the invisible magic man who lives in the sky."

Certainly, there are positive social effects which can be traced to religion. But religion isn't the cause of these effects, and it shouldn't be treated as if it is. If someone says, "God gave me the strength to quit smoking!", do you say, "Well, I guess God exists!", or do you say, "No, he didn't, because he's not real. The strength to quit smoking came from YOU, from YOUR desire to control YOUR health and well being. There's no magic feather, Dumbo -- you did it yourself, and YOU deserve the credit, and once you know and accept this strength was yours, not God's, you will be able to do far more with your life."?

Obviously, the latter is correct. The former just cripples people.

Human psychology needs many of the social structures which religion provides -- but we do not need mysticism to provide them. We don't need to have gods in order to form communities, to care for each other, to provide comfort in time of need or simply a sense of belonging and a place to go every Sunday where we can be comforted by familiarity and rituals. Our psychological need for these things is real; gods are not. Let us satisfy the real needs without the false gods.

Nick (Matzke) said: As for sex abuse now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21602488/ns/us_news-education/ [huge quote removed] Down with schools!

Forgive me for not reading any of the preceding comments. I will comment on the post itself.

I want to share an analogy I thought of: religion provides good to the world just as De Beers provides diamonds to the world. It is asserted that "...an actual fair, non-raving assessment simply has to acknowledge that a large part of religion throughout history, and especially in liberal democracies in the 20th century, has been about providing often-correct moral guidance to the parishioners." I'm going to dispute this by saying that it cannot be assumed that it was the religion that was the producer of good, rather than merely its distributer, without which it would have existed and possibly been more produced. It may be that people simply have a tendency to organize socially and impulses to be generous, and religions only seem like they make good things happen because good things that would have happened anyway are done through them. This is of course true as well for bad things done merely in the name of religion, but not because of religion. I am certain that these two things are true to some extent.

The countervailing principle, that religions have independent inspirational power separate from people's innate, human desires, is certainly true as well. We could have a reasonable conversation about how sociological forces have shaped religions, and we could try and measure how much work is being done by the religious beliefs themselves. Here good and bad things actually done only because of religion would be factored, and religions would be more analogous to oil companies, producing good and bad effects.

I think the most reasonable interpretation of the twenty first century secular societies is that religion is unnecessary for feeling like one should take care of one's fellow man, etc. Good done incidentally in following a religion's directives is good done, but practically speaking I wouldn't presume to say it should or shouldn't be praised. This is because the same power that does good only incidentally also does evil incidentally, and I wish to criticize the type of thinking that places service to a god or religion on the moral scale.

I am skeptical of any project to enthrall the human mind to a religion or other ideology on the grounds that unfounded belief in it leads to greater good, while ignoring the falsity of its claims.

Practically speaking, I think social forces have generally led religions to create structures that are good for them, and thus incidentally good for their members and bad for their pagans. It's possible that on balance, some religions are better for the world than their absence, while the opposite is true for others. I see liberal defenders of religion as the most reluctant to have this type of honest inquiry, lest one religion be exposed as worse than another.

In sum, how many humans and societies are actually dissuaded by religion from what they were going to do anyway? Few, I think. And to the extent that they are, how often are they doing more good by following religion than they would have otherwise done? Less often than not, I think. Finally, what is the cost to humanity of these systems, from which so little net benefit comes, if any at all? Unquestionably high.

What should we do about it? In my opinion, criticize all irrational belief, as it is the brightest common thread to harmful ideologies religious and non-religious. Liberal religion will be hardest hit by this, even as it possibly offers the most attractive alternative to physically dangerous religions. My idiosyncratic opinion is that the ability of liberal religion to facilitate backsliding by fundamentalists and obfuscate for families that children are abandoning the serious beliefs of their parents is less relevant in this century than it was in the last.

Thank you for reading my unfair, raving assessment.

Or did you completely miss the point of the church scandal?

I think Nick is practicing exercising his ability to obfuscate and deliberately miss points today.

or he's drunk.

Today's anti-god warriors, by contrast, declare that Darwin's evolutionary theory gives a scientific disproof of that existence.

Nick Matzke:

You deny:

"that Midgley is a soft-headed (simply ludicrous if you know anything about Midgley – e.g. she has been called “One of the sharpest critical pens in the West”), theism-friendly (she is a long-time atheist), anti-Darwinian (she was one of the earliest and strongest voices for bringing Darwin into philosophy in a serious way), post-modernist (actually a very old-fashioned rationalist scientific liberal)"

You are correct to say she isn't a post modernist and totally wrong on everything else. She is someone who criticised Dawkins for 'thatcherite' economics due to his conceptualisation of genes, ignoring that he wrote in chapter one of 'The Selfish Gene':

"This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. ... If you wish to extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."

Someone who confuses descriptive and prescriptive statements is not an incisive thinker.

Someone who once wrote a book entitled 'evolution as a religion' (a lazy pile of tripe taking occasional excesses of scientists and comparing them to a religion, much as Ann Coulter compared Liberalism to a religion) is both theism-friendly and - and let's be fair here - a blithering idiot.

It remains for you to defend the odd idea that most people value their religion for its social good, rather than its factual content. I imagine it must be due to how lovely church picnics are that tens of thousands of people world wide believe the earth was formed 6000 years ago, when humankind was domesticating the dog.

Could we also note, from the start of the post, that somebody being called "One of the sharpest critical pens in the West" does not actually mean they are?

"Let’s see: (a) treating religion as if it were a scientific hypothesis; (b) ignoring exactly all the positives I listed above; (c) on top of not getting Midgley or what she was saying about religion"

This is pretty stupid and dishonest, since you don't actually quote what Midgley did say about religion that PZ responded to -- it wasn't any of this stuff about "providing a sense of community", "instilling values in children and in themselves", etc., it was about religion as a WORLD VIEW. Sheesh.

Ambidexter said: Midgley wrote:

Today's anti-god warriors, by contrast, declare that Darwin's evolutionary theory gives a scientific disproof of that existence.

My challenge is for her to name one of these "anti-god warriors." Just one name. I have to doubt Midgely is a high-powered philosopher if she doesn't understand the difference between "disproved" and "shows no evidence." But that's hardly the only logical fallacy Midgely indulges in with her rant.

Midnight Rambler said:

Nick (Matzke) said: As for sex abuse now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21602488/ns/us_news-education/ [huge quote removed] Down with schools!

Those stories were all about cases where teachers were hired in a new district because they concealed their past disciplinary and/or criminal records, and the new districts had no easy tools to check up on it. How many cases do you know of where a school took a teacher who was the subject of an allegation, protected them from any charges including administrative discipline, and quietly gave them a job at a different school, like the Catholic Church did with priests? Or did you completely miss the point of the church scandal?

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Nick (Matzke) said:

Massive straw-man. No New Atheist thinks that moderate religion is equally bad and stupid as fundamentalism.

Hmm. Do you guys even read what PZ writes? E.g.:

Biblical literalism is crazy nonsense, but no more so than transubstantiation or doctrines of salvation or any accounts of what happens in heaven or hell. What drives our rejection of religion isn't that a few bits and pieces of specific religious beliefs, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, have been falsified, but that no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all...yet every religion claims to provide knowledge about the nature of the universe.

Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science.

Moving on to the statement "no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all" -- Never mind that, say, my whole family on both sides has been moderate and religious for generations (well, except my grandma who's a fundamentalist), and that they came out to be quite excellent people without the sorts of trouble that many people get afflicted by, and that their own personal experience is that their religious upbringing helped them achieve this.

He does seem to have descended to the level of Dembski and Cordova -- miss the point(1), smear the opposition(2), provide second-hand 'information' that is unsourced and remains undefended(3), euquivocate on terms(4) and all in service of monstrous evil.

The small good does not justify the great evil.

(1) his take on PZ's writings he quotes

(2) equate the catholic priest scandal with mass hysteria about child abuse/satanism, and the relatively rare case of abuse occurring in public schools -- never mind the lack of cover up, never mind the hundreds of years of history

(3) Midgely's remarks about the claims of the so-called New Atheists, without ever quoting one directly nor otherwise supporting her tedious and erroneous point, rather rushing to defend it

(4) "value" is hardly univocal yet Nick has yet to explain how either he or Midgely intend or take the term, relying instead on the multi-vocal meanings of the term to steal a respect that religion has not earned

A contemptible performance worthy of the calumny spewed in his direction.

no hugs for thugs,

Shirley Knott

"Popper's Ghost": While Nick is way off base with this, simply being a jerk in response is not an effective form of argument. Just FYI.

Shirley Knott said: (2) equate the catholic priest scandal with mass hysteria about child abuse/satanism, and the relatively rare case of abuse occurring in public schools -- never mind the lack of cover up, never mind the hundreds of years of history

Brian said:

Shirley Knott said: (2) equate the catholic priest scandal with mass hysteria about child abuse/satanism, and the relatively rare case of abuse occurring in public schools -- never mind the lack of cover up, never mind the hundreds of years of history

It seems that Catholicism's specific taboos about sex make their institutions overwhelmingly more prone than any other institution to sexual abuse. But I don't see why that matters at all. Every institution where an adult is given authority over children has some potential for it. From an actuarial standpoint, we can't expect that there will never be any abuse ever no matter how careful society is. On the contrary, we expect a lurid scandal on the news every few months or so from somewhere in the country. Nonetheless, we need our children educated and, as a society, take that tiny risk, with as many safeguards as we can reasonably put in place. The problem with religious schooling isn't just that it abuses more than secular schooling. The problem is that society would be better off without religions, and entrusting children to them is a needless risk with no net upside, unlike sending children to school. The opportunity cost of investing in religion includes all abuses within its power structure, since we would be better off without religion in the first place. Comparing the rate of child abuse in public versus religious schools is like comparing the rate of houses burning down from owning a refrigerator versus smoking in bed.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Massive straw-man. No New Atheist thinks that moderate religion is equally (adjective X) and (adjective Y) as fundamentalism.

Hmm. Do you guys even read what PZ writes? E.g.:

Biblical literalism is (adjective Y), but no more so than transubstantiation or doctrines of salvation or any accounts of what happens in heaven or hell. What drives our rejection of religion isn't that a few bits and pieces of specific religious beliefs, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, have been (proven) (adjective Y), but that no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all...yet every religion claims to provide (not) (adjective Y) about the nature of the universe.

Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as (adjective X) as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science. Gimme a break!

If religion is so positive in its effects, why is it that religiosity correlates negatively with a wide range of indices of social health, as shown by Gregory Paul?

# Paul, G.S. (2005) "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies". Journal of Religion and Society. Vol. 7.
# ^ Paul, G.S. (2009) "The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions". Evolutionary Psychology Journal 7 (3) [2]

Evidence, Nick, evidence: you can apply an evidence-based approach to the social effects of religion as well as its supernatural fact claims.

Brian said: The problem with religious schooling isn't just that it abuses more than secular schooling. The problem is that society would be better off without religions, and entrusting children to them is a needless risk with no net upside, unlike sending children to school.

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 5:11 PM Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science

I think I've figured out these faitheists. They, like Marx, observe that religion is an opiate for the masses. They're afraid that if we make the masses quit cold turkey, they will go into withdrawal and there will be trouble.

What they somehow don't understand is that we have no intention - let alone the ability - of yanking the opiate away. All we are saying is "you don't need that opiate. We're doing just fine without it. Some of us never took it, but others quit taking it and turned out just fine. Join us!"

Now, some of the masses are in a situation where the opiate eases the pain of social, economic, and/or political disadvantage. If they give up the opiate they might feel compelled to work to ease that pain by fighting against those disadvantages. That's a scary prospect for the people toward the top of the social ladder, so they keep pushing the opiate.

harold | June 15, 2010 5:48 PM | Reply | Edit “Truthspeaker” - I’m not religious myself, but I take a very different view of things than you do. It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. To my mind, people have a right to “believe” anything they want, and it is their behavior which concerns me.

It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. That is arguably a fair description of some religions, if reworded. It is not fair as written. “Believing in certain specific things without evidence as a virtue” would be fair of some religions.

eric said: ...The RCC's conduct compared to other organizations is more like this: you're in a horrible car accident. Its probably not 100% your fault but you you're not really sure about that - you might bear some culpability. No one's aware of it yet (except the victim). So, do you flee the scene or stay and help, knowing that if you stay and help you might be charged with causing it? All our secular institutions have the stated policy of "stay and help" (granted, some may follow it more than others). The RCC's stated policy is "flee the scene." That's loathsome.

eric said: No, the problem is how the school (or organization) responds to the abuse. As you say, its going to happen...So, once the event happens, the school has two choices...What I think most people find horrific about the RCC scandals is that the RCC almost always choose the second course of action. Your analogy misses the mark. The RCC's conduct compared to other organizations is more like this: you're in a horrible car accident...All our secular institutions have the stated policy of "stay and help" (granted, some may follow it more than others). The RCC's stated policy is "flee the scene." That's loathsome.

harold said:

It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue.

That is arguably a fair description of some religions, if reworded. It is not fair as written. "Believing in certain specific things without evidence as a virtue" would be fair of some religions. Maybe of all, I'm not a theologian. It does seem to be a subtle but rather crucial point. I don't find the way you have written it to be precise enough.

Malchus said: In fact, John, on rereading your post, I see that you have made Myers point for him. The idea that your relatives might "pick and choose" truths from their different religious systems confirms Myers argument - that the faiths do not converge on specific truths. I am sure Myers will be pleased.

John Kwok said: And neither you nor PZ Myers understand that at least in China, one can be simultaneously a Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist depending on the circumstances. You completely missed my point. Moreover, who are we to say to distant relatives of mine in China and other Chinese who believe that one can reach some kind of religious "truth" by choosing rituals and traditions amongst several religions simultaneously:

Malchus said: Regrettably, that still doesn't obviate Myers point that religions don't converge on truths. One can practice Taoism and be a physical chemist - there are no real points of convergence. Similarly with Taoism and Confucianism. But Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism do not reach the same conclusions about the universe, which is the point Myers appears to be making.

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist. That may be the only instance I am aware of where substantial numbers of people do practice religious rites of different faiths as individuals who recognized the values for belonging to them:

Malchus said: Myers actual argument is somewhat longer, I don't know if you read the entirety of it:

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Myers is not commenting at all on the ancillary social benefits that religion provides - which I personally consider to be remarkable and irreplaceable. Myers is commenting on the ability of religion to advance us towards "truth" and some understanding of the universe that we dwell in. This is a very different point.

Brian said: the car's mission was not just a squandering of human and natural resources, but a diversion of them to evil.

eric said:

Brian said: the car's mission was not just a squandering of human and natural resources, but a diversion of them to evil.

...We in the U.S. like the freedom to squander our resources, be it on fatty foods...And yes, that includes "evil" things...Do you really want the government *more* involved in how we spend our spare change? In my mind, letting people build churches etc... with their own money is probably better than the alternative of having the government decide that they can't.

eric said:

Brian said: the car's mission was not just a squandering of human and natural resources, but a diversion of them to evil.

That may be true but you're on pretty shakey ground here. We in the U.S. like the freedom to squander our resources, be it on fatty foods, playing video games, buying luxury items, going to the movies, gambling, drinking, etc... And yes, that includes "evil" things; I'm sure a lot of what I spend my money on someone in the U.S. would call evil. We have Somalian mullahs have just outlawed watching the world cup as evil. Guess what I did yesterday? Do you really want the government *more* involved in how we spend our spare change? In my mind, letting people build churches etc... with their own money is probably better than the alternative of having the government decide that they can't.

Popper's Ghost said:

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Matzke is either appallingly stupid or a vile ass. I vote for both.

John Kwok said: That is a most undeservedly harsh assessment...What next? Do you propose to rape and to kill Nick Matzke, just like a moronic Pharyngula poster "joked" about doing... ...Alerted several prominent science bloggers to what had transpired back in March and they absolutely sickened by it, but didn't want to get involved. ...I would still bring this up even if PZ didn't ban me from Pharyngula. And no, for the last time, I don't want him to buy me a Leica rangefinder camera... Really think you should rephrase your critique in a more polite manner:

This thread has been as ugly as I expected it to be. It would be nice if people simply respected others rights to express their opinions without feeling the need to hurl insults or attack strawmen. And that goes for both sides.

Shirley Knott said: Perhaps I missed it, but I certainly did not see any call to government action in Brian's post to which you reply. Project much?

But we're straying quite far afield from matzke's inept defense of 'mary mary mental midget, doesn't have the sense of gidget...'

Out in the real world there are lots and lots of churches/religions providing these kinds of services, and precious little in terms of alternatives (atheist or otherwise) which provide them all as a coherent unit.

Brian said:

John Kwok said: That is a most undeservedly harsh assessment...What next? Do you propose to rape and to kill Nick Matzke, just like a moronic Pharyngula poster "joked" about doing... ...Alerted several prominent science bloggers to what had transpired back in March and they absolutely sickened by it, but didn't want to get involved. ...I would still bring this up even if PZ didn't ban me from Pharyngula. And no, for the last time, I don't want him to buy me a Leica rangefinder camera... Really think you should rephrase your critique in a more polite manner:

Guilt by association resonates more strongly when it isn't *both* inside baseball *and* six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Some readers (at least this one) have no idea what you are talking about and no inclination to research to what extent each scientist/blogger was obtuse in some blog flame war. Do you think the best strategy to deescalate heated discourse is to speculate that the other person is so rude and vulgar, they may possibly say something like the following disgusting thing next: (thing)? I've actually never seen that one tried, but I have my doubts.

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Popper's Ghost said:

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Matzke is either appallingly stupid or a vile ass. I vote for both.

Dale, considering something bad and stupid is not intolerance.

Dale Husband replied to comment from Popper's Ghost | June 16, 2010 11:20 AM | Reply | And I vote for you to be banned from here. Nick hasn’t been half as rude as you are being.

Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism?

eric said:

Shirley Knott said: Perhaps I missed it, but I certainly did not see any call to government action in Brian's post to which you reply. Project much?

You're right - Brian didn't call for government action. His claim was limited to saying religion is a diversion of human and natural resources to evil (or adjective Y), and he just clarified that.

But we're straying quite far afield from matzke's inept defense of 'mary mary mental midget, doesn't have the sense of gidget...'

I haven't read her works. I'd agree with a lot of the posters here that the particular short piece Nick links to is full of holes. I think a lot of the arguments against it posted here are insightful...but yours is not one of them.

truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism?

Nick (Matzke) said: Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science. Gimme a break!

Moving on to the statement "no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all" -- Never mind that, say, my whole family on both sides has been moderate and religious for generations (well, except my grandma who's a fundamentalist), and that they came out to be quite excellent people without the sorts of trouble that many people get afflicted by, and that their own personal experience is that their religious upbringing helped them achieve this.

Never mind that much of the fundamental law and structure of western thought was bred and developed by Christian or heavily Christian-influenced thinkers.

Never mind about how separation of church and state, the concept of a scientific law, universities, and many of the progressive movements in the U.S. largely had their origins in religious sentiments. Nope, "no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all" -- about anything!

Aagcobb replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 11:38 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism? The moderately religious are willing to recognize that the real world exists, and we can use science to learn about it, whereas fundamentalists live entirely in a fantasy world of their own creation.

truthspeaker said: Dale, considering something bad and stupid is not intolerance.

truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism?

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 12:18 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism? Um, because moderate religious people don’t go around trying to transform their own personal religious bigotries into the laws of the land, to be obeyed under pain of imprisonment, torture and or death? As far as I’ve seen, all moderate religious people find the idea of imposing severe legal consequences for not obeying their holy books to the letter to be monstrous and abhorrent.

So why is my saying that moderate religion doesn't tolerate the idea of using religion to promote intolerance and ignorance not an acceptable answer?

Stanton | June 16, 2010 12:31 PM | Reply | Edit So why is my saying that moderate religion doesn’t tolerate the idea of using religion to promote intolerance and ignorance not an acceptable answer?

I'm talking about believing in supernatural entities, not the details of how those supernatural entities are believed to want us to behave. If a deity exists, it might just as easily want humans to promote intolerance and ignorance as not. There's no reason to assume it would be benevolent.

Well, how about - and I put this tentatively - the idea that moderate religion does not deny, ignore or misrepresent physical evidence, but modifies its own positions to accommodate it, while fundamentalist religion does deny, ignore or misrepresent physical evidence in order to maintain its own.

I quite agree that both require belief in propositions for which there is no evidence; but I think there is a difference between believing things for which there is no evidence and refusing to accept the evidence that exists. The latter appears to me to be the more foolish.

Dave Luckett | June 16, 2010 1:08 PM | Reply | Edit I quite agree that both require belief in propositions for which there is no evidence; but I think there is a difference between believing things for which there is no evidence and refusing to accept the evidence that exists. The latter appears to me to be the more foolish.

truthspeaker said:

Aagcobb replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 11:38 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism? The moderately religious are willing to recognize that the real world exists, and we can use science to learn about it, whereas fundamentalists live entirely in a fantasy world of their own creation.

That's true. But the moderates believe the fantasy world exists at the same time as the real world. That seems equally stupid to me. The fundamentalist position is at least internally consistent. It's not consistent with what we observe about reality, which is why it's stupid.

Nick (Matzke) said:

Else we must concede that Gone With the Wind is a valuable history because

Surely Gone with the Wind is valuable for something no? Or is it just stupid nonsense just like religion because it's scientifically inaccurate?

The fundamental thing Midgley objects to is the extremely common (amongst scientism fans) tendency to think that the most important, truest thing to do is always to reduce some phenomenon to objective, scientific terms; and especially the pretension that people who do this have some kind of lock on truth and some special authority in commentating on and guiding the culture.

truthspeaker said:

Dave Luckett | June 16, 2010 1:08 PM | Reply | Edit I quite agree that both require belief in propositions for which there is no evidence; but I think there is a difference between believing things for which there is no evidence and refusing to accept the evidence that exists. The latter appears to me to be the more foolish.

I don't agree. They seem equally foolish to me. I see the distinction between them, but it's not a big one.

John Kwok said: That is a most undeservedly harsh assessment of someone who was for many years, an important member of NCSE's administrative staff and the one who found the term "cdesign proponentsis". Think you should stay clear of invoking Pharygnula-like rhetoric here. What next? Do you propose to rape and to kill Nick Matzke, just like a moronic Pharyngula poster "joked" about doing to Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum and their supporters back in March as noted here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ (Incidentally Myers, who was away then in Australia attending an atheist convention, mistakenly thought that Sheril's reaction was in response to coarse language. He was so oblivious that he later paraphrased the "joke" in yet another Pharyngula blog entry bashing the Irish Roman Catholic Church: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/grand_news_from_ireland.php#more He ended that post using this paraphrase of the joke: "Well, frob me sideways with a sniny dirk…maybe there is a god.") (MEMO to Nick: You might consider your favorable appraisal of Myers. Alerted several prominent science bloggers to what had transpired back in March and they absolutely sickened by it, but didn't want to get involved. MEMO to PZ supporters: I would still bring this up even if PZ didn't ban me from Pharyngula. And no, for the last time, I don't want him to buy me a Leica rangefinder camera. The one who owes me one is Bill Dembski.). Really think you should rephrase your critique in a more polite manner:

Popper's Ghost said:

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Matzke is either appallingly stupid or a vile ass. I vote for both.

truthspeaker said: I'm talking about believing in supernatural entities, not the details of how those supernatural entities are believed to want us to behave. If a deity exists, it might just as easily want humans to promote intolerance and ignorance as not. There's no reason to assume it would be benevolent.

