Pharyngula

Posted by: Valhar2000 | May 28, 2008 6:29 AM

So am I.

Posted by: Lightnin | May 28, 2008 6:38 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: Wayne Robinson | May 28, 2008 6:46 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: Dana Hunter | May 28, 2008 7:08 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: Richard Harris | May 28, 2008 7:10 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: Tom Morris | May 28, 2008 7:22 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: True Bob | May 28, 2008 7:45 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: Lightnin | May 28, 2008 7:48 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: tsig | 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: mikespeir | May 28, 2008 7:56 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: SC | May 28, 2008 8:03 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:

*I'm aware I haven't named a single woman in my lists of philosophers and scientists. That's partly because I want to give Mary Midgley a holiday from being my go-to philosopher (but you should all still read her), and partly because of a semi-conscious sexist bias I intend to redress in a future revision of this post.

After presenting a list that includes Derrida and Postman while neglecting Simone Weil. Good luck with that revision, pal.

Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 8:09 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: Logicel | May 28, 2008 8:33 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: SC | May 28, 2008 8:36 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: inkadu | May 28, 2008 8:40 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: True Bob | May 28, 2008 8:41 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: Scott D. | May 28, 2008 8:54 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: Salt | May 28, 2008 8:57 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: Nick Gotts | May 28, 2008 9:01 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: Blake Stacey | May 28, 2008 9:15 AM

Mary Midgley is his "go-to philosopher"? Hrraf.

Posted by: Ric | May 28, 2008 9:29 AM

Yes indeed, the "Lout's reply" is simply another iteration of the Courtier's Reply. It is not at all convincing.

Posted by: doubtingfoo | May 28, 2008 9:31 AM

Dude...dangling genitalia...if I were drinking milk it would be up my nose right now.

Posted by: Pete M. | May 28, 2008 9:34 AM

Walton @ 23: please don't conflate theology with philosophy. I see this all too often, and they are not the same.

Posted by: Janine ID | May 28, 2008 9:37 AM

What does one have to do to be labeled as a scallywag?

Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 9:40 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: SC | May 28, 2008 9:47 AM

Faith consists in believing in something without any solid evidence for it.

faith = superstition

Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 9:49 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: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 9:55 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: Beowulff | May 28, 2008 9:56 AM

I like Larry Morgan's response that was just released from moderation. "Thingyness" is now my word for the day :)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 9:58 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.

Whew!

Posted by: Tulse | May 28, 2008 10:02 AM

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.

...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: Notkieran | May 28, 2008 10:10 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: Iain Walker | May 28, 2008 10:12 AM

Walton (Comment #49):

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.

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: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 10:13 AM

Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 10:11 AM

There's no there there.

Posted by: Bob | May 28, 2008 10:18 AM

...how are we to take seriously anyone who would subsume Dorothy Day, Sojourner Truth, Bonhoeffer, Frederick Douglas, Gandhi, Martin Buber, Alan Watts, the Dalai Lama, Bishop Tutu, Thomas Merton, Karen Armstrong, among countless others, as "lying leeches"?

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: Walton | May 28, 2008 10:21 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 not to believe - based on evidence which could equally guide them in either direction - and allow them to be punished for eternity if they make the wrong choice? Logically, either he is not benevolent (which would lead to your conclusion that he is a "right bastard"), or he is not omnipotent, and is matched by an equal and opposing source of evil (an idea which is not new, and has echoes of Manichaean and Zoroastrian beliefs). The truth is that I have no idea, and I can't provide a convincing argument.

These arguments of theodicy, and the question of evil, are much older than scientific atheism - medieval philosophers grappled with them - and in a sense much more profound and more difficult to answer.

I will point out, though, as regards "eternal torture", that traditional Christian demonology, and the popular-culture conception of Hell, have very little scriptural basis. (So much of what the average person "knows" about Christian belief actually comes from Milton, not the Bible.) The closest thing to a "description" of Hell is that those who choose not to believe will be "cast into the outer darkness, where there will be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth". I would certainly prefer to read this as a metaphor, and indeed many modern Christians do. "Hell" is not necessarily an actual place, nor a state of eternal torture; it may be viewed as a state of separation from God, rather than union with God.

But I realise that isn't a satisfactory answer. I'll work on it.

Posted by: Pablo | May 28, 2008 10:23 AM

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.

This is funny, considering Walton was the one who brought up the whole "Judeo-Christian Tradition" response. In particular, the JC tradition says that the devil was an angel who rebelled against God. That is a fairly devistating blow to the claim that "absolute proof of God would take away our free will." Consider, not only did Lucifer have direct knowledge of God's existence, but also presumably knew that God was all-powerful. Yet, Lucifer still _chose_ to rebel! Apparently, he still had the ability to chose to do what he wanted.

So it comes down to the fact that, the "Judeo-Christian tradition" of Lucifer as the fallen angel contradicts the "Judeo-Christian tradition" that direct knowledge would eliminate free will.

But hey, who ever expects consistency from Judeo-Christian tradition?

Posted by: Monado | May 28, 2008 10:26 AM

Richard Harris [9], I believe you've hit a nail on the head. It might not have been the nail you were aiming for, but... when you mentioned tribes being ruled "as if the gods were living among them," a little light went on in my head. Why was there a "holy of holies," an inner room that no one could enter but the priests? That was where The God Lived. In the Bible we perceive it as a spiritual thing, "the presence of God." But what a con! What a foolproof con! "There's a big, powerful, dangerous god in my tent and he will smite you unless you make offerings. Bring me oil, and bread, and the choicest, unblemished animals. The blood is sprinkled on the altar for God, the meat is cooked, and the offering must be eaten only by the priest and his family." Oh, and your prosperity offering will be returned to you a hundredfold as God brings you good luck and defeats your enemies.

Riight.

Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2008 10:28 AM

To Pablo.

In particular, the JC tradition says that the devil was an angel who rebelled against God. - No, it doesn't. Like most of Christian demonology, this is a medieval myth which was popularised by Milton. It isn't in the Bible. There's very little in the Bible itself about Satan, demons or hell.

Indeed, even the use of "Lucifer" as an alternative name for Satan is non-scriptural. It means "light-bearer" and is a Latin translation of a Hebrew name used in Isaiah, but modern scholars believe the relevant phrase to be a pseudonym used for one of the Babylonian kings.

Most of what the average person thinks they know about Judeo-Christian demonology, as I said earlier, is entirely non-scriptural and mostly comes from Milton and various folk stories invented by the medieval Church. This is why I do think that a study of theology would be beneficial to many atheists - not to try and convert anyone, but simply so that you can understand what you're arguing against and try not to make straw man arguments.

Posted by: Ric | May 28, 2008 10:34 AM

Walton @64:

The flaw in your logic is you move from not being able to disprove a negative to concluding that something is therefore possible (so far, so good), to suggesting that somehow it is therefore a valid choice to chose to believe that the possible thing is a good explanation for events we see in the world. But no decision can be made based on possibility. Decisions must be made based on probability. You see, your logic can just as easily lead one to believing in Sauron, unicorns, aliens, or an infinite number of other ludicrous crap that cannot be disproved.

Therefore, when you say:

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.

We must conclude that, based on your logic, any event in the material world should, with equal likelihood, be ascribed to fairies, unicorns, sauron, aliens, or god, and the thing one chooses to ascribe it to is based solely on personal, arbitrary and irrational choice (which you call faith). Are you sure that's where you want your logic to lead, to the conclusion that god is on par with fairies, leprauchans, and characters from fantasy books? Because if you do, that's fine with me.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 10:43 AM

The important question isn't whether some sort of "god" exists; it's whether the claims of religion have any truth to them. Any reasonable, scientifically educated person knows they don't.

But the watered-down, mere cosmological hypothesis -- why are you people so restlessly obsessed with it? I'm quite sure it's not out of passion for cosmology (a subject which is seldom discussed on atheist blogs and message boards). The only reason I can think of is the simple thrill you get out of calling yourselves atheists.

Posted by: mds | May 28, 2008 10:43 AM

All this is reminding me of the bit from the first Hitchhiker's book:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Well, that was easy," says man, who goes on to prove that black = white, and is promptly run over at the next zebra crossing."

Posted by: Roel | May 28, 2008 10:45 AM

The misunderstanding is that Dr. Dawkins is writing about theology. If he was, their criticism would be right.

