…and this is a 
We happy hooligans
Category: Kooks • Religion • Skepticism
Posted on: May 28, 2008 6:02 AM, by PZ Myers
My brief summary of the position of apologists for religion, The Courtier's Reply, continues to rankle the believers, and they continue to make responses that only make me laugh at their cluelessness. The standard rebuttal is to claim that I was making an argument in favor of ignorance in the face of theological scholarship, followed by a laundry list of esteemed theologians … but never, and I mean absolutely never, even the slightest attempt to address the core of my criticism — not once have they presented a solid, confirmable reason to believe in a deity.
Here's the latest example, and it follows the formula perfectly. How dare Myers accuse Tillich and Buber and Bonhoeffer and Gandhi and Bishop Tutu and Piaget and a long set of dropped names of promoting false beliefs? Yet, as usual, he cannot bring himself to actually discuss the substance of the issue: where is the evidence for his god? Listing invisible flounces, transparent ruffles, and phantasmal frills is simply a confirmation of the validity of my parable.
And yes, I do accuse his honor roll of theological luminaries of perpetuating lies, of credulity, and often, of pettifogging rhetoric. When someone advances remarkable claims of remarkable phenomena, like N rays or cold fusion or polywater (or natural selection or chemiosmosis or endosymbiosis), we demand evidence and skeptical evaluation…but not for religion. God always gets a pass from the people who already believe. They claim the existence of the most powerful, all-pervasive force in the universe, yet will provide not a single shred of support. And worse, this bozo calls the demand for evidence "hooliganism".
If that's the case, I'm proud to be a hooligan.
Politics
Comments
So am I.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | May 28, 2008 6:29 AM
point of info: Underverse says in comments that he's an atheist, so this isn't an instance of rankling the believers.
Posted by: MissPrism | May 28, 2008 6:32 AM
I am reminded of when Prof. Dawkins recently baffled John Humphrys by asking why he didn't question peoples faith. They just don't understand why anyone would question such an ingrained assumtion, and we should discuss the merits of said deity, not whether he/she/it actually exists.
OT: PZ, you're up at 6 AM? I didn't realise the universe existed before 8.
Posted by: Lightnin | May 28, 2008 6:38 AM
Missprism, if you read the comment properly it could also mean that he is a supernatural being!
"I would have to be playing pretty poor attention indeed not to realize that atheists don't believe in supernatural beings, seeing as it's right there in the name. And seeing how I am one."
If its true then its no wonder he's annoyed!
Posted by: Sigmund | May 28, 2008 6:40 AM
The Lout's Complaint begins with a quote from that notorious review of "the God Delusion" in the "London Review of Books" by Terry Eagleton, which is notable for the fact that it spends 11 pages saying Richard Dawkins is wrong without actually saying why. That isn't surprising because Terry Eagleton spent the first two paragraphs attacking Chris Hitchens in a review of 3 biographies of Gearge Orwell, none of which were actually written by the subject of his ire, and the relevance is still a mystery. I suspect, Christopher Hitchens might have put the extract from Karl Marx into the Portable Atheist" as a sop to Eggleton. Bluster seems to be the usual tactic of religious apologists.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/print/eagl01_.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n12/eagl01_.html
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | May 28, 2008 6:46 AM
Yet, curiously, this particular blogger claims to be an atheist. In a response to a comment from Larry Moran, he notes that - There is an ambitious leap between not caring what someone else believes, or why, and ridiculing that belief at book length, based on a deeply impoverished understanding of that belief.
How exactly is Dawkins doing this? I've read the book, I'm an ex-fundi, and my take is that Dawkins seems to have it exactly right.
This seems a wierd version of "not my God", especially odd given the blogger claims to be an atheist. Maybe we should categorise the objection as "Not their God"? I'd be interested to know which version of God he thinks might be valid, and above all WHY? Bonhoeffers, Tutus, Pat Robinsons? If it isn't a version of God he is defending, but something else, what is it exactly?
I have yet to find a God (or something as weak as mere religious behaviour) clearly and cogently defined, I couldn't give very good reasons for rejecting. In principle the entire business boils down to this, which is why the more intelligent theists have to obfuscate, what is this guys excuse?
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | May 28, 2008 7:06 AM
Just to be clear: as a writer, and a writer of Speculative Fiction at that, I place a pretty hefty value on imagination. Religious moderates are certainly more welcome in my cantina than frothing fundies, and I enjoy mytical stories. So I have a bit more tolerance and enjoyment of such things than PZ seems to. And I have a squishy spot for the current Dalai Lama I can't shake: but it's not because of his religion. It's because he seems to be a genuinely kind, decent and caring human being.
All of that said... PZ's got a lot more courage and integrity than these other folks seem to have. None of them seem capable of confronting the "why" of religion's free pass. If it's truly of use, there'll be proof for it. If there's not, too bad. Why does it deserve special treatment? Why this exalted place?
