…and this is a 
Two idiots get a forum
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 26, 2007 9:02 PM, by PZ Myers
Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are two of the very dumbest creationists you will find — and they were upset at the Blasphemy Challenge, so they demanded a chance to debate. And of course, since they are the dumbest, most inane, silliest creationists around, television executives jumped at the chance.
ABC loved the idea, and will host a debate in New York City on May 5, 2007. Moderated by Martin Bashir, the debate will be streamed LIVE on their website and will also be filmed for "Nightline."
It's not at all clear who they are going to debate—there's nothing about it on Brian Flemming's weblog, nor is it mentioned on the Rational Response Squad page. Perhaps they will debate each other?
Cameron ("Growing Pains" sitcom and Left Behind movies) will speak on what he believes is a major catalyst for atheism: Darwinian evolution. The popular actor stated, "Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory. The issue of intelligent design is extremely relevant at the moment. Atheism has become very popular in universities--where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings. Cameron will also reveal what it was that convinced him that God did exist.
Yeah, right. The child-star of a pathetic sit-com is an expert on biology. Tying evolution to school shootings in this little précis tells me precisely how competent his argument will be. Of course, he's a genius next to Comfort.
"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," Comfort added, "but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.
Uh, the guy who thinks a banana is evidence for God is calling atheism an intellectual embarrassment?
I don't want to watch this laughable piece of junk, but I'm going to have to insist that everyone who called Dawkins' The God Delusion a poor examination of the legitimate and credible philosophy behind belief in a deity ought to be required to sit through it all, and then write a ten-page essay explaining why the Comfort/Cameron rationale really doesn't count as a representation of real Christian belief. You heard me, people. This is your alternative. Take it like good little apologists and suffer.
Comments
Yep, nothing proves Dawkins' points better than these idiots and the masses of people who think like them. Sadly, I'd rather Dawkins were wrong about this, and that most people believed in the absent, politically indifferent transcendental God that can't be talked about espoused by so many theologians.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | April 26, 2007 9:10 PM
I think they should debate a banana on why it is/isn't evidence for god.
My money goes on the banana for the win.
Posted by: John F | April 26, 2007 9:17 PM
This is rather weird. One comment with respect to Dawkins is that he focuses on a stunted and limited view of religion.
Now I'm not sure that this is a valid criticism. I don't think that more "sophisticated" theologians (supposedly) have anything really interesting to offer. To the extent that they can avoid Dawkins' criticisms, they also seem to set up a God that is hardly worthy of the name and has little to do with the religious beliefs Christians in the pews at church. Paul has pointed this out before, and I think it is a pertinent and valid response, and justification of the value and validity of Dawkin's criticisms of religion.
But on the other hand, it is a blisteringly stupid response to single out two of the absolutes dumbest Christians around and hold this up as some kind of valid response to the charge that Dawkins is focussing on a limited view of religion. It seems more like a simple confirmation that you are picking easy targets.
That is my fundamental criticism of Paul's strident anti-religion comments. It's not that I think he should be quiet about atheism, or about criticism of religion. It's not even that I think it's bad thing to be stridently opposed to religion.
It's quite simply that Paul occasionally becomes flatly stupid when he gets stuck into this topic.
It's a pity. I'm a big fan of Paul's writings, which I have been following and enjoying with interest for years -- from long before Pharyngula was started. I still am. But sometimes he gets carried away and his usual sharp incisive intelligence gets replaced with dumb-as-post material like this.
Oh well. Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | April 26, 2007 9:21 PM
I already know the outcome of this debate.
Jesus will win.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
Is there any chance that some (just some) people aren't really the product of evolution? Either that, or intelligence isn't really an adaptive trait. Maybe reason and religion are both two separate misfirings of the brain?
Posted by: andyo | April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
So am I.
Posted by: Sophist | April 26, 2007 9:23 PM
I hope someone throws a plantain at Comfort during the debate.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 26, 2007 9:26 PM
...
...
Well, criminy. With such a stunning bit of news, you'd think they'd tell us who this earth-shaking debate will feature on the atheist side. With two such powerhouses of Christianity, it's gotta be ... well, somebody really, really, REALLY important. Perhaps at last we leaderless and confused atheists will know who the Messiah of Atheism really is.
Heh, heh. And "I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists." Can't wait to see THAT. Probably be attested to by a panel of independent Christian judges, too.