However, he is not. Dr. Dawkins is not writing about the nature of God, the Holy Trinity, the commencement of Evil or anything else theologicans like to write about.

He is barely questioning their basic assumption that there is a God in the first place, something they dare not question themselves.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 10:49 AM

Said Walton:

"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."

It is true science cannot rule the possibility of god existing. It does however place considerable restrictions on what a god could do. It seems to rule out the possibility of any form of intervention in the universe, which makes prayer somewhat redundant. There may be a role for a god in the creation of the universe but even that is not at all clear. Some cosmological models do not have a beginning of time. We simply do not know enough to say with any degree of certainty what, if anything, preceded the big bang. It would therefore be premature for the religious to claim there is role their for their god. Science does not say there is no god, but it does mean that any god does not have much to do.

And as for the why questions, such as "Why are we here ?", you first need to show that such a question even makes sense before allowing god in as an explanation. You assume there is a reason for the existence of the universe when I can see no justification for assuming there has to be a reason. Until you have done that your argument is pointless.

Posted by: Janine ID | May 28, 2008 10:49 AM

But the watered-down, mere cosmological hypothesis -- why are you people so restlessly obsessed with it? I'm quite sure it's not out of passion for cosmology (a subject which is seldom discussed on atheist blogs and message boards). The only reason I can think of is the simple thrill you get out of calling yourselves atheists.

Posted by: J

Damn, J has moved on to other threads. And once more, he has a firm grasp on our motives. I am an atheist because I am out to SHOCK some people. I cannot think of a bigger thrill.

Schmuck.

Posted by: Josh | May 28, 2008 10:50 AM

David, total agreement with everything you wrote except:

"Testable/falsifiable" doesn't even apply to "fact".

This statement isn't totally accurate. Facts are in fact falsifiable. NOTHING in science is off the table with respect to being overturned, even if just in theory. This includes observations.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 10:55 AM

Go re-read my two previous posts, and you'll see that this is orthogonal to everything I said. I'm advocating telling people you reject religion. Telling people your cosmological opinions (if unasked for) is wholly unnecessary.

Translation: public discourse is bad.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 28, 2008 10:56 AM

Walton,
No-one here, and very few atheists, argue that the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent being is logically impossible; nor that the existence of a creator of some kind is either logically impossible, or contrary to empirical evidence - since any sufficiently powerful creator could, clearly, conceal its existence. So if you're arguing against any of these claims, you're wasting your time, because we all (so far as I know) agree with you. What I would argue is that the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent being is clearly contrary to empirical evidence: if that were the case, we would not expect to encounter suffering. This is, as I'm sure you're aware, the so-called "Problem of Evil". (There is of course an analogous "Problem of Good" for any theist arguing for the existence of an omnipotent and malevolent deity.) If you believe you know a satisfactory answer to this problem, or a way of avoiding it, let us know.

Posted by: Colugo | May 28, 2008 10:57 AM

J: "Why push the envelope, persistently telling everyone that you're an atheist, saying things like "I'm proud to be an atheist"? What's the bloody point?"

What would you prefer instead of "atheist," J? "Godomizer"? "Luciferian"? (Hey, it's kind of like Brite, as in bearers of light.)

-----------------------

MAJeff: Did you read about Romney's follow-up speech on May 8? Excerpt:

"I had missed an opportunity ... an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief -- to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience -- it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 11:00 AM

"I had missed an opportunity ... an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.
If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief -- to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience -- it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

Something tells me it was more CYA because of the shit he took, and that his original speech is closer to the truth. Then again, with Romney, there usually is not truth because he will say whatever is expedient for advancing his own career.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 11:01 AM

"Go re-read my two previous posts, and you'll see that this is orthogonal to everything I said. I'm advocating telling people you reject religion. Telling people your cosmological opinions (if unasked for) is wholly unnecessary."

Translation: Atheists should shut the fuck up and leave the field clear for the religious.

Have you written to the Pope and asked him to shut up about Catholicism ?

Posted by: Janine ID | May 28, 2008 11:04 AM

But the difference is, in the case of Christianity, that the Gospels - purported historical accounts which, as discussed earlier, seem to have at least some historical credibility when stacked up against extra-biblical evidence, despite a few apparent errors and inconsistencies - claim that Christ performed miracles, was executed and rose again from the dead. There is, of course, no positive proof for these claims, nor will there ever be. The supernatural aspects of the Gospel accounts could be entirely invented, the result of hysteria, or corrupted over time. But it's still better evidence than any which exists in favour of Sauron, a fictional character from a book whose author (a devout Catholic, incidentally) never purported to be giving an eyewitness account of real events.

Walton

That is very thin gruel you are serving there. But I suppose that faith can make that a feast.

Posted by: Janine ID | May 28, 2008 11:06 AM

Then again, with Romney, there usually is not truth because he will say whatever is expedient for advancing his own career.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM

I am sure you remember when he was your bestest friend in the world!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 11:08 AM

I am sure you remember when he was your bestest friend in the world!

he's been my friend, my fuck buddy, my worst enemy, my joke punch-line. Willard rawks! I just hope McCain chooses him so he can finish spending Tag's inheritance.

Posted by: Ric | May 28, 2008 11:09 AM

Walton @ 94 said:

I realise this seems like hairsplitting. But if I were to make up some crap right now and declare it religious truth, while it doubtless couldn't be disproven, I would have no reason to believe in it other than my own imagination. The Gospels, on the other hand, have a little more credibility. Of course, I'm not denying that there is no proof, and no logical or rational reason to have faith in one particular deity over another. But there is a point, as we've discussed, where reason ends and faith begins, and one must make a personal choice whether to believe in a supernatural being and, if so, which one - and many people opt for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

And we come again to the question of probability, which was my point entirely. We've agreed that simply possibility, which seemed to be the thrust of your earlier post, gets us nowhere, since literally anything is possible. So now you want to argue that Christians have some sort of evidence for their belief; they have reason to base their decisions on probability. That brings us into new territory-- one where you are on much, much weaker ground. In fact, this brings us roundabout to Dawkins, Harris, the new atheists, and indeed, all of the historical atheists who have so clearly shown that the events of the gospel are extremely improbable. So that wipes out your argument that the gospel is somehow a reason to choose god over Sauron, leaving god once again on a par with fictional characters, leprauchans, and fairies.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 28, 2008 11:10 AM

No, Jeff, that's not what I said at all. Cut it out with these petty strawmen.

You come into a particular public sphere in which such issues are being discussed and say, "this conversation should not take place. Shut up." You are saying that this form of public discourse shouldn't be happening. Yeah, public discourse is bad, at least if it's an atheist public.

Posted by: BT Murtagh | May 28, 2008 11:17 AM

The courtiers in Andersen's tale may uncritically accept that the emperor is clothed, but you cannot make this claim about religious adherents except on a case-by-case basis, and even then, not without some evidence.

The equivalent claim to the courtiers' claim "the emperor is clothed" is "there is a god or gods" for religious adherents. I can't see the problem with making that claim about all religious adherents, since it pretty much defines what a religious adherent is; there's no need to go case by case at all.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 28, 2008 11:21 AM

The closest thing to a "description" of Hell is that those who choose not to believe will be "cast into the outer darkness, where there will be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth".

What about all the occurrences of "lake of fire" and "everlasting fire" in the Gospels?

Facts are in fact falsifiable. NOTHING in science is off the table with respect to being overturned, even if just in theory. This includes observations.

I wouldn't necessarily equate "fact" and "observation"...

No, I have no really convincing answer to the question of theodicy and the existence of evil. The best I can do is to direct you towards the Book of Job, the only place where the Bible seems to tackle this issue.

That book, however, is older than monotheism. It talks about the gods ('elohim, plural of 'eloha) and their sons (also plural). The angry creator in that book explains how he hammered out the metal kettle that is the sky (rather than, say, just speaking it into existence like in Genesis 1). I don't quite see why it's relevant.

Posted by: Iain Walker | May 28, 2008 11:25 AM

Walton (Comment #102):

I'll bow out of this discussion for the time being, because I don't think there's much more I can say; we're starting to go round in circles.

