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.

Posted by: cl | May 28, 2008 6:17 PM

To Rev. bigDumbChimp I extend the Courtier's Reply...

Posted by: ndt | May 28, 2008 6:21 PM

Walton wrote:

You cannot apply the scientific method to these questions, because they are intrinsically beyond the scope of empirical evidence.

And as such, those questions can never be answered.

Posted by: SC | May 28, 2008 6:21 PM

J:

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.)

See, here you're making a social-scientific argument. What evidence do you have, from studies of past movements, that another term would be strategically effective in the short- or long-term? You haven't offered any. You harped about "Brights" for a long time on the earlier thread, and only after literally (I believe) hundreds of comments did you acknowledge that it might not be a good idea after all. Now you return, replacing that tired idea with...nothing.

Even if you had a clever new term, you would have to provide some evidence that it would prove strategically superior. And even if you did so, and even if I were fully convinced that you shared my broader goals, I would still likely not be convinced to make a switch at this point. I am an atheist. I'm stickin' with it. (I'm also an anarchist. Despite that word's negative connotations for many, I prefer to try to change that and enlighten them rather than seek for some weasel word to replace it.)

You arguments about atheism's problems are also unsupported. I linked here recently to an interview with Alan Sokal. Asked if he is an atheist, he states plainly that he is. Are you suggesting that he has now irrevocably alienated himself from the thousands of cosmological deists that are his physicist and cosmologist colleagues? This horde of cosmological deists running screaming from the mere suggestion of atheism exists only in your imagination.

You've also made a number of assumptions about people here based on no evidence whatsoever. You have no idea whether people here are interested in or have studied cosmology. Stop saying you're "quite certain" about things that you can't possibly substantiate. And stop using words like "savages" and "savagery." Your imperialism is showing.

In short: Your concern is noted. And tedious.

mezzobuff: Hmmmm... Something like evidentiarism, but less unwieldy (or more wieldy, as the case may be :)).

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 28, 2008 6:25 PM

In my #349, "Russel" should be "Russell."

Posted by: True Bob | May 28, 2008 6:26 PM

mezzobuff, I almost forgot - how about "reality" as an antonym of faith?

Posted by: Saint Gasoline | May 28, 2008 6:28 PM

Yes, and let's ignore the fact that all of those dropped names probably conceive of God in mutually exclusive, contradictory ways.

Posted by: ndt | May 28, 2008 6:31 PM

kcrady wrote:

Either a theist's proposed god has effects within our Universe, or it does not. If it does, then the theist is making a truth-claim about the workings of Universe. Such a claim is a scientific question, and can be verified or falsified by comparing it against reality by using the scientific method.

If the theist's proposed god has no effect on our Universe, then there is no concievable distinction between what we would find if their god exists, vs. if their god does not exist. If its existence is indistinguishable, in principle, from its non-existence, then Occam's Razor delivers the coup de grace.

The "sophisticated" theological arguments then become mental masturbation, on a par with arguments over whether the Federation of Star Trek could defeat the Galactic Empire of Star Wars, or treatises on the digestive tracts of two-dimensional Flatlanders that explain how a two-dimensional mathematical abstraction can have a channel going all the way through it without falling into two pieces.

You pretty much nailed it, kcrady.

Posted by: frog | May 28, 2008 6:39 PM

Walton: . Most people on this thread are very clearly of a high intellectual calibre, and I think we all agree both that it is possible that God may exist, and that there is no positive evidence that God exists

That a god may exist, or that Yahweh exists? Because if the point is that a god may exist, that is saying very little to nothing --- a god is so underdefined that it can mean anything. Here's the underlying problem of sophisticated belief - it verges on sophistry, a moving goal-post that can be satisfied by anything.

Is this god good? Is this god powerful? Is this god sentient? Is this god all-knowing? Is this god the creator, or another creation? Is this god intelligent? Without specific answers to those questions and more, there is no agreement other than that the word exists, and out of the multiplicity of meanings there may be one meaning which is not incompatible with the universe in some context. That's not even weak theism - that is nothing at all.

Posted by: cl | May 28, 2008 6:46 PM

@ Rev. bigDumbChimp
re: Comment #351

My comment #344 doesn't refer to you "taking Isaiah 40:22 at face value." Ironically, my original comment #335 was about instances when the Courtier's Reply might be appropriate, and my comment #344 to you referred to the apparent lack of scholarmanship in your comment #337 to me, in which case the Courtier's is in fact appropriate..

Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 28, 2008 6:52 PM

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

Oh, well done!

Posted by: cl | May 28, 2008 7:01 PM

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp
re: comment #361

No worries friend. Skeptics are on to something when they take issue with the Bible's translations, and I guess I could leave the basis for my extending of the Courtier's to you.