This part really gets me:
Once again, a godder unwittingly uses the language of RELIGION to slam science. Obviously, as he uses the terms, "blind faith" is BAD. If it's "preached," it's BAD. If it's preached with "religious zeal" it's BAD. If it's presented as "the gospel truth," it's BAD.
I realize this is part of the Big Lie technique, but still, it's fascinating that the worst possible words they can come up with to slam evolution are deeply and completely from the language of religion.
Without realizing it, the guy really is saying "Evolution is every bit as stupid and dogmatic and WRONG as the stuff *I* believe."
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 26, 2007 9:30 PM
PZ isn't singling out Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, ABC is. It's all well and good to wave your hand towards some more interesting targets over thataway, but these are the ones getting shoved in our collective face at the moment.
Posted by: Sophist | April 26, 2007 9:30 PM
Scientist:
Creationist:
Posted by: John Marley | April 26, 2007 9:31 PM
I will ask who is more popular, has a wider following, gets more promoted, and rakes in more money: Plantinga (to pick a random apologist for religion who is often cited in these arguments), or Ray Comfort?
This absolutely is not a matter of picking on the easy targets. It's a matter of picking on the most threatening and most widely held positions. What's astonishing is how closely correlated the stupidity of an argument is with its popularity. Now you'd be right to argue that targeting Plantinga would be more challenging, but I contend that if we utterly vaporized Plantinga, if we convinced everyone in the world that his claims were completely bogus, we'd find that they were also completely irrelevant. The fans of Comfort and Cameron are not exercising their brains in contemplation of sublime theology.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 26, 2007 9:34 PM
Chris Ho-Stuart,
But on the other hand, it is a blisteringly stupid response to single out two of the absolutes dumbest Christians around and hold this up as some kind of valid response to the charge that Dawkins is focussing on a limited view of religion.
I think it's your comment that's blisteringly stupid. Do please cite the non-dumb Christians you think PZ ought to be singling out instead of Cameron and Comfort. Remember, this alternative must be a Christian who defends a version of Christianity as it is popularly understood and practised by its adherents, not merely an obscure academic defending an abstract philosopher's God that has nothing much to do with the God of the Bible. Who do you suggest? The Pope? Pat Robertson? Ted Haggard?
Posted by: JasonR | April 26, 2007 9:36 PM
Where's the real Chris H-S and who are you? I know that you have been around for a while, so you must realize that PZ hasn't changed much since far before the time that I became one of the Sycophants. When did he not ridicule the dumbest of the Creationists?
I can visualize you shaking your head in paternal disappointment as I read this, and it baffles me. I just want to check; when you refer to "Paul" in your post, are you referring to PZ?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | April 26, 2007 9:49 PM
Chris Ho-Stuart, please, do explain why it is that the likes of Cameron and Comfort are getting held up as being exemplary representatives of Christian theology on ABC. Surely PZ didn't have anything to do with that.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 26, 2007 9:51 PM
I hear time and again from these dumbfzzks that they represent Xianity, and no one from the Xian community disputes this. Well as far as I'm concerned, silence = consent. Therefore I think that they're fair targets for PZ's comments. I would welcome any explanation otherwise.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | April 26, 2007 10:03 PM
I spent a lot of time as an undergraduate student and as a graduate student. I work at a university. I don't ever remember being in a single class that taught there were no moral absolutes. Are there universities out there where Moral Relativism 101 is mandatory for freshmen or something?
Posted by: Narc | April 26, 2007 10:05 PM
@14:
"Chris Ho-Stuart, please, do explain why it is that the likes of Cameron and Comfort are getting held up as being exemplary representatives of Christian theology on ABC. Surely PZ didn't have anything to do with that."
Indeed. We're not picking the 'stars' of their movement; THEY are. There are crazy crackpots in the scientific world, too, but they're marginalized and for the most part ignored. The religious folk who argue about science, on the contrary, seem to think that being sane or making an ounce of sense is completely irrelevant as a qualification to be a spokesperson for their movement, which tells you tons about their movement.
Posted by: gg | April 26, 2007 10:08 PM
I got no problem with you guys picking on Cameron and Comfort. Where PZ goes stupid is not in singling these guys out for criticism! Long may PZ keep this up, and hold the toes of morons to the fire.
The point where PZ went stupid is where he suggests that those who criticise Dawkins for picking on easy targets should examine this case and write a ten page essay on it. Uh, hello? These guys ARE the easy targets.