Though I do admit to my share of human curiosity: why on earth, John, would Bill Dembski owe you a camera?

MememicBottleneck replied to comment I know too many religious people (family and friends) who use religion as a means of comfort. I think many people are religious simply because they fear death and want some assurance that things will be good when they leave this world. How is this use of religion worse than taking drugs to fight depression caused by such a fear?

Malchus replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 1:50 PM | Reply | Edit One involves denial of actual evidence; the other does not. This would certainly appear to be a significant difference.

Dale Husband said: And that sort of intolerance I do not endorse. It's as stupid and hateful as any other kind.

MememicBottleneck replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 1:54 PM I do not consider any article of faith “evil” unless it is being pressed onto society by the believer or an organization they belong to. Who cares what the guy across the counter asking if you want fries with your Big Mac believes? If it helps him sleep at night, so be it.

truthspeaker said:

Malchus replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 1:50 PM | Reply | Edit One involves denial of actual evidence; the other does not. This would certainly appear to be a significant difference.

I don't consider it significant at all. One involves the denial of actual evidence, the other involves disregarding a lack of actual evidence. Seems like two aspects of the same thing to me. But thanks for addressing the question I actually asked.

Malchus said: But if the lack of evidence belief caused no disagreement with reality, we would see an actual difference in the results of their actions. It would appear to depend highly on the actual beliefs in question.

I may not be getting this quote exactly right, but consistency is the hobgoblin of the foolish mind.

Midnight Rambler said: "Popper's Ghost": While Nick is way off base with this, simply being a jerk in response is not an effective form of argument. Just FYI.

truthspeaker said: I didn't ask why moderate religion is less harmful to society than fundamentalism. I asked what is less stupid about the beliefs.

Dale Husband said:

Popper's Ghost said:

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Matzke is either appallingly stupid or a vile ass. I vote for both.

And I vote for you to be banned from here. Nick hasn't been half as rude as you are being.

Matt Young said: I kind of agree with those who hold that "moderate" religious beliefs are not as foolish as fundamentalist beliefs because they do not deny known facts, such as descent with modification.

Moderate religions are relatively harmless and may be our only defense against fundamentalism, since the atheists are not going to prevail any time soon.

Dale Husband said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

And that sort of intolerance I do not endorse. It's as stupid and hateful as any other kind.

Malchus said: Though I do admit to my share of human curiosity: why on earth, John, would Bill Dembski owe you a camera?

John Kwok said: That is a most undeservedly harsh assessment of someone who was for many years, an important member of NCSE's administrative staff and the one who found the term "cdesign proponentsis". Think you should stay clear of invoking Pharygnula-like rhetoric here. What next? Do you propose to rape and to kill Nick Matzke, just like a moronic Pharyngula poster "joked" about doing to Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum and their supporters back in March as noted here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ (Incidentally Myers, who was away then in Australia attending an atheist convention, mistakenly thought that Sheril's reaction was in response to coarse language. He was so oblivious that he later paraphrased the "joke" in yet another Pharyngula blog entry bashing the Irish Roman Catholic Church: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/grand_news_from_ireland.php#more He ended that post using this paraphrase of the joke: "Well, frob me sideways with a sniny dirk…maybe there is a god.") (MEMO to Nick: You might consider your favorable appraisal of Myers. Alerted several prominent science bloggers to what had transpired back in March and they absolutely sickened by it, but didn't want to get involved. MEMO to PZ supporters: I would still bring this up even if PZ didn't ban me from Pharyngula. And no, for the last time, I don't want him to buy me a Leica rangefinder camera. The one who owes me one is Bill Dembski.). Really think you should rephrase your critique in a more polite manner:

Popper's Ghost said:

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Matzke is either appallingly stupid or a vile ass. I vote for both.

Nick (Matzke) said: Yep, believing in heaven and believing that bread becomes the body of christ in some theological sense is just as horribly bad as fighting for a young-earth directly in the teeth of the entirety of established science. Gimme a break!

truthspeaker said: Dale, considering something bad and stupid is not intolerance.

eric said:

Brian said: the car's mission was not just a squandering of human and natural resources, but a diversion of them to evil.

That may be true but you're on pretty shakey ground here. We in the U.S. like the freedom to squander our resources.

Popper's Ghost said: Voting to have someone banned, OTOH, is. I would never ask to have someone like Dale banned even for being so hypocritical and stupid.

John Harshman said: And one argument to be made is believing without evidence encourages the habit of believing without evidence, and so is likely to have consequences even if the initial belief doesn't.

truthspeaker said: Well I care to the extent that I care about other people. Obviously he has every right to believe whatever he wants. But how did he come by that belief in the first place if it wasn't pressed onto him by other believers?

John Harshman said:

Malchus said: But if the lack of evidence belief caused no disagreement with reality, we would see an actual difference in the results of their actions. It would appear to depend highly on the actual beliefs in question.

This seems a bit garbled. I think you meant to say that if a belief for which there is no evidence has no empirical consequences, holding that belief wouldn't matter. But how many beliefs are there without empirical consequences? Generally, religions encourage certain behaviors and discourage certain others. Some of those rules are fine, like prohibitions against murder (at least murder of ingroup members). Others are pernicious, like submission to authority figures. And others are just a waste of time and effort, like dietary laws. In the abstract you might be right, but there don't seem to be any real-world examples. And one argument to be made is believing without evidence encourages the habit of believing without evidence, and so is likely to have consequences even if the initial belief doesn't.

John Kwok said: SOrry, Malchus, I respectfully disagree. I have not made Myers's point for him. Since many Chinese do find it necessary to celebrate religious traditions by invoking at least two of the three faiths, neither you nor Myers should jump needlessly into hasty conclusions. There may be ample emotional as well as theological reasons why they wish to belong simultaneously to more than one faith"

Malchus said: In fact, John, on rereading your post, I see that you have made Myers point for him. The idea that your relatives might "pick and choose" truths from their different religious systems confirms Myers argument - that the faiths do not converge on specific truths. I am sure Myers will be pleased.

John Kwok said: And neither you nor PZ Myers understand that at least in China, one can be simultaneously a Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist depending on the circumstances. You completely missed my point. Moreover, who are we to say to distant relatives of mine in China and other Chinese who believe that one can reach some kind of religious "truth" by choosing rituals and traditions amongst several religions simultaneously:

Malchus said: Regrettably, that still doesn't obviate Myers point that religions don't converge on truths. One can practice Taoism and be a physical chemist - there are no real points of convergence. Similarly with Taoism and Confucianism. But Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism do not reach the same conclusions about the universe, which is the point Myers appears to be making.

John Kwok said: Myers is wrong in one important aspect. In my ancestral homeland of China, it is not unusual for someone to be a practicing Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist. That may be the only instance I am aware of where substantial numbers of people do practice religious rites of different faiths as individuals who recognized the values for belonging to them:

Malchus said: Myers actual argument is somewhat longer, I don't know if you read the entirety of it:

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable. Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Myers is not commenting at all on the ancillary social benefits that religion provides - which I personally consider to be remarkable and irreplaceable. Myers is commenting on the ability of religion to advance us towards "truth" and some understanding of the universe that we dwell in. This is a very different point.

Stanton said: Um, because moderate religious people don't go around trying to transform their own personal religious bigotries into the laws of the land, ...

truthspeaker said:

MememicBottleneck replied to comment I know too many religious people (family and friends) who use religion as a means of comfort. I think many people are religious simply because they fear death and want some assurance that things will be good when they leave this world. How is this use of religion worse than taking drugs to fight depression caused by such a fear?

I'm not sure anybody's depression is caused by such a fear. That fear may be blamed for the depression, but I doubt it's the cause. Using religion as comfort because someone fears death is a negative attribute of religion as far as I'm concerned. I don't think we are capable of reaching our full potential as human beings unless we are willing to face the reality that life is finite.

Dave Luckett said: I quite agree that both require belief in propositions for which there is no evidence; but I think there is a difference between believing things for which there is no evidence and refusing to accept the evidence that exists. The latter appears to me to be the more foolish.

tomh said: < <>

Stanton said: Um, because moderate religious people don't go around trying to transform their own personal religious bigotries into the laws of the land, ...

Well, it depends who you classify as moderate. Is the Catholic Church moderate? After all, they accept evolution. But they certainly try to tansform their religious bigotry into law, for example, by lobbying heavily for discrimination against gays, (same-sex marriage, adoption rights, etc). They lobby against women's rights, witness the recent health-care debate and the Catholic bishops' demands on abortion. You have to define your moderates. Are the Mormons moderate? They practically defeated Prop 8 in California, all by themselves. So, first list your moderates, then we can decide if they try to transform their bigotry into law.

MememicBottleneck Most people come to their religions through parental exposure. Surely you are not advocating taking children from their parents because they follow some dogma you don’t agree with.

MememicBottleneck said: I believe your idea of full potential is far beyond what most people are capable of. They will never understand the science behind any of this. Half the population has an IQ below 100.

I don't understand why you consider using religion as a psychological aid to be a negative aspect of it.

MememicBottleneck replied to comment from truthspeaker I grew up in a large family, with a very large extended family (good Catholics), outside a small community. You get to know a good cross section of humanity because there are not many people who you can directly relate to so you get to know the people around you. I believe your idea of full potential is far beyond what most people are capable of. They will never understand the science behind any of this. Half the population has an IQ below 100.

As for the “fear” comment, being the only atheist in the family, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked to “believe” as an insurance policy for the after life (I know this is a stupid argument on several levels). Therefore I consider it a valid statement. I don’t understand why you consider using religion as a psychological aid to be a negative aspect of it.

Religion predates Homo Sapiens. It has been used to explain the reason for existence

You simply cannot educate some people to your definition of “full potential”.

Malchus said: Most of the Methodists, such as the UCC, are quite distant from the political process, ...

But Catholics are generally considered among the moderates

Deen said:

MememicBottleneck said: I believe your idea of full potential is far beyond what most people are capable of. They will never understand the science behind any of this. Half the population has an IQ below 100.

Seeing how even infants seem to grasp the concept of learning by trial and error, I really don't think appreciating science is limited to those of above-average intelligence. In fact, I tend to think that this attitude that science is only for smart people is contributing to the dismal standards of our science education. It means students don't get stimulated to learn it if they don't get it on the first try (especially girls). It means that teachers won't invest time on those that don't have a natural aptitude to science anyway.

I don't understand why you consider using religion as a psychological aid to be a negative aspect of it.

Because a scientific mind empowers people to think for themselves, while religion-as-a-crutch makes people unnecessarily dependent on a religious authority.

I meant "there" not "their" a couple comments above. Clearly stellar intelligence is not required to resist the pull of false hope - I've proved that on many occasions.

truthspeaker said:

But Catholics are generally considered among the moderates

By whom?!?!?! Certainly not by this woman: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/nicaragua-abortion-ban-stymies-woman-chemotherapy-cancer-treatment/story?id=9936908 Catholics are not moderates by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, they accept evolution, but they also claim that the HIV virus can pass through the pores in condoms.

Malchus replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 4:58 PM | Reply | Edit I suspect that it depends on whether you are talking about the majority of American Catholics, or the Catholic hierarchy. The divergence between the views of these two groups has been growing over the last fifty years, and makes an interesting study in authoritarian processes.

truthspeaker said:

Malchus replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 16, 2010 4:58 PM | Reply | Edit I suspect that it depends on whether you are talking about the majority of American Catholics, or the Catholic hierarchy. The divergence between the views of these two groups has been growing over the last fifty years, and makes an interesting study in authoritarian processes.

There is a divergence - and yet American Catholics keep going to those churches and keep donating money to the organization that propagates that doctrine. So while their personal beliefs might be different, they willingly identify themselves with an authoritarian organization whose policies on contraception and sex are clear and publicly stated. Even if they don't all agree with those policies, they willingly support them, so they're on the hook for them. Some friends of my parents recently renounced Catholicism for just that reason. They said being told who to vote for was the last straw.

Midnight Rambler said:

Popper's Ghost said: Voting to have someone banned, OTOH, is. I would never ask to have someone like Dale banned even for being so hypocritical and stupid.

Perhaps, but it would be nice to have a *plonk* function on PT for people like yourself and Byers who put up lots of the same posts with nothing to say.

Popper's Ghost said:

Midnight Rambler said:

Popper's Ghost said: Voting to have someone banned, OTOH, is. I would never ask to have someone like Dale banned even for being so hypocritical and stupid.

Perhaps, but it would be nice to have a *plonk* function on PT for people like yourself and Byers who put up lots of the same posts with nothing to say.

They weren't the same and I had something to say, you dishonest jackass. If you want to plonk me, use firefox and Greasemonkey, you incompetent git. Or you could just choose to ignore my posts instead of hypocritically responding to them.

There is a divergence - and yet American Catholics keep going to those churches and keep donating money to the organization that propagates that doctrine. So while their personal beliefs might be different, they willingly identify themselves with an authoritarian organization whose policies on contraception and sex are clear and publicly stated. Even if they don’t all agree with those policies, they willingly support them, so they’re on the hook for them.

indeed. Which, by the same logic, is why I decided to leave the US altogether.

I felt, since my taxes were paying for illegal wiretapping, unethical business practices, blatant constitutional violations, unjustified invasions of foreign countries, etc. etc, that I was indeed "on the hook" for it.

The overwhelming majority in the US appear to be just fine with these things, or at best give them lip service, so I saw nothing for it but to stop supporting it. Only way to do that legally was to simply not be there any more.

Certainly your posts contain very little content to which one can respond,

the only post that mattered was his initial one, which was dead on the mark.

the rest was him defending himself from tone trolls like yourself, nothing more.

Frankly, I've learned over the years to value incisive comment, regardless of the vitriol it is delivered with, over polite drivel in all cases.

Ichthyic said: Certainly your posts contain very little content to which one can respond, the only post that mattered was his initial one, which was dead on the mark. the rest was him defending himself from tone trolls like yourself, nothing more. Frankly, I've learned over the years to value incisive comment, regardless of the vitriol it is delivered with, over polite drivel in all cases.

Do you actually treat all posters with equal respect? Do you peruse all of Byers posts, for example, for potentially interesting comments?

Byers is clearly an insane moron.

please, for your own sake, if you want others to continue reading YOUR posts, stop comparing him to Popper's Ghost, who has been posting here for years.

Why is this of any concern to YOU

because I'm tired of people making the same lame ass arguments about tone over and over again.

Malchus said: John, this Jeremiad is completely off-topic. If you have some petty quarrel with Myers, you should take it up with him; it is inappropriate and disruptive to air your grievances here.

John Kwok said: That is a most undeservedly harsh assessment of someone who was for many years, an important member of NCSE's administrative staff and the one who found the term "cdesign proponentsis". Think you should stay clear of invoking Pharygnula-like rhetoric here. What next? Do you propose to rape and to kill Nick Matzke, just like a moronic Pharyngula poster "joked" about doing to Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum and their supporters back in March as noted here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ (Incidentally Myers, who was away then in Australia attending an atheist convention, mistakenly thought that Sheril's reaction was in response to coarse language. He was so oblivious that he later paraphrased the "joke" in yet another Pharyngula blog entry bashing the Irish Roman Catholic Church: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/grand_news_from_ireland.php#more He ended that post using this paraphrase of the joke: "Well, frob me sideways with a sniny dirk…maybe there is a god.") (MEMO to Nick: You might consider your favorable appraisal of Myers. Alerted several prominent science bloggers to what had transpired back in March and they absolutely sickened by it, but didn't want to get involved. MEMO to PZ supporters: I would still bring this up even if PZ didn't ban me from Pharyngula. And no, for the last time, I don't want him to buy me a Leica rangefinder camera. The one who owes me one is Bill Dembski.). Really think you should rephrase your critique in a more polite manner:

Popper's Ghost said:

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Matzke is either appallingly stupid or a vile ass. I vote for both.

Malchus said: Though I do admit to my share of human curiosity: why on earth, John, would Bill Dembski owe you a camera?

Ichthyic said: Why is this of any concern to YOU because I'm tired of people making the same lame ass arguments about tone over and over again.

John Kwok said: Sorry Malchus, it is not a mere "petty quarrel". No one should tolerate the posting of a death threat on his blog, and then treat that threat as a "joke". It is relevant to this discussion simply because it illustrates the kind of behavior that it all too common at Pharyngula and regrettably, seems to have manifested here:

Malchus said: John, this Jeremiad is completely off-topic. If you have some petty quarrel with Myers, you should take it up with him; it is inappropriate and disruptive to air your grievances here.

John Kwok said: That is a most undeservedly harsh assessment of someone who was for many years, an important member of NCSE's administrative staff and the one who found the term "cdesign proponentsis". Think you should stay clear of invoking Pharygnula-like rhetoric here. What next? Do you propose to rape and to kill Nick Matzke, just like a moronic Pharyngula poster "joked" about doing to Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum and their supporters back in March as noted here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/03/11/strengthening-public-interest-in-science/ (Incidentally Myers, who was away then in Australia attending an atheist convention, mistakenly thought that Sheril's reaction was in response to coarse language. He was so oblivious that he later paraphrased the "joke" in yet another Pharyngula blog entry bashing the Irish Roman Catholic Church: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/grand_news_from_ireland.php#more He ended that post using this paraphrase of the joke: "Well, frob me sideways with a sniny dirk…maybe there is a god.") (MEMO to Nick: You might consider your favorable appraisal of Myers. Alerted several prominent science bloggers to what had transpired back in March and they absolutely sickened by it, but didn't want to get involved. MEMO to PZ supporters: I would still bring this up even if PZ didn't ban me from Pharyngula. And no, for the last time, I don't want him to buy me a Leica rangefinder camera. The one who owes me one is Bill Dembski.). Really think you should rephrase your critique in a more polite manner:

Popper's Ghost said:

John Harshman said:

Nick (Matzke) said:

If religion has value, wouldn’t the proper response be to throw out the bad parts (god, for example) and keep the good parts? Perhaps we should emulate Thomas Jefferson.

What do you think moderate religion is, if not exactly what you suggest? But no, the New Atheists insist moderate religion is just as bad and stupid as fundamentalism, and more or less say that even those who are willing to interact with moderate religion in a civil fashion are also in the bad/stupid category.

Moderate religion is atheism? That's a new one on me. The rest of that was an attack on handily labeled but unnamed sources. Who are these New Atheists that make such claims?

Matzke is either appallingly stupid or a vile ass. I vote for both.

Ichthyic said: please, for your own sake, if you want others to continue reading YOUR posts, stop comparing him to Popper's Ghost, who has been posting here for years.

Does he ever say anything other than accusing anyone who says anything he doesn’t like of being a liar?

yes.

What does it matter how long he’s been posting?

because those of us who have been around long enough know it's just his style of posting. It tends to annoy some, but he knows what he's talking about.

I reacted the same way early on. You get used to it.

He's better around than not.

the person you should be thinking about ridding yourself of is Kwok.

THAT is one seriously disturbed individual.

Malchus said: John, the only person manifesting this behavior here is you. No one cares in the slightest about whatever inconsequential argument you may be having with Myers blog...

I've forgotten now, which high school did Kwok go to again?

tomh said:

Malchus said: John, the only person manifesting this behavior here is you. No one cares in the slightest about whatever inconsequential argument you may be having with Myers blog...

Get used to it. As long as Kwok is allowed to post here he will find a way to whine about Myers and the fact that he's banned on Myers' blog, no matter what the actual topic is.

fnxtr said: I've forgotten now, which high school did Kwok go to again?

fnxtr said: I've forgotten now, which high school did Kwok go to again?

Malchus said:

fnxtr said: I've forgotten now, which high school did Kwok go to again?

Why?

Does it matter?

John Harshman said:

Ichthyic said: please, for your own sake, if you want others to continue reading YOUR posts, stop comparing him to Popper's Ghost, who has been posting here for years.

What does it matter how long he's been posting? Does he ever say anything other than accusing anyone who says anything he doesn't like of being a liar? Because that was pretty much all he said in his first several posts in this thread. OK, the first post repeated that Nick hadn't addressed what Midgley had really said, but many others had already pointed that out, and the only original contribution was to accuse Nick of being stupid and a liar.

Ichthyic said: Does he ever say anything other than accusing anyone who says anything he doesn’t like of being a liar? yes. What does it matter how long he’s been posting? because those of us who have been around long enough know it's just his style of posting. It tends to annoy some, but he knows what he's talking about. I reacted the same way early on. You get used to it. He's better around than not. the person you should be thinking about ridding yourself of is Kwok. THAT is one seriously disturbed individual.

Malchus said: I didn't make a comment about tone - you did. I made an observation in agreement with another poster; a comment not related to the tone of Popper's post. And my comment about Popper's snark is quite genuine, and in a way, heartfelt. He's not very creative, and some creativity might pep up his posts. Tone trolls insist on some standard of civility or complain that a forum content cannot be taken seriously without everyone being assiduously polite. I have neither required nor even commented on this point. Tone trolls usually, so far as I can see, indulge in their practice in order to deflect comments they are unable to answer; or simply because they're people upset by any amount of profanity or obscenity. I am neither. Popper doesn't appear to have any problems defending himself; so unless you'd care to address what I actually said, rather than some odd strawman of your own devising, feel free to fuck off. :-)

Ichthyic said: Why is this of any concern to YOU because I'm tired of people making the same lame ass arguments about tone over and over again.

Malchus said: Certainly your posts contain very little content to which one can respond, but you make a good point here. Your posts will be ignored from now on. Oh, and you might wish to give your invective some thought - your insults lack both interest and creativity. As it stands now, you stand an excellent chance of boring your readers to death.

Popper's Ghost said:

Midnight Rambler said:

Popper's Ghost said: Voting to have someone banned, OTOH, is. I would never ask to have someone like Dale banned even for being so hypocritical and stupid.

Perhaps, but it would be nice to have a *plonk* function on PT for people like yourself and Byers who put up lots of the same posts with nothing to say.

They weren't the same and I had something to say, you dishonest jackass. If you want to plonk me, use firefox and Greasemonkey, you incompetent git. Or you could just choose to ignore my posts instead of hypocritically responding to them.

John Harshman said: Does he ever say anything other than accusing anyone who says anything he doesn't like of being a liar?

John Harshman said: ... anyone who says anything he doesn't like ...

Popper's Ghost said: ... simply because I don't like him ...

Interesting.

It seems that Matzke's ploy to simply abandon his hopeless defense of mary midgley, mental midget, has paid off in spades.

After all, what do we have now? Pages of "you're a concern troll", "no I'm not", style policing and arguments about that, a smattering of specifics about religions and religious behavior.

Not a shred of focus on the mental midget masquerading as a philosopher nor the [hopefully temporarily] deranged Matzke's pitiful defense of her indefensible, dishonest little screed nor his inept attempts to shift the blame and/or responsibility for same.