And they seem to be conflating things here. You notice that they're shading into "PZ hates literature and art, too!" Maybe I'm missing the point, PZ, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't ever get the sense that you would claim that art or literature have no value. But they'd come under the same fire as religion if someone held up, say, a copy of Danielle Steele's latest travesty and proclaimed it to be literal truth (or, even if not literal truth, a subjective truth everyone should be required to live by).
There's nothing wrong with loving myth. There's nothing wrong with being inspired by it (with exceptions such as "inspired me to become a racist dickweed"). But claiming it is truth, and that its truth and value can't be questioned and that it's not required to present evidence for its claims - that's very wrong indeed.
Posted by: Dana Hunter | May 28, 2008 7:08 AM
But PZ you completely do not understand how good it feels to believe in those new clothes. How comforting it is to have a well-dressed leader sartorially elegant enough to blind his opponents. It can make makes you treat your wife better and be more loving with your kids. So when at last you actually manage to see those clothes, and feel the benefits such seeing confers, the new clothes take on a level of undeniable personal reality. They exist on a plane outside of science and in the realm of appreciation, psychology and art. It is hard not to feel sorry for those that are unable to make the leap and see them. It is like they live in one dimension less.
Posted by: sailor | May 28, 2008 7:09 AM
Warfare, & the desire for culture, spread the gods of the Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc, throughout the Middle East in ancient times.
The Hebrews, wandering through this region & Egypt too, saw many cultures with gods ruling societies as if they (the gods) actually lived amongst the people, or the priests & rulers, anyway.
So the Hebrews, putting 2 & 2 together, ended up with just the one god, & its been passed on to our society. We've inherited a version of the feckin' nonsense. It's feckin' obvious that's what happened. Why can't the religious see it? Well, apparently, many humans might be genitically predisposed towards religious belief. There's not much hope for the feckin' edjits then, (admittedly, genes are not destiny), but PZ & the other radical antitheists will do their best to help them.
Posted by: Richard Harris | May 28, 2008 7:10 AM
The fact that most people willingly submit to apparent authority never ceases to amaze me.
People listen to quacks to be told what to pills to take, listen to faux news to be told what to think, and bow before priests to be told what to believe, all without asking even once to be shown the evidence or to hold a discussion into the expected outcomes and falsifiability of the rubbish they hear.
Posted by: Akheloios | May 28, 2008 7:16 AM
That's jolly silly. Within philosophy of religion, we don't have a tremendous amount of time for waffly theologians either, but that doesn't make it into ignorance - it just makes it a particular, delimited field of knowledge. It's jolly interesting to read the writings of theologians of ages gone by, but they do not provide any help in finding the truth of the matter, but provide interpretation of sacred texts that are useful in guiding those who already agree.
Similarly, political philosophy does not spend a lot of time worrying about the minutiae of tax law - it's more concerned with whether political systems, rights, and so on, can be justified. To criticise it because it does not take account of some particular lawyer is to miss the point.
In these times, intellectual disciplines have boundaries. I guess denying this fact, and requiring anyone who wants to make any comment to have spent a lifetime reading a bunch of things that are off-topic is a good rhetorical move. It convinces not very bright people, at least, which makes it perfect for newspaper columnists.
Posted by: Tom Morris | May 28, 2008 7:22 AM
How can we know that the Emperor is naked? Just ask those who claim to see the clothes to describe them (color, cut, etc)!
1. If the emperor is wearing something, you'll get the same answer from independent people.
2. If the emperor is naked, you'll get lot of different answers and the same answer will persist in groups of related people, e.g. your parents/friends tell you the color and you believe them, because you see nothing.
From these answers we can conclude whether people describe the clothes as they see them, or they're just describe them as they were told and see nothing.
It's not hard to see how this applies to religion.
Posted by: infidel.michael | May 28, 2008 7:31 AM
PZ, I never figured you for the soccer maniac, but if it's a hooligan you'll be, well that's your choice.
BTW, somewhere along the way, I forgot that PZ invented the Courtier's Reply. Thanks for doing so, it really does take that next step.
Posted by: True Bob | May 28, 2008 7:45 AM
We few. We happy few. We band of well-clothed barbarians....
Posted by: Ian | May 28, 2008 7:47 AM
How can we know that the Emperor is naked? Just ask those who claim to see the clothes to describe them (color, cut, etc)!
No no no, as my creative reading and writing teacher told me, there is no absolute truth. Just because people have different even contradictory experiences reguarding how they see the Emperors clothes, doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they're seeing the same truth-in different ways.
Genesis 1 says that God created man and woman on the sixth day.
Genesis 2 says that God created man, he piddled around for a bit, is unable to get into a worthwhile relationship with his border collie, so God creates woman.