Paul's final paragraph in this article is a classic case where he goes wildly off the rails and into the absurd. Follow carefully, and don't mistake what I am saying.
Step 1. Dawkins makes a strong criticism of religion. It IS a strong criticism, and it is a very effective and telling demolition of the kind of stupidity shown by ratbags like Cameron and Comfort.
Step 2. Some people have suggested that Dawkins is "poor examination of the legitimate and credible philosophy behind belief in a deity". Is that true, or not? Well, it hangs on whether or not there is some other legitimate and credible philosophy behind the belief in a deity or not, doesn't it?
Step 3. Suggesting that people making this argument should write essays on Comfort and Cameron is stupid, stupid, stupid. The claim being made by these critics of Dawkins is not in the slightest conflict with the demonstration that popular religion is full of ratbags like Cameron and Comfort. It is that there are OTHER cases where belief in a deity is more credible; and which is (allegedly) untouched by Dawkins' book.
Clear?
You don't have to look far for Paul's complete pointless request for a ten-page essay on why Comfort and Cameron fail to represent real Christian belief. They are certainly one form of Christian belief - a particularly stupid one - but most of the major churches tend to disavow this kind of extreme creationism. Thus Cameron and Comfort are not generally representative, but rather a limited data point not in dispute. Paul's request for a ten-page essay could be met by a cut and paste from the statements by the governing bodies of many churches, as can be found at places like Voices for Evolution.
JasonR asks me who Paul should be singling out.
He should be singling out Cameron and Comfort. What he should NOT be doing is suggesting that critics of Dawkins are being refuted by such folks.
Look, we all know that there's a big problem within popular religion. But the abstract theologians you decry as so obscure do also have their fans in popular religion as well. I'm not a Christian or a church goer myself; but I have friends and family in the church. And I see them reading and discussing folks like Crossan, Polkinghorne, Spong, Robinson, and a host of others. A good example for we evolutionists to reflect upon would be Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Now you can argue as to whether or not these guys have a coherent defense of theism, or even a consistent perspective of theism. That's fine; engage that debate if you want. I would prefer that you continue with the good work of holding up Comfort and Cameron for ridicule. Just don't pretend that this is any kind of coherent or intelligent response to the critics of Dawkins who want to suggest that there are other more credible examples of belief. Paul's article was fine - up to the last paragraph.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | April 26, 2007 10:14 PM
Stop feeding the trolls!!!
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 26, 2007 10:17 PM
If you've been reading PZ for so long, you should probably know he doesn't like to be called 'Paul'..,
Posted by: Nerull | April 26, 2007 10:24 PM
Comfort & Cameron will feel the bite of Zorb!
(Hume does the feeding)
Posted by: Gene Goldring | April 26, 2007 10:28 PM
Chris: The ten-page essay statement was humor.
Jeez.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 26, 2007 10:29 PM
Mmm. Well, I for one have never claimed that Dawkins' criticism of Christianity isn't representative, but I'd be willing to discuss Comfort and Cameron's theology here---if they actually do theology.
But, if their press release as quoted above is the substance of their argument, then I'm afraid there won't be much theology to discuss, just the usual creationist arguments. Creationism of the sort pushed by CC is, in and of itself, not so much a system of theology as it is a tortured exercise in retaining views consonant with a literal reading of parts of Genesis, and an exercise which is largely unorthodox with respect to its view of scripture.
That doesn't mean, of course, that it might not be very representative of a significant chunk of Christianity. Who knows? Maybe I can rip them both at some sort of local follow-up to the proposed broadcast. We'll see!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | April 26, 2007 10:31 PM
I hope no one accepts the 'challenge' to debate them, it should be treated like the Kansas Board of Education hearing...just stay away. That will give the two of them more time to did themselves a little deeper anyway. Maybe they will reveal how belly-button fuzz is proof of a god. It's impossible to debate someone who has the god-card up their sleeve and can pull it out to override everything you just said.
Posted by: Cat's Staff | April 26, 2007 10:32 PM
From the Xtian Newswire Link: Comfort continued, "there is something more sinister here than a few people not believing in God.... Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi?"
As blasphemy is defined as defaming a god or gods, I don't think you could actually blaspheme Ghandi. Unless there's a serious Mahatma cult out there I don't know about. Which is possible, I do live in Wisconsin.
Posted by: Mick | April 26, 2007 10:32 PM
I'll bet they debate Fergie and the Black Eyed Peas. Or maybe Outkast.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | April 26, 2007 10:33 PM
@18:
"Just don't pretend that this is any kind of coherent or intelligent response to the critics of Dawkins who want to suggest that there are other more credible examples of belief."
