…and this is a 
All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor
Category: Godlessness • Religion
Posted on: July 18, 2007 7:10 PM, by PZ Myers
Imagine you found a population in the US where the majority of the people believed that 2+2=5, and that attempts to correct them with the actual, correct result of adding two numbers were regarded as insults to their revered traditions. I think we'd all agree that they a) they were wrong; b) they were misled, misinformed, and miseducated; c) that they were ignorant of arithmetic; or d) might very well have been maliciously deceived by someone in their midst. Somehow, though, if the ridiculous error involves God, some people take a big step backwards and are appalled that anyone might criticize them. Those "revered traditions" become more than mere excuses, they are inviolate.
You guessed it, once again someone was aggravated that I have dared to call adherence to religious belief a case of being "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed." This time our indignant contestant is Mark A. R. Kleiman, who considers it atheistic bigotry to enumerate the reasons why people might come to absurd and erroneous conclusions. That 80-90% of this population, which is not hypothetical at all but is the entire US, believes that chanting their wishes into the sky might get them granted by a magic being, or that over half use the excuse of their religious dogma to reject the basic facts of modern biology, is something we must not question and especially must not criticize. Because it is religion, it must be respected.
Except, well, Kleiman has an out. There is a "childish" religion that can be criticized, but then there's this mature, adult religion that is "always metaphorical." He's not really defending those ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed religious kooks that believe the earth is 6000 years old or that we go to war in the Middle East to smite the wicked brown-skinned Muslims, oh no — those are the negligible, unrepresentative fringe elements. True Religious People™ know that everything in their religion is a metaphor. They don't really believe in an anthropomorphic god … why, that is only a symbol for "an infinite, omniscient, beneficent, immortal being".
This is ridiculous on two counts. One, talk to some real people sometime, willya? The majority of religious people in this country do believe in a completely non-metaphorical god, who acts non-metaphorically, who has non-metaphorical desires and plans, and who non-metaphorically wants their high school football team to win the championship, if they pray hard enough. This god of the rarefied nebulous metaphor is the product of theologians who've studied the subject long and hard enough to know that the god of the people is untenable nonsense, and must be cloaked in metaphor.
Two, there's no reason to believe in a metaphorical "infinite, omniscient, beneficent, immortal being," either. There is no evidence, no explanation, no mysteries which we need to fill with this superman — excuse me, superentity — of the supernatural, so why should saying that this silly concept is actually just a metaphor for that other silly concept salvage either one? It's a shell game: the abstract deity exists only as a distraction, a pawn to use to draw away attacks on the invisible man-god, and if we criticize the metaphor, the man-god can be mocked to let our theologian pretend to be sly and clever and just as skeptical as his interlocutor.
I have to wonder, too…if this god is a metaphor, why are people always building real monuments and cathedrals to him, and donating real money and effort to his worship? Why not just stay home on Sundays, watch football, and say you're metaphorically being religious? There's a real disconnect here: the institution of religion is not committed to a metaphor.
Kleiman also complains that my reason for stating my opinion is that I'm just trying to get the truth across — apparently, trying to hammer home that 2+2=4 means I have claimed possession of absolute knowledge of all. The only truth to which I hold here is that there is no god and no evidence for one. If someone wants to rebut that firm rock to which atheism is anchored, that's the idea they have to address. None do. And saying the absence of god can be replaced by a metaphor for god is dodging the issue.
After trying to undercut my argument with puffs of metaphorical smoke, Kleiman does ask an interesting and revealing question.
I've always wanted to ask someone like Meyers — or Dawkins, or Pinker — how much smarter he thinks he is than, let's say, Heraclitus or Socrates or Maimonides or Newton, who thought hard about religion and didn't dismiss it as nonsense.
Why would anyone think I regard myself as smarter than Newton? I think there are religious people who are much smarter than I am even now. I do not make the logical fallacy of believing that because people are wrong in one thing, religion, they are therefore wrong in all things; I don't believe that Christians are irreparably stupid or that their gullibility about god translates into some gross systemic defect in their entire ability to reason. I also do not equate "smartness" with "infallibility," and know that even certifiable geniuses like Newton can also believe fervently in erroneous matters … like alchemy or Christianity. It would be like noting that Mark Kleiman cannot spell "Myers" properly, therefore he is incompetent in all things and must be less intelligent than me, who can spell it correctly.