Good going Nick, you continue your excellent imitation of Dembski and Cordoba.
Was that the point? Or were you serious?

no hugs for thugs,

Shirley Knott

Shirley Knott said: the mental midget masquerading as a philosopher

SEF said:

Shirley Knott said: the mental midget masquerading as a philosopher

That could be partly because I and some others (an unknown proportion but definitely non-zero) regard that as entirely characteristic of the type rather than an exclusionary diagnostic feature.

SEF continued with: The actual points of contention constructed by Mary Midgley and Nick Matzke have already been thoroughly (and repetitively) demolished for being the manifestly unsound edifices they were. Logic building regulations demanded it once the evidence was examined. So that doesn't really leave anything but the lobbing of scattered stones and the bickering over the landfill site.

Malchus said: That's very interesting. A bit peculiar, but interesting. Are his views on other topics sound? I haven't seen enough to judge; my concern is that he has not been closely reading my posts, and may be misinterpreting my points.

tomh said:

Malchus said: John, the only person manifesting this behavior here is you. No one cares in the slightest about whatever inconsequential argument you may be having with Myers blog...

Get used to it. As long as Kwok is allowed to post here he will find a way to whine about Myers and the fact that he's banned on Myers' blog, no matter what the actual topic is.

Shirley Knott said: Or perhaps we could request that the thread be closed due to its current status of 'beaten into a fine pink mist'.

Midnight Rambler said:

Popper's Ghost said: Voting to have someone banned, OTOH, is. I would never ask to have someone like Dale banned even for being so hypocritical and stupid.

Perhaps, but it would be nice to have a *plonk* function on PT for people like yourself and Byers who put up lots of the same posts with nothing to say.

Popper's Ghost, truthspeaker, John Harshman and other anti-religious extremists, keep up the piss and vinegar! You are proof that atheists can be just as trollish around here as Creationist fundamentalists. Though I suspect P Z Myers would highly approve of such behavior, I would not!

Dale Husband said:

SEF said: PS I failed to make one bit clear enough:

Mary Midgley says: Newton ... was not a Christian

Liar! If she were genuinely ignorant enough to believe he wasn't a Christian (by all the same sort of signs and standards with which one could evaluate anyone's Christian-ness) then she's lying about her ability (ie relevant knowledge and intelligence and hence competence) to tell one way or the other. She certainly can't expect to get away with it in a throwaway remark without specifying precisely what her peculiar definition of a True Christian™ is.

Yes, Isaac Newton WAS a Christian, but he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity which was a basic part of Christian orthodoxy. To say that those who reject the Trinity are not Christians is to play right into the hands of Christian fundamentaism. If Mary Midgley is an atheist, she is one of the most incompetent atheist writers ever!

Lovely, so they just have some things that that they assert it is a virtue to believe without evidence.

For other things, they’re quite rigorous scientists.

I just have one question. How do they determine which things to believe without evidence? Do they hold a seance and summon the shades of Moses and Godel?

Dale Husband said: Popper's Ghost, truthspeaker, John Harshman and other anti-religious extremists, keep up the piss and vinegar! You are proof that atheists can be just as trollish around here as Creationist fundamentalists. Though I suspect P Z Myers would highly approve of such behavior, I would not!

Dale Husband said: Popper's Ghost, truthspeaker, John Harshman and other anti-religious extremists, keep up the piss and vinegar! You are proof that atheists can be just as trollish around here as Creationist fundamentalists. Though I suspect P Z Myers would highly approve of such behavior, I would not!

Dale Husband said: Going beyond that to attack Nick Matzke personally and claim to read his mind was just unnecessary.

I was raised in a strict but theologically flexible Protestant denomination. The implied minimum requirement was that one believe in the existence of a Christian God, who came to earth as Jesus.

fnxtr said: I've forgotten now, which high school did Kwok go to again?

Shirley Knott said: Interesting. It seems that Matzke's ploy to simply abandon his hopeless defense of mary midgley, mental midget, has paid off in spades. After all, what do we have now? Pages of "you're a concern troll", "no I'm not", style policing and arguments about that, a smattering of specifics about religions and religious behavior. Not a shred of focus on the mental midget masquerading as a philosopher nor the [hopefully temporarily] deranged Matzke's pitiful defense of her indefensible, dishonest little screed nor his inept attempts to shift the blame and/or responsibility for same. Good going Nick, you continue your excellent imitation of Dembski and Cordoba. Was that the point? Or were you serious? no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

Robin said:

Shirley Knott said: Interesting. It seems that Matzke's ploy to simply abandon his hopeless defense of mary midgley, mental midget, has paid off in spades. After all, what do we have now? Pages of "you're a concern troll", "no I'm not", style policing and arguments about that, a smattering of specifics about religions and religious behavior. Not a shred of focus on the mental midget masquerading as a philosopher nor the [hopefully temporarily] deranged Matzke's pitiful defense of her indefensible, dishonest little screed nor his inept attempts to shift the blame and/or responsibility for same. Good going Nick, you continue your excellent imitation of Dembski and Cordoba. Was that the point? Or were you serious? no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

I disagree with your premise here, Shirley. Nick's abandonment of this discussion had little (some, but little) effect on the change in the discussion's course. As SEF points out, the topic horse is thoroughly flogged; no meat left even to peck at at this point. It just so happens that coincidentally other participants who showed up late have provided a tangent subject for folks with still-pent-up emotions to vent and gab about. Seriously, what else is there to say about the actual topic that hasn't been addressed?

Shirley Knott said: So the plural of anecdote is data after all?

Tulse said: By analogy, someone who is blind may be able run very fast, and even outrun many sighted people, but to say that their blindness doesn't impair their overall athletic ability is foolish.

truthspeaker said: Some friends of my parents recently renounced Catholicism for just that reason. They said being told who to vote for was the last straw.

This one's for Robin.

Excuse me for barging in as the first creationist posting on this thread.

I am under no illusion that my ignoble entrance here will help stem the bleeding from this most delectable of no-gods catfights.

Er,...carry on.

eric said: moderate faith does not empirically seem to have any "impairment" on one's ability to do science.

So if you had been presented solid archeological evidence that an historical Jesus never existed, you would have been required to disbelieve such evidence?

This is the problem with any religion apart from Deism – they all make some sort of empirical claims about the physical world.

Religious scientists can usually skirt this problem by avoiding the areas in which their religion makes such claims, but it is silly to say that such non-scientific a priori commitments are not hobbling.

By analogy, someone who is blind may be able run very fast, and even outrun many sighted people, but to say that their blindness doesn’t impair their overall athletic ability is foolish.

Steve P.

You pathetic wretch.

No-one ever said that all the people in the world who reject your crap agree with one another.

Rejecting the ludicrous dishonesty that you represent, as millions of religious people do, is merely the lowest common denominator of honest recognition of reality.

Shirley Knott said:

Robin said: Seriously, what else is there to say about the actual topic that hasn't been addressed?

I don't entirely disagree, however... Had Matzke "manned up" and either [productively] addressed the counter-points raised, or retracted his fawning support for what has been shown to be a tawdry piece of trash, the thread would have pretty much ended. Or it would have engendered further fruitful discussion -- if he had been able to bring to bear other work of Midgley to clarify and support his position that she is worthy of attention. As it is, the thread will linger on and on and on, until it finally, mercifully, falls off the bottom of the page. Heck, that's already happened to the relevant commentary thread on PZ's blog... Matzke has prolonged the thread by absenting himself from it. no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

Steve P. said: This one's for Robin. Excuse me for barging in as the first creationist posting on this thread. I am under no illusion that my ignoble entrance here will help stem the bleeding from this most delectable of no-gods catfights. Er,...carry on.

SEF said:

eric said: moderate faith does not empirically seem to have any "impairment" on one's ability to do science.

It may not seem so only because you haven't bothered to look carefully enough for evidence of how and when it does. You may also be reverse engineering your definition such that you only count religions/faiths which don't interfere as being the moderate ones! There are two factors to consider, anyway. Faith limits the bits of reality someone is allowed to investigate at all (ie these must not conflict with anything they've been ordered to take on faith) and what they are willing to consider. Religiosity impacts more on the amount of time and thought available. If someone frequently has to dash off to a prayer mat when they are supposed to be tending a bubbling cauldron, then they're going to be rubbish at any science involving that sort of care and attention, regardless of whether or not their faith permits them to believe in chemistry. If someone can't handle test animals (for being unclean or whatever), then that again restricts their field of work even if they would believe in the science side of it. If someone spends so little time even considering their religion and whether it might conflict with their work (eg they don't waste time in church/temple or continually worry about gods, angels or demons affecting the outcome of experiments and try to control for them) and are unaware of stuff they might be supposed to take on faith, then they're really only nominally religious anyway - having a religion of convenience and being, for all practical purposes (including science), near enough atheistic.

Obviously "being", not "bring".

eric said: There's a difference. Blindness is considered an impairment because we empirically observe that it is. In contrast, moderate faith does not empirically seem to have any "impairment" on one's ability to do science.

harold said: Tulse -

This is the problem with any religion apart from Deism – they all make some sort of empirical claims about the physical world.

I am not sure that this is true about "any religion apart from Deism". In fact, I think it may well not be true of very well known religions such as Society of Friends (already mentioned on this blog - as a religion - by an atheist) and some Reform Judaism.

Religious scientists can usually skirt this problem by avoiding the areas in which their religion makes such claims, but it is silly to say that such non-scientific a priori commitments are not hobbling.

Well, I just completely disagree that this "hobbling" is obvious. You're arguing that it must be "hobbling" because that "seems right to you".

It doesn't seem right to me. I don't think the hypothetical existence of archaeological or historical doubts about the existence of Jesus has any impact on the ability of a scientist to work in an unrelated, objective field.

Tulse said:

eric said: There's a difference. Blindness is considered an impairment because we empirically observe that it is. In contrast, moderate faith does not empirically seem to have any "impairment" on one's ability to do science.

You've misunderstood my example -- if we were just measuring running times, if such times were the only data we had, then blindness wouldn't be empirically observable as an impairment. However, it would still make sense to say that a blind person is impaired athletically, even though in the narrow domain of running he or she is faster than others. Similarly, it is quite possible for a Young Earth Creationist to be a fine chemist or physicist, and for a Flat Earth proponent to be an excellent materials scientist, and for an anti-vaccination advocate to be a fantastic geologist. In these cases, the a priori irrational commitments these people hold do not play a role in their actual scientific practice. But it is ludicrous to say that these commitments are not themselves incompatible with science. How about another analogy: a person with celiac disease can live a long and healthy life if they completely avoid eating gluten -- would you therefore say that they don't actually have a disease? Or would you say that they do in fact have a medical impairment, but one that does not impact them as long as they avoid the appropriate triggers? To be clear, the claim is that religion is incompatible with science, not that some religious people can't be good scientists in domains unrelated to their religious commitments.

Malchus said: Do you have any data to support your point? Eric may well be right, but you're not offering data for the other side.

Malchus said: Many of the atheists here seem to be advancing the idea that a theist scientist is incapable of also bring a methodological naturalist. I think enough counter-examples exist to seriously question that.

There's not much evidence on this point, and that's not surprising, because you would need to gather lots of data on both the science and the religious beliefs of a great many scientists even to make a beginning. But let me suggest one example of an excellent scientist who has allowed his religious convictions to lead him in a non-productive direction: Simon Conway Morris. Of course I don't know whether his beliefs qualify as "moderate", since the term is undefined.

Malchus said: Religion is incompatible with science solely in so far as it makes testable empirical claims about the world.

harold said: Brian - Since you responded to one of my posts, albeit somewhat selectively, I will reply.

Lovely, so they just have some things that that they assert it is a virtue to believe without evidence.

I most certainly did not use any terms like "lovely". Other than that, your paraphrase is adequate.

Some major religions do indeed assert that it is a virtue to believe in certain specific things for which there is no evidence.

I differentiate that from either "asserting that it is a virtue to believe without sufficient evidence in a generalized, non-specific way", and from "asserting that it is a virtue to believe in things which definitively contradict scientific reality". Both of which I find to be quite common. These two are also separate things.

Merely making the logical differentiation between different things does not imply a judgment that one thing or the other is superior.

For other things, they’re quite rigorous scientists.

In many cases, yes. Francis Collins. Ken Miller. Almost certainly many other

I just have one question. How do they determine which things to believe without evidence? Do they hold a seance and summon the shades of Moses and Godel?

The neutral answer to this question is that I don't share their belief in such things and don't really know. I can offer a partial answer from my own experience. I was raised in a strict but theologically flexible Protestant denomination. The implied minimum requirement was that one believe in the existence of a Christian God, who came to earth as Jesus. I had little complaint with "church" as I knew it, other than boredom and not taking it seriously, as at that time, judgmentalism, right wing politics, anti-gay discrimination, and the like were completely absent from the church I was raised in; racism and hypocrisy were condemned by it. Still, although I knew wonderful people who were religious, I didn't share their faith, so I never really explored exactly what one was supposed to believe and not believe.

harold said:

This is the problem with any religion apart from Deism – they all make some sort of empirical claims about the physical world.

I am not sure that this is true about "any religion apart from Deism". In fact, I think it may well not be true of very well known religions such as...Judaism.

SEF said:

Shirley Knott said: So the plural of anecdote is data after all?

No, the data is the data. The overwhelming evidence across the centuries and up-to-date supports the conclusion.

Shirley Knott said: You're an intemperate fool.

To reiterate what you are carefully / revealingly trying to ignore:

My claim is that Midgley resembles the norm. You're trying to pick exceptions - and ones who were more exceptional for occasionally going beyond philosophy into doing something worthwhile.

Remember again (or bother to actually read properly for the first time!) that I said "characteristic of the type" not that there could never be any exceptions. You, demonstrating that you are rubbish at science and logic (quite befitting a philosopher!), immediately leap instead onto the idea of coming up with some exceptions (leaving aside the problem of whether or not they were even good examples!) rather than addressing the stated issue of Midgley being typical of the breed.

If you are a philosopher (self-identified or otherwise) then you are merely adding another datum to my collection.

Tulse said: To be clear, the claim is that religion is incompatible with science, not that some religious people can't be good scientists in domains unrelated to their religious commitments.

eric said:

Tulse said: To be clear, the claim is that religion is incompatible with science, not that some religious people can't be good scientists in domains unrelated to their religious commitments.

Well, I was going to reply to SEF and you but if this is the case we don't have much to argue about. My point is that, IF your concern is the latter (science performance), you should look at the latter.

SEF said:

John Harshman said: ... anyone who says anything he doesn't like ...

vs

Popper's Ghost said: ... simply because I don't like him ...

Object mismatch. The not-liking part was supposed to be about what he said and not about him personally.

You seem to imply that responding selectively is a bad thing. It’s true that I ignored much of what you said as true but irrelevant or sufficiently rebutted elsewhere.

This is the problem with any religion apart from Deism – they all make some sort of empirical claims about the physical world.

I am not sure that this is true about “any religion apart from Deism”. In fact, I think it may well not be true of very well known religions such as…Judaism.

The dogma is quite clear on Jesus not being the son of God.

Dale Husband said: Popper's Ghost, truthspeaker, John Harshman and other anti-religious extremists, keep up the piss and vinegar! You are proof that atheists can be just as trollish around here as Creationist fundamentalists. Though I suspect P Z Myers would highly approve of such behavior, I would not!

SEF said:

Shirley Knott said: You're an intemperate fool.

Your description better fits yourself - especially for indiscriminately including the bunglings of Aristotle.

SEF said: If you are a philosopher (self-identified or otherwise) then you are merely adding another datum to my collection.

On a smaller scale, wouldn’t you see some conflict in a surgeon who advocates against vaccination, or for homeopathy? Those beliefs don’t necessarily impact on their practice as a surgeon, but they conflict with the overall domain of medicine.

My concern, and I’m guessing many others, is the support of irrationality in those who practice a discipline that demands rationality, of endorsing an overall worldview that is in conflict with the worldview of science.

Tulse said: My concern, and I'm guessing many others, is the support of irrationality in those who practice a discipline that demands rationality, of endorsing an overall worldview that is in conflict with the worldview of science.

harold said: Not one person has suggested that a scientist whose religious beliefs compel him to accept things that are the equivalent of vaccine denial or homeopathy (both of which massively deny scientific reality) is competent.

I have been defending the potential competence of scientists who hold irrelevant religious beliefs that don't make testable false statements about physical reality.

eric said: Science also demands honesty and full disclosure. But playing poker demands deception. Are you equally concerned about scientists who play poker on their Sunday mornings?

Tulse said:

Malchus said: Religion is incompatible with science solely in so far as it makes testable empirical claims about the world.

And all religions do.

Malchus said: But religions make a great many other claims. And holding those tenets are compatible with science.

Moreover, I can be an excellent scientist and a theist simultaneously.

Tulse said: Of course not, just as I don't demand scientists do experiments to decide if they like vanilla or strawberry ice cream. Poker (and eating ice cream) aren't scientific practices (and it seems rather silly that I have to note that). The issue is not whether scientists are always rational, but whether they are rational about science.

eric said: whatever the Ken Millers of the world do outside of the lab, they seem to be good methodological naturalists inside it.

The issue is not whether scientists are always rational, but whether they are rational about science.

Malchus said: Many of the atheists here seem to be advancing the idea that a theist scientist is incapable of also bring a methodological naturalist. I think enough counter-examples exist to seriously question that.

harold said: Brian -

You seem to imply that responding selectively is a bad thing. It’s true that I ignored much of what you said as true but irrelevant or sufficiently rebutted elsewhere.

Cherry picking is indeed a bad thing, and a common resort of those who are determined to argue an inflexible position and not change, regardless of counter-arguments or evidence. Indeed, you illustrate why just below...

This is the problem with any religion apart from Deism – they all make some sort of empirical claims about the physical world.

I am not sure that this is true about “any religion apart from Deism”. In fact, I think it may well not be true of very well known religions such as…Judaism.

The dogma is quite clear on Jesus not being the son of God.

And it is equally clear the positions on the divinity of Jesus are not empirical claims about the physical world. And it is equally clear that you wrote "...Judaism" instead of "Society of Friends and Reform Judaism", which is what my original post said. That's probably because you couldn't thing of ANY way in which Society of Friends advances such a claim. But even one counter-example rebuts the original overgeneralization.

Add to this the fact that you argued from a false - and inflammatory - analogy, suggesting that the ability of any scientist with any religious belief suffers from an impairment equivalent to that of a blind person trying to compete in standard athletics, and then didn't acknowledge or retract when two other posters pointed this out.

Furthermore, this was a side issue.

I conclude that no argument or evidence could sway you from you inflexible, dogmatic position.

I can't help but note that your conclusion rests upon the belief that I wrote certain things, when it was someone else.

I will stop posting, but first let me explain why I have bothered. I adamently oppose all unjustified discrimination (including against atheists, of course). So, for example, if a situation arose in which a competent scientist who irrelevantly chooses to practice Reform Judaism were disciminated against, relative to an equally or less competent scientist who happened to be a declared atheist, I would massively oppose that (I would equally oppose the reverse, too, of course). You're trying to make a case that private, irrelevant religious beliefs are a valid way of judging the potential of a scientist. You're trying to say "We can tell he won't be as good biochemist as if he were an atheist, because he's 'hobbled' by the fact that he's a quaker". It's all harmless fun and games here on the internet, but attempting to put such a belief system into action might conceivably lead to unjust discrimination. I'm sure you would never do that, but perhaps it's worthwhile to remind everyone of this anyway.

Popper's Ghost said: Confirmation bias epitomized.

Tulse said:

Malchus said: But religions make a great many other claims. And holding those tenets are compatible with science.

Sure, but how are those claims (which I presume you mean moral claims) exclusive to religion?

Moreover, I can be an excellent scientist and a theist simultaneously.

Only if your domain of science research doesn't involve any of your theistic beliefs. Which means you are fundamentally limited as a scientist.

Brian argues that religious belief - any kind - is an impediment to doing science. Maybe not here and now, but conceivably.

Suppose this is granted, for the sake of argument.

What conclusion follows, if this argument is made?

Malchus said: Religions make statements concerning the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the redemption of the resurrection, and others - and those ate just the Christain ones. All claims unique to Christianity and unrelated to direct moral precepts.

386sx said:

Malchus said: Religions make statements concerning the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the redemption of the resurrection, and others - and those ate just the Christain ones. All claims unique to Christianity and unrelated to direct moral precepts.

Don't forget about the "ascension". The one where Jesus flew up into the sky. (Probably flapping his wings, I would guess.)

Malchus said: I claim that depending upon which sect of Christianity I adhere to, I can as a scientist investigate ANY subject.

Brian argues that religious belief - any kind - is an impediment to doing science.

no.

the argument is that religious belief automatically sets up compartmentalization in any scientist.

maintaining compartmentalized irrationalities requires mental gymnastics which obviously wouldn't be necessary otherwise.

Is it a measurable impediment? THAT would be worth investigating, but at worse, severe comparmentalization leads to cognitive dissonance, which leads to mental defense mechanisms, which leads to much denial and projection.

the latter defense mechanisms I have seen MANY MANY times in people professing both religious belief and scientific acumen.

Ken Miller and Francis Collins being excellent cases on point.

I mean seriously, Ken has retreated to the level of quantum woo in much of his rationalizations these days.

would that happen if he weren't trying to defend his prefered compartmentalization strategy?

I think not.

In large part, this all boils down to an argument that is exactly parallel to that for evolutionary theory in general:

it does not REQUIRE any supernatural additions to have full explanatory and predictive power, nor to supernatural explanations actually add anything to it.

likewise, religion is not required in any way to explain or predict anything we observe, nor does it add anything to it.

so, the only reason to hang on to it is?

...aesthetics?

...tradition?

Frankly, I concluded that this was Midgely's underlying point regardless of whether it is the obvious one or not; that these are the only reasons to hang on to religion, and to her mind, they are sufficient.

not to mine.

I claim that depending upon which sect of Christianity I adhere to, I can as a scientist investigate ANY subject.

I can believe in unicorns and be a particle physicist.

compartmentalization is indeed a wonderful thing.

up to a point.

Ichthyic said: Brian argues that religious belief - any kind - is an impediment to doing science. no. the argument is that religious belief automatically sets up compartmentalization in any scientist. maintaining compartmentalized irrationalities requires mental gymnastics which obviously wouldn't be necessary otherwise. Is it a measurable impediment? THAT would be worth investigating, but at worse, severe comparmentalization leads to cognitive dissonance, which leads to mental defense mechanisms, which leads to much denial and projection. (snip)

Tulse said:

Malchus said: I claim that depending upon which sect of Christianity I adhere to, I can as a scientist investigate ANY subject.