I didn't really take that interpretation out of PZ's last paragraph. If he was really trying to defend Dawkins at all, instead of just making a sarcastic comment that the religious apologists should have to suffer through Kirk's ramblings, I take away the following:
We all know that ANY political or social movement, no matter how good it is, has its share of nutjobs. As I mentioned above (@17), science has its share of idiots; the strength of science is that they tend to be marginalized and ignored.
On the flip side, ANY political or social movement, no matter how depraved, will have a few members who will transcend the limitations of the movement and shine. The Soviet Union produced many fine artists and musicians, in spite of its strong suppression of individual expression.
Back to religion, if 99.9% of the 'true believers' are dangerous radicals, focusing your attention on that 0.1% who manage to have strong faith and not go crazy doesn't really make a convincing argument that religion is good - in fact, it really demonstrates the opposite. PZ correctly points out that evidently most of the 'true believers' are paying attention to Comfort and Cameron - doesn't that make them the representatives of religious faith?
Posted by: gg | April 26, 2007 10:35 PM
The critics of Dawkins are being refuted because Dawkins explicitly spells out that he is targeting the popular, supernatural god, so all the critics who complained that he didn't address Polkinghorne or Spong are as silly as some who'd whine that he didn't address the popularity of cricket.
Now I know you're in Australia, so perhaps you aren't as familiar with what's going on in my little country as some of us are, but this comment -- "most of the major churches tend to disavow this kind of extreme creationism" -- has no relationship to reality. It doesn't matter what they tepidly disavow, they turn a blind eye to what's actually going on. There are a great many Catholics here, for instance, who argue against evolution. There are a dozen weird little sects in every town that actively campaign against evolution. The Southern Baptists, no minor religion here, are adamantly anti-evolution. In my town I know of one solidly liberal church, many of the university faculty attend it and so I know many of its members have sensible ideas about science, but I have never seen that church take a stand against the anti-science sentiment so plainly stated by the others.
The point of my last paragraph is very simple. There are a lot of people who treat Dawkins as the enemy, and this strange complaint that he didn't address some particular, more difficult form of religious thought is the most common excuse. That's nonsense. The enemy is idiocy like that of Comfort...and who is going to chastise Ray and Kirk with their flouting of Crossan and Dobzhansky? Anyone? Would they care? Will certain sciencebloggers who took the knout to Dawkins over their offended sensibilities at his book (even when many of them hadn't even read it) expend even a tenth of the effort rebuking Comfort that they put into howling at the damned atheists?
Of course not.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 26, 2007 10:38 PM
Chris Ho-Stuart,
You still don't seem to get it. If they're fans of the abstract God of obscure academics, they are not adherents of "popular religion." They may still go to a church. They may still call themselves "Christian." They may still go through some of the motions. That doesn't make them Christians in any traditional or popular sense of the word.
As for Polkinghorne and Crossan, they are certainly adherents of traditional Christian doctrines. Polkinghorne's high-church Anglicanism is no less dumb than Cameron's populist evangelism. You can't add wisdom to irrationality and wishful thinking by dressing it up in the language of an Oxford Don.
Posted by: JasonR | April 26, 2007 10:40 PM
Posted by: arensb | April 26, 2007 10:48 PM
What is really worrying is that some of these idiots actually believe what they are saying.
Posted by: Steven | April 26, 2007 10:56 PM
Ah, but Pascal was an esteemed French mathematician and philosopher, so we're supposed to pretend that his Wager has some intellectual merit as an argument for religious belief, rather than being the same kind of rank stupidity that we get from evangelical American Christians like Cameron.
Posted by: JasonR | April 26, 2007 10:58 PM
Anyone who hasn't watched The Way of the Master's full length episodes on evolution and atheism is in for a treat.
The stupid...it burns!!!
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 26, 2007 10:59 PM
It's a pity. I'm a big fan of Paul's writings, which I have been following and enjoying with interest for years -- from long before Pharyngula was started. I still am. But sometimes he gets carried away and his usual sharp incisive intelligence gets replaced with dumb-as-post material like this.
chris ho-stuart, epitome of the concern troll.