Well, I'd still like to know what the supposed merits of faith are, since you don't seem to have addressed this. I can see the merits of accepting something as a provisional, working assumption in a purely instrumental fashion, to see if it actually leads you to discover something. I can even understand the idea (as promoted by quasi-atheist existentialist theologians like Don Cupitt) of the leap of faith as an act of commitment to an ideal represented symbolically by the concept of God (I may not sympathise, but I can kind of see the point).

But what I don't get is why there should be any merit in making a leap of faith to accept a propositional claim. If you don't have any grounds for supposing it to be true, then surely it is the height of epistemic irresponsibility to embrace it with any degree of conviction.

If you rejoin the thread later, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this point.

Posted by: Janine ID | May 28, 2008 11:27 AM

I think the cult mentality I referred to has been amply demonstrated by now.

Posted by: J

Oh dear, all of the stock phrases and responses. Etta, I think it is time for a J drinking game.

Posted by: Josh | May 28, 2008 11:28 AM

I wouldn't necessarily equate "fact" and "observation"...

Really? huh... Okay, well then what else is a fact if it isn't an observation with an error attached to it (realizing of course that the error can be frightfully small, such that the observation is "effectively true")? Even in the link you provided, which I mostly agreed with, Jeff discussed facts as observations.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 11:31 AM

"That's true, but only trivially true. You hopefully think people shouldn't make racist remarks. Therefore, according to you, "public discourse" -- in which racists express racist opinions -- oughtn't be happening.

Not that I'm comparing atheist to racism. I'm showing that being against some forms of public discourse isn't the same as being flat-out against public discourse"

J, your point would have more validity if you were also telling theists to shut up. If you wanted to see no discussion of the existence, or non-existence of gods, that would be one thing. However you seem to want to muzzle only one side. Which does kind of give us a clue as the type of person you are, and where you are coming from.

Posted by: Pablo | May 28, 2008 11:36 AM

No, it doesn't. Like most of Christian demonology, this is a medieval myth which was popularised by Milton. It isn't in the Bible. There's very little in the Bible itself about Satan, demons or hell.

LOL!

As opposed to "free will"? Show me THAT in the bible!

Once again, Walton, you are doubletalking. There is a lot of "Judeo-Christian tradition" that is extrabiblical.

Then again, the idea that Satan rebelled against God is NOT extrabiblical. It is right there in Revelations (Rev 12:7-9)

"Then there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels. 8 And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven. 9 This great dragon--the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world--was thrown down to the earth with all his angels."

So to summarize: Satan was in heaven and fought against Michael and the angels. My point stands: Satan was in heaven, and therefore had firsthand experience of God. Yet he was still able to chose to rebel. That's what it says in the bible.

And as I said, it contradicts claims that "absolute knowledge" of God prevents free will.

Walton, your claims are toast.

Posted by: Richard Harris | May 28, 2008 11:40 AM

Monado @ # 75, "I believe you've hit a nail on the head. It might not have been the nail you were aiming for, but... when you mentioned tribes being ruled "as if the gods were living among them," a little light went on in my head. Why was there a "holy of holies," an inner room that no one could enter but the priests? That was where The God Lived."

From books that I've read - Ancient Iraq & Before Philosopy - it appears that the peoples of the ancient middle East had many gods. There were gods of the farming implements & cooking utensils, city gods, & El, Enlil, Marduk, & entourage. Some of these were around for thousands of years!

I've not come across an explanation for why the peasants apparently believed in these people-like (but super-human) deities, despite never seeing them. The role of the King & his wife as representiatives of the gods on Earth is also not clear. I suspect it varied from Empire to City State, & over time. The history was written on clay tablets, thousands of which have survived, & been interpreted.

Interpretation of ancient languages written in cuneiform must be problematic. However, there did seem to be a sanctum sanctorum in temples & maybe palaces too.

But apparently, if you kept your nose clean & carried out the necessary religious observances, you & your family prospered. That would help spread the genes for religiosity.

Posted by: Akheloios | May 28, 2008 11:43 AM

He is barely questioning their basic assumption that there is a God in the first place, something they dare not question themselves.

I think Bishop Spong does, but only tenuously, and he's pretty much been sidelined from any serious debate, but there is hope.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he questions the historicity of Jesus and whether it wouldn't be better just to do good things to each other because they're good rather than because god says so.

I'm one of those ex-catholic militant Atheist types though, so I'm not up to date on Anglican debate.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 11:44 AM

Actually, I would like to point out that I deliberately took cosmology and astrophysics courses as my options (as opposed to the core requirements) in my degree. The other options that I spent time on were the philosophy of science and environmental physics.
What do you mean, "Actually"? Why would you assume I'm addressing you? How are you representative of the majority of people here?

I doubt that most militant atheists have done cosmology courses etc., so your point is entirely irrelevant.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 28, 2008 11:45 AM

Walton:

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.

Ah but the progress of science such that as Dawkins points out, the deity of the Judeo-Christian Bible and the Koran etc certainly does not and cannot have existed. So if any deity does exist then that entity will be both so remote and innefectual that simply acknowledging their existence (even if such would be worthwhile) would be more than is required. We are then a very, very long way away from worship. We were not created, this earth and cosmos in general were not created. So what exactly would we owe to this implausible god of the ever decreasing gaps?

That is why most religious people will reject your formulation and why the rareified gods of the theologians and Anglican Archbishops have no traction with ordinary believers. They see no point in them.

Which is another reason Dawkins did not bother with the deities of the theologians et al, they are so insubstantial that as Phillip Pullman showed in His Dark Materials, expose them to the air and they will blow away with a sigh.

Be honest, would you want to worship your implausible gods? What would you pray to them about knowing as we do that they cannot affect any aspect of your life?

Posted by: F. Jardim | May 28, 2008 11:52 AM

Walton is using very flimsy methods for claiming religion is valid. I mean, as soon as something has a non-zero chance of existing, it merits its own dogma, respect from others, and faith?

I'm yet to see people abstaining from pork, sex or marriage to people of different groups; donating money and hating others because "there's an infinitesimal chance that there's a deity out there that cares about this".

There's a non-zero chance that a giant Pokemon god exists and actively hides his existence from everyone while he plans to destroy the multiverse with the tidal emissions of his quantum masturbation. But no one lives their lives under that assumption, nor should they.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 28, 2008 11:58 AM

To be fair, there's a difference between saying that there's something to theology and saying that Bonhoeffer is not a leech.

I quite agree that for the most part one need not take the apologies of a Bonhoeffer or Tillich very seriously. Someone has to, of course, because there are deep questions behind empiricism that have to be addressed vis-a-vis the god claim. It's long been done, though, and science basically is the upshot of good philosophy.

But of course one may make a case that theologians and the godly are not so bad as PZ makes them out to be. The article sort of does this, if not particularly well, and is not objectionable on those grounds.

The trouble is that the author did not differentiate at all well between the fact that one might (arguably) be legitimate in defending theologians, and the supposition that theology is thereby something more than invisible "clothing." If he had, he might have written something reasonable.

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

Posted by: krb | May 28, 2008 12:04 PM

I'm an amatuer screenwriter so I like imagination. Right now I'm imagining Jehovah dabbling with agnosticism.
INT: College dorm room - Night
Jehovah lies on his bed while Jesus plays on-line poker lethargically. He's winning every hand.
Jehovah
What if I don't know everything?
Jesus
See Hov, that's what I'm talkin about. You're such a pussy. It's why you don't get laid.
(exiting the computer program)
This is soooo boring. Let's go to Mulligan's.
Jehovah
(getting up)
It's a little early.
As they head through the door-
Jehovah
I did ace the SAT.
Jesus
You missed two.
Jehovah
They were fucking trick questions and you know it.
Jesus
I am that I am.
Jehovah slams the door on his way out.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 28, 2008 12:05 PM

If no, then what is the state of separation from Zeus called?

Virginity if I do not mistake my ancient Greek myths.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 12:08 PM

There are no compelling reasons, not even slightly compelling reasons. to think that deities exist. There are many compelling reasons that clearly show that there is no need for deities to exist. The Universe, Nature, seems to do just fine without them. As far as the "why?", or "what for?" questions go, it's up to humans to deal with. Nothing is accomplished by attempting to answer the mystery of existence by introducing the greater mystery of deities. A mystery cannot be solved by introducing another mystery. That's just stupid. And for anyone to even entertain the idea that an ancient collection of manipulated writings by the hands of unsophisticated goat-herders have any basis in reality is bat-shit crazy.