Now don't get me wrong, both of these accounts are true, they're just different kinds of truth.
Posted by: Lightnin | May 28, 2008 7:48 AM
I always hear Bill Hicks' voice in the back of my mind when that word is used...
Posted by: jfatz | May 28, 2008 7:52 AM
Just another courtier who doesn't know it. Seems like he wants to have a religion without god but with theologians.
Posted by: tsig | May 28, 2008 7:52 AM
I don't believe this (rhetorical tricks) to be the intent of many of the criticisms. As I have read the criticisms, they are more concerned about Dawkins not addressing the 'stronger' cases for god (supposedly developed in the more sophisticated theological literature), and rather choosing a 'weaker' case. Then when Dawkins dismantles the weaker case, applies it across the board.
If this is the case, then the Courtier's Reply doesn't apply.
Granted, as I understand Dawkins intent, I believe his goal was to address the god of the 'common people.' Hence, the objections are mute. In which case, I would suggest a better line of attack for them would be to show the god of the common people isn't consistent with the god Dawkins is addressing.
Posted by: TheIntentionalist | May 28, 2008 7:55 AM
It's true that many of these great theologians were brilliant. But that doesn't make them right. It's all too obvious that they often built mighty architectural wonders to hide the fact that there was no foundation underneath.
Posted by: mikespeir | May 28, 2008 7:56 AM
Maybe it's just me, but that response to the Courtier's Reply seems to be itself an instance of the Courtier's Reply.
Posted by: SteveWH | May 28, 2008 7:58 AM
Hooliganism with a capital H! That's really bad!
This does seem to be a new twist on the Courtier's Reply, as it appears to celebrate primarily the vestments of the courtier class itself. Points for originality.
But this is my favorite part:
After presenting a list that includes Derrida and Postman while neglecting Simone Weil. Good luck with that revision, pal.
Posted by: SC | May 28, 2008 8:03 AM
Good point, SteveWH.
Posted by: Dana Hunter | May 28, 2008 8:04 AM
Reading both the underverse blog post and Prof Myers' response, I can see both sides of the argument here.
On the one hand, I do not blame you (atheists/agnostics) for searching for solid and convincing evidence. This is a human instinct, particularly for those whose education has been in mathematics, logic and the sciences; you look for proof. I don't condemn that. I also agree that an appeal to authority is not helpful; citing lists of distinguished theologians and great religious figures, and saying "How can you think these people were wrong?", is not an argument but a logical fallacy.
On the other hand, what I've been arguing on other threads is that searching for solid evidence in favour of God is not the right approach. To an extent, creationists and fundamentalists bring this on themselves; through their endorsement of biblical inerrancy as regards natural history, they try to reduce God to a material scientific agent, whose existence can be determined from scientific testing and empirical evidence. In a sense, they have allowed atheists to define the parameters of the debate. If this is the debate - "can we determine from scientific, empirical proof that there is a God who created the universe?" and "is the Bible an accurate textbook of natural and geological history?" - then you are quite right to be atheists, because such a God quite clearly does not exist. "God theory" is not a scientific theory (nor is "intelligent design", which amounts to the same thing); its proponents effectively bury their heads in the sand. But I am arguing that you are asking the wrong question.
Rather, vague and wishy-washy as it may sound, religion and science do deal with different types of "truth". Science can make clear to us how the universe took on its present physical form; the gaps in our knowledge, which are many, may well be filled in the future by the advancement of science. But it cannot explain why we are here, what our purpose is, and why a universe capable of sustaining life came to be. You cannot apply the scientific method to these questions, because they are intrinsically beyond the scope of empirical evidence.
There is no overwhelming scientific proof, nor will there ever be, for belief in the Judeo-Christian God or in any other benevolent Creator. Seeking for it is like trying to identify "love" or "beauty" or "happiness" or "the soul" using scientific investigative methods.
As regards the exhortation to atheists to read up on Christian and Jewish theology: I do realise that theology may, to those who disbelieve in a Creator on basic philosophical grounds, appear to be on a par with "fairy studies". But it is still beneficial in the avoidance of straw man arguments. Many of the philosophical problems of belief in a deity have been addressed by religious writers and thinkers through the ages. Whether you find their solutions convincing is, of course, up to you - but that's no reason not to read them. Theology and philosophy are not valueless fields just because they don't deal with testable, falsifiable scientific facts.
Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 8:09 AM
You know Walton, if you wave those arms much faster you might just takeoff and fly around the room.
Maybe you could just show us some small proof of god. Just a crumb from the mighty and venerable table of theology.
The straw man will show you out, thanks.
Posted by: tsig | May 28, 2008 8:25 AM
Walton writes: But it cannot explain why we are here, what our purpose is, and why a universe capable of sustaining life came to be.