The original Hebrew word, confirmed by the copy of Isaiah found at Qumran, is khug and denotes sphericity. People who claim flat Earth ideas are supported in the Bible are wrong, and those who argue the "circle = flat" approach show a lack of scholarmanship that instantly pegs their arguments as immature in the eyes of a real theologian.

On a side note, I agree with your concern about the winning teams in baseball and that fact's implication's for the end of ages.

Posted by: ZorkFox | May 28, 2008 7:07 PM

Bonus points for use of the word pettifogging.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 7:10 PM

The original Hebrew word, confirmed by the copy of Isaiah found at Qumran, is khug and denotes sphericity. People who claim flat Earth ideas are supported in the Bible are wrong, and those who argue the "circle = flat" approach show a lack of scholarmanship that instantly pegs their arguments as immature in the eyes of a real theologian.

Thanks for the clarification. I was actually just trying to find something that held up that point you just made above assuming that I was missing something.

And I was. I'm often wrong (ask Mrs. BigDumbChimp), but typical try to verify before I spout off. I had read a number of different takes on this passage but all them ignored the original language and any translation issues.

Posted by: DingoDave | May 28, 2008 7:13 PM

Ref. Comment #75: "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!"

A con that was backed up with brute force. These guys didn't feel the need to justify their existance with arcane or obsurantist arguments like modern theologians do. The choice in ancient Israel was simple. Worship Yahweh and obey the priests, or die. I can't help thinking that 'theology' was so much easier in those good old days.

Deuteronomy 17:12- "The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel.

Posted by: DingoDave | May 28, 2008 7:16 PM

Sorry, Comment #370 should have read: 'Obscurantist' arguments.

Posted by: cl | May 28, 2008 7:22 PM

@ Rev.BigDumbChimp
re: comment #368

Thank you. I'm being totally serious. I've been on blogs for a while now, and this might actually be the first instance of genuine humility I've come across. In you, friend, I see not the typical ego that interferes with learning, and I'm not tryin' to be no pompous ass, either.

In my mind, that coolness alone lends more validity to any belief of yours than any sophisticated argument ever could, and may myself and anyone else ever so persuaded of their being right in any controversy learn such lessons of moderation.

Then again, you said you've seen the Dead over 100 times and stayed up 4 sleepless nights in N.O. too, so I should've known you were real.

Posted by: DingoDave | May 28, 2008 7:30 PM

The dualistic notion of a cosmic battle between a 'good god' (Yahweh) and an 'anti-god' (Satan) was borrowed from Persian theology (Ahura Mazda vs Ahriman) and elaborated upon in the inter-testamental Hebrew literature such as the 'Book of Enoch', and 'The Testaments of the Twelve Patriachs'
Most Christians have never even heard of these writings, because they are simply not told about them from the pulpit, and because they are mostly too lazy, or apathetic to research the origins and history of their own religion.

Posted by: CJO | May 28, 2008 7:42 PM

...too lazy, or apathetic to research the origins and history of their own religion.

I'm not sure "apathetic" covers it, as that would imply a passivity to the matter. Most Christians, and I imagine most theists, actively discourage such inquiry. All it does is make painfully clear that supposedly holy texts are fully human documents with knowable histories, full of what is called in polite circles 'made up shit.'

A funny bit of anecdotal information I just read: Christian missionaries spearheaded the teaching of English in India, actually against the wishes of Imperial and East Indies administrators, because they were sure literacy and exposure to Western "rationality" would inevitably lead to mass conversions to their (perforce rational) religion.

Didn't really work out so well, though a lot of people took up English. Showing once again that what kind of nonsense you're willing to accept is all a matter of cultural baggage.

Posted by: cl | May 28, 2008 8:38 PM

@ CJO re: comment #373
@ black wolf re: comment #377

Great observations, and my mistake of sloppy writing. You could very reasonably charge me with making the same mistake I just raised against Rev.BigDumbChimp!

As you note, even my argument that khug (chuwg) denotes sphericity is poorly founded. Before I saw black wolf's comment I checked Strong's and 2329 simply states 'circle.' Concerning its use in Isaiah 40:22, I think the implication that chuwg definitely implies a round Earth is just as unfounded as the implication that chuwg definitely implies a flat Earth. Further complicating is that whether we are looking at a two-dimensional circle or a 3-dimensional sphere, both take on the literal appearance of a circle, right?

All this making any definitive claim based on Isaiah 40:22 speculative at best, which in a roundabout way was my original point. I think we can agree that all approximations concerning Earth's shape in scripture are conveniently packaged in dreams, visions and arguably metaphorical language, which only complicates things. Anyone?