*yawwwwwwwnnnnn*
why does anybody pay attention to this guy again? he posts essentially the same message every time he poots:
"gee wiz, i sure duz luv ol PZ, but he just shouldn't post things that disagree with the way i thinks."
gag.
really; go check out the bulk of his posts over the last few months and you'll see the exact same pattern. especially on any thread that mentions dawkins.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 26, 2007 11:05 PM
"Evolution go up, evolution go down. Tide rolls in, tide rolls out. Creationists go up, creationists go down." ...O'Reilly
Posted by: John Danley | April 26, 2007 11:13 PM
Seriously, is it perhaps time that scientists start holding press conferences to say "Hey!!! I grew up naively believing in Noah's ark, but now I see why that is stupid!!!! Where are the religionists willing to debate me!!!! I insist on a debate now!!"
Man, listening to people hem and haw about how Dawkins isn't "qualified" to speak about the vast history of religion, while bozos like these two claim to have useful opinions regarding biology is enough to make my ass explode.
Posted by: jbark | April 26, 2007 11:15 PM
Aw crap. My ass exploded.
Posted by: jbark | April 26, 2007 11:16 PM
like this, jbark?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flamethrower+Ass
or did you actually lose some cheek?
Posted by: ichthyic | April 26, 2007 11:39 PM
"Growing Pains" was a "pathetic sit-com"?
Bite your tongue, P.Z. Tracey Gold and Joanna Kerns were Teh Hot.
Posted by: Basharov | April 26, 2007 11:40 PM
@ #30
Darn, I was totally betting on "waterfall"....that one seems popular these days...
Perhaps it was the moment he got to be on TV again, and his agent exclaimed: 'There IS a god!".
Posted by: Protobiochemist | April 26, 2007 11:43 PM
But on the other hand, it is a blisteringly stupid response to single out two of the absolutes dumbest Christians around and hold this up as some kind of valid response to the charge that Dawkins is focussing on a limited view of religion. It seems more like a simple confirmation that you are picking easy targets.
Please, single out some genius. The Pope, for instance? Will he do? Mr. "No Limbo"?
Dawkins refutes them all with ease because they are all con artists.
Please, give us an example of an intelligent theologian. I'll show you someone who, no matter how fancy the arguments, ultimately fails to think straight.
The truth is, they are all easy targets because they all make the same frigging mistake: the can't stop picking at the idiotic god delusion inside their heads.
The snootier one (pointy hats, golden shepards crooks, massive fleecing operations) are just bigger con artists.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 26, 2007 11:47 PM
No; that's not nonsense.
I'm a fan of Dawkins, and I've got a whole bunch of his books, including The God Delusion.
I think his argument is an excellent refutation of those who deny evolutionary biology and who see the complexity of life as evidence for God. But I do think it becomes a bit weaker when extended to be a refutation of God in general. He basically argues that complex things arise from simpler beginnings (Ch 4) - which is true, that's what we see. But it is weak as a refutation of an allegedly complex being that has no beginning at all. If you take as a premise that "as on Earth, so in heaven", then ok; but that premise is in dispute as well. Dawkins explodes the idea that complexity of the living world is evidence for God. He's got some gaps to fill in the argument that the processes by which complexity arises in the natural world stand as evidence that God is improbable. IMO.
I don't believe in God either, and I have my own arguments that I find convincing. You can read them at Why I am a Strong Atheist. That link may not work for long; I am no longer at QUT. I'm surprised it's still there.
One of the criticisms of Dawkins is that his general argument against God is limited in scope to the easy targets. Now that criticism is debatable, I know. But the defense that Dawkins is aiming only at popular views won't stand. Dawkins does intend a sweeping refutation of theistic religion. See page 60 of Delusion; he's quite clear about it.
Is there a "more sophisticated" version of theism that is untouched by Dawkins' argument? Well, yes; Dawkins argument really doesn't do a thing to address the idea of a God that has always existed; unless you take as foundational some naturalistic premises about how things come to exist. Don't get me wrong, I also employ those naturalistic premises in my own metaphysics. But I recognize that they aren't used by everyone, and that if I want to actually refute God, or defend my strictly materialistic naturalism, then I need a case using some more basic premises shared by those I wish to persuade. I try to do that in my essay linked above. Whether I succeed or not I am content for readers to judge.
One point some people have made is that the advocates within the churches for beliefs that are consistent with evolution don't speak up enough. I agree. More should speak up, more often and more loudly. But some within the church are speaking up and trying to refute the idiocy of Comfort and Cameron and their ilk. One of our favorite examples is Ken Miller.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | April 26, 2007 11:49 PM
And why would one suppose that anything exists without a beginning? And that thing would be complex?