Well, let's see...any fundamentalist sect is out, since they are generally anti-evolution, if not Young Earth Creationists. Catholics are out, since they believe in present-day miracles. Most standard Protestant sects are out, since they at least believe in the efficacy of prayer under some circumstances (essentially just a subset of believing in present-day miracles). Mormons are out, since their claims regarding North American settlement are demonstrably wrong (although you might not count them as Christian). Jehovah's Witnesses are out, since they believe the end of the world is coming imminently (tough to do cosmology). Christian Science is out because, well, its healing claims are demonstrably false. Seventh Day Adventists are out, because they are creationists. Quakers are out, because they believe a supernatural spirit influences them to speak during their services. Most Amish and Mennonite sects are out (although admittedly that's perhaps largely due to the anti-technological stand, which would make it hard to run a research lab). What precisely does that leave? Can you outline a candidate sect you think allows for free inquiry across the entire range of scientific endeavour?

Ichthyic said: I claim that depending upon which sect of Christianity I adhere to, I can as a scientist investigate ANY subject. I can believe in unicorns and be a particle physicist. compartmentalization is indeed a wonderful thing. up to a point.

I just came back from a meeting in Vietnam where a garment factory is using one of our fabrics. They want to apply a polyurethane film on our fabric that contains 88% polyester and 12% elastane. They experienced a defect in the application of the PU film where dye molecules supposedly migrated (color migration) from our fabric to their film . Now was the migration due our fabric's bad color fastness or the PU film's adhesive having an affinity for the dye molecules caused by the excessive heat applied to bond the film to the fabric or a combination of both?

Do I need to ask God to help me out here to get at the root cause of the problem? Certainly not. But yet I pray and contemplate God everyday. So how has my supposed irrational contemplation and communication of my unseen God affected my ability to understand chemical interactions? None that I can see.

Here's another one. I experience what some call eyelid movies. When I close my eyes i can see moving images in black and white. I cannot tell yet what it means but I do know that my eyes are not doing any seeing. So how is it I can see anything when I close my eyes? To be sure these are not daydreams, these are images I can really see. They are always one or more people moving around in a social setting?

I don't have any evidence to show you. I can only describe the experience. Should this experience be discarded because I cannot share it on a computer disc or as a mathematical expression? As well, if I find that thousands of people on the planet have exactly the same experience, am I irrational? Should I just let go this experience and drop it?

For me as a theist, i will pursue this experience under the intuition that I can tap into a phenomena science is not yet able to detect. What I go on is Christ's revelation that 'the kingdom of God is within you'. For me, hearing this and contemplating my experience, it hardly seems an irrational decision. If I keep trying to focus and concentrate, these images I see may come into better focus and something more may be garnered from it, maybe not. But who knows unless I pursue it further, regardless of the type of evidence I have on hand. It is certainly not empirical in that it can be shared materially with a peer, or replicated in the lab, but it is evidence nonetheless.

But any of you as atheists, would you pursue this experience or drop it, considering it a fluke caused by last night's beer, or stress on the job, or any myriad other possible reasons? Or would you be interested to know if this experience had something more to it?

What if you did decide to pursue it and suppose it lead you to take up meditation classes for example, which led to more of these internal imaging experiences, possibly in an even more vivid way, etc? And what if all of a sudden, one of those images suddenly spoke directly to you? Would you be shocked, would you run to the psychologist for treatment of hallucinations or would you consider to respond to the image in your mind?

Not all churches defend ignorance and superstition. In my own back yard there are living, growing Unitarian humanists and Freethought church communities which teach secular values. These are churches, yet the object of their veneration is a free and open search for truth.

The universe is the Work of God

prove it.

would you run to the psychologist for treatment of hallucinations or would you consider to respond to the image in your mind?

you people seem to not even understand the principle of verification.

this is why there is a necessary conflict between the ideology that supports religion vs. science.

seriously.

prayer has been researched.

scientifically.

and found to not work.

scientifically.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm

sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, btw, who is horribly biased towards FINDING positive results, and even they failed.

not once, not twice, but SEVEN times.

look up the history of STEP sometime.

What consequences flow from acceptance of this argument?

that those who maintain religious beliefs need to work doubly hard to make sure that the minset that supports that belief set remains compartmentalized.

that those who do face at best an unnecessary challenge in doing so.

that those who do have no logical justification for doing so, but inevitably will attempt to rationalize away why they do, invariably with rather poor arguments (AKA Miller, Collins).

the consequences are NOT hypothetical.

Steve P. said: I just came back from a meeting in Vietnam where a garment factory is using one of our fabrics. They want to apply a polyurethane film on our fabric that contains 88% polyester and 12% elastane. They experienced a defect in the application of the PU film where dye molecules supposedly migrated (color migration) from our fabric to their film . Now was the migration due our fabric's bad color fastness or the PU film's adhesive having an affinity for the dye molecules caused by the excessive heat applied to bond the film to the fabric or a combination of both? Do I need to ask God to help me out here to get at the root cause of the problem? Certainly not.

But yet I pray and contemplate God everyday. So how has my supposed irrational contemplation and communication of my unseen God affected my ability to understand chemical interactions? None that I can see.

Here's another one. I experience what some call eyelid movies. When I close my eyes i can see moving images in black and white. I cannot tell yet what it means but I do know that my eyes are not doing any seeing. So how is it I can see anything when I close my eyes?

But any of you as atheists, would you pursue this experience or drop it, considering it a fluke caused by last night's beer, or stress on the job, or any myriad other possible reasons? Or would you be interested to know if this experience had something more to it?

So how is it I can see anything when I close my eyes?

wait, seriously?

you're ignorant of what causes non visual imagery, so you think there's room for a deity in there?

...and you didn't consider that a gaps argument?

and you wonder why I think belief interferes with logical thought, and on average interferes with being a scientist?

or are you one of those? I'm confused now. you people never cease to boggle my mind.

Ichthyic said: The universe is the Work of God prove it.

Ichthyic said: prayer has been researched. scientifically. and found to not work. scientifically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, btw, who is horribly biased towards FINDING positive results, and even they failed. not once, not twice, but SEVEN times. look up the history of STEP sometime.

Tulse said: What precisely does that leave? Can you outline a candidate sect you think allows

Ichthyic said: would you run to the psychologist for treatment of hallucinations or would you consider to respond to the image in your mind? you people seem to not even understand the principle of verification. this is why there is a necessary conflict between the ideology that supports religion vs. science. seriously.

Ichthyic said: The universe is the Work of God prove it.

Malchus said: You have the same misapprehension Tulse does, I'm afraid. Prayer indicates to God our investment in a concern, and our discipline. The result is up to God, and we would not necessarily expect correlation between the request of the prayer and the result.

I believe the universe is the Work of God. I believe the Bible contains - in a highly imperfect form - the Word of God. I believe that reason is one of the Gifts of God.

what you believe, is irrelevant.

again, I could easily say I believe in unicorns.

I would be delusional.

you, are delusional.

no way around it, frankly.

Then why bother doing it?

exactly.

there is no REASON for any of it, beyond a sheer desire to share a common fiction.

same reason people become scientologists, or mormons, or flying spaghetti monsterites.

Deen said:

Malchus said: You have the same misapprehension Tulse does, I'm afraid. Prayer indicates to God our investment in a concern, and our discipline. The result is up to God, and we would not necessarily expect correlation between the request of the prayer and the result.

So you're basically saying prayer doesn't work because you've never expected it to work in the first place? Then why bother doing it?

Ichthyic said: I believe the universe is the Work of God. I believe the Bible contains - in a highly imperfect form - the Word of God. I believe that reason is one of the Gifts of God. what you believe, is irrelevant. again, I could easily say I believe in unicorns. I would be delusional. you, are delusional. no way around it, frankly. Then why bother doing it? exactly. there is no REASON for any of it, beyond a sheer desire to share a common fiction. same reason people become scientologists, or mormons, or flying spaghetti monsterites.

Ichthyic said: I believe the universe is the Work of God. I believe the Bible contains - in a highly imperfect form - the Word of God. I believe that reason is one of the Gifts of God. what you believe, is irrelevant. again, I could easily say I believe in unicorns. I would be delusional. you, are delusional. no way around it, frankly. Then why bother doing it? exactly. there is no REASON for any of it, beyond a sheer desire to share a common fiction. same reason people become scientologists, or mormons, or flying spaghetti monsterites.

And my reasons for believing have nothing to do with desiring to share a common fiction.

Oh?

suppose you tell me what evidence you have to support your beliefs in an obviously fictional deity then?

well?

I note that you enjoy making unsupported assumptions.

...says the man who believes in fictional deities.

LOL

*sigh*

debating why someone believes nonsense is a waste of time.

I keep coming here, expecting Nick to explain himself.

I see I'm wasting my time on that, too.

This place is mostly a waste of time anymore. Not like it used to be.

RBH's documentation of the continuing saga of Freshwater is the only thing really worth coming here for.

A very nice article all around, Nick!

Malchus said: You have the same misapprehension Tulse does

Malchus said: Prayer indicates to God our investment in a concern

Ichthyic said: RBH's documentation of the continuing saga of Freshwater is the only thing really worth coming here for.

Marion Delgado said: A very nice article all around, Nick!

Malchus said: No, I am saying I always expect prayer to work. But my definition of "work" and Tulse's are entirely different.

Malchus said: Let us be precise: you believe I am delusional. Regrettably, you cannot prove it.

And what I believe is complely relevant. Just as your beliefs are relevant to you.

Dave Luckett said: Brian argues that religious belief - any kind - is an impediment to doing science. Maybe not here and now, but conceivably. Suppose this is granted, for the sake of argument. What conclusion follows, if this argument is made?

I'm not convinced it's as simplistic as that. There's also the matter of who controls the publications, the funding and the direction of research. That can conceal the underlying ineffectiveness of specific individuals.

So, if one were to look at stem cell research, there's whole bunches more of it being done in places not controlled by religiots. However, the US can still muster a lot of superficial productivity in less progressive areas where there's little difference in the ability / willingness of its religious scientists to put aside their beliefs during the working day. There's usually plenty of time for them to indulge in being fantasists elsewhere. They just avoid mixing the rational and irrational parts of their lives because they secretly do know they are incompatible.

You'd have to look at when and why a scientist fails to engage in specific research or employment - including their initial choices of chemistry vs biology or physics and so on. Would Catholics take a job developing chemicals, materials and processes for a better condom or contraceptive pill? Would a religious forensic scientist dodge proper procedure when having to deal with a crime scene involving "holy" water, wine, crackers or whatever?

Ichthyic said: And my reasons for believing have nothing to do with desiring to share a common fiction. Oh? suppose you tell me what evidence you have to support your beliefs in an obviously fictional deity then? well? I note that you enjoy making unsupported assumptions. ...says the man who believes in fictional deities. LOL

Tulse said: So if solid research showed that there was no historical Jesus, Ken Miller would accept it? As a Roman Catholic, does he believe that various saints actually performed miracles, or that individuals can be possessed by demons and thus require exorcism? It seems to me that there are quite a lot of Catholic commitments that would be problematic for a methodological naturalist.

Malchus said: There is a reason it's called belief. If I had faith only on the basis of empirical evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Deen said:

Malchus said: No, I am saying I always expect prayer to work. But my definition of "work" and Tulse's are entirely different.

So when confronted with the fact that prayer doesn't seem to work, because otherwise we would have found evidence of it by now, instead of admitting that it may not work at all, you redefine the word "work". Why do you think you can get away with this? See, this is exactly why religion fails compared to science. In sciene, people don't get to say homeopathy/cold fusion/astrology/free energy/whatever works, but only if you use the proper definiton of "works". If you would do this in science, you would be a bad scientist. But assuming you don't do this in your science work, think about why not, and ask yourself: Why don't the reasons to not do it in science apply equally well to your claim that prayer works? Also, I can't help but notice that you don't say what definition you do use, if it's not the common meaning where "working" has something to do with producing reasonably reliable results. In science, using a non-standard definition of a word, but not defining your usage, is simply not acceptable.

Continuing the religion vs science at work topic:

We already know that science has something of an inhibitory effect on religion because of the greater number of atheists involved in the subject at higher levels when it becomes optional. Either many of the religious daren't enter the field at all or they get deconverted by the study and practice of it.

However, one might be able to be more specific about which faiths/sects etc interfere with which areas of scientific work. Eg if baptists (or Methodists or Catholics or Quakers or Jews or whichever group is being alleged to be "moderate") are genuinely unaffected by their religion in science, then there should be equal proportions of them (within statistical expectations!) in all possible fields. If they are apparently being selective in their choices instead, then one has to suspect religious interference in their ability to do science in the sense of any/all science.

Tulse said:

Malchus said: There is a reason it's called belief. If I had faith only on the basis of empirical evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Curiously enough, that is what would also be said by a Muslim, a Hindu, a Zoroastrian, a Wiccan... Why do you see "faith" in general as a positive attribute? Do you accept "faith" as reasonable motivation for action in other domains, or from others who do not share your specific beliefs? Would you allow a doctor to treat you if he or she had "faith" that a procedure would work, but no empirical evidence for it? Would you use an accountant who fervently believed in an accounting practice that no one else acknowledged?

SEF,

I was responding to Dave Luckett's proposition, which captured one of the principal themes of this thread. It is certainly true that individuals will, if possible, select areas of research that are of interest to them and do not offend their moral sensibilities. I'm sure that there are plenty of Roman Catholics who choose not to work on projects related to contraception; I think one could also find atheists who are pacifists and consequently choose not to work of project from the Department of Defense. That doesn't, in either case, influence the individual's effectiveness as a scientist in their chosen area of work. If you took, for example, all the people who chose to work in high energy physics and tried to correlate their productivity with a number of factors including religious belief, would there be any correlation with religious belief? If Dave's proposition were true, we would expect to see a negative correlation between relgious belief and scientific productivity.

As for pro- or anti-religious bias in publications and funding, this is, as far as I can tell, a non-issue in my areas of research; perhaps it's different in your field. Certainly, unproductive people can be hidden regardless of the reason they are unproductive; my perception is that that has more to do with who one's friends (or enemies!) are than anything else. Regardless, if the sample size is large enough, I would expect politics of this sort to drop in significance.

SEF said: You'd have to look at when and why a scientist fails to engage in specific research or employment - including their initial choices of chemistry vs biology or physics and so on.

Would a religious forensic scientist dodge proper procedure when having to deal with a crime scene involving "holy" water, wine, crackers or whatever?

Deen said:

Malchus said: Let us be precise: you believe I am delusional. Regrettably, you cannot prove it.

You hold on to demonstrably false beliefs (among others, that prayer works - for the correct definition of "works"), which is pretty much the definition of being delusional. Don't worry, we're all delusional to some degree - and we'd be the last ones to realize it.

And what I believe is complely relevant. Just as your beliefs are relevant to you.

What you believe may be relevant to you, just as what I believe is relevant to me, but neither belief is relevant to whether any of it is true.

SEF said: Continuing the religion vs science at work topic: We already know that science has something of an inhibitory effect on religion because of the greater number of atheists involved in the subject at higher levels when it becomes optional.

Eg if baptists (or Methodists or Catholics or Quakers or Jews or whichever group is being alleged to be "moderate") are genuinely unaffected by their religion in science, then there should be equal proportions of them (within statistical expectations!) in all possible fields.

Deen said:

Malchus said: Let us be precise: you believe I am delusional. Regrettably, you cannot prove it.

You hold on to demonstrably false beliefs (among others, that prayer works - for the correct definition of "works"), which is pretty much the definition of being delusional. Don't worry, we're all delusional to some degree - and we'd be the last ones to realize it.

And what I believe is complely relevant. Just as your beliefs are relevant to you.

What you believe may be relevant to you, just as what I believe is relevant to me, but neither belief is relevant to whether any of it is true.

eric said: That is the crux of the matter: can a religious person 'succesfully' put their scientific hat on, or does some residual supernaturalism always creep in to their scientific methodology?

Deen said:

Malchus said: No, I am saying I always expect prayer to work. But my definition of "work" and Tulse's are entirely different.

So when confronted with the fact that prayer doesn't seem to work, because otherwise we would have found evidence of it by now, instead of admitting that it may not work at all, you redefine the word "work". Why do you think you can get away with this? See, this is exactly why religion fails compared to science. In sciene, people don't get to say homeopathy/cold fusion/astrology/free energy/whatever works, but only if you use the proper definiton of "works". If you would do this in science, you would be a bad scientist. But assuming you don't do this in your science work, think about why not, and ask yourself: Why don't the reasons to not do it in science apply equally well to your claim that prayer works? Also, I can't help but notice that you don't say what definition you do use, if it's not the common meaning where "working" has something to do with producing reasonably reliable results. In science, using a non-standard definition of a word, but not defining your usage, is simply not acceptable.

Tulse said:

eric said: That is the crux of the matter: can a religious person 'succesfully' put their scientific hat on, or does some residual supernaturalism always creep in to their scientific methodology?

That may be an interesting question, but that's not the same as asking if religion is incompatible with science. I for one would agree that, in specific domains where their a priori religious commitments don't conflict, religious scientists can practice good science. I would also agree that a homeopath might do just fine setting a broken leg, or that an astrologer might be able to record accurate stellar spectra. Neither of those facts, however, indicate that homeopathy is compatible with medicine, or that astrology is compatible with astronomy.

SEF said:

Shirley Knott said: You're an intemperate fool.

Your description better fits yourself - especially for indiscriminately including the bunglings of Aristotle. I'm distinguishing between science and philosophy here. It doesn't matter what people called themselves but what they were actually doing each time. Just like the "theistic" scientists. Whenever they were any good at science they were very much not being theists. Science is the good stuff, where someone actually cares about evidence, which has built a vast edifice that no one person could make up from scratch on their own. Ditto maths (albeit that it is exploring specially constructed imaginary worlds rather than the natural world). Philosophy is the vacuous stuff (the dregs left behind), where they woffle on and don't bother with evidence, which hasn't really got anywhere that an individual couldn't get on their own. Science has decent standards. It chucks out the rubbish (ideas and even people). Philosophy doesn't and doesn't. Hence the Sokal hoax and examples like Midgley not being properly reviled. PS Before you even bother to go there: logic is a basic natural tool which isn't really owned by anyone and certainly never required any fancy names or teaching to get used - except perhaps by people in remedial classes (who then still generally fail to use it in real life).

So where are we? I will agree that religion - considered as a method of knowing, and science are fundamentally incompatible. Religion, for example, claims that certain truths are only discovered through revelation.

But being religious in general does not have any bearing on the the quality or type of science a person might do, though specific faiths may adversely impact both choice and performance.

SWT said:

Dave Luckett said: Brian argues that religious belief - any kind - is an impediment to doing science. Maybe not here and now, but conceivably. Suppose this is granted, for the sake of argument. What conclusion follows, if this argument is made?

Accepting this assumption, arguendo, one should expect to see higher productivity (peer-reviewed publication rate, citation statistics, level of funding, etc.) from scientists with no religious belief than one would expect from scientists who do hold religious beliefs. I haven't seen any objective evidence that this is true; perhaps someone can point to peer-reviewed studies that have some data about this.

SWT said:

Dave Luckett said: Brian argues that religious belief - any kind - is an impediment to doing science. Maybe not here and now, but conceivably. Suppose this is granted, for the sake of argument. What conclusion follows, if this argument is made?

Accepting this assumption, arguendo, one should expect to see higher productivity (peer-reviewed publication rate, citation statistics, level of funding, etc.) from scientists with no religious belief than one would expect from scientists who do hold religious beliefs. I haven't seen any objective evidence that this is true; perhaps someone can point to peer-reviewed studies that have some data about this.

Malchus said: So where are we? I will agree that religion - considered as a method of knowing, and science are fundamentally incompatible. Religion, for example, claims that certain truths are only discovered through revelation.

But being religious in general does not have any bearing on the the quality or type of science a person might do,

Dave Luckett's trial hypothesis is that religious belief is an impediment to doing science.

What I am saying is that if this hypothesis is correct, even those who have overcome this impediment are still functioning with an impediment.

Consequently, if religious belief truly is an impediment, the effects should be statistically observable in a rigorously constructed comparison of the productivity of religious scientists with the productivity of atheist scientists.

I agree with Midgley's assessment, but I think she's missing the point for the attacks on religion -- though to be fair, often such attacks are based at heart on a gut feeling of something being wrong, without a clear understanding of what exactly is wrong. (Or maybe I just now revealed a lot about myself.) A big problem with the religious crowd is the insistence that goodness is impossible without God. As for me, being told essentially that I'm incapable of goodness (even if this isn't the intended message) makes it personal, and therefore more likely that the rebuttal is more reflexive than reasoned.

SWT said: if religious belief truly is an impediment, the effects should be statistically observable in a rigorously constructed comparison of the productivity of religious scientists with the productivity of atheist scientists.

Shirley Knott said: Move the goalposts much?

Shirley Knott said: But do at least have the honesty and integrity to take note, if not actually acknowledge, that that is a different claim from the claim I addressed.

Tulse said: That may be an interesting question, but that's not the same as asking if religion is incompatible with science.

eric said: Actually there are fewer believers at the Ph.D. level in all subjects ...

eric said: If trekkies ... That's lousy logic. In both cases.

eric said: The burden of proof is on you to show X makes a difference.

Malchus, you seem like a reasonable and articulate example of the religious breed. When I find such people on the internet there’s something I always try to ask them.

So – as far as I can tell there are certain things you believe through evidence, and other things you believe through some other mechanism, which you variously call ‘faith’ or ‘revelation’,

An honest question, then, from someone who really didn’t have any kind of religion embedded in them as a child, and by the time they encountered it could make no sense of it at all. Please can you explain to me exactly what this mechanism is, and how (if at all) it is different from you simply deciding to believe that the things you want to believe are true?

To be clear, I have no problem at all with deciding to believe things are true in the absence of evidence. Like most non-sociopaths I have personally decided to believe that other people are conscious in the same way I am, and have an intrinsic worth that means I should treat them kindly and fairly. I have rather flimsy circumstantial evidence for the former, and no hope of getting any at all for the latter, but I’m perfectly happy to behave as if it’s true while acknowledging its irrationality because it makes the world a more pleasant place to live.

If this is all you’re doing with God and suchlike, then that’s fine by me ‘an it harm none’, as the saying goes. Your tone, however, seems to suggest that something other than this is going on. I would really appreciate a concise explanation of what that is.

The last time I asked this question in much the same, what I hope is reasonably polite, sort of a way the poster in question simply put me on their ignore list with no further explanation, as if I had said something grievously offensive, or they thought I was trying to lead them into a trap. Perhaps you can explain this also…

Malchus said: You seem to think this is ad-hoc realization. The nature of prayer and the response we should expect have been debated since Origen and Iranaeus. And I'm not redefining work, so much as pointing out that Tulse is using a word based on his faulty understanding of Christian doctrine.

Atheists demand theists try to understand what evolutionary theory actually says; surely it's reasonable to demand a similar courtesy from the atheists?

Sorry, I missed your last point. Prayer works in that it signals to God our involvement with and in some issue. The EXPECTATION of the believer is that God’s will is manifested in response. Since God’s will is impossible to know, by definition, the outcome of prayer has never been presumed to be “predictable.”. I recognize that this may be unsatisfying to atheists, but it is consistent with belief. Or at least some versions - the non-baptist majority of Protestants, at least.

eric said: That a catholic who religiously believes in miracles won't be as good as an atheist at lab work because while doing science they'll allow for the possibility of a supernatural miracle.

eric said: I see no evidence that folk like Miller 'rule in' miracles in their science.