I'm familiar with Alward's claims, and I'm glad you mention them because they're among the stronger counter arguments to the argument that the Bible does not claim the Earth is flat. Arguing as I did above that the Bible does not definitively claim Earth is flat is not the same thing as arguing the Bible definitively claims Earth is round, a claim I did not mean to imply if I did. Like most things in the Bible purported to prove this or that, these seem ever-so-cleverly-worded that our pre-conceived notions form our opinions for us.

Just for fun...

1) The edge of a sphere or circle is its crust; 2) The clay Alward shows sure looks like a continental land mass to me; 3) Alward forces a literal interpretation of Matthew 4:1-12 when the context is clearly of a vision; 4) As for the vision in Daniel, maybe the time frame of the vision corresponded to pangea in which one tall tree could theoretically be viewed from all the ends of the Earth? (Daniel wrote during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, when pangea had already long dispersed; his vision itself could have occurred at any point in space-time)

I don't know for sure, myself, and all of this just goes to show the lesson of moderation to those ever so persuaded of their being right in any controversy.

In the vein of Rev.BigDumbChimp, I apologize if I misled anybody. Hopefully this post clears things up.

Incidentally, all this banter about sphere-vs-circle obscures the original mysteriousness of the verse anyway: How is it that, during a time before science, Eratosthenes and the Wright Brothers, the Bible writers got the correct impression that Earth was circular and possibly spherical? From looking at the sun and moon?

Posted by: frog | May 28, 2008 9:04 PM

cl:

It's poetry, dammit! It doesn't make a lick of sense otherwise. You sound like you're trying to argue the shape of Satan's goatee from Milton. Whether the Hebrews used chug or dug for the shape of the earth was solely determined by how it fit into the sentence, passage, and book by poetic constraints -- sound, meter, rhythm, repetition and imagery.

That's why so much of the "scholarly" material is nonsense. The whole of the Bible (old testament and new) is poetry (even the boring legalistic parts). That's how goat-herders and wandering cleric talked and thought. All argument about what they "really meant" is anachronistic. If it sounded good, it went in. End of Story.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 9:25 PM

Frog: it's poetry, dammit!

For a moment there I thought you were channelling my old english teacher! LOL

But I have to agree -- much of the bible makes less sense than Shakespeare - and it's fairly clear that both were written with memorability in mind: Shakespeare so his actors could recite the lines, and ancient priests and shamen because the verses were, indeed, recited (for comparison, listen to the poetic lyricism of navaho myth, or norse eddas, or the vedas...)

Posted by: buckyball | May 28, 2008 9:35 PM

@ PZ:

"God always gets a pass from the people who already believe."

On the contrary, the Bible is filled with people who doubted and demanded evidence. Moses, David, Thomas, Gideon and numerous others struggled in this area. Some of the Psalms address this also.

@ Walton, #49:

"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."

I think, to some extent, there is a good reason why faith is so central. Consider Moses for example, who apparently struggled often with the need for "evidence". In Exodus 33:19-20, for instance, he was not allowed to see God "face to face"...but there was a very good reason for it. That said, there are numerous examples throughout the Bible and even today of where God readily provides "evidence" in support of one's faith, especially if the request is in sincerity.

"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."

Transformed lives do not suffice as evidence?

Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | May 28, 2008 9:41 PM

On the contrary, the Bible is filled with people who doubted and demanded evidence. Moses, David, Thomas, Gideon and numerous others struggled in this area.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 9:51 PM

On the contrary, the Bible is filled with people who doubted and demanded evidence. Moses, David, Thomas, Gideon and numerous others struggled in this area. Some of the Psalms address this also.

Which is only evidence of using the bible to prove the bible accurate.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 10:02 PM

even today of where God readily provides "evidence" in support of one's faith, especially if the request is in sincerity

I think he's talking about Hagee's claim that Katrina was sent to punish the ungodly...

Not exactly evidence of a loving, forgiving god, though.

Posted by: cl | May 28, 2008 10:17 PM

@ frog
re: comment #382

That's exactly the point I'm arguing, and if you're debating me, it's strawman argumentation. To repeat the thesis of comment #380, "All this making any definitive claim based on Isaiah 40:22 speculative at best, which in a roundabout way was my original point. I think we can agree that all approximations concerning Earth's shape in scripture are conveniently packaged in dreams, visions and arguably metaphorical language, which only complicates things." (emph. mine)

Make sense?

Posted by: Epikt | May 28, 2008 10:21 PM

Nibien:

It's quite obvious J is a troll and/or idiot, I'm not quite sure why you guys feed him.

We're fattening him up for the sacrifice this weekend.

Posted by: Stephen D Moore | May 28, 2008 10:27 PM

Underverse writes

"Ironically, the Andersen fable is largely meant to caution on vanity, but Myers and Dawkins (who endorses the Courtier's Reply) seem to have missed that."