There are none- zero- they accomadate it because they know it's true. Their beliefs are not consistent with it in any way shape or form and some of the circles they dive throughto keep up appearances are as bad as Comfort and the gang except they vote the right way.
Posted by: Uber | April 26, 2007 11:55 PM
PZ said: In my town I know of one solidly liberal church, many of the university faculty attend it and so I know many of its members have sensible ideas about science, but I have never seen that church take a stand against the anti-science sentiment so plainly stated by the others.
In my church, which is in the South, issues like intelligent design and climate change are discussed from a scientific perspective. Spong, Borg and Crossan are among the best respected theologians. For Earth Day we had a roundtable led by a climate scientist and an ethicist about global warming. A few months ago there was a panel discussion about intelligent design - which was lead by scientists and, when it was announced by the pastor, she clearly identified ID as "a new form of creationism".
Posted by: Ian | April 27, 2007 12:03 AM
It's both entirely true, and precisely why Dawkins is so highly relevant (in the US, anyway). Most Americans - and especially those in control of the Republican party - do have a stunted and limited view of religion. Dawkins aims to break down those stunted and limited views of religion, and he does so at about a high-school or maybe freshman college level. That's appropriate; even among the book-buying population, it is not common to find a much more sophisticated understanding of religion. Nor are more sophisticated kinds of religion a significant danger, or influential in American politics.
Posted by: llewelly | April 27, 2007 12:04 AM
Chris Ho-Stuart said:
Dawkins argument really doesn't do a thing to address the idea of a God that has always existed...
Nor would he need to. Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Dawkins does a good job of destroying the reasons theists often put forth as justifying belief in god. I don't know why you think he would need to address beliefs offered without any justification at all. Those are dealt easily enough with a simple "nuh-uh."
Posted by: H. Humbert | April 27, 2007 12:04 AM
Chris Ho-Stuart,
He basically argues that complex things arise from simpler beginnings (Ch 4) - which is true, that's what we see. But it is weak as a refutation of an allegedly complex being that has no beginning at all. If you take as a premise that "as on Earth, so in heaven", then ok; but that premise is in dispute as well.
It's not weak at all. It's a rational conclusion from our knowledge and experience of the world. It is no answer to this to simply declare that things are different in Heaven.
Dawkins does intend a sweeping refutation of theistic religion.
That's right. He intends that and he does that. And yet you're faulting him for failing to address philosophical deism or metaphorical theism. Your criticism doesn't make any sense.
Dawkins argument really doesn't do a thing to address the idea of a God that has always existed;
Of course it does. Postulating that God has always existed doesn't rescue him from Dawkins' "ultimate 747" argument or his other arguments.
Posted by: JasonR | April 27, 2007 12:06 AM
jbark wrote: Seriously, is it perhaps time that scientists start holding press conferences to say "Hey!!! I grew up naively believing in Noah's ark, but now I see why that is stupid!!!! Where are the religionists willing to debate me!!!! I insist on a debate now!!"
Well, there's always Michael Shermer. Not actually a scientist, but close enough.
Posted by: Ian | April 27, 2007 12:06 AM
Ian,
In my church, which is in the South, issues like intelligent design and climate change are discussed from a scientific perspective.
What about, say, the idea that a 3-day-old decomposing corpse came back to life and ascended into heaven? Or how about the idea that human beings have an immaterial soul that survives the death of their body and that interacts with their body while they are alive to influence their behavior, and yet is undetectable by the methods of science, even in principle? Are those ideas also discussed from a scientific perspective in your church?
Posted by: JasonR | April 27, 2007 12:13 AM
"...a banana is evidence for God..."
"God is not a person out there in the sky overlooking human affairs. God is a field of consciousness that is set up for maximum diversity. And that includes the divine and diabolical, the sacred and the profane."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/18/cnr.06.html
Deepak Chopra after the Virginia Tech Shootings on CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyCwRsB_xf0Deepak Chopra
"t's the psychosis of the collective mind that thinks in terms of separation, alienation, humiliation, and rage. It's our collective shadow that projects as evil out there.
And, so, we begin with ourselves. We say, how can I add to the compassion in the world, to the love in the world? How can I participate in forgiveness? How can I bring healing to a personal relationship? And, if enough of us do that, and that reaches a critical mass in the world, that collective matrix of thought, then perhaps we will project a different world."