Posted by: Josh | May 28, 2008 12:17 PM

I'd say that facts are parts of reality, and our observations are, lastly, hypotheses about facts. That's why they have errors attached to them (other than quantum uncertainty), and why repeated observations trump single observations.

I was always taught that the fact is the observation of the objective "truth" of "reality." I'm gonna do some digging on your version...it's an interesting take. I think in practice though, by necessity people tend to equate the hypothesis of the fact (observation) and the fact...which means that my point is valid for the practical doing of science.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 28, 2008 12:19 PM

J,

How, exactly, does one speak out against religious superstition without telling people his/her cosmological opinion?

Seems to me that the latter provides a necessary foundational explanation towards the former...

Posted by: alex | May 28, 2008 12:20 PM

Walton: The Gospels, on the other hand, have a little more credibility.

Posted by: chancelikely | May 28, 2008 12:24 PM

David Marjanovich #142: try telling that to Ganymede.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 12:25 PM

"o dear, another instance of someone mistaking the historical Jesus for a Divine Jesus. if the very shallow evidence does, indeed, show that Jesus existed as a very real person, there is literally nothing to even suggest he was anything more than the centre of a successful cult (apart from the writings of the cult itself). IMAGINE if the only literature on L. Ron Hubbard was literature produced and made available by Scientologists."

Not to mention there are religions other than Christianity that can also lay claim having evidence supporting the existence of their main religious figures. Which does make me wonder how and why Walton settled on Christianity.

Posted by: windy | May 28, 2008 12:26 PM

J wrote:

I doubt that most militant atheists have done cosmology courses etc., so your point is entirely
irrelevant.

Jesus H. fucking Christ [sic]. Do you think most believers have studied cosmology? No? THEN WHY IS IT OK FOR THEM TO HAVE AN OPINION ON COSMOLOGY AND TO SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 28, 2008 12:31 PM

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.

What this confuses is the difference between, say, your wife telling you to have faith in her, and you simply having faith that you have a wife named Sue for whom there is no evidence.

It's reasonable for a leader, a god, say, to ask for faith in him, if he has shown himself worthy of such faith. It is utterly ridiculous (psychotic in more mundane situations) to require faith in an entity's very existence, sans evidence, and then ask for one to have complete faith in this unevidenced entity on top of that.

In real life, evidence that an entity exists is not enough to ask someone to trust that entity. We require evidence even to have faith in each other. But instead of, perhaps, giving God the benefit of the doubt that he is well-meaning, in the face of evidence to the contrary, we're supposed to have faith even that he exists, against the lack of evidence.

There are few propositions that are more blatantly unreasonable than that one.

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

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 28, 2008 12:31 PM

BMcP (#150) argued,

Of course if someone personally believes in a deity and quietly lives their life are they required in any way to prove their belief to you or I?

I think you're missing the necessary condition of interaction.

There is no such thing as a 'thought crime', and the little old spinster widow who thinks that pixies visit her at night or that black people are inferior to whites is living in what we would call a delusional reality, but it is hers to live.

However, once this innocent entity starts expressing her views to her grandkids or tells strangers that they must believe them to be true....well, then they've crossed a line where proof is necessary.

That's the real issue, since active religionists are obviously not keeping it to themselves.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 28, 2008 12:32 PM

Like most of Christian demonology, this is a medieval myth which was popularised by Milton. It isn't in the Bible. There's very little in the Bible itself about Satan, demons or hell.

For that matter, there ain't much about the Trinity, either.

Posted by: Tulse | May 28, 2008 12:34 PM

But of course one may make a case that theologians and the godly are not so bad as PZ makes them out to be.

To be fair, I don't think the problem is with theologians or the godly, but with theology and godliness. The individual theologians and godly may personally be very fine people who love kids and puppies and pay their taxes on time -- it is their beliefs as implemented in society that are the problem.

Posted by: chancelikely | May 28, 2008 12:39 PM

What I can't quite understand is why fewer people haven't solved the problem of evil the Job way - by saying that God, while omnipotent and omniscient, is not exclusively benevolent.

Actually, I guess that is the solution provided by the "believe or you're going to hell" variety of Christians.

Posted by: Barklikeadog | May 28, 2008 12:40 PM

To Josh # 76.....

Zell???? Dell???? Windows Vista????

Posted by: Josh | May 28, 2008 12:43 PM

Vista. Definitely Vista...

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 28, 2008 12:49 PM

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that in the near future, our global civilization collapses: maybe we try to cancel out global warming with nuclear winter. Centuries later, cities are being built again, and archaeologists come across books. One series in particular must have been exceedingly important, as copies are found in different languages — French, German, English, Latin — all around the world. Each copy is only a fragment, but by comparing the overlapping portions a complete canon is tentatively identified. Some portions, attested only in surviving electronic records and printed material of lesser quality, seem to be later additions by a community of hands, but then again, portions of the canon itself are judged on literary grounds to be as low-quality as the least inspired of the apocrypha. Scholars know that Latin is the oldest of the languages in which translations exist, but it appears that most of the documents were first recorded in English.

Much of the material in these chronicles is of a fantastic nature, with epic battles between good and evil waged in a realm beyond the sight of most citizens, which the chronicles describe as blissfully ignorant. Believers in magic point out that prophecies made in one book are fulfilled in another, a claim which scholars dismiss as valueless. Upon further investigation, however, some places in these fantastic tales can be matched with known cities of the era, attested by archaeology — places like London.

Should we then have faith in Harrius Potter?

Posted by: clinteas | May 28, 2008 12:58 PM

Blake,

I read a post about the origins of the Genesis flood story today,cant for the life of me remember where,some commenter in another thread might have put a link up,and I just thought of that reading your post above,how folklore and hearsay and fiction can be transformed into "facts" and handed down throught the generations,its a very important point,and your scenario was an excellent example !

Posted by: ChrisC | May 28, 2008 1:03 PM

Eye witness accounts written in the bible, and people who have near death experiences have all reported that the emperor is well dressed. How can you neglect the evidence from NDEs?

You close minded "nakedists" refuse to see the evidence when it is presented to you.

My opinion.

Posted by: True Bob | May 28, 2008 1:07 PM

ChrisC, your opinion is worth exactly the cost I pay for it.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 1:09 PM

Chris @ #175

What you described is anecdote, not evidence. Evidence is independently verifiable. You are conflating the two. Besides, do you really think the mind is not capable of creating all sorts of experiences that are strictly internal? I mean, that seems like a very narrow view of what our imagination is capable of.

Posted by: clinteas | May 28, 2008 1:13 PM

Geez,

attack of the "i know how to use a spellchecker" Kennys tonite.....

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 1:16 PM

"Eye witness accounts written in the bible, and people who have near death experiences have all reported that the emperor is well dressed. How can you neglect the evidence from NDEs?"

By understanding that weird brain chemistry is happening in such circumstances, that is how.

I would also add that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable compared with forensic science.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 1:22 PM

Here's undeniable evidence:

Hey everyone, GOD IS REAL!!

There. That proves it.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 28, 2008 1:24 PM

Eye witness accounts written in the bible, and people who have near death experiences have all reported that the emperor is well dressed. How can you neglect the evidence from NDEs?

[ud mode]Yeah, and clothes exist. Dawkins admitted that clothes exist, so how can Myers go around blabbing that the emperor has no clothes?

Besides, if the emperor has no clothes, how come birds have feathers? Huh? Can't answer that one, can you nakedists[/ud mode]

Oh, and Chris, make the talk of nakedists not just slower, but a lot more female. Thanks.

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

Posted by: JustAnotherApe | May 28, 2008 1:26 PM

I am a card carrying member of the hooligans!!!

Posted by: True Bob | May 28, 2008 1:28 PM

Chet, Joe Messiah wasn't the only one making miracles in the babble. Others did, not just his disciples. Miracle work was not then considered a uniqe abililty of only god.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 28, 2008 1:28 PM

Am I the only one that read ChrisC's comment as just a Kenny parody?

Or was that really meant to be informative?

Posted by: ChrisC | May 28, 2008 1:32 PM

Must remeber to use my [\begin kenny mode] and [\end kenny mode] tags next time. Damn interwebs and its sarcasm concealment!

And Glen, in a strike against dominant masculinity/hetronormativity (sp?), I think that any talk of nakedist should encompass both genders.