In fact, I might assume that he misspells it to goad me, and is therefore wicked; or that perhaps he is merely ignorant of the correct spelling, because he hadn't seen the word written out before; or that someone misled him and told him the wrong spelling; or perhaps he has grown up in a tradition of inserting a redundant "e" in the name and made the error unthinkingly. If I point that small error out, though, am I going to be accused of both bigotry and elitism in thinking that I must believe myself superior in all ways to Mr Kleiman? At least, that's the impression I get from his complaints.
Perhaps he should learn that poor ideas about a god should be as subject to rejection as poor spelling — even more so, since the latter is trivial and isn't going to drag us back into an age of superstition. This knee-jerk deference granted to religious absurdity, this belief in the sanctity of belief, is something that contaminates even good minds, and that's too bad.
(By the way, both Meta and Meta and Norm Doering noted this strange blind spot in Kleiman's reasoning, too.)
Comments
LLLLLET'S GET READY TO RRRRRUMBLE
Posted by: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short | July 18, 2007 7:21 PM
I need to write a little scipt to go back and capture refs to all my previous posts on this.... then I can save my fingers for more important things (like holding donuts)
I'm scared. I can't afford the time these idiots steal from my life!
Posted by: tony | July 18, 2007 7:25 PM
But wait. I've heard people who build sophisticated biological models claim that 2+2=5 for very large values of 2 and very small values of 5. Does this mean that I'm allowed to insult their revered traditions?
Posted by: Mark Powell | July 18, 2007 7:35 PM
It's not just traditional religion. I assert that if a significant majority of people believed 2+2=5, then public opinion would denigrate any criticism leveled at the belief.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 18, 2007 7:39 PM
"... Heraclitus or Socrates or Maimonides or Newton, who thought hard about religion and didn't dismiss it as nonsense."
Of course, it never occurs to folks who make such statements that those brillant people also lived at a time when there were huge gaps on our understanding of nature and the universe. They would be atheists today.
Posted by: divalent | July 18, 2007 7:45 PM
As they say here in NC, "Hurt dog always yelps the loudest." I have read with great interest, and no small amount of amusement, the complaints over the vociferous denunciation of magical thinking by Professor Myers, Mssrs. Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, and others, and I have to believe that the discomfort of the spiritual is a GOOD thing. The so-called extremist religionists (true religionists?) have been molly-coddled by the relative silence of their more moderate brethren for too long. It's time that the human species start choosing sides: that is, are we for reason, or for mysticism? Let the braying continue!
Posted by: Bobber | July 18, 2007 7:50 PM
PZ, you are only right in a math class way. And you have an image of religious people that smears their logic errors together with a suggestion of inescapable selfishness. Do you know how many consider prayer to be petitioning of a deity to grant wishes [which I agree wholeheartedly with you is dangerous and absurd] and how many consider it only a way to recognize how little is in their control...and still feel ok?
Be more thorough in your characterizations or you will get not only the feckless animosity of nitwits as you expect and enjoy, but of people who are just trying to locate themselves in the universe using far weaker tools than you possess.
Posted by: greensmile | July 18, 2007 7:52 PM
When I was a child I had a very strange image of "molly-coddling" that involved sponges, warm soapy water, and me naked...
Makes it *hard* for me to use or see the phrase now...
Posted by: tony | July 18, 2007 7:53 PM
This is the same argument I get all the time. I have a lot of "liberal" friends who are attached to a "moderate" view of religion. I tell them that they cannot confirm that their belief is true for other people. It's something they "feel" or "understand" through personal revelation. Because of that they have absolutely no right to criticize any other revealed truth. Because they would be invalidating their understand of revealed truth itself.
A "liberal" Catholic can't, by any theological argument, claim the Opus Die Catholics are crazy.
phat
Posted by: phat | July 18, 2007 7:55 PM
What does it mean to say, as Kleiman does, that the proposition "God exists" is a metaphor? And that all other non-childish religious thinking and writing is metaphor? Metaphor for what? He just doesn't seem to have any clear idea of what he's trying to say.