Posted by: PSR | April 27, 2007 12:24 AM
Anyone want to bet on whether Cameron blames Darwin for the Nazis and then links atheism to Nazis?
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 27, 2007 12:24 AM
Cameron and Comfort are not being singled out by PZ. They're not being singled out by ABC either. They volunteered.
Posted by: David Canzi | April 27, 2007 12:27 AM
I saw Ray on tv , his proof went along theses...
When you see a painting, you know there was a painter.
When you see a building, you know there was a builder.
Creation is proof of a creator.
Posted by: The quantum pancake | April 27, 2007 12:29 AM
Here's the correct link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyCwRsB_xf0
Deepak Chopra after the Virginia Tech Shootings on CNN
"It's the psychosis of the collective mind that thinks in terms of separation, alienation, humiliation, and rage. It's our collective shadow that projects as evil out there.
And, so, we begin with ourselves. We say, how can I add to the compassion in the world, to the love in the world? How can I participate in forgiveness? How can I bring healing to a personal relationship? And, if enough of us do that, and that reaches a critical mass in the world, that collective matrix of thought, then perhaps we will project a different world."
Posted by: PSR | April 27, 2007 12:29 AM
I meant,along these lines.
Posted by: The quantum pancake | April 27, 2007 12:34 AM
I think that all we are saying is if there are ant religious people out there that want science taught in schools and religion taught in church, why don't you stand up and shout down those fundies? Where are you? Why are you voting for this idiocy?
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | April 27, 2007 12:35 AM
When you see a painting, you know there was a painter.
When you see a building, you know there was a builder.
Creation is proof of a creator.
The teleological argument. Yawn. Doesn't he have any new material?
Posted by: JasonR | April 27, 2007 12:35 AM
If you take the exact opposite of what a creationist says to be the truth, you can actually learn an awful lot!
Posted by: The quantum pancake | April 27, 2007 12:42 AM
It is that there are OTHER cases where belief in a deity is more credible; and which is (allegedly) untouched by Dawkins' book.
No, there are not.
Every case of belief in a deity is incredible.
Say there's a continuum that runs from Cameron (thoughtless) to Dobzhansky (thoughtful).
There is no point on that continuum where arguments for God somehow becomes miraculously more sensible so that God begins to exist for real. It just doesn't happen.
It's baloney all the way down the line.
You can try to make distinctions between a Cameron and a Dobzhansky but after all is said and done, they are locked in an embrace that cements them together forever: they both say things about a "creator" or "god" that are clearly made up.
Dobzhansky: "the Creator has created the living world not by caprice (supernatural fiat) but by evolution propelled by natural selection."
Well, how the hell does he know that? The same way the banana guy knows God made non-slip bananas.
He doesn't. He has given free reign to a fantasy and, like every other god-intoxicated person who does this, the result is bullshit.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 27, 2007 1:29 AM
If there is to be a debate, perhaps we could put a quick-witted comedian up against these clowns. Frame the debate on favorable terms.
Posted by: bad Jim | April 27, 2007 1:41 AM
Yeah, right. The child-star of a pathetic sit-com is an expert on biology.
It's not merely that being a minor former celebrity doesn't make you an authority about anything. It's also that, unless the parents really put their foot down, formal education for "professional" children is tends to be rudimentary at best, the bare minimum that complies with local laws (and a wink and a nod when they don't). Many of them--including Cameron, apparently--come out of it appallingly ignorant and completely unprepared for college or adult life.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 27, 2007 1:54 AM
Check out this video on YouTube about Kirk Cameron's brain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3-4U81oXw
Posted by: MarcusA | April 27, 2007 2:26 AM
If it was all about the banana, I would so be up for it. I have little experience debating, but that's my field and I think they wouldn't have a chance.
It's hilarious how they declare that they have undeniable absolute proof for god... and all I've heard them talk about it how perfect the curvature of a human-bred banana is for going in their mouths.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | April 27, 2007 2:27 AM
Of course they're only going to debate one another.
They're both obviously master-debators.
Who else do they need?
On an offtopicish cant, I'm working on a Chick sendup on the dangers of Darwinism. Criticism welcome in the comments.
Don't be surprised if the "arguments" put forth there surface with IDiots eventually -- they're just as two-dimensional and cartoonish as Robby and Bobby.
Posted by: Warren | April 27, 2007 3:10 AM
Is PSR #50 #54 an OT Troll we should all ignore? He makes no sense.