I think the irony is that underverse has missed the irony in what he or she writes. Surely it is vanity that the theist possesses in asserting the privilege of not being held to the same standard of argument as the empirical rationalist? Such vanity is part of the point of The Courtier's Reply.

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 28, 2008 10:31 PM

@#399 Rev. BigDumbChimp --

Your concern over people "using the bible to prove the bible accurate" is shared.

I never understand people using this obviously circular argument. Yet we see it again and again.

What I think is perhaps funniest about this circular argument is that even if you look at the Bible completely detached from empirical evidence, it really doesn't do a very good job "proving" itself, considering how very self-contradictory and cobbled together it is.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 10:35 PM

What I think is perhaps funniest about this circular argument is that even if you look at the Bible completely detached from empirical evidence, it really doesn't do a very good job "proving" itself, considering how very self-contradictory and cobbled together it is

Now now Etha, don't let observation and reason get in your way of a good logical fallacy.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2008 10:41 PM

Ever heard of born-again Christians? Converts? Just because religions have a few nice things, like imploring people to eat healthy, to not drink alcohol, whatever, this does not mean that its entirety is then validated because the practitioner followed the rules.

Not to mention that believing in something that sounds nice may have some positive effect. That however has exactly zero bearing on the truth of said belief.

Placebo effect.

Posted by: Pimientita | May 28, 2008 10:58 PM

@cl #380

How is it that, during a time before science, Eratosthenes and the Wright Brothers, the Bible writers got the correct impression that Earth was circular and possibly spherical? From looking at the sun and moon?

I always thought that (if one was to take it literally) whoever wrote the passage had once stood on at the tallest point in his area and saw that the earth around him appeared as a circle as far as he could see (if he turned in a circle that is). That would explain the imagery of the heavens spreading as a tent over the circle of the earth. It is possible and even probable that people back then looked at the spherical shape of the sun and moon and extended that shape to the earth, but I don't think that would fit in with this particular passage, since the sun and moon are a part of the heaven "tent."

That said, I think that this passage was intended to be read poetically and not as the equivalent of a science text and that those who point to it as such are reaching as well as misinterpreting the original Hebrew.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2008 11:05 PM

not as the equivalent of a science text and that those who point to it as such are reaching as well as misinterpreting the original Hebrew.

most vehemently agree. In fact, I have Jewish friends who themselves would not interpret it in such a fashion.

for whatever that's worth.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 11:43 PM

buckyball @409, re: unshackled.

I said 'proof' not 'hearsay'

Personal revelation is not proof. it. is. self-delusion.

It may manifest sufficiently to influence other god-botherers in a positive manner - but it is not proof of god.

Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 28, 2008 11:45 PM

ps. per my moniker.... I need meaty proof, not this lame-ass stuff you're peddlin'

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2008 11:56 PM

I need meaty proof, not this lame-ass stuff you're peddlin'

On the face of it, asking for evidence is a ridiculous request, because if it ever existed to the slightest extent, none of us would be here.

the best the apologists will ever come up with are circular arguments, or arguments in the form of ad populum.

which is why most experienced theologians consider theology itself to be a dead-end endeavor.

Most apologists have simply intentionally blinded themselves to this.

Posted by: Rey Fox | May 28, 2008 11:58 PM

"You're not waking up with the right person."

Feh.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 29, 2008 12:02 AM

Xianity has great appeal to many going through difficult times, depression, etc, but that's no evidence of divine intervention.

heh, it might be more related to "12 step" intervention.

Posted by: Malcolm | May 29, 2008 12:04 AM

Walton,
When you reach the point in a logical discussion where you get stuck and can only go in circles, it's because one or more of your assumptions is wrong.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 29, 2008 12:09 AM

You're not waking up with the right PEOPLE

what's with all this "waking up in the morning" stuff, anyway?

wait, you mean you guys don't sleep until noon?

wow.

you must have "real" jobs.

;)

Posted by: cl | May 29, 2008 12:26 AM

@ Ryan
re: comment #403

"The limits of language were not so great for the writers of Isaiah to say what they meant, and not require tortured apologetic interpretations."

I agree.

And I stick to my claim that someone who uses the phrase 'circle of the Earth' as the writer of Isaiah did is speaking something scientifically acceptable. There was no empirical evidence of their time indicating any circular aspect to Earth's existence, other than by inference from the moon or sun, which I already mentioned.

Posted by: cl | May 29, 2008 12:30 AM

@ Pimientita
re: comment #406

I agree with your comment. To repeat the thesis of comment #380, "All this making any definitive claim based on Isaiah 40:22 speculative at best, which in a roundabout way was my original point. I think we can agree that all approximations concerning Earth's shape in scripture are conveniently packaged in dreams, visions and arguably metaphorical language, which only complicates things.

Make sense?