Posted by: Jason | July 18, 2007 7:55 PM
Tony: Depends on if Molly is doing the sponging, eh? : )
Posted by: Bobber | July 18, 2007 7:56 PM
I recently came across this text of a speech titled "Is there an Artificial God?" by Douglas Adams:
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
He takes a long road to get to:
Which I take to mean that groups of people create these artificial gods as a way of moderating our interactions. But, like the fiction of money, it requires a buy-in from everyone to make it all work. And people don't like the faith in the fiction challenged because it upsets the social order.
So I guess we're in a transitional stage where the old artificial gods are no longer serving the need, while the new ones haven't yet emerged and/or been widely accepted.
Posted by: TW | July 18, 2007 7:56 PM
"If a great state has decided by law that twice two is five, it would be foolish to allow mathematicians to testify." - Comment during the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Posted by: Thad Ritchards | July 18, 2007 7:56 PM
So, most religious writers are not adults. Well said.
Well, then of course the debate is pointless, because now you're agreeing with P.Z.
Am I missing something here, or is this guy a dope?
Posted by: Bob | July 18, 2007 7:59 PM
Good grief! What is it about trollish critics who can't spell 'Myers'? Maybe they should just refer to 'PZ' instead.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 18, 2007 8:01 PM
Ah yes, the old "Sure, what people actually believe is nonsense; but you haven't debunked what they don't believe, therefore I win!" tactic.
Posted by: Skemono | July 18, 2007 8:01 PM
Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.
"Moderate" believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.
"Moderate" atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.
"Militant" atheists: "Oh for pity's sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?"
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 18, 2007 8:05 PM
Clearly, 2+2 can not be 5, since god dictates otherwise. It's true, look: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ ! (As a bonus, here's an ongoing discussion thread with this guy. I wouldn't waste time on replying to him, though.)
Posted by: halcy | July 18, 2007 8:07 PM
greensmile,
Do you know how many consider prayer to be petitioning of a deity to grant wishes [which I agree wholeheartedly with you is dangerous and absurd] and how many consider it only a way to recognize how little is in their control...and still feel ok?
Huh? How is petitionary prayer a "way to recognize" how little is in your control, and "still feel ok" that it isn't? You seem to be suggesting that the act of asking God to do something that you don't really expect or want him to do somehow makes you understand that you can't do it yourself and come to terms with that limitation. As if you wouldn't recognize the limitation unless you petitioned for divine intervention. The claim is just nonsensical. Do you really think people who pray for their child to be cured of cancer or whatever it may be don't already know that they can't do that themselves?
Posted by: Jason | July 18, 2007 8:08 PM
But it makes them feel that they can do something useful.
Delusion, the lot of it. It really is the heroin of the masses.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 18, 2007 8:11 PM
the invisible man-god
Exactly. We were not created in God's image, He was created in ours. Perhaps that's why he's such a monster.
Posted by: jeffw | July 18, 2007 8:14 PM
Doggerel #103 and #107 noted, Kleinman.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 18, 2007 8:15 PM
Unfortunately, someone here is in real trouble, go to the topical optogon and read the latest comment, if I am wrong I will eat my hat. I ain't stupid, and neither is the FBI and Homeland Security.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 18, 2007 8:19 PM
Oh, come on. If Newton or Heraclitus or Socrates or Maimonides were living now, with access to the knowledge we have now, does this guy really think they'd still have their old - in some cases really old - viewpoint?
Posted by: The Ridger | July 18, 2007 8:22 PM
Excuse me, a big "WTF?" on that last comment by Physicist.
Posted by: PalMD | July 18, 2007 8:30 PM
I was going to say 2+2=5 is just a metaphor for 1+1=3, but Stephen Wells won the thread already.
Posted by: Pete | July 18, 2007 8:34 PM
Excuse me, a big "WTF?" on that last comment by Physicist.
Posted by: PalMD | July 18, 2007 08:30 PM
Go here: http://topicaloctagon.blogspot.com/
And read one of the last few comments on the the et ecce vates post. and you will understand real quick.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 18, 2007 8:40 PM
Aside
I've been lurking a while, and started posting only a few days ago, but I want to know - is this blog always so full of trolling christers? Not that argument isn't fun, just curious.