______
But that is the very problem with the God Hypothesis--it does not answer the why questions either!!! So people are mucking around with a non-evidential belief system with all the dangers such an approach implies to not even get an satisfying answer.
The non-overlapping magisteria has been debunked.
Who made God? God answers nothing. It has just been the Courtier's reply that has allowed people to hide that fact. If there is any chance of us ever getting an answer to the why questions, it will be because of science, not because of religion because religion has no answer but one that causes many more problems that it answers.
Posted by: Logicel | May 28, 2008 8:33 AM
The fact that most people willingly submit to apparent authority never ceases to amaze me.
Why? We see that many animal species have herd behaviors, built-in submission to dominance displays, etc. Why do we overlook the obvious notion that there is a "human nature" and that we have instinctive behaviors like "believing things people say with enough conviction"?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 28, 2008 8:34 AM
Walton,
It's strange that, in a paragraph ostensibly about avoiding strawmen, you would suggest that people here are arguing that philosophy is a valueless field.
That said, well, there's philosophy and there's philosophy. As Peter Kropotkin explained to Charles Eliot Norton in 1897, "Your metaphysician is a blind man hunting in a dark room for a black hat which does not exist."
Posted by: SC | May 28, 2008 8:36 AM
Walton writes:
Rather, vague and wishy-washy as it may sound, religion and science do deal with different types of "truth".
Yeah, religion deals with the "made up" kind of "truth"
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 28, 2008 8:36 AM
I am also proud to be a hooligan.
Then again, I would be equally as proud to be "a puzzled dog in a Gary Larson cartoon."
Posted by: inkadu | May 28, 2008 8:40 AM
You've got it backwards, the creationists defined the argument when they started to systematically deny hard evidence collected by scientists for theories such as evolution. As more discoveries were made and research done, the louder the creationists screams about science being anti-god became. Science however continues to provide hard data and explanations for said data where religion hasn't provide any reasonable examples of either.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 8:40 AM
Walton,
I think you are mistaken. You posit that science searches for the "how" and religion searches for "why". Well, the "how question" arises from the fact that we are here, we do exist, and we are curious, so we look into it - what is this, how did it gert here, etc.. The "why question" comes about because...why? Because someone wants a reason to drive the "how question", not satisfied with merely existing. A more interesting question to me than "why exist?" would be "why do people desire an external purpose to existence?".
Similarly, I don't see a need to delve into the arguments of the greatest theological writer/analyst/navel-gazer, when the theological arguments have to come after agreement on existence of a god. Then someone needs to flesh out that god. Too bad all the source material is demonstrably false.
Posted by: True Bob | May 28, 2008 8:41 AM
Walton (#23):
Re: "Why" questions
Neither can you apply any other method. Oh, theologians and other religionists might claim to have "why" answers...but they usually differ and are probably wrong (but there exists no tests to distinguish between "answers").
For the answer to these "why" questions I think the answers "42", "mu", and "shit happens" are sufficient (but unsatisfying...but that's not the universe's problem)
Martin
Posted by: MartinDH | May 28, 2008 8:45 AM
@ #23
"Seeking for it is like trying to identify "love" or "beauty" or "happiness" or "the soul" using scientific investigative methods."
Scientists do try to identify all those things, and have been successful, to an extent, with everything but the soul. The problem with discovering the soul is a lack of a clear definition of soul, and that all the studies that seek to discover a soul have failed. Which leads to the conclusion that the soul does not exist.
I don't know the studies off hand, but take a look through some neurology literature and you'll stumble upon it.
Posted by: Scott D. | May 28, 2008 8:54 AM
Well, can you blame them for calling atheist hooligans? I mean, murder and such probably falls under hooliganism, and as we know, lack of religiosity predicts all sorts of behaviors.
Posted by: Pat | May 28, 2008 8:56 AM
the core of my criticism -- not once have they presented a solid, confirmable reason to believe in a deity. - PZ
Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean that no one is out to get them.
Posted by: Salt | May 28, 2008 8:57 AM
There is no larger "why." We produce the question "why?" because we have these oversized brains that have allowed us to develop language and consciousness and questions. I really think the best line about this comes from Angels in America. This is Prior Walter, a gay man with AIDS, the central character, and a "modern prophet.":
Living itself is the why. It may not always be enough, but in the amazing conversation with a friend, in the meal that makes you pause because your entire mouth is alive, in the song that comes on and brings you to tears, in the pain of losing a loved one, in the ecstasy of a great orgasm, in the playing with a pet....That's all you get. Live it.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 8:57 AM
Walton@23: But it cannot explain why we are here, what our purpose is, and why a universe capable of sustaining life came to be. You cannot apply the scientific method to these questions, because they are intrinsically beyond the scope of empirical evidence.