Posted by: Hematite | May 29, 2008 12:54 AM

There once was a god from Nantucket,
When faced with a rule he would buck it,
He cut up his dad,
His wife got quite mad,
Whatever he saw he would say "Hi, I'm Zeus. Want to see my lightning bolt?"

Posted by: Wowbagger | May 29, 2008 1:14 AM

Bloody hell. The points I was making in my head when I first started reading through this monster list of posts have almost been forgotten - though it's made for some good reading.

Anyway, what I was going to say was that I agree that the courtier's reply is just a lot of smoke and mirrors from the apologists. I remember hearing a friend relate to me that a religiously minded person she knew had dismissed TGD for just that reason - and at the time I didn't know how to respond.

Now I do.

I don't pretend to understand apologists - though, to an extent, I do admire the amount of effort they put into twisting things to make them acceptable. But it doesn't change the fact that the god of the bible is startlingly inconsistent. I'm no bible scholar, but from what I do know of it indicates he's changed a lot - which makes me wonder how anyone can accept that it's the same god the whole way through. My few cobbled-together examples:

One minute he's creating the universe and then he's worried about 'his' people whoring themselves off to other gods. What other gods? Where did they come from? He created the universe; surely if there are other gods he had to have created them. After this minor lapse in consistency he goes back to being the one and only.

He's supposed to be omniscient and omnicognisant - which seems to mean he knows everything, including what's yet to happen. But if that's the case, how is it that he gets surprised or disappointed by what people do? He knows what's going to happen. Later on he knows stuff - or, at least, Jesus does; he's fully aware that Judas is going to betray him.

Back in the good ol' days he did all sorts of things to prove he exists, but nowadays he's against the idea of any sort of proof (well, apart from NDEs - though they've only managed to convince one person, an admittedly lackluster individual whose name begins with 'K') of his existence.

Once, he was all about war and ethnic cleansing; now he's all about love and peace and integration?

Seems to me that god has changed a great deal. But how is that possible? He's meant to be perfect. To my understanding a perfect being cannot change. He can't get perfecter, can he?

To me Xianity's greatest mistake was that they didn't put together a decent enough team of editors when they compiled the bible. A good meta analysis would have come back with a report full of criticisms like 'gross inconsistency' and 'problematic contradictions' - and probably recommended they start again from the beginning. Literally. 'Please,' says the editor, 'just read over Genesis and make up your mind - because it can't be both.'

It'd certainly make an apologist's job a lot easier.

Posted by: spencer | May 29, 2008 1:57 AM

'(This is exactly the role of the "higher power" in 12 steps groups--and it works).'

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahhaa....oh,my.

Posted by: Wowbagger | May 29, 2008 2:23 AM

#432 wrote:

But then what would all the theologians do?

Maybe they'd all have become sociologists or HR managers instead - they all do pretty much the same thing as far as I can tell: non-stop semantic and/or contextual redefining - which is fine; I'm all for that sort of thing if it works for you. It's only when it affects me that I get irritated.

If all religious types were the sort of people capable of the courtier's reply - by which i mean they spend hours in contemplation of their beliefs in an attempt to actually understand them, rather than just blindly follow - then Dawkins et al wouldn't need to write books in the first place. But most of them aren't; unfortunately, the vast majority are the believers in the 'unsophisticated' version of their religion - and they're the idiots trying to make their personal beliefs public policy.

Posted by: Gilmore | May 29, 2008 2:37 AM

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who posted on this thread. This is one of the most thought provoking, deep, intelligent blog threads I have ever seen and I am genuinely sad to have reached the end of it.

Posted by: H.H. | May 29, 2008 3:11 AM

J said: "That's because they haven't fucking "corrected" me. If they're using "atheist" to mean nothing more than "someone who doesn't believe in gods", rather than "someone who's confident that there are no gods", then they are in conflict with the definitions recognized by eminent atheists such as Dawkins and Bertrand Russell."

That still doesn't make atheism a "cosmological question," you insufferable prick. Yes, if one believes that no supernatural god exists, even "confidently so," that means one doesn't believe the cosmos has a supernatural creator. However, if one believes that no supernatural god exists, that also means that life has no supernatural creator. Does that also make atheism a "biological question?" No, you dessicated turd.

Atheism is about a metaphysical question, and any further attempts by you to call it a cosmological question, after being corrected, will be considered a sign of mental illness.

You have been corrected. Now act like it.

Posted by: cl | May 29, 2008 3:47 AM

@ bPer
re: comment #436

You didn't do me a favor. I noted observations of the moon and sun in my original statement, and I know the difference between a circle and a sphere. My argument was that from the vantage point of an observer in space, that Earth appears circular is a legitimate observation, even though Earth is in fact spherical.

All spheres are by default three-dimensional circles. Agree or disagree?

Posted by: JustAsItSounds | May 29, 2008 4:10 AM

Re: Does the bible state the earth is flat?