Thanks, Bob
Posted by: Bob | July 18, 2007 8:41 PM
I have no problem calling the god-intoxicated stupid idiots.
They've turned their brains off.
That's a stupid thing to do.
Think of all those idiotic suicide bombers in training - if enough of the sensible people they associate with would take the time to say that belief in God is the acme of stupidity, who knows, some of those bombers might turn away from violence and learn to live full and productive lives.
No more mollycoddling of the god-intoxicated!
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 18, 2007 8:41 PM
the finer points of swamp gas
when ground down to the nub
leave a heap of nothing
and the wise say "there's the rub"
for if what's left is nothing
and what was was also naught
then belief that there was something
is all that you have got
literally
++++
Posted by: mjs | July 18, 2007 8:42 PM
Real Mollys don't coddle. But sometimes we bite our tongues for the sake of getting along with the god-fearing relatives.
Posted by: RedMolly | July 18, 2007 8:43 PM
It's a bit higher than normal, due to PZ making several anti-religious-stupidity posts in quick succession, but the normal levels aren't much lower.
Welcome to the site, by the way.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 18, 2007 8:43 PM
I wonder if Kleiman is OK with anyone calling the adherents to religious belief "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed" as long as he does it metaphorically.
Posted by: Aris | July 18, 2007 8:55 PM
Nothing wrong with a Coddling Molly, as long as the reason for the coddling is generally harmless. Or, as previously noted, maintains family harmony.
Posted by: Bobber | July 18, 2007 8:58 PM
bobber @ 11: mmmmmmmmmmmmoooooollllllyyyyy.... oooooohhhhhh
Posted by: tony | July 18, 2007 8:59 PM
"Physicist": For somebody who "ain't stupid" you sure do an excellent imitation whenever you write. Thanks for the direct link; nobody would have found your crap without it because you keep referring to "the topical optogon." Optogon...octagon...Spot the difference!
By the way, "The Physicist" introduces himself over there as follows:
"my name is Gregg and I live in Fort Worth, Texas. I am Joining this debate with the expectation of making the case that neither evolution or the diversity of life could exist without the Creator God (God of Abraham, the triune God) I hope I do not disappoint you with my scientific evidence making my case...
Another thing you might want to know, I was a poor English grammatical student so if I split my infinitive or miss/misplace a comma please forgive me....
I have a BS in Physics and a Minor in Mathematics from NTSU."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 18, 2007 8:59 PM
'The Physicist' appears to be claiming that a poster from Pharyngula hacked into his govt computer and will spend 3 years in jail for it.
This troll seems like a perfect candidate for disemvoweling or banning to me.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 18, 2007 8:59 PM
disemvoweling
Not that! Or should that be "Nt tht!
Posted by: Bob | July 18, 2007 9:01 PM
He sounds suspiciously like a couple of the Conservapedia editors I know.
Posted by: PalMD | July 18, 2007 9:03 PM
Well PZ, strictly speaking, you didn't say they were being ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed, you said that were, um, one or more of those things (at least, they were applied as adjectives). There is a pretty big difference between the two statements.
So yeah, it might be reasonable to conclude that you were making a logically fallacious overgeneralisation in that original post.
...ya big blow hard.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that your very many posts like the one above clearly state your quite reasonable point of view, and that one line taken out of context is a bit of a silly thing to have a fight over. But on the other hand, this very post could be seen as a tacit admission that the original was misleading.
So, will you be taking this opportunity to admit that the original line was poorly phrased? Will this compromise defuse the raging tempest of mixed metaphor? Does SmellyTerror win teh intarnet wiv his diplomatic skillz once again?
Posted by: SmellyTerror | July 18, 2007 9:04 PM
I'm thinking maybe the government may be interested in why "The Physicist" is using his "secure" (not so much, I guess, or he/she left the password on a sticky note) government computer to post on a blog.
Posted by: afterthought | July 18, 2007 9:12 PM
RedMolly: All this talk of biting.....
Posted by: tony | July 18, 2007 9:16 PM
If the hack he his referring to is changes to the blog and/or comments, unless his government department actually owns the servers for blogspot.com and blogger.com, I don't see how the hack involves his work computer at all. If, on the other hand, someone from outside of a government network can actually hack an internal desktop computer that is presumably behind a firewall and using DHCP, and not just a server, then that department has serious security problems.