SEF said:

eric said: The burden of proof is on you to show X makes a difference.

False. We already know that religion in general makes a difference - hence the very high proportion of atheists in science (and the reduction even across other parts of higher education). So the burden is on whichever person claims to have a "moderate"-religion-which-isn't-incompatible to show that their specific religion is not proportionally under-represented in general nor in specific areas.

Don't you find the relative (and highly significant, statistically) absence of religious people rather odd though? Don't you wonder whether they can't even bring themselves to dare look scientifically at anything (for fear of their religious faith) or whether they are so rubbish at doing it that they get chucked out before they get anywhere near a high level course (ie their scores are so low that no-one will accept them into further education)?

eric said: You're claiming that religion impacts people's ability to do science. That a catholic who religiously believes in miracles won't be as good as an atheist at lab work because while doing science they'll allow for the possibility of a supernatural miracle. Its this claim that I object to. I see no evidence that folk like Miller ‘rule in’ miracles in their science. In the lab, they function as methodological naturalists.

SEF said: False. We already know that religion in general makes a difference - hence the very high proportion of atheists in science (and the reduction even across other parts of higher education).

SEF said:

eric said: That a catholic who religiously believes in miracles won't be as good as an atheist at lab work because while doing science they'll allow for the possibility of a supernatural miracle.

But if they don't do so then they are not being genuinely religious.

truthspeaker said: Unfortunately, the moderates use the same language and cultural poitns of reference as the crazies, so there is no reliable way to tell them apart.

Since we typically do not force people into their careers, statistics about what fraction of scientists (or holders of PhD's in scientific disciplines) are religious do not demonstrate that religious belief impedes either science or learning. These statistics would be at best support for the hypothesis that religiously oriented people are less inclined to enter careers in science.

Tulse said: OK, let's get more concrete -- if Ken Miller were asked by the Vatican to participate in the process to determine canonization of a possible Catholic saint, would he be willing a priori to pronounce an event associated with that person as a true miracle, a violation of physical laws that demonstrates the person's sanctity? If so, would that impact your view of him as a scientist? Or would that be OK because it is a "different context" than the lab? Would this be a reasonable question to ask of Miller?

eric said: That's a lot of speculation. If the church requested he look into a 'miracle' as a scientist - i.e. to see if it was faked - I'd expect him to do the job right. Study the evidence. Test hypotheses. But, "cause unknown at this time" being a perfectly good scientific answer, I wouldn't run around accusing him of religious bias or lying if that's what he came up with.

Brian said: I speculate that (liberal) religion has greater harm on the sociology of science (how reason is regarded in society, whether individuals feel they must avoid systematised reason lest it contradict their deeply held beliefs, etc.) and still greater harm elsewhere.

Tulse said: That didn't actually answer the main question, which is: Would Miller be willing in principle to declare something a miracle?

what would your opinion of him be if he was? Do you think that, as a scientist, it would appropriate for him to do so?

eric said: If he was hired as a scientist and concluded through his own research that someone defied the laws of gravity via supernatural miracle, I'd be concerned.

Tulse said: So you would ask him to deny his religious beliefs "as a scientist"?

eric said:

Brian said: I speculate that (liberal) religion has greater harm on the sociology of science (how reason is regarded in society, whether individuals feel they must avoid systematised reason lest it contradict their deeply held beliefs, etc.) and still greater harm elsewhere.

Certainly the "textbooks" quoted in ACSI vs Stearns (2007 - the case where private religious schools sued UC over their A-G criteria) taught that if the evidence contradicts the bible, believe the bible. So you're right, crap teaching like that is out there. I'm not sure it shows up in "liberal" religion though. To cite another case, while Tammy Kitzmiller was an atheist, the ten other defendants in that case were Christians. Don't you think they'd agree with you (and I) on the importance of using reason and good science? After all, they went to legal bat for it.

eric said: You can't claim all religious people are bad at science by saying the ones who do it well aren't genuinely religious. You have to have some independent definition of religous.

Raging Bee said: If YOU can't tell the moderates from the crazies, then you're a fucking idiot,...

for the religious, I suggest you read this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

get back to me when you can defend your beliefs rationally.

eric said: Its no more a denial of their beliefs than my playing poker is a 'denial' of my scientific belief in honesty.

I declare my ideology superior. I declare that those who deviate just a little from my ideology are inferior in all sorts of ways. I typically hate those who are the closest to my ideology, but slightly different from me, the most of all, as they cause me the most cognitive dissonance. I will never make or propose an actual objective test of any claim made by my ideology. In fact, I will constantly argue that the onus is on others to perfectly disprove my ideology, that my ideology wins by default unless this is done, and by the way, I will not accept any disproof. I will, however, spend unimaginable numbers of hours playing word and "logic" games on the internet. And as already noted, I will never back down, no matter what the evidence or logical train of thought of my "opponents". Oh, and by the way, I will ALWAYS claim that my ideology is the most "rational".

Basic logical argument or evidence arguing against the total validity of the rigid ideology in question

I just told you. I declare my ideology superior. I declare that those who deviate just a little from my ideology are inferior in all sorts of ways. I typically hate those who are the closest to my ideology, but slightly different from me, the most of all, as they cause me the most cognitive dissonance. I will never make or propose an actual objective test of any claim made by my ideology. In fact, I will constantly argue that the onus is on others to perfectly disprove my ideology, that my ideology wins by default unless this is done, and by the way, I will not accept any disproof. I will, however, spend unimaginable numbers of hours playing word and "logic" games on the internet. And as already noted, I will never back down, no matter what the evidence or logical train of thought of my "opponents". Oh, and by the way, I will ALWAYS claim that my ideology is the most "rational".

386sx said: I think he may have gone into orbit. I don't know. Somewhere "up there" though.

As usual, the discussion went like this

confirmation bias much?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we understand. You guys despise all religion. You despise anyone who doesn't despise all religion. You despise anyone who doesn't call all his friends over and sit up all night shouting at the neighbours about how you all despise all religion. You think that anyone who doesn't do that should be forcibly shown the error of their ways, and that the best way to do this is to hector them and systematically insult their beliefs in all possible ways, including the most jejeune of middle-school taunts. We get that.

Enough, already.

shorter dave:

strawman, strawnman-strawman, strawman STRAWMAN, strawman.

don't get that post caught in the wind there, Dave.

Did I say "middle school"? My bad.

Good grief.

*yawn*

Dave Luckett said: Yeah, yeah, yeah, we understand.

Ichthyic said: shorter dave: strawman, strawnman-strawman, strawman STRAWMAN, strawman. don't get that post caught in the wind there, Dave.

heh.

bring out the mop and bucket, this episode is over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDAx473AFpA

Malchus said: Sorry, I missed your last point. Prayer works in that it signals to God our involvement with and in some issue.

Yeah, that’s pretty much how a Christian once explained it to me.

it depends on the xian, the sect, and the time you ask them.

phht.

intercessionary prayer is typically what prayer is defined as most commonly.

regardless, none of it works, even at the level of placebo.

If you bear in mind that most Christians, like most other humans, spend much of their lives being unthinking, stupid, reactive animals, then getting them to stop and think about a problem once in a while would be an improvement. What's not at all good about the way religions do it is calling it "prayer" and attaching it to the lie that some big old sky-fairy is going to be listening (and acting) on it.

Imagine the effectiveness of a community which, instead of saying "let's pray for X in their time of difficulty", got together and said "let's all think hard whether there are any constructive ways we can help X out of this difficulty". The former is a very poor substitute for the latter, even if sneaking the latter onto people was the original intent.

SEF said: If you bear in mind that most Christians, like most other humans, spend much of their lives being unthinking, stupid, reactive animals, then getting them to stop and think about a problem once in a while would be an improvement. What's not at all good about the way religions do it is calling it "prayer" and attaching it to the lie that some big old sky-fairy is going to be listening (and acting) on it. Imagine the effectiveness of a community which, instead of saying "let's pray for X in their time of difficulty", got together and said "let's all think hard whether there are any constructive ways we can help X out of this difficulty". The former is a very poor substitute for the latter, even if sneaking the latter onto people was the original intent.

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

SEF said: If you bear in mind that most ... humans, spend much of their lives being unthinking, stupid, reactive animals, then getting them to stop and think about a problem once in a while would be an improvement.

SWT said: most mainline congregations have ministries of compassion and charity that provide financial support for charitable organizations and that go out into the world and actually do stuff

Raging Bee replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 18, 2010 2:12 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Unfortunately, the moderates use the same language and cultural poitns of reference as the crazies, so there is no reliable way to tell them apart. If YOU can’t tell the moderates from the crazies, then you’re a fucking idiot, and you really shouldn’t be trying to pretend you have anything to say here. You sound just like any other bigot who thinks “those people” all look alike to him.

Ichthyic | June 16, 2010 10:04 PM | Reply | Edit There is a divergence - and yet American Catholics keep going to those churches and keep donating money to the organization that propagates that doctrine. So while their personal beliefs might be different, they willingly identify themselves with an authoritarian organization whose policies on contraception and sex are clear and publicly stated. Even if they don’t all agree with those policies, they willingly support them, so they’re on the hook for them. indeed. Which, by the same logic, is why I decided to leave the US altogether. I felt, since my taxes were paying for illegal wiretapping, unethical business practices, blatant constitutional violations, unjustified invasions of foreign countries, etc. etc, that I was indeed “on the hook” for it.

Dale Husband | June 17, 2010 9:09 AM | Reply | Edit Popper’s Ghost, truthspeaker, John Harshman and other anti-religious extremists, keep up the piss and vinegar! You are proof that atheists can be just as trollish around here as Creationist fundamentalists.

Malchus replied to comment from SEF | June 17, 2010 12:19 PM | Reply | Edit Do you have any data to support your point? Eric may well be right, but you’re not offering data for the other side. Many of the atheists here seem to be advancing the idea that a theist scientist is incapable of also bring a methodological naturalist.

Tulse replied to comment from eric : My concern, and I’m guessing many others, is the support of irrationality...

truthspeaker said: I think that to believe something without evidence is eminently foolish, and grown adults should be ashamed of doing so, but it doesn't necessarily hamper their ability to do science.

harold | June 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Reply | Edit Brian - And it is equally clear the positions on the divinity of Jesus are not empirical claims about the physical world.

Malchus replied to comment from Tulse | June 17, 2010 8:32 PM | Reply | Edit Religions make statements concerning the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the redemption of the resurrection, and others

truthspeaker said:

Tulse replied to comment from eric : My concern, and I’m guessing many others, is the support of irrationality...

My concern is the support of irrationality, period. I don't care if it's among people who will grow up to be scientists or people who will grow up to be short-order cooks. I consider holding irrational beliefs to be bad for individual humans.

Malchus replied to comment from Tulse | June 17, 2010 11:07 PM | Reply | Edit It actually leaves all the mainline Protestant sects.

You misunderstand how prayer works, I’m afraid. God grants prayer according to His will, not our will. One could research that scientifically without difficulty.

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 21, 2010 2:07 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Tulse replied to comment from eric : My concern, and I’m guessing many others, is the support of irrationality… My concern is the support of irrationality, period. I don’t care if it’s among people who will grow up to be scientists or people who will grow up to be short-order cooks. I consider holding irrational beliefs to be bad for individual humans. Should we do things like outlaw religious beliefs, forcibly reeducate those who hold them, and destroy anything and everything deemed “irrational”?

Stanton said: Should we do things like outlaw religious beliefs, forcibly reeducate those who hold them, and destroy anything and everything deemed "irrational"?

Malchus replied to comment from Ichthyic | June 18, 2010 8:16 AM | Reply | Edit There is a reason it’s called belief. If I had faith only on the basis of empirical evidence, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Religious people engage in context-based reasoning the same as atheists do. Its no more a denial of their beliefs than my playing poker is a ‘denial’ of my scientific belief in honesty.

truthspeaker said:

Dale Husband | June 17, 2010 9:09 AM | Reply | Edit Popper’s Ghost, truthspeaker, John Harshman and other anti-religious extremists, keep up the piss and vinegar! You are proof that atheists can be just as trollish around here as Creationist fundamentalists.

I defy you to find one post of mine that displayed any extremism, vitriol, or trolling. Just one.

truthspeaker said:

harold | June 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Reply | Edit Brian - And it is equally clear the positions on the divinity of Jesus are not empirical claims about the physical world.

Of course it is. If you say Jesus, the historical character, was divine, then that's an empirical claim about the physical world. (Why? Assumes that God must be of the same substance as the universe we live in, which is unfounded.) If you further claim that he came back to life after crucifixion, that is also an empirical claim about the physical world. (Strawman, since one does not have to be divine to rise from the dead.) If you say that the there are things that are not of the physical world that can communicate with or interact with humans, then that is also an empirical claim about the physical world. (Outright contradiction! You fail!) The fact is, the physical world is the one one we are aware of, the only one we can test, the only one we can interact with. So any claims that aren't about the physical world wouldn't have any bearing on humans anyway. (That is a statement of faith as much as any religious dogma you can name.)

Dale Husband said: Why? Assumes that God must be of the same substance as the universe we live in, which is unfounded.

Strawman, since one does not have to be divine to rise from the dead.

Outright contradiction! You fail!

That is a statement of faith as much as any religious dogma you can name.

SEF said: Imagine the effectiveness of a community which, instead of saying "let's pray for X in their time of difficulty", got together and said "let's all think hard whether there are any constructive ways we can help X out of this difficulty".

So, no examples of extremism, vitriol, or trolling then?

truthspeaker said: OK, so if I see a Jesus placard on someone's car, how do I tell if they're a moderate or a crazy? When somebody tells me they're a Christian, how do I tell if they're a moderate or a crazy?

If I have to talk to each individual Christian to find out what she believes, doesn't that tell you that the label "Christian" is meaningless? Since the beliefs of Christians apparently diverge so widely, why do people insist on labeling themselves as Christians, and then get upset when others assume that they have beliefs similar to other Christians? It would be like me slapping a hammer and sickle on my car and then getting offended when people think I advocate Leninist-style communism.

If you have to talk to individual Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians to find out what they believe, does that tell you that the labels “Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian” are meaningless?

SWT said: If you have to talk to individual Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians to find out what they believe, does that tell you that the labels “Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian” are meaningless?

SWT | June 22, 2010 7:46 AM | Reply | Edit If you have to talk to individual Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians to find out what they believe, does that tell you that the labels “Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian” are meaningless?

truthspeaker said:

SWT | June 22, 2010 7:46 AM | Reply | Edit If you have to talk to individual Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians to find out what they believe, does that tell you that the labels “Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian” are meaningless?

Yes, definitely.

truthspeaker said: It would be like me slapping a hammer and sickle on my car and then getting offended when people think I advocate Leninist-style communism.

SWT replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 9:18 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: SWT | June 22, 2010 7:46 AM | Reply | Edit If you have to talk to individual Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians to find out what they believe, does that tell you that the labels “Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian” are meaningless? Yes, definitely. Presumably, then, you’d agree that determining if a person’s political views are fringe or mainstream often requires more than a simple label – if you’re actually interested, you need to engage them to find out what they believe. Why then do you find this problematic when it comes to religious affiliation? (As in “how do I tell if they’re a moderate or a crazy?”)

eric replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 9:33 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: It would be like me slapping a hammer and sickle on my car and then getting offended when people think I advocate Leninist-style communism. Good analogy given certain US historical events. I agree such a person probably shouldn’t be surprised to be socially pigeonholed. But they should be offended at any hiring discrimination based on their ideology. As should we all.

So, truthspeaker - should someone be blackballed or disfavored from a job based on an ideological sticker on their car? Or are you, as an employer, better off judging someone by their resume instead of the sticker?

truthspeaker said:

SWT replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 9:18 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: SWT | June 22, 2010 7:46 AM | Reply | Edit If you have to talk to individual Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians to find out what they believe, does that tell you that the labels “Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian” are meaningless? Yes, definitely. Presumably, then, you’d agree that determining if a person’s political views are fringe or mainstream often requires more than a simple label – if you’re actually interested, you need to engage them to find out what they believe. Why then do you find this problematic when it comes to religious affiliation? (As in “how do I tell if they’re a moderate or a crazy?”)

It's problematic because many of them use the label "Christian" as if it means something, just as politicians use the label "Democrat" as if it means something.

Then why did you say that you "consider holding irrational beliefs to be bad for individual humans"?

I mean, one gets the impression that you want to make these sorts of statements without bothering to give a damn about how there are people in this world who hold "irrational beliefs," yet are still capable of behaving rationally. But, then you don't like it when people misconstrue your statements as being bigoted towards all religious people.

Why is this a problem?

Stanton | June 22, 2010 10:57 AM | Reply | Edit Then why did you say that you “consider holding irrational beliefs to be bad for individual humans”?

truthspeaker said:

Why is this a problem?

Because meaningless labels are at best useless. I don't go around labeling myself as a Garbleflooker because the word Garbleflooker doesn't mean anything.

SWT said: Why is this a problem? If you actually want to know if someone is "a moderate or a crazy" (either politically or religiously), you have the option of engaging that person in discussion so that you can form an opinion. You also have, sometimes, a person's writing and actions to inform your judgment.

SWT replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 11:25 AM | Reply | You are the one who claims to be unable to discern the difference between, as you put it, between “a moderate or a crazy?”

truthspeaker said: ... every time I meet a Christian I am going to operate on the asumption that statistically they are more likely than not to be one of the crazy ones.

I said statistically more likely, not certain. Like I said, if you don't want to be pigeonholed, don't climb in a hole with a pigeon.

truthspeaker said: I said statistically more likely, not certain. Like I said, if you don't want to be pigeonholed, don't climb in a hole with a pigeon.

No, that's not what I said at all. Do you understand the difference between "statistically more likely" and "is"?

There is also a difference between "insane" and "dangerously insane". Obviously, if someone voluntarily claims to belong to a group that has belief in the supernatural as one of its defining characteristics, they have no grounds to complain if people think they're a little looney.

truthspeaker said: No, that's not what I said at all. Do you understand the difference between "statistically more likely" and "is"?

truthspeaker said: There is also a difference between "insane" and "dangerously insane". Obviously, if someone voluntarily claims to belong to a group that has belief in the supernatural as one of its defining characteristics, they have no grounds to complain if people think they're a little looney.

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 1:19 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: No, that’s not what I said at all. Do you understand the difference between “statistically more likely” and “is”? Why should I bother? You make no effort to notice that not all religious people are insane, or are all devoted to forcing other people to share their points of view.

truthspeaker said: There is also a difference between “insane” and “dangerously insane”. Obviously, if someone voluntarily claims to belong to a group that has belief in the supernatural as one of its defining characteristics, they have no grounds to complain if people think they’re a little looney. Yes, religious people have absolutely no right to be offended if other people declare them to be insane.

Anyone can read your comments here and see how intolerant you have been towards anyone who professes a religion.

you just don't get it, do you?

The intolerance is of irrationality and dishonest arguments.

The intolerance is of strawmen, like that you just constructed here.

OTOH, YOU make me intolerant of YOU, by repeatedly representing my and others' arguments with strawmen of them.

so, here's me saying:

fuck.

you.

not because you are religious, or because you support religion, but because you are dishonest, and represent others' arguments dishonestly.

strangely, I find this so often to be the case among those claiming religious faith, I can practically be certain by that evidence alone that religious faith is supported by little more than psychological defense mechanisms.

...and people who don't claim to be religious, but support people who are engaging in little more than projection and denial are not helping, but enabling.

very much like if you made the claim that there is nothing wrong with an alcoholic.

truthspeaker said: No, that's not what I said at all. Do you understand the difference between "statistically more likely" and "is"?

truthspeaker said: There is also a difference between "insane" and "dangerously insane". Obviously, if someone voluntarily claims to belong to a group that has belief in the supernatural as one of its defining characteristics, they have no grounds to complain if people think they're a little looney.

Why should I bother? You make no effort to notice that not all religious people are insane

I guess it depends on how one defines sanity.

Is an alcoholic insane?

one can be an alcoholic and a functioning scientist.

does that mean we should encourage saying the two things are compatible?

all of us have shit we comparmentalize. the insanity comes when we try to claim that all things that are obviously counter to each other, like religious faith and the scientific method, are in fact compatible.

they are not, and this is ALL I want to argue for:

a simple recognition of that fact. I have no problems with anyone wanting to claim they are religious, like I would have no problem with someone stating they like to dance in the moonlight with mushrooms in their hands.

trying to say all of that is rational, or compatible with the scientific method, is what I object to. I have no problems with people compartmentalizing, so long as they recognize that is what they are doing, and not try to obscure the fact with post-hoc rationalizations. Because doing so inevitably results in dishonest argumets. Hence, Ken Miller retreating his explanation of faith into the level of quantum woo; so desperate to try and rationalize compatibility, that an extremely intelligent guy like that would say something so inane.

this has been born out time and time again, whether you look at Miller's arguments, Collins', or the arguments in this very thread.

It has NOTHING to do with any of us hating the religious; THAT is a fiction manufactured by those who refuse to engage the argument on its face value.

...like an alcoholic claiming people hate them because they like alchohol.

I'm sure some part of the brains of those who find this offensive is already kicking in to project a nonsensical spin on this, and will kick it back as this being an example of "intolerance".

If you refuse to analyze WHY you think that way, then I reiterate what I said in the previous post.

That is why I am an AGNOSTIC, and not an atheist

you claim agnosticism simply because you refuse to acknowledge that being an atheist is no different, functionally.

you are the one that likes to be slippery. YOU are the one that is being laughed at.

I don’t ASSUME that the natural universe is all there is

yes, you do.

we all do.

we do it constantly, every waking moment of every day.

otherwise, we wouldn't be able to function at all.

seriously, think about it for a moment; how would you be able to even take a step, if you didn't automatically assume certain natural constants?

so, you're lying to yourself.

recognize it and move on.

truthspeaker said: So, no examples of extremism, vitriol, or trolling then?

Ichthyic said: That is why I am an AGNOSTIC, and not an atheist you claim agnosticism simply because you refuse to acknowledge that being an atheist is no different, functionally. you are the one that likes to be slippery. YOU are the one that is being laughed at. I don’t ASSUME that the natural universe is all there is yes, you do. we all do. we do it constantly, every waking moment of every day. otherwise, we wouldn't be able to function at all. seriously, think about it for a moment; how would you be able to even take a step, if you didn't automatically assume certain natural constants? so, you're lying to yourself. recognize it and move on.

I wonder when you gained the ability to read my mind.

I wonder when you decided that saying this was relevant?

did you have a point?

of course not.

you just want to pretend you do.

Ichthyic said: I wonder when you gained the ability to read my mind. I wonder when you decided that saying this was relevant? did you have a point? of course not. you just want to pretend you do.

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 6:55 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: If I consider your statements to be ones of “extremism, vitriol, or trolling”, why should you complain? That’s sort of what you do when you claim that all religious people are crazy.