Luke 4:5 KJV
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Mathew 4:8 KJV
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Suggests to me that the the entire earth is visible from a single (exceeding high) location - a neat trick unless the earth is transparent.

Posted by: DingoDave | May 29, 2008 4:55 AM

Re: Does the bible state the earth is flat?

It appears that the Hebrews adopted the popular Babylonian cosmology of the day, which pictured a 3 story universe with the Earth as a flat disk, surrounded by the waters of chaos. They absolutely did not view the Earth as being a globe. (sorry, an oblate spheroid)
For a good discussion of the subject, take a look here: http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/commoncosmos.htm

Apologists and theologians have a merry old time trying to retro-fit what we now know about how the cosmos really works, with these obviously mistaken ancient texts. They have done so with less than 'stellar success' in my opinion. (sorry about the pun)

Behold the wisdom of the ancients.

Ps.104 [2] who coverest thyself with light as with a garment, who hast stretched out the heavens like a tent,

Psalm 19:[4] In them he has set a tent for the sun,
[5] which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and like a strong man runs its course with joy.

Isa.40
[22] It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

The Hebrew the word translated as 'firmament' means something which has been 'beaten out', like a metal bowl, or a shield.

Of course, as demonstrated above, they were also fond of using the tent analogy.

Posted by: Daniel R | May 29, 2008 6:09 AM

MartinM:

A circle is a two-dimensional figure

One-dimensional. A disk is two-dimensional.

No: both circles and disks are two-dimensional. Straight lines are one dimensional.

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 6:19 AM

No: both circles and disks are two-dimensional. Straight lines are one dimensional.
No, he's right. For a circle you need only one base (e.g. angle from a point on the circle) to specify position along it, so it's one-dimensional. Disks require two bases.

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 6:29 AM

You arguments about atheism's problems are also unsupported. I linked here recently to an interview with Alan Sokal. Asked if he is an atheist, he states plainly that he is. Are you suggesting that he has now irrevocably alienated himself from the thousands of cosmological deists that are his physicist and cosmologist colleagues? This horde of cosmological deists running screaming from the mere suggestion of atheism exists only in your imagination.
No. I too would say I'm an atheist if asked (unless e.g. religious family members asked and there's good reason to dodge the question). What I've been saying all along is that there's no need to keep telling people you're an atheist, which is what many people here are frequently doing.

Either read my posts properly, or cut it out with this shameless strawmandering.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 29, 2008 7:01 AM

In the epic of Gilgamesh, he travels to the land of the dead by running through the tunnel in the mountains which the sun passes through when it sets. Undoubtedly and explicitly a flat-earth cosmology, and consistent in its own terms.

There's an epic hilarity in someone trying to claim that Isaiah says the earth is spherical, in a passage which talks about spreading the heavens as a tent over the earth. Yeah, sure, people who thought the sky was solid were really well clued up about cosmology.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 29, 2008 7:12 AM

An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being is logically impossible; it is inconsistent with the existence of suffering. - frog

I agree with you entirely (this was my main point) that the existence of suffering shows that Walton's God does not exist, and all the attempts to get round this that I am aware of clearly fail. By "logically impossible" I mean "cannot exist because its description is internally inconsistent"; like a "three-sided pentagon" or "even prime greater than 2". It's useful to distinguish that kind of impossibility from the kind you rightly attribute to Walton's God, where nonexistence cannot be deduced from the meaning of terms, but which we know cannot exist given the nature of the real world.

Posted by: Daniel R | May 29, 2008 7:37 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle
A circle consists of those points in a plane which are at a constant distance, called the radius, from a fixed point, called the center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28mathematics%29
In mathematics, a plane is a two-dimensional manifold or surface that is perfectly flat.

Posted by: Louis | May 29, 2008 7:53 AM

Ye Gods, this discussion over terminology is asinine in the extreme. Pay attention and lets try to settle this:

J: Please stop pulling a Humpty Dumpty, i.e.: '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."'.

The word "atheist" (or "atheism" for that matter") has, like many technical words that have trickled down into common use, at least two perfectly correct uses. The more technical, philosophical sense has always denoted lack of theistic belief. Russell used this way, as does Dawkins, as does any philosopher. It is as uncontroversial as anything can be. No one is denying there are other senses this word can be, and is, used in. BUT (and this is quite important) as your oft cited chaps Russell and Dawkins do, as long as one CLEARLY states in what specific sense of the word it is being used, then there is simply no problem. The etymology of the word is even totally unambiguous, from the ancient Greek "a" denoting a lack and "theos" denoting either a theistic deity or theistic belief (dependant on context). Atheist is in fact the perfect word to describe someone who lacks a theistic faith.