Either way the claims sound profoundly fishy.
Posted by: Tulse | July 18, 2007 9:22 PM
Someone already stole my idea of Coddling Molly.
Then again, it's gotta be better than Flogging Molly.
(Just kidding, that band rocks.)
Posted by: Stogoe | July 18, 2007 9:22 PM
Um, the fact that Newton thought hard about religion and didn't dismiss it as nonsense is not only the fallacious argument from authority writ large, it's nigh unto stupid. Newton also thought hard about frigging ALCHEMY and didn't dismiss it as nonsense. I'd like to see Kleiman base an argument on that.
Posted by: Phil | July 18, 2007 9:25 PM
So how much smarter than Einstein does Mr. Kleiman think he is?
Posted by: mndarwinist | July 18, 2007 9:25 PM
How dare you cite the what the Bible says as having anything to do with what the Bible means!
Posted by: Tatarize | July 18, 2007 9:30 PM
This seems fairly straightforward to me:
Religion is what the religious do.
Even Jesus (who as far as I know, believed in God) said, "By their fruits you shall know them."
It doesn't matter what people think religion is. The only concrete evidence we have to work with is what religious people do. That's what religion is. If Christians invade Iraq or kill abortionists, then that's what Christianity is. If Muslims blow up buildings or decapitate hostages, then that's what Islam is. Those of us who are not religious will always judge religion by its actions, not by philosophy. And until the religious get their shit together, they have only themselves to blame.
If you can't stand the heat....
Posted by: HP | July 18, 2007 9:32 PM
Huh? How is petitionary prayer a "way to recognize" how little is in your control, and "still feel ok" that it isn't?
Ok, I have to back up the Greenmile here. I'm an atheist, but I still use supersititious language and even deeds, largely as an outlet for hope that I know is utterly irrelevant to the universe at large. Examples:
1. "Thank you sweet baby jesus". trans: I just got something I really wanted. "It'll take miracle." trans: I think this is an unlikely outcome. "Only if god himself comes down and blows me". trans: no.
2. I'm a bit of a nervous flyer. On a plane, I spend most of the trip willing the aircraft to stay in the air.
3. I'm about to roll the dice to see if my vorpal sword will cut the head off the dragon. I need a natural 20 to do this and thus avoid taking 3d8 damage in return, possibly reducing my hitpoints to a crtically low level. Since it's a roll I care about I shake the dice just that little bit longer, and I throw it with a drawn out cry of "Come ooooooooooooooon!"
Any of that make a difference? Of course not. But it all acts as an outlet for my human feelings of helplessness in the face of an uncaring universe. It also tells you that I am (or have been at some time) a big fat nerd.
So I'm happy to accept that a proportion of praying people don't think it'll do any good, but do it to express their hope and show solidarity with others who hope the same thing.
Of course, I also accept that an inverse proportion of praying people are the deluded followers of an imaginary sky fairy. But I suspect that the number of "religious" who don't really beleive
Posted by: SmellyTerror | July 18, 2007 9:39 PM
Biting, flogging... hey, it's all good.
Sponge baths, though, are right out. *shudder*
Posted by: RedMolly | July 18, 2007 9:45 PM
RedMolly: who said anything about sponge *baths*
HP: By their fruits you shall know them.
So... the religions with a lot of homosexuals are the *correct* ones?
that makes it .... none of them?
Posted by: tony | July 18, 2007 9:49 PM
I find my god-fearing relatives to hardly be a reason to bite mine or anyone's tongue.
Aside from that, Hooray for the non-coddling, tongue-biting Mollies of the world.
Posted by: Dan | July 18, 2007 9:49 PM
Sure, you could take away their belief that 2+2=5 but what would you replace it with?!?
Posted by: Tatarize | July 18, 2007 9:52 PM
redMolly:
I mentioned the sponge in conjunction with warm-soapy water and me being naked... and you think of *baths*
baths are *cold*!
warm soapy water is for something else entirely...
Posted by: tony | July 18, 2007 9:54 PM
In my family, we look forward to the arguments between myself and my Italian Roman Catholic mother. They provide a great deal of entertainment for the whole clan on Sunday afternoons. I'm also the lone Yankee fan and leftist-socialist-progressive, so I am an endless source of fun for the relatives.