Posted by: reason | April 27, 2007 3:52 AM
"Atheism has become very popular in universities--where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings."
That gets Cameron a special 'Reprehensible Ghoul' sticker. Hey, you never know, it might help hold his rusty car of an argument together...
Posted by: Chris | April 27, 2007 4:02 AM
Kirk Cameron guessed wrong, and will feel the wrath of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The afterlife's not all Parmesan and Marina for the unbelievers, my friend. He shall dine on dry breadsticks and wait for the waiter to bring him a glass of water forever!
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | April 27, 2007 4:13 AM
But will he be boiled gently for eight minutes in lightly salted water?
Posted by: The quantum pancake | April 27, 2007 4:43 AM
It's the Rational Response Squad (Brian and Kelly) that they'll be debating (oops! I meant proving God's existence to) on ABC.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 27, 2007 4:45 AM
"If there is to be a debate, perhaps we could put a quick-witted comedian up against these clowns. Frame the debate on favorable terms."
I would nominate Bill Hicks, but he's dead.
I guess David Cross would do.
Posted by: John | April 27, 2007 4:54 AM
No, then he'd be rubbery and listless. He needs to be al dente; that means a flash-simmer for about four minutes, after which he'd be blanched in cold water and then only reheated on demand.
Huh. Well, I guess that's his career, as it happens. So maybe we have to move on to flavor and spice for...
Heh heh, naaaaah. The boy is such a noodle.
Posted by: Warren | April 27, 2007 5:42 AM
From the link PZ himself provided:
He and Kirk Cameron (co-hosts of an award-winning Christian TV program) challenged the two originators of the "Blasphemy Challenge" to a debate on the existence of God.
Posted by: Gretchen | April 27, 2007 6:30 AM
"If there is to be a debate, perhaps we could put a quick-witted comedian up against these clowns. Frame the debate on favorable terms."
Great idea. I nominate Lewis Black. Now THAT I would watch.
Posted by: Carlie | April 27, 2007 6:36 AM
God = (sqrt) -1.
Debate terminus.
Questions?
Posted by: Warren | April 27, 2007 7:07 AM
#63, "human-bred banana"
No,No,No its the banana that has been manipulating humans.
http://www.amazon.com/Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-View-World/dp/product-description/0783896417
BTW the author's name is Michael Pollan. Pollan? come on now Pollan has to be pseudonym for pollen right? I tell you our squid overlords have all ready been beaten by the bananas, it's too late.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | April 27, 2007 7:23 AM
@Chris
With comment #18 and #42 you're well on your way to 10 pages. I think you can do it!
Good job!
Oh I'll probably watch solely for the humor. If it's anything like the other comedy skits I've seen them in it will be worth it. I, like many here, am curious who the other side will be. I hope ABC doesn't got the way of CNN and other news orgs and pick some unknown, vaguely knowledgeable proponent for the reason side.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 27, 2007 7:56 AM
People like Chris just don't like having to acknowledge that people like Cameron are on his team.
Absurd arguments for theism certainly don't invalidate reasonable and logical arguments for theism, no more than stupid arguments for atheism invalidate atheism.
So why don't you provide some of those reasonable and logical arguments, Chris?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 27, 2007 8:08 AM
I'd like to see Penn and Teller debate these guys. They might have to get bleeped on network TV, though.
BTW, it really is a good idea to let these people talk on TV, in the right setting. I finally got around to watching April 19th Daily Show with Frosty Hardison. He did a great job of proving how sound creation science is, yessirreebob!
Posted by: Alison | April 27, 2007 8:28 AM
Hi, Caledonian. I'm a strong atheist. I have said nothing about any good or reasonable argument FOR God. I don't know any arguments for God that I'd put in that category.
Cameron is not on my team in any sense at all.
What I have actually said here is that I think Dawkins' argument AGAINST God does not live up to its promise. In particular, I don't think it really deals with the notion of a God with no beginning. I'm not going to attempt that criticism here at any length. Suffice to say that to this extent I am a "critic of Dawkins". Although I like Dawkins a lot and own many of his books; I don't share his crusading antipathy to all forms of theism.
Some theists -- Miller, Dobzhansky, Polkinghorne, Borg, etc; plus many others less famous who share such views -- do believe in a personal God, do accept conventional mainstream science, and do have a consistent perspective, even though I don't share it. I don't think any of them have any good argument FOR their perspective.
What I object to here is the notion that critics of Da