There are even "modifiers" to describe what subcategory of atheist a person might be. There are atheists who occupy what is essentially a faith position that no deity of any kind exists anywhere. These are known as "strong" or "explicit" atheists, or more properly "antitheists", or even more properly "anterotheists" (Don't mix Greek and Latin dammit!). Epistemologically this position relies on some tiny morsel of faith (however justtfied it might be), simply because of the nature of the claim being made i.e. "The universe 100% definitely contains no deities". Left unqualified by some measure of odds, or a caveat denoting that that 100% is really "100% to the limits of what we can know", it is essentially a faith claim since we don;t have 100% perfect data, but I digress. In my experience, despite a lot of sound and noise signifying nothing, very few of people occupy this position. (There is a similar position of post-theist which I might mention later. Most people who claim to be "strong" atheists turn out to be post theists, again in my experience).

Another modifier is "weak" or "implicit" atheism. This really needs no modifier in my opinion because, based on techincal use and etymology this is what atheism is, i.e. a lack of belief. This is a lack of belief in a deity. This is VERY different from believing in a lack of deity. As different as 0 is from +1 or -1! It is in many ways the only reasoned position that can be taken, all others rely on some faith claim no matter how small or reasonable (in the colloquial sense). This is the position that Dawkins (and Russell) and the vast majority of atheists I have encountered (myself amongst them) occupy. The position that the claims of theists (and deists, pantheists, panentheists etc) have insufficient evidence to support them. It is the position of the rational (technical sense) sceptic. It is open to change on the basis of the evidence. Provide deity evidence, the position changes.

Confusing this with agnosticism is a classic rookie mistake. Agnosticism is the position that the question of the existence of X (in this case a deity) is unknowable. Again from the ancient Greek "a" denoting a lack and "gnosos" denoting knowledge. The word "agnostic" doesn't even HAVE to refer to an issue of religious nature. One can be agnostic about extraterrestrial life for example. Agnosticism address a different question than does theism or atheism, it addresses the question of knowability, not existence. It is not on the same continuum as those positions. One can be, for example, an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, i.e. someone who either lacks or has a belief in a deity but believes the question of whether or not said deity's existence can be determined by rational means to be unknowable.

There are two key take home message here:

1) Lack of belief =/= belief of lack.

2) Agnosticism =/= ("weak"/"implicit") atheism, it's not even addressing the same issue.

Now the problem you seem to be having is twofold: first it is a tactical issue, one which I shall leave until later, second, you seem to be confusing the technical and colloquial definitions of "atheism" (and a whole slew of other words). The colloquial use of the word atheist is often taken to be "someone who believes there is no god", i.e. a "strong" atheist. This is not always the case, and it does vary from place to place. Again, in my experience I have found that most Europeans and UKians of my acquaintance think of the word "atheist" as meaning ""weak" atheist" and many of my USAian chums take it to mean ""strong" atheist". So please bear in mind how one uses a word is very audience dependant, a point made to you before you should note. Again, I reiterate, if one is clear about what sense one is using a word, then there should be no problem with any intelligent and honest discussion participant.

I commonly and colloquially use the word "atheist" to describe myself because it describes my position on the issue of the existence of a deity perfectly. I lack a belief in any deity. If needs be, i.e. I am talking to a non-technical-use aware audience, I clarify what I mean briefly (far briefer than this!). I often use Steven Roberts' comment "I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all those other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours.". 99% of audiences/particpants in discussion/conversation are smart enough to see the distinction in my experience.

I also use other words to describe my position on various issues "democrat" for example or "liberal", although I am not a USAian, living in the USA and am not using those terms in a way that might be commonly understood in the USA. You might guess that the words "liberal" and "democrat" are controversial words that deonote different things to different people. Here comes the key point: THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO ABANDON PERFECTLY ADEQUATE WORDS!!! It is an excuse to clarify in what sense one is using them.

Of course there are people who think in falsely dichotomous terms, rather a lot of them actually. One is either an "atheist" or a "theist", a "liberal" or a "conservative". Not only are these falsely dichotmous, pandering to them is a grave mistake. I use the word "atheist" in public, colloquial settings (just as I would in a technical one) precisely because I wish to counter the shoddy thinking and mistakes that people have made which lead people like you to bowdlerise perfectly adequate language. "Atheist" is no more a controversial word than "evolution" is a controversial science. If one is clear about what one means, the problem disappears.

The cartoonish linguistic retreat you are advocating (cross this line I kill you....ok cross THIS line I kill you etc) is an abandonment of the principles that underpin WHY someone might be an atheist, i.e. of clearly expressed rational thought based on reason.
"Bright" is a perfectly adequate term, it has its own connotations to be sure, and I use it freely, just as I use "rationalist" "sceptic" "advocate of reason" "secular humanist" to describe my position on many related issues. On the issue of the existence of a deity, or deities, I am an atheist. Period. I might ALSO be a bright, a rationalist, a sceptic etc, but they don't specifically speak to the issue of theistic deities existing ot not. One might inder my atheism from them, but one cannot do so without making a leap of faith, the cetagories do not overlap 100%.