Let's take your questions one at a time:
1) "Why we are here." The question is underspecified. It could mean either "What chain of events caused us to be here?" (clearly a scientific question) or "What purpose were we put here to serve?", to which the atheist's answer is "None". The question's supposed profundity comes, I think, from this ambiguity.
2) "What our purpose is". Again, apparent profundity from ambiguity. If we take it to mean, for each of us individually, what our purpose is, then everyone must answer for themselves, and there is no reason to expect agreement. I would certainly refuse to specify a single purpose - I have lots of different purposes, among them to stay alive, to enjoy myself, to learn, to look after my family, to work toward a fair and sustainable human civilisation. If it does not mean that, the question is really much the same as (1), and again the atheist's answer would be "none". Even if it should be the case that we were in some sense caused to be by some powerful being(s), natural or supernatural, why should we adopt their purposes as our own?
(3) "Why a universe capable of sustaining life came to be?" Why should there be any such reason? It may simply be a fact that such a universe exists (incidentally, I think "came to be" contains an implied assumption that time pre-existed the physical universe, which may not be so). In any case, if you answer "Because a benevolent creator chose the universal constants carefully", we can simply ask "Why does such a creator exist?" Unless you are going to argue that the ontological argument is sound (i.e. that God must logically exist), assuming a creator gains you nothing in terms of explanation, at the cost of adding an additional entity to your theory of the universe. If you are going to argue this, the cosmological argument is unnecessary anyway.
There is no overwhelming scientific proof, nor will there ever be, for belief in the Judeo-Christian God or in any other benevolent Creator.
Why not? How about a benevolent creator which really wanted us to know about it? Why not just stamp the Canadian Shield "JHWH & Son & Holy Spirit, Heaven: Universe-makers to the gentry since 4004 BC" - in Hebrew, presumably. Or encode the message in the patterns the stars make, or in the "junk" DNA of Drosophila melanogaster? Believers are forced to resort to a God who is not only omnipotent, but extremely shy, carefully avoiding giving us any real evidence if its existence.
Many of the philosophical problems of belief in a deity have been addressed by religious writers and thinkers through the ages.
An undergrad philosophy of religion course was quite enough to show me that the "Problem of Evil" has never been satisfactorily addressed. Until it has been, I see no reason to use my limited time reading theology rather than science, maths, philosophy, literature and history.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 28, 2008 9:01 AM
Walton, that's an interesting assertion. Clearly, the scientific method is capable of answer "why" questions. Ask a physicist "Why is the sky blue?"
Sometimes the answer which science provides to the "why" questions is a bit more brusque, of course. It frequently goes along the lines of:
Posted by: MikeD | May 28, 2008 9:01 AM
Mary Midgley is his "go-to philosopher"? Hrraf.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 28, 2008 9:15 AM
@32 - I don't know, Martin. I've found "mu" to be a deeply satisfying answer, myself. Far more satisfying that all of the desperate theology of sophisticated people trying frantically to justify their belief in a fairy tale.
@23: Walton, I'm sorry, but I just can't buy it. You give me no reason to accept your assertation that searching for evidence in favor of God is the wrong approach. Why is that? Isn't it because that evidence is nowhere to be found? It's a cheap way of evading the question. It's just another attempt to shut critical inquiry down.
I used to believe that there was a truth science could touch and a truth science couldn't touch, but I don't believe that anymore. I've seen too many things previously "unknowable" to science become thoroughly known by it. I no longer believe there's any realm - including love, beauty, and all that rot - that science won't someday be able to investigate as thoroughly as it does stars and planets and the physiology of you and me. Neuroscience is moving into territory that was previously considered completely beyond science's ability to comprehend.
What I don't believe is that science will ever be able to prove the independent existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God. But we agree there for different reasons. You would argue that this is because such a god is beyond science. I would argue it's because such a god is no more objectively real than my Unicorns. I wouldn't go round telling people they must believe in my Unicorns or be condemned. And it wouldn't matter how many people wrote learned treatises on their reality and truth - they remain fiction, and thus science will never prove them.
Heh. Unless, of course, quantum physics gives me a shock and discovers the buggers were hiding out in a parallel universe all this time, laughing their bloody arses off at us all. ;-) But they remain fictional until proven otherwise, and so does God.
Posted by: Dana Hunter | May 28, 2008 9:18 AM
Yes indeed, the "Lout's reply" is simply another iteration of the Courtier's Reply. It is not at all convincing.
Posted by: Ric | May 28, 2008 9:29 AM
A cosmos supposedly created for our emergence sure took a while to get around to us:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=g2qezQzfgIY
Posted by: SC | May 28, 2008 9:30 AM
Dude...dangling genitalia...if I were drinking milk it would be up my nose right now.