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 6:39 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: No, that’s not what I said at all. Do you understand the difference between “statistically more likely” and “is”? truthspeaker said: There is also a difference between “insane” and “dangerously insane”. Obviously, if someone voluntarily claims to belong to a group that has belief in the supernatural as one of its defining characteristics, they have no grounds to complain if people think they’re a little looney. When a person starts getting that slippery in debates like this, yet calls himself a “truthspeaker”, I call him a liar and a hypocrite.

All Christians who see this dialogue are probably laughing at you for your bigotry and I wouldn’t blame them one bit.

Dale Husband replied to comment from Ichthyic And what was YOURS (and truthspeaker’s)? In a nutshell, it was “I will assert as DOGMA that the physical reality is all there ever was, is, and ever will be and judge everything and everyone by that assumption.”

Dale Husband said: I wonder when you gained the ability to read my mind. Oh, can you prove that you can read my mind and thus know how I really think as opposed to what I said? If not, your argument has no foundation whatsoever.

truthspeaker said:

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 6:55 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: If I consider your statements to be ones of “extremism, vitriol, or trolling”, why should you complain? That’s sort of what you do when you claim that all religious people are crazy.

I never claimed that. You sure like putting words in other people's mouths, don't you? I said they shouldn't be suprised if people think they're a little loony, because they believe in the supernatural. The supernatural, for fuck's sake. If you met a grown adult who believed Harry Potter was a documentary, what would you think?

truthspeaker said: Of course it is, and doing the former encourages other people to do the latter. Once you abandon reason and evidence, you might as well believe anything. Are you seriously saying that believing in transubstantion, or resurrection, or an afterlife, are not as stupid and deluded as believing in Young Earth Creationism?

Dale Husband said:

truthspeaker said:

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 22, 2010 6:55 PM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: If I consider your statements to be ones of “extremism, vitriol, or trolling”, why should you complain? That’s sort of what you do when you claim that all religious people are crazy.

I never claimed that. You sure like putting words in other people's mouths, don't you? I said they shouldn't be suprised if people think they're a little loony, because they believe in the supernatural. The supernatural, for fuck's sake. If you met a grown adult who believed Harry Potter was a documentary, what would you think?

Look at your own words:

truthspeaker said: Of course it is, and doing the former encourages other people to do the latter. Once you abandon reason and evidence, you might as well believe anything. Are you seriously saying that believing in transubstantion, or resurrection, or an afterlife, are not as stupid and deluded as believing in Young Earth Creationism?

That is classic absolutist thinking, just as bad as fundamentalist Christianity. It doesn't matter if the absolute in your case is atheism or naturalism. It's still ignorance and bigotry.

truthspeaker said: Where in that comment did I say all religious people are crazy? I said they hold beliefs that are as stupid and deluded as Young Earth Creationism. There's nothing ignorant or bigoted about that.

How is it bigoted to say that ideas are stupid? Ideas aren't people.

If you want to demonstrate that believing in resurrection isn't stupid, then come up with some evidence that resurrection has ever ocurred in humans or that it's even possible. If you can't, then you're conceding the point.

The same goes with life after death. If you can figure out how a human consciousness can exist without a physical human brain, then put up the evidence. If you can't, then you're admitting the belief is stupid.

He’d take it to Las Vegas, and make a fortune mooching off of gullible casino patrons in a nightclub act.

*smacks self in head*

holy crap! you've just solved all my money woes forever.

:)

Off to seek fame and fortune!

I won't forget the little people!

truthspeaker said: How is it bigoted to say that ideas are stupid? Ideas aren't people. If you want to demonstrate that believing in resurrection isn't stupid, then come up with some evidence that resurrection has ever ocurred in humans or that it's even possible. If you can't, then you're conceding the point. The same goes with life after death. If you can figure out how a human consciousness can exist without a physical human brain, then put up the evidence. If you can't, then you're admitting the belief is stupid.

Dale Husband said: That is why I am an AGNOSTIC, and not an atheist; I don't ASSUME that the natural universe is all there is, instead I allow for something beyond that in my world view. You do not, that is why you are ignorant, in the truest sense of the word (ignoring the possibility you are wrong).

Dale Husband said: There may be a God and an afterlife, even if they are not detectable by physical means.

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: That is why I am an AGNOSTIC, and not an atheist; I don't ASSUME that the natural universe is all there is, instead I allow for something beyond that in my world view. You do not, that is why you are ignorant, in the truest sense of the word (ignoring the possibility you are wrong).

The assumption that the natural world is all there is a working hypothesis. It's a tentative conclusion following from the observations. Working from that assumption does not mean that you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong. It does not mean that you won't accept evidence to the contrary, if it ever is found. But until then, assuming that the universe is entirely physical in nature is perfectly rational - and likely more productive than assuming certain parts are non-physical (whatever that means).

No, assuming that (faith = stupidity) IS bigotry.

There may be a God and an afterlife, even if they are not detectable by physical means.

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: There may be a God and an afterlife, even if they are not detectable by physical means.

While true that such a God or afterlife may indeed exist, what reason do you have to believe that they in fact exist? Why would you believe in something that is not detectable by physical means? Including our physical bodies? Can you give me any good reason to do so, other than wishful thinking, accepting false authority and wanting to fit in?

truthspeaker said:

No, assuming that (faith = stupidity) IS bigotry.

No, it's an opinion. There's nothing bigoted about it. People choose to subscribe to religious ideas. There's no reason those ideas should be exempt from criticism. Let's see you defend racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism as merely opinions too, "truthspeaker". You are a liar unless you affirm that are not forms of bigotry too.

There may be a God and an afterlife, even if they are not detectable by physical means.

But if God is not detectable by physical means, then you have no reason for thinking it exists, so it would be stupid to believe that it does. As for an afterlife, the idea of an afterlife does contradict known evidence. We know what life is, and we know it consists of certain chemicals. To believe that it can exist in the absence of those chemicals contradicts the available evidence. Again, you as ASSUMING that this material universe is all there ever is. That's still a DOGMA no matter how you spin it.

Unlike truthspeaker and certain others here, I make a clear distinction between being a methodological materialist or naturalist (which all responsible scientists must be) and being a philosophical materialist or naturalist (which is the same as being an atheist). So does Eugenie C. Scott, author of the book Evolution vs. Creationism and director of the National Center for Science Education. Want to argue with HER?

Dale Husband said: That’s better.

Ask someone who DOES have faith in such religious concepts. I have no such faith.

Dale Husband said: Unlike truthspeaker and certain others here, I make a clear distinction between being a methodological materialist or naturalist (which all responsible scientists must be) and being a philosophical materialist or naturalist (which is the same as being an atheist).

So does Eugenie C. Scott, author of the book Evolution vs. Creationism and director of the National Center for Science Education. Want to argue with HER?

Deen said:

Ask someone who DOES have faith in such religious concepts. I have no such faith.

That's a cop-out and you know it. Although, I suppose since you have no such faith, I could just assume that you agree that there is no real reason to believe in the supernatural. But why didn't you just come out and say so? Besides, what are you doing defending a belief you don't hold yourself anyway? If you think that a belief in the supernatural can be justified, why don't you believe in it yourself? And if you think that it is not justified to believe in the supernatural, doesn't that imply that you think that the people who do believe in the supernatural do so for improper reasons? Maybe you're too civil to call that "delusional", fine. But maybe you're also too afraid to simply say that you think all Christians are wrong.

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: So does Eugenie C. Scott, author of the book Evolution vs. Creationism and director of the National Center for Science Education. Want to argue with HER?

Sure, why not? Might be an interesting conversation. Or was I supposed to break down and cry at the mere mention of her name? Sorry, but appeals to authority don't work well on me, especially if you offer no other arguments. I'm sure I could find a few prominent figures who'd agree with me too, and then what? Are we going to appeal to popularity next?

There is no necessity to believe in God, sure. If it were necessary, there would be no choice but to believe in Him, no? Is it possible to conclude, then, that this may be the situation He actually wishes?

The principle of parsimony is a fine idea, but it is not a blueprint for the operation of the Universe, which is full of unnecessary things. The material is all that can be attested from material evidence, certainly. How is it possible logically to conclude from this that the material must necessarily be all that there is? It's the null hypothesis, certainly, and the null hypothesis is sufficient. However, the null hypothesis is not conclusive.

And I think Dale Husband is defending, not a belief that he holds, but the right to believe in God without being called "delusional" or worse, always with the provisos that the belief itself is not evidentiary, harmless in itself, and that no attempt is made to enforce it on others.

Me, I would hold that the restraint of invective against philosophical positions contrary to one's own, is a civilised practice, and I wish to live in a civilised society. One of the salient features of such a society is an apparent respect for the philosophical positions of others, where they meet the criteria above, even if that respect is not actually felt.

You might ask whether I want people to dissemble, not to give vent to their real opinions on the personal choices of others, to be diplomatic and to put up a false show of polite behaviour. Thank you, that's it exactly.

Creationism is a horse of a different colour, and so is religious racism, and a number of other religious ideas. They are evidentiary, and they do harm. I have no problem with calling them "delusional", because of that. But private beliefs not covered under those headings?

Believing in the divinity of Jesus, for example? Not evidentiary. Not harmful, unless there is an attempt to impose it on others. My response would be that there is no respectable evidence for it, and that the only words Jesus is recorded to have said directly on the subject were "The Father is greater than I am", which I take as a denial of the idea. But if the Christian doesn't, what is that to me? Is it sufficient reason for me to call Christians 'delusional' or worse? Is it sufficient reason in itself for me to treat them as if they were crazy?

I think not.

Is it possible to conclude, then, that this may be the situation He actually wishes?

this is exactly the same false logic behind the 'satan created the fossils to fool us', or 'god made everything so it would look like evolution did it.

it explains nothing.

Creationism is a horse of a different colour

actually, I think it's clear the underlying logic is the same, even if you play at what the variables look like.

Is it sufficient reason for me to call Christians ‘delusional’ or worse?

why must you insist on supporting delusional thinking?

that is the better question.

@dake:

So does Eugenie C. Scott, author of the book Evolution vs. Creationism and director of the National Center for Science Education. Want to argue with HER?

ROFLMAO.

not only would we "like" to, we have. what makes you think her argument any better than Mooney's, or Miller's, or Collins'?

no, wait. It's obvious. You've never bothered to even question their arguments.

I would hold that the restraint of invective against philosophical positions contrary to one’s own, is a civilised practice

one, invective has nothing to do with whether the arguments are correct, or incorrect.

NONE of you faitheists have EVER provided support for the argument supporting a deity, rather, you scream at those pointing out what nonsense it is.

sorry, but you're not doing anyone any favors.

It's truly pathetic you cannot seem to see this, but really all you are in this "debate", is the peanut gallery.

done.

Let’s see you defend racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism as merely opinions too, “truthspeaker”. You are a liar unless you affirm that are not forms of bigotry too.

this is known as a red-herring argument.

seriously, it is quite tiresome to see you keep parading such dishonesty.

you're a waste of time to debate, because you don't argue honestly.

waste.

of.

time.

Dave Luckett said: And I think Dale Husband is defending, not a belief that he holds, but the right to believe in God without being called "delusional" or worse, always with the provisos that the belief itself is not evidentiary, harmless in itself, and that no attempt is made to enforce it on others.

Ichthyic said: Let’s see you defend racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism as merely opinions too, “truthspeaker”. You are a liar unless you affirm that are not forms of bigotry too. this is known as a red-herring argument. seriously, it is quite tiresome to see you keep parading such dishonesty. you're a waste of time to debate, because you don't argue honestly. waste. of. time.

(Me): Is it possible to conclude, then, that this may be the situation He actually wishes? (Icthyic): this is exactly the same false logic behind the ‘satan created the fossils to fool us’, or ‘god made everything so it would look like evolution did it.

(Me):Creationism is a horse of a different colour (Icthyic): actually, I think it’s clear the underlying logic is the same, even if you play at what the variables look like.

(Me): Is it sufficient reason for me to call Christians ‘delusional’ or worse? why must you insist on supporting delusional thinking? that is the better question.

(Me):I would hold that the restraint of invective against philosophical positions contrary to one’s own, is a civilised practice (Icthyic): one, invective has nothing to do with whether the arguments are correct, or incorrect.

(Icthyic):NONE of you faitheists have EVER provided support for the argument supporting a deity, rather, you scream at those pointing out what nonsense it is. sorry, but you’re not doing anyone any favors. It’s truly pathetic you cannot seem to see this, but really all you are in this “debate”, is the peanut gallery.

Ichthyic said: NONE of you faitheists have EVER provided support for the argument supporting a deity, rather, you scream at those pointing out what nonsense it is.

Strawman.

you obviously don't know what that means.

And you atheists have never disproven the existence of God,

you seem to have missed the part where all of us mentioned the ball was in YOUR court to prove the consequent?

it's never proper to prove the negative, after all.

otherwise, you'd next have us trying to disprove unicorns exist.

like I said, you are a really dishonest person, and it's simply not worth the time to argue with you.

bleat to yourself, now.

Was this meant as an illustration of the noble principle that was enunciated immediately before it?

you may take it as such, since you chose to focus on it.

*yawn*

it provides an explanation for there being no necessity to believe in God, which is all that it is intended to explain.

I'll leave with an agreement on that point, even if I completely disagree with how you apparently arrived at it.

Ichthyic said: Strawman. you obviously don't know what that means. And you atheists have never disproven the existence of God, you seem to have missed the part where all of us mentioned the ball was in YOUR court to prove the consequent? it's never proper to prove the negative, after all. otherwise, you'd next have us trying to disprove unicorns exist. like I said, you are a really dishonest person, and it's simply not worth the time to argue with you. bleat to yourself, now.

truthspeaker said:

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 2:41 PM | Reply | Edit All I’m trying to promote here is a little realism and balance on religion. Some commentators have moved from saying Religion Is Just Nasty Bad Stuff to saying OK Religion Has a Few Good Points But Then So Did the Nazis. This is progress. Once we get to saying that religion is vaguely like capitalism in terms of plusses and minuses, then we’ll be getting close.

You're completely missing the point. It wouldn't matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn't it wouldn't be religion -, it will always be evil. There's just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

truthspeaker said: I have actually had moderate theists try to convince me that believing in something with no evidence was less stupid in believing in something that contradicted known evidence. In that way fundamentalism is a more honest stupidity - if you're going to believe something that has no supporting evidence, such that there is a benevolent deity who cares about us, you might as well believe in something that contradicts what we know about the natural world, such as that the earth is 6000 years old.

truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism?

Dale Husband said:

truthspeaker said:

Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 2:41 PM | Reply | Edit All I’m trying to promote here is a little realism and balance on religion. Some commentators have moved from saying Religion Is Just Nasty Bad Stuff to saying OK Religion Has a Few Good Points But Then So Did the Nazis. This is progress. Once we get to saying that religion is vaguely like capitalism in terms of plusses and minuses, then we’ll be getting close.

You're completely missing the point. It wouldn't matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn't it wouldn't be religion -, it will always be evil. There's just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd.

truthspeaker said: I have actually had moderate theists try to convince me that believing in something with no evidence was less stupid in believing in something that contradicted known evidence. In that way fundamentalism is a more honest stupidity - if you're going to believe something that has no supporting evidence, such that there is a benevolent deity who cares about us, you might as well believe in something that contradicts what we know about the natural world, such as that the earth is 6000 years old.

truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism?

Next time you demand I produce an example of you being a bigot, an extremist, or trolling, these bits of nonsense from you will be dragged out and shoved back into your face. And you will have to answer for them. Was your memory really that short?

Let’s see you defend racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism as merely opinions too, “truthspeaker”. You are a liar unless you affirm that are not forms of bigotry too.

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 1:30 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2010 2:41 PM | Reply | Edit All I’m trying to promote here is a little realism and balance on religion. Some commentators have moved from saying Religion Is Just Nasty Bad Stuff to saying OK Religion Has a Few Good Points But Then So Did the Nazis. This is progress. Once we get to saying that religion is vaguely like capitalism in terms of plusses and minuses, then we’ll be getting close. You’re completely missing the point. It wouldn’t matter if all religions behaved like the Society of Friends and the ELCA. It is still based on the premise that believing in things without evidence as a virtue. As long as it starts with that premise - and it always will, because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be religion -, it will always be evil. There’s just no getting around it - promoting irrationality as a virtue is bad for humanity. No matter how much you polish the turd, it will still be a turd. truthspeaker said: I have actually had moderate theists try to convince me that believing in something with no evidence was less stupid in believing in something that contradicted known evidence. In that way fundamentalism is a more honest stupidity - if you’re going to believe something that has no supporting evidence, such that there is a benevolent deity who cares about us, you might as well believe in something that contradicts what we know about the natural world, such as that the earth is 6000 years old. truthspeaker said: Can somebody explain to me how moderate religion is less stupid than fundamentalism? Next time you demand I produce an example of you being a bigot, an extremist, or trolling, these bits of nonsense from you will be dragged out and shoved back into your face. And you will have to answer for them. Was your memory really that short?

Dave Luckett | June 22, 2010 10:08 PM | Reply | Edit There is no necessity to believe in God, sure. If it were necessary, there would be no choice but to believe in Him, no? Is it possible to conclude, then, that this may be the situation He actually wishes? The principle of parsimony is a fine idea, but it is not a blueprint for the operation of the Universe, which is full of unnecessary things. The material is all that can be attested from material evidence, certainly. How is it possible logically to conclude from this that the material must necessarily be all that there is? It’s the null hypothesis, certainly, and the null hypothesis is sufficient. However, the null hypothesis is not conclusive. And I think Dale Husband is defending, not a belief that he holds, but the right to believe in God without being called “delusional” or worse, always with the provisos that the belief itself is not evidentiary, harmless in itself, and that no attempt is made to enforce it on others.

truthspeaker said:

Let’s see you defend racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism as merely opinions too, “truthspeaker”. You are a liar unless you affirm that are not forms of bigotry too.

Race, sex, and ethnic origin are things that people are born with. They are not beliefs that people choose. Did I hurt faith's feelings when I called it stupid? Did faith find it more difficult to get a job or a mortgage when I made fun of it? Faith isn't a person. How can opposition to an idea be bigotry?

truthspeaker said: People have no such right. If a belief is not evidentiary, it's delusional by definition. Of course people have a right to hold delusional beliefs. They do not have a right not to hear criticism of such beliefs. Whether the belief is harmful or not has no bearing on whether it should be critiqued or not. If they are so thin-skinned that they actually get offended when someone holds their beliefs up for scientific scrutiny, then that's their problem. I'm not responsible for the emotional immaturity of others, and I'm certainly not obliged to enable it by pandering to it.

truthspeaker said: None of those statements exhibit bigotry, extremism, or trolling.

mike kelly replied to comment from Dale Husband | June 23, 2010 3:01 AM | Reply | Edit I see no bigotry in either ithyic of truthspeaker. I do see you consistently trying to portray criticism of irrational belief as an attack on an irrational believer.

People are BORN into families that practice a certain religion and will thus tend to follow that same religion, at least in childhood.

Let's say I believe that magic exists as described in the works of J.K. Rowling. There really is a Hogwarts, and the events in her books really did happen (although she took some artistic license with dialogue). The reason we muggles don't know about it is the Ministry of Magic does such a good job of hiding the magic from the rest of us. Remember, they have magic, so they can alter photographs and make us forget things we saw.

Originally the Ministry wasn't going to allow Rowling to publish her books, but the goblins thought it would be profitable and convinced the Ministry that the muggle world would never believe they were anything but fiction.

That belief doesn't contradict any known facts. Therefore, according to you, it's not a stupid belief, right? In fact, for anybody to call it stupid would be bigotry, right?

truthspeaker said: Calling something stupid is not at all the same as trying to suppress it.

People are BORN into families that practice a certain religion and will thus tend to follow that same religion, at least in childhood.

So people are just drones who believe whatever their parents tell them?

truthspeaker said: I think I've figured out these faitheists. They, like Marx, observe that religion is an opiate for the masses. They're afraid that if we make the masses quit cold turkey, they will go into withdrawal and there will be trouble. What they somehow don't understand is that we have no intention - let alone the ability - of yanking the opiate away. All we are saying is "you don't need that opiate. We're doing just fine without it. Some of us never took it, but others quit taking it and turned out just fine. Join us!" Now, some of the masses are in a situation where the opiate eases the pain of social, economic, and/or political disadvantage. If they give up the opiate they might feel compelled to work to ease that pain by fighting against those disadvantages. That's a scary prospect for the people toward the top of the social ladder, so they keep pushing the opiate.

truthspeaker said: If a belief is not evidentiary, it's delusional by definition.

Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about me.

truthspeaker said: Let's say I believe that magic exists as described in the works of J.K. Rowling. There really is a Hogwarts, and the events in her books really did happen (although she took some artistic license with dialogue). The reason we muggles don't know about it is the Ministry of Magic does such a good job of hiding the magic from the rest of us. Remember, they have magic, so they can alter photographs and make us forget things we saw. Originally the Ministry wasn't going to allow Rowling to publish her books, but the goblins thought it would be profitable and convinced the Ministry that the muggle world would never believe they were anything but fiction. That belief doesn't contradict any known facts. Therefore, according to you, it's not a stupid belief, right? In fact, for anybody to call it stupid would be bigotry, right?

eric replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 8:39 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: If a belief is not evidentiary, it’s delusional by definition. Does that include subjective beliefs? Am I delusional for thinking much of teen pop is crap?

We all, ALL hold non-evidentiary beliefs

I’d also argue that by claiming that deism and young earth creationism are equally delusional you’ve trivialized significant differences. Define ‘delusional’ in such a way that Thomas Jefferson and Ken Ham are equally delusional if you want.

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 8:44 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Let’s say I believe that magic exists as described in the works of J.K. Rowling. There really is a Hogwarts, and the events in her books really did happen (although she took some artistic license with dialogue). The reason we muggles don’t know about it is the Ministry of Magic does such a good job of hiding the magic from the rest of us. Remember, they have magic, so they can alter photographs and make us forget things we saw. Originally the Ministry wasn’t going to allow Rowling to publish her books, but the goblins thought it would be profitable and convinced the Ministry that the muggle world would never believe they were anything but fiction. That belief doesn’t contradict any known facts. Therefore, according to you, it’s not a stupid belief, right? In fact, for anybody to call it stupid would be bigotry, right? THAT is a stupid and dishonest argument. Stick to religion, not to anything known from the start to be FICTION.

truthspeaker said: Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about me.

truthspeaker said:

eric replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 8:39 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: If a belief is not evidentiary, it’s delusional by definition. Does that include subjective beliefs? Am I delusional for thinking much of teen pop is crap?

That's an asthetic judgement, not a belief. If you want to call those "subjective beliefs" then no. But we were discussing objective religious claims.

We all, ALL hold non-evidentiary beliefs

Speak for yourself.

And there you go being slipperly again! What is “objective” about belief in God, if you are a Deist or Pantheist who also accepts evolution and all other beliefs of modern science?

truthspeaker said: You're confused. Thomas Jefferson's belief in deism was just as delusional as Ken Ham's belief in young earth creationism. That doesn't mean Thomas Jefferson was as delusional as Ken Ham is. Just that one belief of his was.

truthspeaker said: What's the difference? It doesn't contradict what we know about reality, therefore, according to you, it's not delusional.