Posted by: Chet | May 28, 2008 1:36 PM

Eye witness accounts written in the bible

None of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses; thus, the Bible contains no such accounts.

The Bible has accounts of unspecified people, who are claimed to have been eyewitnesses, but it's not even known that those people even existed; they certainly weren't alive at the time the New Testament was being written, some seven or more decades after the events it details.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 28, 2008 1:39 PM

Chris Schoen (#192) said,

Dr. Dawkins has never apologized for this slander, nor issued a correction.

Would you rather he give the full description of the meaning in his apology, which you are covering up?
A reminder, from your linky:

I am therefore happy to comply with Brown's request and accept that Mrs Midgley read the book as a professional philosopher and managed the remarkable feat (which somehow eluded millions of non-philosophers) of crassly missing the entire point

Posted by: ChrisC | May 28, 2008 1:43 PM

Just ease up on the trigger finger there True Bob...although I supposed as a frequent lurker but infrequent poster here, I haven't yet gained my "people know when you are being sarcastic stripes".

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 28, 2008 1:46 PM

"This does not entail telling people our cosmological opinions unless we're asked."

So it's "Don't ask, don't tell"? We wouldn't want to make other people uncomfortable with our icky unconventional cosmological opinions.

Incidentally, if someone visits a blog written by a self-described "godless liberal" where atheistic topics are frequently discussed, haven't they kind of asked us already?

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 28, 2008 1:49 PM

ChrisC (#201) said,

I haven't yet gained my "people know when you are being sarcastic stripes"

I think you did alright for a first (or relatively first) go. Just remember to add more nonsensical SHOUTING and refer to a dangerous 'slippery slope' without ever defining what real dangers exist, and you'll have him pegged.

Oh, and add a complaint that noone takes you seriously...

Posted by: Ken | May 28, 2008 1:50 PM

Give the guy a break - he actually thinks that Andrew Rilstone has "handed Dawkins his ass". This is cute rather than offensive.

Posted by: clinteas | May 28, 2008 1:54 PM

Etha I wish I had your bible education,I walked out laughing too early in my life to remember much,and I miss that sometimes,especially in here....

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 1:56 PM

"Give the guy a break - he actually thinks that Andrew Rilstone has "handed Dawkins his ass". This is cute rather than offensive."

Does Dawkins actually own a donkey ? Only he has never once mentioned the fact, and it is the kind of thing that one might drop into a conversation at some point.

Posted by: Josh | May 28, 2008 2:00 PM

They demonstrate very little awareness that science is relevant to a rather small proportion of human activity and concern; and it is this sometimes charming cluelessness that defines so many of them as nerds, or, as one would have written in the 19th Century, philistines.

You're fucking kidding, right? Seriously.

Have you drank any water today? Wanna take a guess at how many of the rest of the world's population have drank some today?

Posted by: frog | May 28, 2008 2:03 PM

Jim Harrison: The point is that traditional atheism doesn't really engage the kinds of thinking one encounters in the serious theologians whose names, we are warned, we must not drop. Vast swaths of ethical, political, aesthetic, anthropological, and psychological reflection are thereby waved away and replaced with shallow, rationalistic cant.

You know where I go to get my deep psychological reflections? Psychologists and artists. How about anthropology? Anthropologists! Aesthetics? Let's go back to the artists. Ethics? How about philosophy?

Why would I prefer a theologian who is a dilettante in psychology, when I could go with a pro? You're argument is weak and pathetic Jim --- why would I prefer the thoughts of a fairly screwed up, self-hating masochist like Augustine to the poetry of Lucretius? You're the one who is preferring the shallow inanity of Paul and his hangers on to the actually verifiable, self-consistent thought of Russell.

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 28, 2008 2:11 PM

@#23 Walton --

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.

1) Why should there be a why? The only reason our universe's ability to support life is special to us is because we see ourselves as special. It's a very anthropocentric way of looking at things, which is a bit silly given our relative smallness and insignificance wrt the scope of the universe.

2) It's entirely possible that life could have arisen in a universe not capable of sustaining this sort of life; it would simply be a different sort of life. Evolution by natural selection selects for life that is suited to the environment, so it stands to reason that if units capable of self-replication with random variation arose in a different universe, those variants best suited for that universe would be selected for. (Something like the energy beings in Star Trek? ;>) This is the main issue I have with astrobiologists who limit their conception of planets capable of supporting life to Earth-like ("M class," to continue the Star Trek references...) planets; there's no reason to think that radically different life shouldn't have arisen on other, radically different planets.

Posted by: ChrisC | May 28, 2008 2:12 PM

Dear Jebus Jim C...did you miss the part where it was pointed out that was a parody?

If so...see comments #193; #195 and #205

Posted by: frog | May 28, 2008 2:15 PM

Richard Harris: I've not come across an explanation for why the peasants apparently believed in these people-like (but super-human) deities, despite never seeing them. The role of the King & his wife as representiatives of the gods on Earth is also not clear. I suspect it varied from Empire to City State, & over time. The history was written on clay tablets, thousands of which have survived, & been interpreted.

Why do you assume that they didn't see gods? The non-sophist kinds of Christians hear God speaking all the time. They "see" him in everything surrounding him --- and many also see demons and angels.

Hallucinations are a normal part of human experience and the human perception mechanisms. I doubt that many haven't had the experience of an optical illusion, or feeling, seeing or hearing things that weren't really there. A large portion of the population don't take that second look to actually confirm that what they saw wasn't just hallucinatory.

Posted by: JimC | May 28, 2008 2:17 PM

Yepper I did ChrisC, my comment was sitting in dry dock for awhile before I hit the button.

The point is that traditional atheism doesn't really engage the kinds of thinking one encounters in the serious theologians whose names, we are warned, we must not drop. Vast swaths of ethical, political, aesthetic, anthropological, and psychological reflection are thereby waved away and replaced with shallow, rationalistic cant.

This is really just BS. There is allot of reflection to be sure but nothing approaching a viable evidence laced argument. And the average 'village' atheist doesn't have to much problem with these arguments either.

Posted by: Moses | May 28, 2008 2:21 PM

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.

Actually, you're wrong. We understand many of things through science. And are getting better at understanding them as science progresses.

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.

Once again, you're not up to speed.

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 what kills the whole God-thing most of all? Biblical Archeology. The more they dig, they more the understand. The more they understand, the more obvious where the early Jews came from and how their beliefs evolved over-time.

Most of you don't even know that at one time they were child-sacrificing polytheists. It took them a THOUSAND YEARS of change to become "officially" monotheist and, even then, there were still polytheistic beliefs and sub-sects in the population until (around) 1400AD.

Any argument for God needs to deal with the truth of these facts. God's wife. God's children. God being the combination of two separate gods (El & Yahweh (Yahweh is how we got to monotheism and, essentially, absorbed El).

Come on. Give me a break. You're coming into the major leagues with a little-league bat. Just like those "great philosophers" who were wholly ignorant of their religion's complete history.

Now were just partially ignorant. But what we've learned is amazing. And completely refutes modern Judeo-Christian understandings of "god."

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 28, 2008 2:27 PM

@#81 J --

The important question isn't whether some sort of "god" exists; it's whether the claims of religion have any truth to them. Any reasonable, scientifically educated person knows they don't.

But the watered-down, mere cosmological hypothesis -- why are you people so restlessly obsessed with it? I'm quite sure it's not out of passion for cosmology (a subject which is seldom discussed on atheist blogs and message boards). The only reason I can think of is the simple thrill you get out of calling yourselves atheists.

Atheism, for me at any rate, isn't a cosmological hypothesis; I admit quite freely that I don't know how the universe began, and am not sufficiently educated in the various hypotheses to give an informed opinion. But if it were shown that the universe was created by an intelligent agent, I still see no reason why this agent should be called "god."

But why are you so restlessly obsessed with berating us for not being obsessed with cosmology? The only reason I can think of is the smug satisfaction you get out of thinking yourself better than atheists.

Posted by: frog | May 28, 2008 2:27 PM

Moses: Most of you don't even know that at one time they were child-sacrificing polytheists

What I find particularly peculiar is that the child-sacrifice part is obvious from read the Bible. The thing is chock-full of places where you're told that you're not allowed to sacrifice your first born, where God asks for or sends his angels down to sacrifice the first born, where the Levites are identified as taking the place of sacrifice of the first born, and on and on...