Nope, no coddling there, be it of Mollies or anyone else. Being an outspoken atheist begins at home, perhaps.
Posted by: Bobber | July 18, 2007 9:55 PM
Replace it with two things:
First, 2+2=4,
And, Milk. It does a body good.
Posted by: Dan | July 18, 2007 9:55 PM
goodnight all
I'm almost certain that tomorrow we'll find a whole new world with an entirely new pantheon of Xian apologists to partake of our feast of fun and frolics that is Pharyngula
bonsoir!
Posted by: tony | July 18, 2007 10:06 PM
Except, if they felt OK with it after the first time, they don't need to do it over and over and over and over again, do they? Nor would they want to force others to do it by usurping the Constitution and slipping it into school board policies, etc. etc etc. You haven't refuted Myers's point at all. If they feel it's so metaphorical, why do they keep doing all this real bullshit to support it?
Posted by: Aerik | July 18, 2007 10:11 PM
There's this meme out there that Kleiman thinks he thought up: "Point out how unsophisticated, obtuse, and hamhanded the atheist advocate is by showing how religion is actually metaphorical, or a rich intellectual tradition, or complex and refined."
This has been thrown at Dawkins a lot. It's such a crock. Most religion on Earth, by weight, is just talking to imaginary guys with beards, and half-to-fully thinking they're hearing you. Can we just agree to that easily observable fact?
Posted by: cm | July 18, 2007 10:28 PM
divalent wrote:
It would be very hard to predict what Heraclitus or Socrates or Maimonides would believe in our day, their cultures were so different.
Newton I suspect would not have become an atheist, he was too hungry for metaphysical knowledge and science offers less and less of that. It would not have held him long enough to be great. Newton would probably have become a modern day Frank J. Tipler.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 18, 2007 10:36 PM
Aerik: even athiests hope. What's the point, though? Will it make a difference? When you say you hope your friend's kid gets better, are you invoking some supernatural power?
Prayer, at least some times, can be another way of expressing hope and nothing more.
To finish my broken sentence from above, I suspect that a large number of the nominally religious don't really believe (how many are afraid to die, or mourn loved ones who *should* be receiving their eternal reward), but use their lip-service as a kind of wishful thinking. It's deluded, willfully deluded, but I think for many it's no different to an atheist hoping, or a spouse who refuses to notice the signs of infidelity, or any of a thousand human follies.
No idea of the proportions, but for *some*, I'm sure "prayer" is just a word.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | July 18, 2007 10:36 PM
There is a problem with your math analogy.
In math, it is possible to prove the correct answer, 2+2=3.9999999999999876 (damn Pentium!).
In religion, however, you cannot prove the _non-existence_ of God, therefore you do not have a "correct" answer to use. Of course, it is also impossible to prove the _existence_ of God. It's one of those questions that does not lend itself well to empirical validation.
A religious person can say "I have faith that 2+2=5," while you say "I think 2+2=4," but neither you nor the believer can claim to have an absolute proof of correctness.
The problem arises because too many people don't understand this fundamental difference between the two paradigms.
I wonder if this makes you a (dare I say it?) "fundamentalist".
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Steve | July 18, 2007 10:39 PM
The people who will argue 2+2=5 BY GOD (Neocons) are featured in a fantastic article I saw at Boing Boing. For a head shaking, mind numbing good time
GO to this link:http://www.alternet.org/story/57001/
Posted by: Jsn | July 18, 2007 10:46 PM
Mark Kleiman says...
"I've always wanted to ask someone like Meyers -- or Dawkins, or Pinker -- how much smarter he thinks he is than, let's say, Heraclitus or Socrates or Maimonides or Newton, who thought hard about religion and didn't dismiss it as nonsense."
Newton was an anti-trinitarian. Does Mark agree with this position? Presumably Heraclitus and Socrates didn't believe in the christian god. Were they correct? If not could they have been convinced by newer information (perhaps some guys in white shirts and ties knocking on their doors?)
Mark, can we ever expect better knowledge to trump the beliefs of clever people from the past?