What lies?

The Bible is a work of literature.

"Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is a work of literature.

If it's not delusional to believe that the God described in the Bible exists, then it's not delusional to believe that the events described in Rowling's book exist.

truthspeaker said: Thomas Jefferson's belief in deism was just as delusional as Ken Ham's belief in young earth creationism. That doesn't mean Thomas Jefferson was as delusional as Ken Ham is. Just that one belief of his was.

truthspeaker said: You're confused. Thomas Jefferson's belief in deism was just as delusional as Ken Ham's belief in young earth creationism. That doesn't mean Thomas Jefferson was as delusional as Ken Ham is. Just that one belief of his was.

truthspeaker said:

And there you go being slipperly again! What is “objective” about belief in God, if you are a Deist or Pantheist who also accepts evolution and all other beliefs of modern science?

A belief that something exists is an objective belief.

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 8:55 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: You’re confused. Thomas Jefferson’s belief in deism was just as delusional as Ken Ham’s belief in young earth creationism. That doesn’t mean Thomas Jefferson was as delusional as Ken Ham is. Just that one belief of his was. As such, because he was a deist, we should consider Thomas Jefferson to be a gibbering lunatic with nothing worth mentioning, as all of his contributions and everything he said were contaminated by his irrational beliefs, and we should expunge all mention of him.

truthspeaker said: What lies? The Bible is a work of literature. "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is a work of literature. If it's not delusional to believe that the God described in the Bible exists, then it's not delusional to believe that the events described in Rowling's book exist.

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 8:56 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: And there you go being slipperly again! What is “objective” about belief in God, if you are a Deist or Pantheist who also accepts evolution and all other beliefs of modern science? A belief that something exists is an objective belief. Not if it cannot be proven or disproven.

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 8:58 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: What lies? The Bible is a work of literature. “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” is a work of literature. If it’s not delusional to believe that the God described in the Bible exists, then it’s not delusional to believe that the events described in Rowling’s book exist. Bogus argument, based on atheist bigotry, not objective reason. PLEASE try harder.

truthspeaker said:

And there you go being slipperly again! What is “objective” about belief in God, if you are a Deist or Pantheist who also accepts evolution and all other beliefs of modern science?

A belief that something exists is an objective belief.

Stanton said:

truthspeaker said: You're confused. Thomas Jefferson's belief in deism was just as delusional as Ken Ham's belief in young earth creationism. That doesn't mean Thomas Jefferson was as delusional as Ken Ham is. Just that one belief of his was.

As such, because he was a deist, we should consider Thomas Jefferson to be a gibbering lunatic with nothing worth mentioning, as all of his contributions and everything he said were contaminated by his irrational beliefs, and we should expunge all mention of him.

Eric raises the one good point in this thread about beliefs based on subjective personal experience.

I think whether those beliefs are delusional or not would depend on how the individual evaluated that evidence and if they thought through possible explanations for what they experienced. Certainly we know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but it's still used a lot in courts of law.

If I see a glowing aura around somebody, the only thing I can reliably report is that I saw a glowing aura around somebody. If I jump to the conclusion that I have cataracts, that would be kind of irrational, but if I recognize that the aura was likely caused by cataracts or another eye or brain disturbance and I should see a doctor, that's rational. If I conclude that I'm seeing somebody's soul, that would be pretty irrational.

truthspeaker said:

Stanton replied As such, because he was a deist, we should consider Thomas Jefferson to be a gibbering lunatic with nothing worth mentioning, as all of his contributions and everything he said were contaminated by his irrational beliefs, and we should expunge all mention of him.

Again with putting words in my mouth.

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 9:05 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: And there you go being slipperly again! What is “objective” about belief in God, if you are a Deist or Pantheist who also accepts evolution and all other beliefs of modern science? A belief that something exists is an objective belief. Then would you agree we should do things like arrest or fine people for talking about imaginary friends, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy?

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 9:08 AM | Reply | Yet you did say that Thomas Jefferson is just as delusional as Ken Ham, and you did say that holding irrational beliefs is extremely harmful.

truthspeaker said:

Dale Husband replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 8:58 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: What lies? The Bible is a work of literature. “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” is a work of literature. If it’s not delusional to believe that the God described in the Bible exists, then it’s not delusional to believe that the events described in Rowling’s book exist. Bogus argument, based on atheist bigotry, not objective reason. PLEASE try harder.

What's bogus about it? The belief I described does not contradict reality. (Yes, it does.) Rowling's work was only presented as a work of fiction to protect the secrecy of the wizarding world. (If that was valid, it wouldn't have been written at all. You can neither prove nor disprove this, therefore it's a perfectly reasonable thing to believe, according to you. (I just argued against it, therefore, your stupid analogy is debunked.)

How does my belief in the wizarding world contradict reality? As I said, the Ministry of Magic, and affiliated groups around the world, work very hard to hid the wizarding world. They have magic - they can easily hide evidence.

truthspeaker said:

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 9:08 AM | Reply | Yet you did say that Thomas Jefferson is just as delusional as Ken Ham, and you did say that holding irrational beliefs is extremely harmful.

I never said either of those things. Do you enjoy lying?

Dale, I am confident atheism is true because there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. It would be really easy to show I am wrong - come up with some evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

truthspeaker said: How does my belief in the wizarding world contradict reality? As I said, the Ministry of Magic, and affiliated groups around the world, work very hard to hid the wizarding world. They have magic - they can easily hide evidence.

And I am not in the least intolerant of religious beliefs. I think they're stupid and harmful, but people have every right to believe in them.

truthspeaker said: Dale, I am confident atheism is true because there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. It would be really easy to show I am wrong - come up with some evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

So, a bunch of wizards doing magic and hiding what they do so we never know - obviously false.

A guy coming back from the dead - reasonable.

How does that make any sense?

Stanton replied to comment from truthspeaker | June 23, 2010 9:16 AM | Reply | Edit truthspeaker said: Dale, I am confident atheism is true because there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. It would be really easy to show I am wrong - come up with some evidence for the existence of the supernatural. It’s not the part about whether or not atheism is true or not that’s agitating people, it’s where you’re insisting that you’re right that all religious people are delusional and insane for holding “irrational beliefs.”

truthspeaker said: I never said they were insane. What is it with you and putting words in other people's mouths?

truthspeaker said: So, a bunch of wizards doing magic and hiding what they do so we never know - obviously false. A guy coming back from the dead - reasonable. How does that make any sense?

truthspeaker said: I think whether those beliefs are delusional or not would depend on how the individual evaluated that evidence...

Certainly we know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but it's still used a lot in courts of law.

If I see a glowing aura around somebody, the only thing I can reliably report is that I saw a glowing aura around somebody. If I jump to the conclusion that I have cataracts, that would be kind of irrational, but if I recognize that the aura was likely caused by cataracts or another eye or brain disturbance and I should see a doctor, that's rational. If I conclude that I'm seeing somebody's soul, that would be pretty irrational.

Stanton said:

truthspeaker said: I never said they were insane. What is it with you and putting words in other people's mouths?

Then how or why is persisting in holding onto irrational/stupid/harmful/delusional beliefs not insanity?

truthspeaker said: People have no such right. If a belief is not evidentiary, it's delusional by definition. Of course people have a right to hold delusional beliefs. They do not have a right not to hear criticism of such beliefs.

Whether the belief is harmful or not has no bearing on whether it should be critiqued or not.

If they are so thin-skinned that they actually get offended when someone holds their beliefs up for scientific scrutiny, then that's their problem. I'm not responsible for the emotional immaturity of others, and I'm certainly not obliged to enable it by pandering to it.

A: I don't like broccoli, so I choose not to eat it.

B: You are delusional! Can you prove that broccoli is not good for you to eat?

In fact, I could argue that truthspeaker is NOT an atheist at all, but a Christian troll trying to make atheists look as bigoted and arrogant as possible, and that would be just as fair and reasonable as that argument he made about Harry Potter.

Dale Husband said: Can you disprove that Harry Potter was ever a real person? Yes, by interviewing the person who made him up and hearing her say she made him up. And that's all the proof any rational person would need.

Dale Husband said: No other arguments??? Did you even bother to read most of my comments on this thread?

I mentioned Scott (and Carl Sagan before her) because she has credibility. Appeals to authority have no meaning in science, but this is NOT about science at all, but about philosophy.

That's why this discussion keeps going back and fourth like a tennis match, because we are arguing about slightly different views of the universe and what may be beyond it, not about the universe itself.

You and other atheists see all of reality as defined only by what you can detect physically.

Why is taking a neutral position and urging others to do so for the sake of objectivity so offensive to you?

SEF said:

Dale Husband said: Can you disprove that Harry Potter was ever a real person? Yes, by interviewing the person who made him up and hearing her say she made him up. And that's all the proof any rational person would need.

Could you be more idiotic if you tried?! Or further from having any credibility to speak for actual rational people ... 1. You're bizarrely pretending it would be totally impossible for the "author" to be lying when she says she made him up (or under whatever spell it is that turns people into puppets to say and do what some wizard wants) while allowing that she can lie well enough to make all that stuff up in the first place. 2. You appear not to have heard of Scientology and its fervent believers - despite the author of that particular fiction being well known (L. Ron Hubbard). He even gave advance warning that he was going to make up a religion to con people. Yet they still get conned. 3. Your only requirement for religion to be "true" appears to be that the liar(s) who spawned it be dead and unavailable for questioning. 4. You (stupidly) put more faith in witness testimony than in evidence. You're exactly the sort of dangerous loony who has led to lots of people being falsely convicted while genuine criminals get let off. You wouldn't be able to spot a decent standard of proof from a fake if your life depended on it. And that is why religiously inclined and religiously influenced/retarded people are so terribly bad for society. It's never just about their "private" faith but about their standards of mental hygiene in general and how that impacts on everyone else (from their shopping choices, to their failure to monitor corporations effectively, to their voting habits, to their jury decisions, etc etc).

The argument that God exists, or that he doesn't, that I must choose one and that this choice dictates how I live, seems to me to be obviously wrong. God may or may not exist. I can, with perfect rationality, live my life as if I don't know which it is.

Deen said: Because it's intellectually lazy and dishonest. There are really only two options: God exists, or he doesn't. So you have a choice to make: either you live your life as if God exists, which makes you a theist, or you live your live as if God doesn't exist, which makes you an atheist. I suppose you could technically live your life as if God sometimes exists, and sometimes doesn't exist, but then you'd just be lying to yourself about half of the time. And in reality, you are not neutral. You have already made your choice, whatever it is. Even if you are not 100% sure and are open to new arguments and willing to be shown wrong, for now you have already convinced yourself that you had good reasons for your choice. You have already convinced yourself that the reasons for the other choice were inferior too. You just don't want to publicly admit it, and you may not even want to admit it to yourself. Instead, you appear to have internalized the view that being religious is respectable, and being an atheist isn't. You appear to therefore want to present yourself as the "reasonable middle", even though there isn't really a reasonable middle when there are only two real choices.

Dale Husband said: I'm talking about what a RATIONAL person would think about Harry Potter and his creator, not someone who is a DENIALIST and conspiracy nut!

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: No other arguments??? Did you even bother to read most of my comments on this thread?

Sure, you've made many arguments. But what was missing from the post I was responding to, was for you to show me why Genie Scott's arguments about religion are any better than yours or mine. (Gee, I didn't know you were expecting that. My bad! Could you try reading her book and thus doing your own research?)

I mentioned Scott (and Carl Sagan before her) because she has credibility. Appeals to authority have no meaning in science, but this is NOT about science at all, but about philosophy.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to lower your credibility rating a few notches for that. What in the world makes you think that appeals to authority have any meaning in philosophy either? (Because philosophy is a dogmatic process, of course. And in the specific case I mentioned Scott was making a statement about philosophy, not science, even though she is a scientist. Sagan often did that as well.) And if this isn't about science, why are you referring to scientists like Scott and Sagan for authority on this matter?

That's why this discussion keeps going back and fourth like a tennis match, because we are arguing about slightly different views of the universe and what may be beyond it, not about the universe itself.

Since "universe" is generally taken to mean "everything that exists" (by whom?), this sentence parses as mostly nonsense. You can't even define what "beyond the universe" means, or explain how it could be relevant to beings that are firmly part of the universe. (In cosmology, discussions about other universes beyond this one are common. Oh, I guess such discussions are delusional as well eh?) Yes, we are talking about different things. One side is talking about evidence, the other is being incoherent talking about lack of evidence but making a choice to believe in the absence of evidence for or against something.

You and other atheists see all of reality as defined only by what you can detect physically.

Say, weren't you the one who said that mind reading was impossible? Then stop telling me what I believe. I've already told you what I believe (you even thought it was quite enlightened, if I recall correctly), and this isn't it. Another notch down on your credibility rating. Sounds like yours just took a bigger hit than mine, actually. I was going by what truthspeaker said. Take your disagreement up with him!

Dale Husband said: Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven.

Dale Husband said: Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven. The fact that many people, including myself, hold that position and defend it discredits your claim that people MUST live according to dogmatic theism or dogmatic atheism.

SEF said:

Dale Husband said: I'm talking about what a RATIONAL person would think about Harry Potter and his creator, not someone who is a DENIALIST and conspiracy nut!

And yet you consistently (contrive to) fail to see the blatant parallel with religions and their creators and their reality-denialists, sheeple and conspiracy nuts! :-D Just because the original liars and plagiarisers who put together the various religions are mostly long dead and unidentifiable now, that doesn't magically make them more credible. The originators of lots of folk/fairy tales (eg as later recorded by the brothers Grimm) are similarly unknown and dead. So which of those do you believe as much as you do your own personal favourite religion? On what evidentiary and rational basis do you distinguish between fictions? Your current attempt at answering that being a patently silly one. The obvious observation, of religious people all around the world, is that you were all stupid/gullible enough to fall for the first such tall tale you were told as a child. Whereas some few of us were born being naturally better at mental hygiene and never fell for the religious falsehoods promulgated by our families and societies. Some other people got cleaned up and kicked the habit later in life - but do tend to remain traumatised by their former addiction.

Dale Husband said: So here again, we see someone saying that, "If you are not as committed to atheism as we are, you are delusional, lazy, dishonest, and stupid."

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven.

The fact that many people, including myself, hold that position and defend it discredits your claim that people MUST live according to dogmatic theism or dogmatic atheism.

So don't talk to me about "credibility".

This is about freedom of choice in the face of people making rationalizations for hating others for being different from them.

Don't like that when I point it out? As my wife often says, "Tough $#it!" Get over it and stop being like the religious fundamentlists, or I will continue to treat you like I do them! As BIGOTS!

Tulse said:

Dale Husband said: Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven.

Agleprechaunism is the philosophical view that the existence of leprechauns cannot be either proven or disproven. Are you also an agleprechaunist? Agteapotism is the philosophical view that the existence of a teapot in orbit around Jupiter cannot be either proven or disproven. Are you also an agteapotist? Agfairies-in-the-bottom-of-my-gardenism is the philosophical view that the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden cannot be either proven or disproven. Are you also an agfairies-in-the-bottom-of-my-gardenist? There are literally an infinity of beliefs that cannot be either "proven" or "disproven". This does not mean that such beliefs are all equally likely, or that we don't have good reasons to question such beliefs. (And it has been a long while since philosophy of science demanded "proof" in order to have knowledge -- outside of mathematics and other formal systems, the notion of "proof" is dead.)

SEF said:

Dale Husband said: Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven. The fact that many people, including myself, hold that position and defend it discredits your claim that people MUST live according to dogmatic theism or dogmatic atheism.

No, it was (used to be) the view that god very definitely existed but that "his" nature was fundamentally unknowable. In the modern version of it, "agnostics" tend to be agnostic with regard to the religion they had shoved in their faces as a child and utterly reject all other religions from consideration. This translates to either: (a) being a closet believer still - and one who, despite it being apparently the single most important question about reality needing answering (since they are pretending not to know the answer!), shows a shocking lack of willingness to investigate the matter honestly. (b) being a closet functional atheist with too much cowardice or greed to go against society by admitting that. There aren't any dogmatic atheists - partly because there's no dogma to have about non-existent entities(!) but also because being a functional atheist (ie living life like there are no gods and no need to worry about any suddenly bothering to exist) is sufficient. PS Saying you "hold that position and defend it" doesn't mean you do those things at all well!

Dave Luckett said: I can, with perfect rationality, live my life as if I don't know which it is.

Dale Husband said: There is a difference between a religion, which claims its dogmas are true, and fiction which is openly said from the beginning to be not true, but is used as entertainment.

Dale Husband said: Sounds like yours just took a bigger hit than mine, actually. I was going by what truthspeaker said. Take your disagreement up with him!

Deen said:

Dave Luckett said: I can, with perfect rationality, live my life as if I don't know which it is.

Which is the same as saying that you think that God is irrelevant to how you live. That's hardly a neutral position.

Dale Husband said: Remember what atheism is: “The BELIEF that there is NO God.”

Dale Husband said: No, it is NOT the same. I thought were were discussing BELIEFS, not how we live our lives.

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: Sounds like yours just took a bigger hit than mine, actually. I was going by what truthspeaker said. Take your disagreement up with him!

No, I'm not going to let you weasel out of this one. You attributed something to me that I have not said, despite the fact that you knew full well that I believed otherwise, and now you're trying to blame your error on truthspeaker. I expect an apology.

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: Remember what atheism is: “The BELIEF that there is NO God.”

No, atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. That's all it is.

SEF said:

Dale Husband said: No, it is NOT the same. I thought were were discussing BELIEFS, not how we live our lives.

How you actually live your life is a more reliable indication of your true beliefs than any lies, hypocrisy or self-delusional claim you may make about your position. Evidence pwns testimony.

Dale Husband said: Then show me where you actually said otherwise. Because I didn't see it.

If you are an atheist (are you?)...

...then you are also a philosophical materialist and thus my statement ("You and other atheists see all of reality as defined only by what you can detect physically.") stands.

If you deny being an atheist and philosophical materialist, then I will apologize for assuming you were. But if not an atheist and philosophical materialist, why defend his bigotry?

Dale Husband said: Atheism goes one step further than agnosticism by affirming the non existence of God as dogma.

Dale Husband said: But the fact that I, an agnostic, am arguing with atheists about their dogmas as opposed to my lack of dogma shows there ARE slight differences in how they live.

I would never join a religion or political movement, like Communism, that required me to DENY the existence of God, but most atheists probably would.

Deen said: atheism is a lack of belief in God. This does not require philosophical naturalism.

Dale Husband said: In science, one can say that there is no evidence for leprechauns, a teapot in orbit around Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of my garden. But the moment you go from that to "There are NO leprechauns, a teapot in orbit around Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of my garden," you actually make an unscientific and dogmatic statement.

Dale Husband said:

mike kelly replied to comment from Dale Husband | June 23, 2010 3:01 AM | Reply | Edit I see no bigotry in either ithyic of truthspeaker. I do see you consistently trying to portray criticism of irrational belief as an attack on an irrational believer.

You don't see what you don't want to, based on your definition of irrational, no doubt.

Deen said: No, atheism is the lack of a belief in a God. That's all it is.

How you actually live your life is a more reliable indication of your true beliefs than any lies, hypocrisy or self-delusional claim you may make about your position. Evidence pwns testimony.

There aren’t any dogmatic atheists

And that is why religiously inclined and religiously influenced/retarded people are so terribly bad for society.

some few of us were born being naturally better at mental hygiene and never fell for the religious falsehoods promulgated by our families and societies.

eric said: You can believe in god and be an atheist, because ...

eric said: ... if you act rationally, you're really an atheist despite what you claim

Deen said: The assumption that the natural world is all there is a working hypothesis. It's a tentative conclusion following from the observations. Working from that assumption does not mean that you are not open to the possibility that you are wrong. It does not mean that you won't accept evidence to the contrary, if it ever is found. But until then, assuming that the universe is entirely physical in nature is perfectly rational - and likely more productive than assuming certain parts are non-physical (whatever that means).

Deen said:

Dale Husband said: Then show me where you actually said otherwise. Because I didn't see it.

You responded to it yourself, and thought it was "enlightened", remember? See here: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/06/in-defense-of-m.html#comment-220402

If you are an atheist (are you?)...

Yes I am.

...then you are also a philosophical materialist and thus my statement ("You and other atheists see all of reality as defined only by what you can detect physically.") stands.

No, it doesn't. Non sequitur. As I said, atheism is a lack of belief in God. This does not require philosophical naturalism. I do think that it is more likely that reality can be best explained by material causes rather than supernatural ones. But as I have said before, that is a tentative conclusion based on past experiences, and subject to change should new evidence present itself. It is not dogma or even a premise necessary for my world view.

If you deny being an atheist and philosophical materialist, then I will apologize for assuming you were. But if not an atheist and philosophical materialist, why defend his bigotry?

I don't deny being an atheist, am not a materialist as you understand it, but pretty close, and still expect an apology for attributing beliefs to me that I don't hold, and trying to blame others for it.

SEF said:

eric said: You can believe in god and be an atheist, because ...

... because (in the old-style version of atheism) Christians don't worship Thor or Zeus or Shiva. Ditto any other religious people who fail to worship the local deities that their accuser cared about.

eric said: ... if you act rationally, you're really an atheist despite what you claim

Strawman / misrepresentation. The original context for acting rationally was "when doing science" - because, at the time, the topic was all about whether or not theists render themselves incapable of science to some degree (through their variously wacky beliefs). Strangely enough (ie not!) the only theists capable of doing decent science, do so by assiduously ignoring their religion, ie carefully pretending to be atheists in their dealings with reality. However, since they aren't required to work around the clock, they have plenty of down-time in which to indulge their insane practices of cracker-worship and the like. However, it has also been common for people to lie about holding religious beliefs in order to gain/keep advantageous employment (eg Isaac Newton concealing his Unitarianism while at Trinity) and avoid being tortured or otherwise persecuted by the rabid religious extremist bigots controlling their society. It's a traditional joke that many high-ups in the UK clergy are/were actually atheistic. Lots of people self-identify as belonging to religions with which it turns out they don't even agree when questioned in detail - because they were ignorant of what they were supposed to believe (eg the formal tenets), too lazy to check, too dishonest to leave etc. So one definitely can't just believe what a theist says.

Senator Adley! There is no god. Pray all you want, it will avail you nothing. Instead of wasting your effort in making pleas to the nonexistent, go down to the beach with an eyedropper and a thimble, and pluck up a little globule of oil — and you will have accomplished more.

Senator Adley! I don't think there is a god. Pray all you want, it will most likely avail you nothing. Instead of wasting your effort in making pleas to God, go down to the beach and pluck up some oil....because even your religion indicates that God only helps those who help themselves too.

Sorry, forgot the link to P Z's blog entry. Here it is:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/louisiana_gives_up_on_the_gulf.php

faith

Dale Husband said: One should realize that methological naturalism while being devoutly religious is possible because most religions themselves say that one requires faith to beleive in them.

There's a difference between living my life as if I don't know whether there is a God or not and living it as if God doesn't exist or is irrelevant.