If they read their own books seriously, and not solely as a source for propaganda, they would have recognized immediately that their cult is rooted in child-sacrifice. Why do they think that the idea of God sacrificing his first born made any headway if the idea of child-sacrifice wasn't fresh in their mind? The lamb replaces the child, which replaces the lamb.

Posted by: True Bob | May 28, 2008 2:29 PM

Moses, from whence come ye? You write very interesting posts, and include lots of intertesting information. History/evolution of religion I find especially interesting.

Regards, TB

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 2:37 PM

I think the Book of Hiram talks about the history of the "Jewish" religion, among other things. Sun and Venus worship started it all. It actually makes sense if you put yourself in the mind-set of a primitive culture. Predicting the seasons and formally recognizing the "giver of life" would be a pretty basic and important idea to grasp.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 2:44 PM

But why are you so restlessly obsessed with berating us for not being obsessed with cosmology? The only reason I can think of is the smug satisfaction you get out of thinking yourself better than atheists.
I've commented in two threads. That's hardly a sign of obsession. On the other hand, people like PZ Myers feel the need to announce they're atheists almost every day on their blogs. Now that is obsession.

It's ludicrous to say that I think I'm "better than atheists", seeing as I admit to being an atheist myself. The difference between us is that I consider atheism a cosmological viewpoint, which I don't feel I have to tell people about unless they ask.

I also believe in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, which I think is of far greater cosmological significance than the question of whether there is some intelligent design underlying certain aspects of Nature. Normally I only tell people about that in appropriate conversations. I do not shove my "multiversism" into people's faces.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 2:52 PM

Jesus H. fucking Christ [sic]. Do you think most believers have studied cosmology? No? THEN WHY IS IT OK FOR THEM TO HAVE AN OPINION ON COSMOLOGY AND TO SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS.
I've really had enough of these tedious, predictable strawmen. I did not say that it is "OK" for believers "TO HAVE AN OPINION ON COSMOLOGY". Their opinion is worthless. Religion has no bearing whatever on cosmological questions.

Now quit misrepresenting me. It's really getting pathetic.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 2:54 PM

that's "of course" of course.

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 28, 2008 2:56 PM

The difference between us is that I consider atheism a cosmological viewpoint, which I don't feel I have to tell people about unless they ask.

What's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.
Or in other words, you're wrong if you think other atheists must follow your self-imposed rules.

Especially that one that treats atheism as a cosmological viewpoint. That one is just plain naive.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 28, 2008 3:01 PM

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.

Actually, they aren't in the least beyond the scope of empirical science.

People long asked "Why does it rain?", looking for an anthropomorphic answer. That's understandable, for the very fact that one has to begin asking while using the measures one has at one's disposal. They had to ask "why does it rain" assuming that rain must exist in order for rivers to exist, and for humans to drink, because they had no other context (other than fragments of causal phenomena).

So, does it rain because the clouds themselves seek to give water to the earth, or is there a more comprehensive mind behind it all, such that it rains so that humans can drink, rivers flow to replenish the ocean, and oceans exist so that clouds can draw water from the ocean?

No, it rains because of a combination of thermodynamic matters involved with water, saturation points, and the topography of the land. The "why" was answered without resorting to a telos or a purpose, while it was never satisfactorily answered via teleology.

The same appears to be for all non-animal processes. Teleology only seems to work for explaining why animals do certain things. We might have thought that plants could be explained teleologically, except that there appear to be no minds directing plants, so that's useless. Ultimately, it appears that even animal tele will be explained through evolution and physiology, yet the fact that we do have goals will always leave room for teleological proximal explanations--but only where minds are known or can be properly inferred.

It is wrong to suppose that there have to be teleological answers to the "whys" that science explains. Serious believers in Abrahamic religions rarely explain the "why" of rain in teleological terms (except in special cases, like when prayers are made to end droughts), so why should anyone assume that human existence has a purpose or telos in the absence of any observable mind behind human existence?

The truth is that science gives us answers for most of our "why" questions, without resorting to teleology--aside from the doings of animate entities. Many do not like these answers, since humans tend to look for purpose behind every action (it's safer to assume intent than non-intent in the state of nature), but they are the only justifiable answers we have for a vast array of phenomena.

If one wishes to tack onto science a benevolent purpose behind all of the apparently purposeless phenomena of inanimate nature in order to satisfy their own psychological needs, they are completely free to do so. Just don't call this addition of a superfluous "cause" a "different kind of truth." It is not that in any ordinary meaning of "truth", it is simply a sop to cover for the fact that we are only able to find inanimate causes existing in our universe, except for the limited and understood causation of animals.

One has no right to demand animate causes for physical phenomena just because one wishes for these to exist. Science is fully adequate to deal with observable animate causation where this exists (and within its own proper parameters, of course), and we know that the "why" sensibly reduces down to inanimate physics wherever a mind behind the phenomenon is not evident.

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

Posted by: Moses | May 28, 2008 3:05 PM

No-one here, and very few atheists, argue that the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent being is logically impossible...

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 28, 2008 10:56 AM

Really. Logically impossible.

Beyond the straw-man, why wouldn't it be logically impossible?

Because you don't like the harsh reality that the entire concept of God which you're addressing is absurd and prejudiced to your Abrahamic cultural-theological roots?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is ZERO credible evidence that the Judeo-Christian god, or any other human-created pantheon, exists. There is no evidence, or logical reason to believe, that the universe in which we exist could harbor an omnipotent being or said being could have existed prior to the creation of the universe in any of the creation tales we've invented.

The entire God concept is simply absurd. As absurd as alien abductions, gremlins, fairies, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and every other fantasy we've constructed over the past 100 Milena to explain prosaic events that were once, but no longer, beyond our ken.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 3:10 PM

Even the Easter Bunny!!?? NOOOOO!!! Please, just please....say it ain't so! Please?!

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 3:17 PM

So why aren't you out there touring churches and telling them this? Once everyone agrees to define atheism your way, we can consider not talking about it so much. Deal?
What a ludicrous suggestion. I'm posting here because I like PZ Myers' writing and I read his blog every day. Obviously, I'm not "out there touring churches" because it would be inconvenient to do that.

Last I looked, atheism wasn't merely equivalent to "rejection of religion". But even if it were -- what's the sense in using such a stigmatized word? As Sam Harris remarked, it's as if you're lying down into the chalk outline they have drawn out for you. We're free to use whatever name we want. Why not choose the one that's most strategically expedient? (Maybe this isn't "Bright", though I find it hard to believe that "atheist" is undoubtedly the best we can have.)

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 28, 2008 3:22 PM

"...One has no right to demand animate causes for physical phenomena just because one wishes for these to exist. Science is fully adequate to deal with observable animate causation where this exists (and within its own proper parameters, of course), and we know that the "why" sensibly reduces down to inanimate physics wherever a mind behind the phenomenon is not evident."

I nominate that for best paragraph in thie thread.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 3:23 PM

"Last I looked, atheism wasn't merely equivalent to "rejection of religion". But even if it were -- what's the sense in using such a stigmatized word?"

You clearly did not look very hard, or have a problem with understanding what words mean.

If you cannot understand what atheism means, and clearly you cannot, then shut up. You have suggested the use of the word "Bright". However that term means more than just lack of a belief in god. It also means a rejection of irrationality of all kinds. An atheist, someone who simply does not believe in god(s) could believe that the Earth is being visited by aliens, or that astrology gives an good insight into a person's future. That person is an atheist, as they do not believe in god(s). None of the other terms you have suggested covers them.

Please, before crapping on anymore, learn what words mean.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 3:24 PM

When someone does try to discuss the implications of a designer to cosmology, you say that they are only 'repeating standard Dawkinsite arguments' (although you "agree with them"??) But it doesn't take an advanced cosmology course nor a reading of Dawkins to see that the fine-tuning argument for a designer is self-defeating!
I have little idea what you're going on about here. Time and time again I've said that I'm an atheist.

The point is that thrusting your cosmological opinion on people is totally unnecessary. It's even worse than necessary, it's inconvenient. Even if you're right and very simple, knowledge-free arguments are all that's required to demolish the deist position -- so what? Why do you feel so compelled to keep telling everyone else?

Posted by: Dennis N | May 28, 2008 3:26 PM

Uhhh, maybe cuz this is an atheist blog?