Posted by: doubtingfoo | May 28, 2008 9:31 AM
Hooligans, eh - how about the undead? Check out this cover of a fundamentalist Christian humor magazine, featuring famous atheists as ghouls.
http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/current-issue
Posted by: Colugo | May 28, 2008 9:32 AM
Walton @ 23: please don't conflate theology with philosophy. I see this all too often, and they are not the same.
Posted by: Pete M. | May 28, 2008 9:34 AM
Walton (Comment #23):
Well, why we are here is easily answered at an individual level in terms of biological reproduction and the intentions and actions of our parents, and at a species level by evolutionary biology. Determining why a universe capable of sustaining life came to be is a question for the science of cosmology. These aren't questions outside the preview of empirical investigation.
Distinguishing between scientific "how" questions and non-scientific "why" questions is artificial and for the most part irrelevant, since in most cases the distinction is really between two ways of grammatically framing the same question. Most "how" questions can also be rephrased as "why" questions, and vice-versa. A more meaningful distinction would be between questions which ask for explanation in terms of causes, and those that ask for explanation in terms of the intentions and reasoning of one or more agents. But the second type of question presupposes that we already have answers to certain questions of the first type, since there's no point is asking for an intentional explanation of something unless you have already have grounds to suppose that an agent of some sort is actually involved.
What our purpose is, is (I agree) not a scientific question. However, without a fair amount of explanation and elaboration, it's not clear what the question actually is. Quite apart from anything else, purpose needs to be distinguished from mere function. The former is something that has to be assigned by an agent, while the latter is not. Purpose is a matter of the attitudes that agents adopt in framing goals and adapting means to ends. Function is a empirical matter of how parts interact with the rest of a system, or how entities interact with their environment.
Human beings themselves are agents who can assign purpose to things, including their own lives. Purpose, in short, is not something we have to look for outside ourselves. If, regardless, you still want to ask for purposes outside ourselves, then this presupposes an external agency that either brought us into existence or has tried to shape or influence us in the pursuit of goals of its own. In which case, it's up to you to provide reasons for supposing this to be true.
Consequently, the question "What is our purpose?" is either a poorly-framed attempt to ask "What should our purpose be?" (a question that religion has no exclusive claim to answer), or it presupposes theism or something similar. If the latter, then the validity of the question depends on whether theism is true. However, even if we were to determine that a God or something similar created or shaped us for a purpose of its own, this does not answer the question "What should our purpose be?" It's still up to us to decide whether we want to go along with the goals of our hypothetical creator, or to seek fulfillment on our own terms.
Gould's concept of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria is usually criticised on the grounds that it is an ideal, rather than an accurate description of how science and religion are (for the most part) actually practiced. But it's also far from clear that religion constitutes a magisterium at all, i.e., that it constitutes a well-defined domain to which it is appropriate to refer questions of a particular type. Seems to me that what religion does is give inadequate answers to poorly-framed questions, questions which when better framed do not require religion to answer them at all.
Posted by: Iain Walker | May 28, 2008 9:36 AM
What does one have to do to be labeled as a scallywag?
Posted by: Janine ID | May 28, 2008 9:37 AM
"There is no overwhelming scientific proof, nor will there ever be, for belief in the teapot or in any other benevolent crockery. Seeking for it is like trying to identify "love" or "beauty" or "happiness" or "the soul" using scientific investigative methods."
Which is why i don't bother studying the orbital dynamics of pottery in order to understand the universe.
Posted by: Carpworld | May 28, 2008 9:39 AM
I've had a flood of responses, not all of which I can even try to answer now. I will briefly respond to Nick Gotts at #37.
Why not just stamp the Canadian Shield "JHWH & Son & Holy Spirit, Heaven: Universe-makers to the gentry since 4004 BC" - in Hebrew, presumably. Or encode the message in the patterns the stars make, or in the "junk" DNA of Drosophila melanogaster? Believers are forced to resort to a God who is not only omnipotent, but extremely shy, carefully avoiding giving us any real evidence if its existence. - The traditional Judeo-Christian answer is that if God were to do that, there would be no point in faith; the existence of God would be obvious, and human beings would not be faced with the choice of whether or not to believe. Indeed, this argument also seeks to address many of the other arguments brought up above; if God were to provide us with any empirical, scientific proof of his existence, the need for faith would be removed. Faith consists in believing in something without any solid evidence for it. If there is solid evidence, it ceases to be a leap of faith and becomes mere rational conjecture based on observable evidence.
At the same time, though, an intelligent and intellectually honest person cannot be expected to ignore evidence in favour of blind faith. Thus, while I am not trying to prove the existence of God through evidence, logic or science, because it can't be done, I am trying to demonstrate that as I understand it, evidence, logic and science do not contradict the notion of God or render it an impossibility.
Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 9:40 AM
an intelligent and intellectually honest person cannot be expected to ignore evidence in favour of blind faith.
Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 9:46 AM
Faith consists in believing in something without any solid evidence for it.
faith = superstition
Posted by: SC | May 28, 2008 9:47 AM
Sorry, that was a grammatical ambiguity. I meant "an intelligent and intellectually honest person cannot be expected to ignore evidence and choose blind faith instead". I didn't mean that there is "evidence in favour of blind faith"; that would be oxymoronic.
Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 9:48 AM
(My post #52 above was a reply to MAJeff at #50. It was only when he highlighted the sentence that I realised it could be read in a way I didn't intend. Sorry for any misunderstanding.)
Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 9:49 AM
"But they remain fictional until proven otherwise, and so does God."
Unicorns are fictional because they are from fiction. If they existed and we didn't know about them, they most certainly would not be fictional! Were atoms fictional before they were discovered? Before Dalton, most scientists believed so. To claim that it is a fact that a thing does not exist because you do not see evidence for it is simply arrogant; what if someone else sees evidence that you do not or cannot see? I'm not arguing in favor of God or religion, just clear thinking: you cannot prove a negative. You can invoke Occam's razor, but that doesn't prove your position to someone who sees the evidence differently. Some people see their own experiences as evidence for the existence of God. We science types know how unreliable this kind of evidence is, but that doesn't actually prove anything. Walton (#23), is at least mostly right on every point he makes, but many of you have misinterpreted his words. As far as organized religion goes, PZ is right on: it is corrupt and teaches people to be as thoughtless as sheep.
Posted by: uncle noel | May 28, 2008 9:52 AM
I appreciate the clarification. However, what you're doing is this.
1. Claim there is a diety.
2. Exempt that deity from any evidential standard for existence. Claim it is out of bounds of absolutely everything while simultaneously being in everything.
3. Say that since it's outside of everything, you can't prove its nonexistence.
4. Claim the failure to prove non-existence is equivalent to existence--or at least that it should be treated that way.
5. Exempt yourself from any usual standards that say, "you're the one positing the existence of something, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that existence," by returning to step two.
6. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
What a useless exercise.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 9:55 AM
/spit take
HUwahhhh?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 9:55 AM
I like Larry Morgan's response that was just released from moderation. "Thingyness" is now my word for the day :)
Posted by: Beowulff | May 28, 2008 9:56 AM
Walton
Then what point is there in having a god? Can't touch, feel, taste, smell, hear, see your god, but you want us to believe in it.
And what point is served? How do you know if your god is happy, sad, irritated, a hooligan, uncaring, malevolent, living in bliss on Omicron Persei 8, etc? You don't, you are guessing (sans evidence) or (more likely) following someone else's instructions, without knowing why you do these things.
Science doesn't have to render any gods impossible, because there is nothing that indicates a need for any god or prime mover or whatever the Hel you want to call it. Where's your god now? Everywhere and nowhere, silently loud, circularly square, telling nobody what it wants. There's your purpose - guess at a master purpose and act goofy for it, with zero feedback as to the correctness of your actions and assumptions.
Posted by: True Bob | May 28, 2008 9:57 AM
Whew!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 9:58 AM
"To Myers, non-rational is synonymous with irrational"
(HOW DARE YOU THINK THAT WAY!??!)
ROLF! I have to figure out how to use this phrase in everyday life.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | May 28, 2008 10:01 AM
...which is a lousy response. The whole "free will" and "choice" argument is ludicrous given the stakes, which is the possibility of torture for all eternity. Would you teach your child about not putting their hand on the stove by leaving cryptic references to heat in their school library, and hope that their "free will" would come across them and understand them correctly? Would you tell your child "the street is a dangerous place to play, but hey, it's your choice whether you do or not, as I wouldn't want to interfere with your free will"? Would you say "you know, getting vaccinated against potentially fatal childhood diseases is a good idea, but I'll let you work out for yourself whether you go to the doctor"? What kind of horrible parent wouldn't ensure that their children don't harm themselves in these ways?
And before you argue that we aren't children, that we are rational and can make appropriate decisions, we surely don't have the understanding and capacities attributed to our "parent", god, whose ways we are constantly told are "mysterious" and "beyond human kenning".
Now, admittedly, this argument doesn't rule out the existence of a god, it just argues that any such god must be a right bastard.
Posted by: Tulse | May 28, 2008 10:02 AM
MAJeff: "4. Claim the failure to prove non-existence is equivalent to existence--or at least that it should be treated that way."
Indeed, that is the key fallacy that Walton is making. If lack of absolute certainty about nonexistence is equivalent to existence, then by implication we must accept Polytheistic Solipsism. But PS is absurd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic_solipsism
Posted by: Colugo | May 28, 2008 10:05 AM
Tulse @ #61:
>Now, admittedly, this argument doesn't rule out the existence of a god, it just argues that any such god must be a right bastard.