The former involves the necessary a priori belief that I don't know everything (a reflection that I would recommend), whereas the latter does not. It also involves the acceptance of the possibility that others whose lives I admire - Jesus, the Mahatma, Martin Luther King, Saint Francis of Asissi, Father Damien, yes, even Oliver Cromwell - might have known something that I don't, and have no way of reaching.

I don't know, you see.

Tulse said:

Dale Husband said: One should realize that methological naturalism while being devoutly religious is possible because most religions themselves say that one requires faith to beleive in them.

That is simply not true -- a religious person cannot be even a methodological naturalist about articles of faith that impinge on the natural world. Can a Mormon anthropologist be a methodological naturalist about DNA evidence of native American origins? Can a fundamentalist Christian biologist be a methodological naturalist about evolution? Can a Catholic physician be a methodological naturalist about a healing miracle proclaimed by the Church? (It's amusing that you give the worst examples of glaring exceptions to the rule. That's cherry picking. You actually didn't disprove the rule, otherwise there would be a lot fewer evolutionary biologists than there are. Show me evidence that every scientist who studies evolution must also deny all the Abrahamic faiths. Can you? If not, your argument has NO support. And if you fail to support it, I won't accept it.) The distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism will not save your position. SEF is quite right: "the only theists capable of doing decent science, do so by assiduously ignoring their religion". (You left out the rest of his quote, where he claimed they pretend to be atheists while doing their science work. They do no such thing. That he would say that shows he understands neither methological naturalism nor the concept of faith in religion. It's never about pretending to be anything, but about following certain rules known as the scientific method, regardless of one's personal beleifs.) Regarding Myers' statement, what if Senator Adley had proclaimed a belief in leprechauns? Should he have said "I don't think that there are leprechauns"? Would it really have offended you if he had simply said "There are no leprechauns"? (Irrelevant, since leprechauns [and Harry Potter] are not a religious issue and never have been, unlike God, angels, or Jesus. Get off that lame canard and stick to religion! The fact that you bring up such things shows your determination to hold on to the same extreme bias as P Z Myers. YOU think ALL religion is just fiction, but you have never proven that absolutely, have you?) Again, you are determined to make scientific claims into absolute "proofs", rather than statements of likelihood based on best understanding of the relevant theoretical and empirical issues. (I go by what you say at the start, not what you argue later when you get caught being dogmatic, and then you claim you are not really dogmatic. You won't catch me being so two-faced!) When I say "there is no god", it is similar to me saying "There is no wombat in my refrigerator". (That is the dumbest argument yet! Wombats and refrigerators are physical objects in the world. Gods are not. So you analogy simply does not apply.) I have not checked in the last 5 seconds to confirm that statement, but I refuse to say "I don't think that there is a wombat in my refrigerator" based on some sort of philosophical fastidiousness. (Is there a wombat in your refrigerator? How do you answer that question without peeking?)

Seriously, this argument would end forever if the atheists here simply admitted that their atheism is a dogma and that at least some of them are bigoted when it comes to judging religious concepts (and people). Since they won't do even that obvious point, why should I beleive anything they say, either about their own beliefs, or about others? I don't like being lied to, by anyone. Not religious leaders, not atheists either!

I can check to see if there's a wombat in my refrigerator. Can I check to see if there's a God within and without the Universe? No. Could I ever have? No.

There's a refrigerator in the local museum with a wombat in it - mind you, the wombat is dead, of course. I believe strongly that it was dead when it went into the refrigerator. So dead wombats can be found in some refrigerators. But is a dead wombat a wombat? Um... I don't know.

Is there something about being dead that removes the essential quality of wombatness, as well as life, from a wombat? Um... wouldn't that imply that there's something - oh, I don't know, let's call it "insubstantial" - about that essential quality? Oh, dear, we seem to be in the mires of metaphysics again.

No, no, we can't be having with that. Being dead only removes the quality of life, not of wombatness. So the dead wombat is a wombat still. (It's also a still wombat, but let's not go into that, either.)

So, the reasonable and rational response to the question, "Is there a wombat in your refrigerator?" is to get up and go see. And if you can't go see, as is the case with the question of "Is there a God?"? Why, it is to say, "I don't know."

Not, "No. Never. Can't be. I know this for sure." On account of, well, you don't.

And if not that, then certainly not "What kind of moronic/delusionary/demented/crazy person are you?" Which is kinda where we came in.

Tulse said:

Dale Husband said: One should realize that methological naturalism while being devoutly religious is possible because most religions themselves say that one requires faith to beleive in them.

That is simply not true -- a religious person cannot be even a methodological naturalist about articles of faith that impinge on the natural world. Can a Mormon anthropologist be a methodological naturalist about DNA evidence of native American origins? Can a fundamentalist Christian biologist be a methodological naturalist about evolution? Can a Catholic physician be a methodological naturalist about a healing miracle proclaimed by the Church? The distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism will not save your position. SEF is quite right: "the only theists capable of doing decent science, do so by assiduously ignoring their religion". Regarding Myers' statement, what if Senator Adley had proclaimed a belief in leprechauns? Should he have said "I don't think that there are leprechauns"? Would it really have offended you if he had simply said "There are no leprechauns"? Again, you are determined to make scientific claims into absolute "proofs", rather than statements of likelihood based on best understanding of the relevant theoretical and empirical issues. When I say "there is no god", it is similar to me saying "There is no wombat in my refrigerator". I have not checked in the last 5 seconds to confirm that statement, but I refuse to say "I don't think that there is a wombat in my refrigerator" based on some sort of philosophical fastidiousness. (Is there a wombat in your refrigerator? How do you answer that question without peeking?)

Dave Luckett said: There's a difference between living my life as if I don't know whether there is a God or not and living it as if God doesn't exist or is irrelevant. The former involves the necessary a priori belief that I don't know everything (a reflection that I would recommend), whereas the latter does not. It also involves the acceptance of the possibility that others whose lives I admire - Jesus, the Mahatma, Martin Luther King, Saint Francis of Asissi, Father Damien, yes, even Oliver Cromwell - might have known something that I don't, and have no way of reaching.

Dale Husband said: (It's amusing that you give the worst examples of glaring exceptions to the rule. That's cherry picking.

(Irrelevant, since leprechauns [and Harry Potter] are not a religious issue and never have been, unlike God, angels, or Jesus.

Get off that lame canard and stick to religion! The fact that you bring up such things shows your determination to hold on to the same extreme bias as P Z Myers. YOU think ALL religion is just fiction, but you have never proven that absolutely, have you?)

(That is the dumbest argument yet! Wombats and refrigerators are physical objects in the world. Gods are not. So you analogy simply does not apply.)

Seriously, this argument would end forever if the atheists here simply admitted that their atheism is a dogma and that at least some of them are bigoted when it comes to judging religious concepts

Dave Luckett said: I can check to see if there's a wombat in my refrigerator. Can I check to see if there's a God within and without the Universe? No. Could I ever have? No.

SEF said: Strangely enough (ie not!) the only theists capable of doing decent science, do so by assiduously ignoring their religion, ie carefully pretending to be atheists in their dealings with reality. However, since they aren't required to work around the clock, they have plenty of down-time in which to indulge their insane practices of cracker-worship and the like.

Tulse said:a religious person cannot be even a methodological naturalist about articles of faith that impinge on the natural world. Can a Mormon anthropologist be a methodological naturalist about DNA evidence of native American origins?

eric said: Mormons have been looking all over the new world for jewish settlements and they keep publishing archaeological papers about what they find: mayan, incan, etc...settlements. No jewish settlements. No claims of them. They keep publishing papers that are inconsistent with their own religious beliefs. Here's a whole page of such publications. They appear to do, in other words, exactly what you imply they can't do. Your hypothesis doesn't appear to match the evidence. So, what are you going to do? Modify your conclusion? Or claim your conclusion is right and there must be something wrong with the evidence?

Tulse said: I'm certainly willing to modify my conclusion if the authors themselves are concluding their religious beliefs are wrong (or, more accurately, that contrary to their religious claims there is no evidence of Jewish settlement in North America). Is that the case?

Can a Mormon anthropologist be a methodological naturalist about DNA evidence of native American origins?

eric said: And while my answer wasn't about DNA, its still highly relevant: yes a mormon athropologist can be a methodological naturalist about native American origins. Hundreds of published papers demonstrate that. You are simply wrong about religious people being unable to be methodological naturalists when the work involves a religious belief.

Dale Husband said: If you call that a statement of atheism, then atheism is really meaningless (calling it simply non-belief in God does not distinguish it from agnosticism).

I will apologize for that, but not for my later statements once his true intentions and position became obvious.

How can an obvious statement of truth be a non-sequitur? How can one ever deny being a philosophical materialist and also claim to be an atheist?

One more thing before I go: If atheism is merely "a lack of belief in God," (which would include me and other agnostics) then what do you call someone who asserts, as P Z Myers has done on his blog recently, that there is no God? I don't do that and I don't call myself an atheist either, because my definition of atheism (dogmatic denial of God's existence) excludes me.

PZ Myers said: But…but…none of the New Atheists claim to have a disproof of gods! We're all rather explicit in saying that we can't disprove every possible formulation of a deity, and we're not even going to try.

Seriously, this argument would end forever if the atheists here simply admitted that their atheism is a dogma and that at least some of them are bigoted when it comes to judging religious concepts (and people).

Tulse said: If the god you're interested in defending doesn't impact the physical world at all, then you're right, there is nothing that science can say about that. But why would one want to worship such a god?

Dave Luckett said: I can check to see if there's a wombat in my refrigerator.

Deen said:

Dave Luckett said: I can check to see if there's a wombat in my refrigerator.

And what if I state that the wombat is only there when you aren't looking?

Dave Luckett said: Maybe because the God has non-physical impacts that are discernable to the religious,

or maybe impacts that can't be quantified, measured and weighed, stretched out on a dissecting table, or seen in any kind of glass, however darkly?

Tulse said: I'll repeat: have any of those Mormon archeologists (or biologists) declared that their religious beliefs are in fact wrong regarding this issue? If not, how is that being a methodological naturalist?

eric said: Because they take empirical data and use scientific method to arrive at defensible, reproducible and confirmable results.

Its what they do at the dig site that matters for methodological naturalism.

Tulse said: No, it is also the inferences they draw and communicate in their research.

Methodological naturalism does not end with data collection.

Dave Luckett said: Or maybe like a particle, where you can't know both its position and its velocity, because the nature of the Universe defeats it.

Tulse said:

eric said: And while my answer wasn't about DNA, its still highly relevant: yes a mormon athropologist can be a methodological naturalist about native American origins. Hundreds of published papers demonstrate that. You are simply wrong about religious people being unable to be methodological naturalists when the work involves a religious belief.

I'll repeat: have any of those Mormon archeologists (or biologists) declared that their religious beliefs are in fact wrong regarding this issue? If not, how is that being a methodological naturalist?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism atheism 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

eric said: When they find mayans, they report mayans. When they find incans, they report incans. They don't publish that they find jews when they don't find them - which is 100% of the time so far. That's methodological naturalism (MN).

Again, I think you're conflating MN with PN. Let me ask you - how would a scientist that is an MN but not a PN act like, for you? How would you distinguish the two? Someone who does all the science exactly right, but believes something extra on the side seems like a pretty apt description of such a person to me.

Tulse said:

eric said: When they find mayans, they report mayans. When they find incans, they report incans. They don't publish that they find jews when they don't find them - which is 100% of the time so far. That's methodological naturalism (MN).

Methodological naturalism would also cause them to conclude that the evidence does not support their religiously-based claim of Jewish migration. (Indeed, it would, just as the evidence would not support that there are gods who live on Mt. Olympus, yet a person who beleives in the existence of such gods would still be a methological naturalist as long as he does not actually climb the mountain and find no gods there. Only then would the existence of the gods be disproved, and thus one would no longer have a reason to beleive in the ancient Greek gods. Beleif in the God of Abrahamic religions has persisted to this day because, unlike the Greek gods, he is not said to live in a specific place, to be made of the same substance as the universe he created, or that there is any other way to absolutely disprove his existence. Personally, I think Mormonism is a rediculous load of crap, but I freely admit that to be my BELIEF, not an objective fact, just as there is no objective way to prove that the migration of Jews to the New World before the time of Jesus never happened. All you can do is say it hasn't been disproven. And thus one can still have faith in Mormonism, at least until another religion or non-religious viewpoint displaces it in one's mind.)

Again, I think you're conflating MN with PN. Let me ask you - how would a scientist that is an MN but not a PN act like, for you? How would you distinguish the two? Someone who does all the science exactly right, but believes something extra on the side seems like a pretty apt description of such a person to me.

If the "belief on the side" is contrary to the objective evidence they themselves have collected, then no, that would not be philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is an ontological commitment, the stance that the only things that can exist are natural entities. Methodological naturalism is an epistemological commitment, that one will only accept naturalistic evidence and hypothesize naturalistic processes to explain the natural world (i.e., when doing science). One cannot be a consistent methodological naturalist and allow for things like miraculous ancient Jewish migration to the New World, especially in the face of contrary evidence. (No evidence is not the same as contrary evidence.) I am not a philosophical naturalist. I think that Deism is indeed an internally consistent position, and although I think it is unnecessary and offers no real explanation, nonetheless it cannot be ruled out. My only commitment is to methodological naturalism, and even there I would argue that the commitment is to methodological rationalism -- I do not rule out that the supernatural might exist, but if it does it can be studied using the same rational methods as the natural world. Does that clarify things?

Dale Husband said: Of course they wouldn't! If they did, they wouldn't be Mormons anymore. But why should they be expected to go from "There is no known evidence yet for ancient Hebrew settlements in the New World," to "Mormonism is false."?

Tulse said:

Dave Luckett said: Maybe because the God has non-physical impacts that are discernable to the religious,

And those impacts would not involve their brain, and not be (at least in principle) detectable via some physical means?

Can you offer an example of such impacts? They would, of course, have to both a) violate our current understanding of physical laws, yet b) not be seen as violating such laws (since they can't be quantified/measured/etc.). I'm not even sure if such a notion is coherent -- perhaps you have a possibility I hadn't considered.

Dave Luckett said:

Tulse said: And those impacts would not involve their brain, and not be (at least in principle) detectable via some physical means?

No, not necessarily. God is immaterial, by definition. What would lead you to expect that He must necessarily have some material effect that can be reliably demonstrated empirically?

Other, that is, than a philosophical belief that all things must necessarily have such effects? That He can have such effects follows from His omnipotence.

religious people have told me that they have experienced - in a purely subjective sense - the sensation of the presence and imminence of God, accompanied by a sense of awe that is, they say, separate from the circumstances of the time.

But while I readily acknowledge that a belief in God is not a necessary thing, is not supported by objective evidence, and is not a parsimonious explanation for the Universe, I can't deny the possibility.

Tulse said:

Dale Husband said: Of course they wouldn't! If they did, they wouldn't be Mormons anymore. But why should they be expected to go from "There is no known evidence yet for ancient Hebrew settlements in the New World," to "Mormonism is false."?

I didn't suggest that they should say "Mormonism is false", just that they should say "The specific Mormon religious claim that ancient Jews migrated to the New World is false." This is what any non-Mormon scientist would say based on the evidence (even scientists who are from other Christian sects).

Tulse said:

Dave Luckett said:

Tulse said: And those impacts would not involve their brain, and not be (at least in principle) detectable via some physical means?

No, not necessarily. God is immaterial, by definition. What would lead you to expect that He must necessarily have some material effect that can be reliably demonstrated empirically?

So you're suggesting that such a god would give people sensations and experiences without changing their brain state? So, for example, if we put these people into a brain scanner while they were having these experiences, it wouldn't show any activity associated with things like sensations and experiences? Wouldn't the very lack of activity that is normally correlated with sensations in the natural world be exactly an empirically demonstrable effect? You can't have it both ways -- either a god intervenes through natural means, and thus is indistinguishable from natural means and is therefore an unneeded explanation, or a god intervenes via violations of natural laws, violations which are in principle detectable. Or, put more simply, a god that acts undetectably isn't different from no god at all. Above I explicitly stated that I can't deny the possibility of a Deistic god. But the possibility of a god that intervenes in the physical universe is no more possible than leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting Jupiter or fairies at the bottom of my garden or wombats in my fridge. The probability for each of these things is so low that I feel comfortable saying "They don't exist".

Tulse said: So you’re suggesting that such a god would give people sensations and experiences without changing their brain state? So, for example, if we put these people into a brain scanner while they were having these experiences, it wouldn’t show any activity associated with things like sensations and experiences? Wouldn’t the very lack of activity that is normally correlated with sensations in the natural world be exactly an empirically demonstrable effect?

And other people have reported those exact same sensations (a feeling of the imminence of the divine) under drugs, or other conditions. Why should we presume that the situations are materially different?

Above I explicitly stated that I can’t deny the possibility of a Deistic god.

But the possibility of a god that intervenes in the physical universe is no more possible than leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting Jupiter or fairies at the bottom of my garden or wombats in my fridge. The probability for each of these things is so low that I feel comfortable saying “They don’t exist”.

Have you guys noticed that the one who started all this hateful, bigoted, arrogant crap, truthspeaker, no longer comes around? It seems like he got what he wanted, a lot of $#it stirred for his own entertainment, and then ran away when he finally realized he couldn't verbally beat everyone else into total submission with his extremist anti-religious trolling.

GOOD RIDDANCE!

Have you guys noticed that the one who started all this hateful, bigoted, arrogant crap, truthspeaker, no longer comes around?

the reason is that honest people get bored with your constant lies.

truthspeaker is a regular feature on other sites, where folks like yourself are rightly lumped with creationists.

...not because you think the world is 6k yr old, but because you employ the same level of dishonesty in your arguments.

I'm ashamed that the others on this site refuse to smack you down for it, simply because they think your "tone" is better, when in fact it isn't even that.

sad.

Dale Husband said: ... then ran away ...

Dale Husband said: ... he couldn't verbally beat everyone else into total submission ...

Dale Husband said:

Tulse said: I didn't suggest that they should say "Mormonism is false", just that they should say "The specific Mormon religious claim that ancient Jews migrated to the New World is false." This is what any non-Mormon scientist would say based on the evidence (even scientists who are from other Christian sects).

That's just hairsplitting and won't take you far.

It wouldn't occur to them to ever say anything about ancient Hebrews in the New World

They don't try to debunk or prove their own religious teachings; they simply don't consider them as part of their research program, period.

Tulse said: Above I explicitly stated that I can't deny the possibility of a Deistic god. But the possibility of a god that intervenes in the physical universe is no more possible than leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting Jupiter or fairies at the bottom of my garden or wombats in my fridge. The probability for each of these things is so low that I feel comfortable saying "They don't exist".

So you admit to being dogmatic, then? You have a problem with people having faith based on no evidence, then you say you would make a statement of faith based on no evidence??? How confusing!

Like you, I can beleive in a God who sets the physical laws that run the universe and never violates them. That's not the same as beleiving in no God.

Dave Luckett said: I am stating flat out that if there is a God, He is by definition not bound by what you or I regard as empirical evidence and demonstration. He isn't subject to our investigations. He doesn't obey our rules.

But the possibility of a god that intervenes in the physical universe is no more possible than leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting Jupiter or fairies at the bottom of my garden or wombats in my fridge. The probability for each of these things is so low that I feel comfortable saying “They don’t exist”.

Excellent. I am glad you are comfortable with that. Are you prepared to allow me to be comfortable - or uncomfortable, for that matter - with "I don't know"?

No, I didn't propose that God is not bound by intrinsic logic - pace Aquinas. I argued that the tests you propose - studying brain scans when in a state of religious ecstacy, whatever - aren't going to find Him. Nor will any test, nor should you expect that He should be. He isn't to be tested.

Why has He got to be P or not-P? He can use natural laws, but is not bound by them. He can do both. Why not? He's God, isn't he?

As for leprechauns, etcetera, I don't think they exist. I don't think God exists - if I did, I'd be praying and worshipping. I guess the reason I'm prepared to give a little more room to Him - or at least, a little more flexibility to the question of His existence - than to leprechauns, etc, is that they are trivial, and God isn't.

And alas, when it comes right down to it, I'm sorry you're not happy about my differentiating between them, but it suits me, and I think I'll keep on doing it anyway.

Dave Luckett said: I argued that the tests you propose - studying brain scans when in a state of religious ecstacy, whatever - aren't going to find Him. Nor will any test, nor should you expect that He should be. He isn't to be tested.

And alas, when it comes right down to it, I'm sorry you're not happy about my differentiating between them, but it suits me, and I think I'll keep on doing it anyway.

Ichthyic said: Have you guys noticed that the one who started all this hateful, bigoted, arrogant crap, truthspeaker, no longer comes around? the reason is that honest people get bored with your constant lies. What lies? You are assuming that calling atheism a dogma is lying, eh? Decades ago, I read in a dictionary that atheism was "The belief that there is no God." Now I find atheists here claiming that atheism is "being without belief in God." If you seriously think those two statements are identical, I have just as much right to call you delusional as truthspeaker called all religious beliefs delusional. It's obvious that atheists have recently broadened the meaning of atheist and atheism to swell their appearant ranks and make atheism look more "tolerant" than most religions. Your calling me dishonest is a pot insulting a kettle, I think. truthspeaker is a regular feature on other sites, where folks like yourself are rightly lumped with creationists. More delusional extremism, I see. ...not because you think the world is 6k yr old, but because you employ the same level of dishonesty in your arguments.And I can call you a liar for saying that. What goes around comes around. I'm ashamed that the others on this site refuse to smack you down for it, simply because they think your "tone" is better, when in fact it isn't even that. What's stopping you from doing it? And why should you think your "tone" is any better than mine? sad. I guess you can't handle determined debate with opponents who are not idiotic Creationists?

Tulse said: You're welcome to believe whatever and however you like, as long as I'm permitted to think whatever I like about your beliefs.

Dale Husband said: Decades ago, I read in a dictionary that atheism was "The belief that there is no God." Now I find atheists here claiming that atheism is "being without belief in God." If you seriously think those two statements are identical, I have just as much right to call you delusional as truthspeaker called all religious beliefs delusional. It's obvious that atheists have recently broadened the meaning of atheist and atheism to swell their appearant ranks and make atheism look more "tolerant" than most religions. Your calling me dishonest is a pot insulting a kettle, I think.

Dale Husband said: Have you guys noticed that the one who started all this hateful, bigoted, arrogant crap, truthspeaker, no longer comes around? It seems like he got what he wanted, a lot of $#it stirred for his own entertainment, and then ran away when he finally realized he couldn't verbally beat everyone else into total submission with his extremist anti-religious trolling. GOOD RIDDANCE!

You know, one thing I've never seen anyone do is demonstrate why believing any of the supernatural aspects of religion (in other words, the stuff PZ Myers, and Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, and Jerry Coyne, and Thunderf00t, and pretty much every atheist I'm familiar with objects to) is a good thing. Because when asked what's good about religion, it seems that people inevitably cite things like charities and maintaining a sense of community, and not things like the Resurrection or how Moses parted the Red Sea.