Posted by: Dustin | May 28, 2008 3:27 PM

At some point, there will be just laws of physics without further laws of physics explaining why those laws of physics "must" be that way.

Thinking otherwise is making the mistake of thinking that the "laws of physics" govern the physical world, rather than thinking that they are products of description by a physical model. And once someone has given in to that kind of metaphysical assumption, of course they'll keep grasping for something ever more fundamental or ontological even when experiment neither warrants nor supports doing so. That's where string theorists and many-worlders come from.

Posted by: Tulse | May 28, 2008 3:29 PM

traditional atheism doesn't really engage the kinds of thinking one encounters in the serious theologians

Wow -- and in a post that explicitly references The Courtier's Reply right in the first sentence. Amazing.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 3:35 PM

I have a question.

Did anyone ask J for his opinion on whether atheists should give their opinion ? Only looking through this thread I cannot see anyone asking him. Only given what he is saying about waiting to be asked I would have expected him to wait, and if he has not, it would indicate that he is rather full of shit.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 3:36 PM

Did anyone ask J for his opinion on whether atheists should give their opinion ? Only looking through this thread I cannot see anyone asking him. Only given what he is saying about waiting to be asked I would have expected him to wait, and if he has not, it would indicate that he is rather full of shit.
Opinion on what?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 3:40 PM

"Opinion on what?"

Opinion on everything you have been subjecting us to your opinion on. You seem to have failed to heed your own advice. Why not go sit in the corner and wait to be asked before telling us what you think.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 28, 2008 3:42 PM

Thoughtless little wisecracks like that only serve to prove me right, I'm afraid.

Yes, clearly that proves atheism is a purely cosmological opinion and we should all shut up. Clearly.

Why would so many people, many of whom aren't cosmologists or even scientists, have a blog devoted to a purely cosmological viewpoint?

Maybe cuz you're the only one who thinks atheism is a "purely cosmological viewpoint"?

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 3:46 PM

I do not recall anyone asking for your opinion. You just seemed to turn up and give it. Do you intend to follow your own advice and shut up ? Or do you intend sticking around longer and giving us even more evidence of how intellectually challenged you are ?
There's no inconsistency there. You're the intellectually challenged one if you think otherwise.

I believe this over-eager flaunting the badge of atheism is irresponsible and injurious to the secular cause. No small wonder, then, why I feel the need to "speak up". Cosmological opinions, in contract, aren't of any social significance, and therefore there can hardly be any reason to impart them on uninterested parties.

Posted by: Dustin | May 28, 2008 3:47 PM

Atheism is a rejection of a particular cosmology as baseless and improbable, and if that means that atheism is itself a cosmology, then health is a disease.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 3:50 PM

Maybe cuz you're the only one who thinks atheism is a "purely cosmological viewpoint"?
But it demonstrably is a purely cosmological viewpoint. This is quite plain.

It's the belief, to a high degree of confidence, that there was no intelligent designer of the Universe. This goes a lot further than simple disbelief in religion.

Posted by: frog | May 28, 2008 3:53 PM

GlenD: They want "Daddy did it because he loves you," though.

I've always found interesting the link between monotheism and the rise of the nuclear family, in both directions. The patriarchal, polygamous societies were not in a modern sense monotheistic --- they usually had one Daddy-god dominating his lesser gods. The matrilineal cultures were very different, with animisms and multi-level god structures. Even Islam with it's technical allowance of polygamy, in practice rarely has polygamy; and as the polygamous Mormons abandoned polygamy, they also became more monotheistic.

It's got to be about the intense frustration that occurs in a small family, with one man frustrated in his will-to-power over his little clan, and the little clan frustrated by no other options in satisfying their social and economic needs other than from that one little man. Daddy did it because he loves you, indeed. Cosmology as Freudian rationalization? How sad.

Posted by: Dustin | May 28, 2008 3:54 PM

It's the belief, to a high degree of confidence, that there was no intelligent designer of the Universe. This goes a lot further than simple disbelief in religion.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 28, 2008 3:57 PM

Until children stop being indoctrinated into cults that tell them to hate themselves for their sexual orientation, until girls stop being murdered by their fathers for talking to men, until the assault on reason and science by lackwits is stopped, I'll continue to shout my 'cosmological position' from the rooftops, regardless of J's lack of social significance.

So boring.

So, so, boring.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 4:00 PM

J,

Plenty of inconstancy on your part, not to mention utter dishonesty. You are telling those us here who are atheists to shut up and not give our opinions unless asked, and yet you were happy to offer that an opinion without being asked. You have this thing about atheism being a claim about cosmology. I have no idea what has given you that idea but in case you have missed what we have all been telling you, it is nothing of the sort. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god(s). That is it, nothing more. It does not say anything about the origins of the universe, other than not allowing a role for god(s). I will repeat, atheism is nothing other than the lack of belief in god(s). It offers no claims as to how people should behave, it does not mean an atheist automatically rejects all forms of irrationality. One can be an atheist and be totally irrational.

There is only one thing atheists have in common and that is a lack of belief in god. Many atheists may also embrace humanism, but that cannot be ascertained simply by knowing they are an atheist. I know of an astrologer who is an atheist. About the only thing I have in common with them is a lack of belief in god(s). I do not share their view on the validity of astrology, and I reject their claims it has scientific backing.

If you do not want to hear the opinions from a variety of atheists, of which there a fair few here and we do not all agree with each other about things, then do not come to a blog where atheism is a frequent subject of discussion and tell us to shut up. For a start it is not your place to do so. It is not your blog, it is PZ's, and only PZ (and SciBlogs) get a say in wha is allowed to be said here. That you think yourself to be an equal of PZ in that regard speaks volumes about your sense of your own importance. That you think others should keep quiet about their opinions becuase you think they should, whilst you are happy to offer your tells us that your ego is dangerously inflated.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 4:10 PM

Atheism == zero belief in gods appears to be the majority definition around here
Yes, that would be perfectly reasonable. The problem is, many eminent "atheists" use different definitions of the word, or express reluctance to use it at all. Richard Dawkins defines atheism as confident belief that there are no intelligent creators of the Universe (and he gives his Ultimate Boeing 747 argument to back this up). Bertrand Russell similarly defines atheism as the positive belief that there are no such beings (and not having the Dawkins argument at his fingertips, he wouldn't fully commit himself to this strong position). Daniel Dennett has a deliberately slapdash attitude towards it, admitting that there's ambiguity, and he calls himself an atheist only sparingly. Sam Harris doesn't like to call himself an atheist at all.

I think it's best to circumvent all this confusion by commandeering a new word.

Posted by: Brian English | May 28, 2008 4:14 PM

you cannot prove a negative

This is so dumb.

Let's try: I cannot prove 1 is not greater than 2.
Uhmmmmm. 1 + 1 = 2.

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 28, 2008 4:16 PM

Dietrich Bonhoffer was an idiot:

O God, early in the morning I cry to you.
Help me to pray and gather my thoughts to you, I cannot do it alone.
In me it is dark, but with you there is light;
I am lonely, but you do not desert me;
My courage fails me, but with you there is help;
I am restless, but with you there is peace;
in me there is bitterness, but with you there is patience;
I do not understand your ways, but you know the way for me.
Father in Heaven praise and thanks be to you for the night's rest,
Praise and thanks be to you for the new day.
Praise and thanks be to you for all your loving-kindness and faithfulness in my past life.
You have shown me so much goodness; let me also accept what is hard to bear from your hand.
You will not lay a heavier burden on me than I can carry.
You make all things serve for the best for your children.
Lord, whatever this day brings, your name be praised.

He sounds just like Kent Hovind!

Posted by: Steven Carr | May 28, 2008 4:20 PM

'Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.'

Oh dear!

I was told that the Book of British Birds was inspired by the Creator and Designer of all British Birds and that it contained personal messages from him about biology.

Now I am told that the British Book of Birds is no more inspired than the Bible, and I am no more qualified to talk about biology than somebody is qualified to talk about Christianity after reading the Bible.

Now that the British Book of Birds can be put on the same discard table as the Bible, what inspired books are there on biology?

Posted by: Tulse | May 28, 2008 4:20 PM

I think it's best to circumvent all this confusion by commandeering a new word.