Given that a lot of people try to argue that we are obligated to worship god because he loves us, I am tempted to suggest that the ways he screws us over more implies that he lusts after us.
Posted by: Notkieran | May 28, 2008 10:10 AM
To MAJeff at #55. You would be right if I were trying to prove the existence of God. But you misunderstand the point of the exercise.
The claim I am making, from a logical and philosophical point of view, is not the strong claim that there is a deity, but the much weaker claim that there may be a deity - i.e. that it is not impossible or implausible that a deity exists.
Claim the failure to prove non-existence is equivalent to existence--or at least that it should be treated that way. - No, I'm not claiming that at all. It would be a logical fallacy. But the failure to prove non-existence is equivalent to showing that there is a possibility of existence, which is all I am trying to show through reason and evidence.
That is where the first part of this argument ends - by establishing that it is possible that there is a God. This is all that can be proved by logic, reason and evidence.
The second part is this: it is traditional Judeo-Christian teaching that God does not provide empirical evidence of his existence because this would eliminate the need for faith. Therefore, this is the point where reason ends and faith begins.
In short, therefore, we can use reason and logic to reach the conclusion that God may exist. The further leap from "God may exist" to "God does exist" is based entirely on faith, not reason or logic. Whether or not to have that faith is a personal choice, and cannot be analysed according to objective, rational criteria.
Basically, we are all presented with the same set of facts and the same principles of logical reasoning. We can all conclude the same thing from those: that they are inconclusive. God may exist, or he may not. Anything in the material world attributed to God can be explained away through natural factors, but whether to prefer the natural or the supernatural explanation is a personal choice. This situation is exactly in accord with religious teaching; because the basis of religion is that each human being has a choice, to believe or not believe.
Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 10:11 AM
Walton (Comment #49):
This raises the question - what's so great about faith? Specifically, why should the question of whether or not God actually exists have to depend on faith? If it's got something to do with free will, then even if we have incontrovertible evidence of God's existence, there's still ample room for freedom of choice in how we decide to respond to this fact, and whether or not we choose to live our lives the way God wants us to. In other words, there's still plenty of room for the exercise of voluntary faith even if the existence of God is certain.
It looks rather as if there's some confusion going on between believing (or not) that God exists, and believing in God (in the sense of trusting or committing to God). Believing in the first sense does not entail the latter.
To illustrate: I accept as a fact that Queen Elizabeth II exists and is the head of state of the country in which I live. That does not make me a monarchist.
Posted by: Iain Walker | May 28, 2008 10:12 AM
I don't have time right now to read through all the posts before mine (budget crunch time) so I apologize if this has already been brought up.
It appears to me, as an atheist, that there is certainly a very large set of piles of clothing for the emperor. The problem is that I don't believe there is an emperor to clothe. To put it simply... the "clothes don't make the man" if there is no man (or deity) to clothe in the first place. All we have are these piles of clothes and philosophical mumbo-jumbo about something that doesn't even exist. No matter how nicely arranged and styled all this clothing is... we still don't even have a mannequin to dress up with it.
-DU-
Posted by: David Utidjian | May 28, 2008 10:12 AM
Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 10:11 AM
There's no there there.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 10:13 AM
The second part is this: it is traditional Judeo-Christian teaching that God does not provide empirical evidence of his existence because this would eliminate the need for faith. Therefore, this is the point where reason ends and faith begins.
Walton
That is the sticking point. 'Believe it because I say so but I will not reveal myself' is just is not a satisfactory reason to accept a deity.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 28, 2008 10:17 AM
Wow, that was painful to read first thing in the morning...
Look, enough with the fucking name-dropping already. Can't we just get straight to the goddam arguments?
It drive me nuts when I see people (and other colleagues in my discipline, and others) simply drop names, and then act as though you're supposed to know everything about that person.
I actually called out a professor on that when he tried that with my paper at a conference. He said, after I was finished, "I think that Heidegger would undermine your claims here." "Really? Where and how, specifically?" Silence.
Then, of course, I got annoyed, and said, in front of everyone: "Okay, so you brought it up, and yet you can't tell me the first thing about where and how? I don't think that qualifies as an objection. Any other questions?"
He came up to me later and apologized (as he should have).
Posted by: Bob | May 28, 2008 10:18 AM
Well, which is it? Not impossible, or not impossible and not implausible? Possibility is trivial, plausibility is not. You have an annoying tendency to drift from one to the other.
Posted by: MartinM | May 28, 2008 10:19 AM
To Tulse #61.
Now, admittedly, this argument doesn't rule out the existence of a god, it just argues that any such god must be a right bastard.
This is, indeed, one of the major problems with Christian thinking, and I can't honestly answer it. If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, why does he allow the persistence of evil (both natural and man-made)? And why does he place human beings on Earth, give them the choice to believe or no