Posted by: Dale | July 18, 2007 10:49 PM
Right on, #62. The author's being as dogmatic as a fundy when he says, "The only truth I hold to here is that there is no god and no evidence for one."
Quite a claim for a finite mind, claiming to grasp the infinite, and wanting empirical evidence derived from scientific tools that are only extensions of the measly five senses. BTW, PZ, if you're going to be a 50-cent wordsmith, please note that "aggravated" means "made worse". "Irritated" is the word you were looking for.
Posted by: Ernie | July 18, 2007 10:54 PM
"In fact, I might assume that he misspells it to goad me, and is therefore wicked;"
I think you hit the nail on the head. There was something sinister about that mispelling. :)
Posted by: Superhappyjen | July 18, 2007 11:16 PM
Smelly,
I have no problem believing that many people who engage in petitionary prayer do not believe it will have any effect. The claim I am questioning is that such prayer is a "way to recognize" our human limitations and a source of comfort in the face of that recognition. How does asking God to do something (whether you really want or expect him to do it or not) cause or help you to recognize that you cannot do it yourself? How does asking God to do something comfort you, especially when you don't really want or expect him to do it? I would have thought that learning to accept one's limitations and to accept the fact that sometimes bad things just happen would be more conducive to mental health than engaging in futile requests to fix them.
Posted by: Jason | July 18, 2007 11:19 PM
Posted by: Baratos | July 18, 2007 11:49 PM
Jason: Desperately gripping the armrests of my seat on a plane, chanting "don't crash" over and over, comforts me even as I recognise my fear is purely a symptom of my own sense of helplessness.
Telling my friend that I hope his kid gets better, even when we both know he probably won't, is still worth doing. It is, like most expressions of hope, a pointless gesture in real terms, but in a way it is an expression of our own helplessness, and regret at that helplessness. "I would change this reality if I could".
Being an insignifcant and largely powerless mote of the universe is a common human experience. I'm just saying that people express it in way dictated by their culture. That a religious person will express this entirely hopeless hope in religious terms should not be surprising.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | July 18, 2007 11:55 PM
Newton was a brilliant mind. He also believed in witches and alchemy.
Posted by: ike | July 19, 2007 12:01 AM
jason: you said petitionary prayer. I did not.
"asking god to do something"... is not the only mentation that gets called prayer.
You can also just feel grateful. To whom are you grateful about, say, the grand canyon? Having no entity, how ever personified it maybe, to aim the thanks at doesn't stop a sane person from having that feeling. What name or interpretation they give that feeling upon later introspection is...well, its their business
And thanks, Smelly.
Posted by: greensmile | July 19, 2007 12:14 AM
#65. If a deity does not impinge on our measly five senses, it may as well not exist. BTW, to aggravate can also mean to annoy persistently, so you owe PZ 50 cents.
Posted by: drivel | July 19, 2007 12:15 AM
To further your analogy: the sect also wants 2+2=5 right next to 2+2=4. And they want another sect's 2+2=-3 not included.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | July 19, 2007 12:18 AM
Here we are again. Instead of adding my 2 cents, let me try a different angle. Let's see if this quotes by James Zull, Professor of Biology and Biochemistry at Case Western, help illuminate the learning and teaching process that needs to take place to move people from A to C:
---------------------------
AF: What other tips would you offer to teachers and parents?
JZ: Always provoke an active reaction, ensuring the student is engaged and sees the connection between the new information and what he or she already knows. You can do so by asking questions such as "What does this make you think of? Is there some part of this new material that rings a wild bell for you?" To ensure a safe learning environment, you have to make sure to accept their answers, and build on them. We should view students as plants and flowers that need careful cultivation: growing some areas, helping reduce others.
AF: Please give us an example.
JZ: Well, an example I use in my books is that middle school students often have a hard time learning about Martin Luther and the Reformation because they confuse him with Martin Luther King Jr. We can choose to become frustrated about that. Or we can exploit this saying something like, "Yes! Martin Luther King was a lot like Martin Luther. In fact, why do you think Martin Luther King's parents named him that? Why didn't they name him Sam King?"
More at
http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/10/12/an-ape-can-do-this-can-we-not/
Maybe we should stop shouting that "C is right, you moron!" and instead focusing on how to move people from A to B and then to C.