And other reasonable people disagree with you. Can't we dispense with all this meta-discussion and leave it at that? It seems silly and profoundly counterproductive to argue about labels with people who generally share your ultimate goals, if not immediate tactics.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 4:22 PM

J: for the last time

'opposing religion' is a side effect of 'disbelieving in god(s)', not the primary motivator.

We oppose religions only where those religions impose upon us or on our rights (proselytize).

I personally could care less whther religions exist or not. However I DO care that they get a free ride on taxes, they get a free ride on (lack of) morals, they get a free ride on 'ethics' and they get a free ride on 'truth'.

Give me a level playing field and I'll shut up about religion - but I'll still be an atheist.

Until then I'll keep on with my opposition, and I'll still be an atheist.

Posted by: Barklikeadog | May 28, 2008 4:27 PM

Screechy Monkey says #203: ""This does not entail telling people our cosmological opinions unless we're asked."

So it's "Don't ask, don't tell"? We wouldn't want to make other people uncomfortable with our icky unconventional cosmological opinions.""

No, we will only tell if we are nekkid..........and not asked. To get nekkid that is.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 28, 2008 4:33 PM

Can't we dispense with all this meta-discussion and leave it at that?

No, because J wants attention for his nitpicking inanity.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 4:33 PM

"Sounds good, doesn't it, but it completely misses most of the points I made. For the last time: You can oppose religion all you want without calling yourself an atheist."

Yes you can. Deists can do just that. Opposing religion is not only down to atheists, deist can, and do, oppose religion. Opposing religion is not what defines an atheist. What defines an atheist, and please get this as you seem to be having problems with it, is a lack of belief in god(s). It is not the opposition to religion that makes a person an atheist, it is being an atheist that may (but does not have to) make someone oppose religion. Again you have the cause and effect totally arse about tit.

Posted by: mezzobuff | May 28, 2008 4:40 PM

OK, since there seems to be a lot of discourse here on definitions and, earlier, a discussion of "faith", thought I would wade in with a question: anyone have a good antonym for the word "faith?" Most of the antonyms seem to be on the negative side (negating defined synonyms of 'faith' such as belief to disbelief, loyalty to disloyalty, etc...). Any positive or stand alone antonyms? 'Skepticism' is OK (although easily misinterpreted as a negative term). A friend and I sort of liked the idea/alliterative element of a "you need facts, not faith" statement... still, not quite right. After looking into a few blogs it seems that there is no defining opposite to "faith"... any ideas? SC's post #51 and Iain Walker's post #117 sort of got me rollin' on this one... thanks guys!

Posted by: CJO | May 28, 2008 4:45 PM

I think it's been passed over that Dawkins considered the possibility that she (Midgely) hadn't read the book to be a charitable interpretation of the review.

The whole thing is rather a tempest in a teapot. I often wonder why it is that Dawkins in particular seems to routinely inspire such flights of impotent outrage. Remember Berlinski's screed against the "scientific fraud" Dawkins had perpetrated? (Link upon request: I'm busy)

It came down to whether the Nilson and Pelger paper on eye evolution described a mathematical model or a computer simulation, as Dawkins had written.

These guys know how to hit where it hurts, don't they?

Posted by: Richard Harris | May 28, 2008 4:50 PM

frog @ # 221, "Hallucinations are a normal part of human experience and the human perception mechanisms. I doubt that many haven't had the experience of an optical illusion, or feeling, seeing or hearing things that weren't really there."

Can you substantiate the latter? I know that I don't necessarily 'see', at a conscious level, what is in my field of vision. But I've never believed that I've seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelt anything that wasn't there, as far as I know.

Posted by: mezzobuff | May 28, 2008 4:52 PM

Thanks Matt... maybe I will be making up a new word? *wink* and a *sigh*

Posted by: Dustin | May 28, 2008 4:55 PM

She willfully misinterpreted it. If you read anything she's written, especially Science as Salvation and Evolution as Religion, you'll be struck by her perpetual, deliberate and malicious misinterpretation of everything. She engages in wholesale sophistry, and is nothing but snide as a cover for the utter insipidity and vacuity of her half-baked arguments. She delights in erecting and demolishing straw men and ignoring everything that everyone else says to the contrary. All she does is ascribe anthropic features to words where she knows it was not intended. She reacts against the presentation of evolutionary theory on the grounds that it, and the theory itself, are "morally pernicious".

She's the Don Quixote of moral philosophy.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 4:56 PM

sorry tfor teh spalign misteaks

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 4:58 PM

Dustin,

If she thinks Dawkins was using selfish in the anthropic sense then she must be being wilful. If I recall he actually makes it clear in the book how he is using the word. Of course people are happy to do the same with his use of delusion.

Posted by: mezzobuff | May 28, 2008 5:08 PM

Tony, I ignored the spelling and went straight to the meat! Spell check is SO overrated and the little red underlines add character hee hee hee

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 5:11 PM

mezzobuff - I like the little squiggles - makes me think of a steak on the grill... mmmmm. meat!

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 28, 2008 5:15 PM

@#315 CJO --

Once you get past Berlinski's posturing and ofuscatory "erudition," that was it.

This Slate article is probably my favorite treatment of Berlinski.

Though his interview with himself is a close runner up....

Posted by: Dennis N | May 28, 2008 5:20 PM

You're confusing frightened with annoyed.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 28, 2008 5:28 PM

"All this aggression only suggests that you people are frightened of something. Certainly there's no need to behave like this. If I'm wrong, it suffices to just say why. The insults are uncalled for."

Other than you being an insufferable prick you mean ? You have made the same assertion over and over again, that atheism is a cosmological position. No matter how many times people have corrected you, you have carried on making that assertion. There comes a time when you can no longer be considered just a little slow on the uptake and instead are being wilfully obtuse. When that happens I do not see why we need be that polite or civil to you.

Posted by: Dahan | May 28, 2008 5:30 PM

Rey

"As a part-time inventory counter, I can attest that the universe does, in fact, exist before 8 AM, but that it is a cold, gray, loveless, and horrible place, and is best avoided."

You're not waking up with the right person.

Posted by: Richard Harris | May 28, 2008 5:38 PM

frog, maybe there's a continuum with full blow schizophrenics at one end, & rationalists at the other? There's recently been published a correlation between schzophrenia & religiosity.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 5:41 PM

Off topic:

I'm often in two minds whether or not I'm schizophrenic. Luckily, if I don't like where my thoughts are going, I just tell myself to be quiet.

:)

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 28, 2008 5:48 PM

@#328 Richard Harris --

There's recently been published a correlation between schzophrenia & religiosity.

Source please?

Posted by: cl | May 28, 2008 5:56 PM

Now PZ I'm not here to meet your challenge, which is to provide evidence of God. But I've been lurking around here for some time now, and paying particular attention to this phenomenon you've called the Courtier's Reply.

As I understand it, the Courtier's Reply is meant to insult claims from believers of poor scholarmanship from unbelievers. It is at times appropriate. There are other times where such appeals to scholarmanship are most certainly justified, for example when syndicated newspapers like the New York Times run op-eds charging the Bible with claiming the Earth was flat. Now the Bible doesn't claim that the Earth is flat, (Isaiah 40:22) but someone who didn't know the Bible might not know this, in which case an appeal to their scholarmanship would be fully justified.

But in all the cases where I've actually heard you issue the Courtier's Reply, it's been justified in my view.

Posted by: J | May 28, 2008 6:01 PM

Frankly J you come off as someone who has too much time on their hands. You have been engaged on every point you've tried to make. Yes some have been rude, but many have not. I still fail to see the giant problem you are trying to convey to us.
How much time I have on my hands is my business alone, and is of no relevance here anyway. I think more people have been rude than have not. The "giant problem" I've explained quite clearly several times already in this thread.

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 6:07 PM

We have a Giant problem? I haven't seen any out here on the west coast. How big are they? Are there pygmies too?

Posted by: Alex | May 28, 2008 6:09 PM

That would be an Oblate Spheroid Reverend.

Posted by: Rev. bigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 6:11 PM

How much time I have on my hands is my business alone, and is of no relevance here anyway. I think more people have been rude than have not. The "giant problem" I've explained quite clearly several times already in this thread.

Ok, you are right, your time is your own. The rest I standby. You consider the problem a problem. You've failed to provide any convincing reason that it really is a problem when looked at from a high altitude. I see you've ignored the rest of my post.