Posted by: Alvaro | July 19, 2007 12:25 AM
It's a shell game: the abstract deity exists only as a distraction, a pawn to use to draw away attacks on the invisible man-god, and if we criticize the metaphor, the man-god can be mocked to let our theologian pretend to be sly and clever and just as skeptical as his interlocutor.
Bingo. All of your big fancy "moderate" theologlians talk the talk about how so very sensible and open minded they are about their religion, but then on the next page you'll find them quoting a bunch of lame Bible crap like it means something.
Posted by: 386sx | July 19, 2007 12:27 AM
Interesting blog Kleiman has. It isn't published for debate, since I couldn't find how to comment. It is late this evening though, so if someone knows how to comment on there, I would be interested in knowing the method. As much as I may agree or disagree with PZ, at least here I know that someone can post an idea here and have it either stand or fall.
Posted by: Christian | July 19, 2007 12:29 AM
"The majority of religious people in this country do believe in a completely non-metaphorical god, who acts non-metaphorically, who has non-metaphorical desires and plans, and who non-metaphorically wants their high school football team to win the championship, if they pray hard enough."
Or assume that they absolutely must say they believe and act as if they believe, an assumption so deeply rooted that they perceive questioning it as questioning their own legitimacy and not just the legitimacy of their assumptions. I suspect that a lot of people do not believe, as shown by their living lives that are not much in accordance with the tenets of their faith (and often not even in accordance with their own understanding of their supposed faith). However these same people deeply believe they must assert that they believe, often so strongly that they fool even themselves.
"This god of the rarefied nebulous metaphor is the product of theologians who've studied the subject long and hard enough to know that the god of the people is untenable nonsense, and must be cloaked in metaphor."
And the same is true of the fancy theologians too. They are conceptually unable to comprehend that there metaphors have no legitimacy as anything other than metaphors...but they still feel they must insist that 'God' somehow has a reality that their beloved metaphors just do not have.
All the theists have to do to make their problems with atheists go away is simply admit that 'God' is in no way 'real', that 'God' is only a metaphor that, like all other metaphors, humans made up. Such an affirmation would not prevent any of them from living their lives as if 'God' was real...after all their supposed desire is to live a life of faith - and surely the strongest of all faiths is to dedicate your life to something you know is a fiction. Admitting that 'God' is not real may free the theists to succeed at the very best of their goals. (or maybe not)
Posted by: Christopher Gwyn | July 19, 2007 12:39 AM
The Physicist' appears to be claiming that a poster from Pharyngula hacked into his govt computer and will spend 3 years in jail for it.
This troll seems like a perfect candidate for disemvoweling or banning to me.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 18, 2007 08:59 PM
Im not the one who will be di em bowed, the protologist exam is coming, and it won't be pretty, and I am not happy about it. And I really do feel sorry about it, but there ain't a damn thing I can do. Ive already been told what;s about to happen, it may sor may not smell fishy, but it is going to ruion a life.
Posted by: The Physicistr | July 19, 2007 12:42 AM
Thanks, greensmile, for that insipid appeal to "deeper" unquantifiable truths that don't melt under the harsh light of analysis. (You can dress up mysticism, but you can't take it out in public without embarrassment.) Now, on to patronizing:
In other words, you agree with PZ that the superstitions make no sense, but they're still OK to help the stupid people feel less bewildered.
Posted by: BlackSun | July 19, 2007 12:45 AM
Have you ever been taken away from work im hand cuffs, and had a physical exam from the Nazi's? Then shut up in a cell with more people than chairs. I have, it ain't mo fun, I hate the bastards. Good luck this is my last message here.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 19, 2007 12:48 AM
According to a Free Inquiry phone poll (of Americans) from 1995, 88.6% of their respondents professed belief in a personal god which answered prayers. In 1998 the Teal Trust conducted a similar church-based poll of Christians, mostly from the UK, and found that 86% claimed to have had prayers answered. Neal Krause et al. have done a number of studies, mostly on older Americans, and found similar results. I'm not aware of any larger and better-controlled studies of the general American or global population--but there's also the data point that three state governors have (individually) declared days of prayer for rain in the last year or so.
So, basically, it looks like the vast majority of