Two final things since I have gone on too long already:

1) Tactics: If what bothers you is that by using the word "atheist" one might put people off, tough. Not only can one not make omlettes without breaking eggs, but that is a simple fact of life. Even if one is entirely reasonable and polite and uncontroversial (those three things are not the same) one can still find people unreceptive to one's message. More than that, tactics that might put off some, draw in others. I was attracted to the comments of many people BECAUSE they described themselves as atheists in the sense described above. There are a lot of people out there who think the way I do and yet don't know I exist, they are perhaps just waiting to find a comrade in arms!

2) Atheism is a cosmological issue. Given I have read your posts thus far, and people's replies, polite or otherwise, and concluded that you are supremely confused about the issues at stake, this has to be the capo di tutti capi of your confusion. In an INCREDIBLY limited sense the existence or otherwise of a deity might be an issue decided by cosmology, but for a set of proposed beings that can count the fall of every sparrow and create life from clay/eggs/blood etc I think we can safely say that these proposed abilities are not restricted to affecting cosmology! The claims theists make for their various deities are not restricted to cosmology, so to say that "atheism is merely a position on a cosmological question, why ram it down people's throats" is to a) miss the point, b) ignore (and give free ride to) the multifarious claims of theists, and c) make one huge cock up!

Perhaps if you understood the relevant issues a little better, and perhaps if you worked out your own rather obvious confusions you might not feel it necessary to exude quite so much concern over those who DO understand these things and are not confused.

Cheers

Louis

Posted by: Louis | May 29, 2008 8:02 AM

Apologies All for the length and turgidity of the foregoing post!

The whole J "don't use atheist" schitck was beginning to annoy me. If we measure annoyance in post length then I think we can see how frutrated I was with the repetition of an utter non-issue.

Louis

Posted by: jeremy | May 29, 2008 8:26 AM

Maybe a little off topic, but there's new consumer laws coming on line here in the UK. Broadly, around misrepresenting products' effectiveness and the like...the great result is the astrologers, tarot card readers etc. now have to openly state that their "service" is for entertainment purposes only. Got me thinking, it's a very short leap to apply that to religion. Perhaps our working slogan should be:

"Religion, for entertainment purposes only"

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 8:33 AM

I would suggest you take;
a) a basic mathematics class (As a clue, the first three dimensions are x,y and z)
and, given your issues with the word atheist,
b)your meds.
Oh look, another stupid, frothing savage. No, savage, you're thinking of dimensionality of embedding space, as MartinM correctly pointed out. Only two parameters are required to specify a position on a sphere, and one variable for position on a circle.

Posted by: Pablo | May 29, 2008 8:35 AM

Only two parameters are required to specify a position on a sphere, and one variable for position on a circle.

Assuming you have specified the radius.

Posted by: MartinM | May 29, 2008 8:45 AM

The whole dimensions argument above arises from an ambiguity in the meaning of the term "circle".

Quite right, hence the 'pedant' tag in my original post. I almost regret mentioning it now; it's almost as bad as...well, that other mathematical topic that tends to produce endless arguments over trivialities, which shall go unmentioned for obvious reasons.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 29, 2008 9:04 AM

Calling Mark C.C., Calling Mark C.C.

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 9:15 AM

Perhaps if you understood the relevant issues a little better, and perhaps if you worked out your own rather obvious confusions you might not feel it necessary to exude quite so much concern over those who DO understand these things and are not confused.
No, sorry, you're the one out of us who's confused. Here's the definition of atheism from dictionary.com:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

In the face of this confusion, why not look to famous atheists for their definition of the word? Do this and you'll find that the world's most renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, explicitly identifies it as a cosmological philosophy (i.e. the belief that there are very probably no gods). Bertrand Russell, possibly the most well-known intellectual "atheist" ever, defines atheism in a similar way.

In fact, this thread alone underscores the inherent confusion surrounding the word. Some use it to mean essentially the same as "agnostic", and some think it refers to someone who vigorously rejects religion. Others accept that it's a philosophical/cosmological stance.

No-one is under any obligation to use such an awkward word, and I can't understand why people would so openly wear it given the negative connotations that come attached.

Posted by: Heathcliff | May 29, 2008 9:18 AM

For anyone who wants to see the Courtier's Reply in action...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48-QPVMyiSo

Posted by: black wolf | May 29, 2008 9:24 AM

J,
I don't care at all if there's a negative connotation to the word. What I care about is discussion to relieve us of such connotations. I'm not accusing or thinking of theists as generally batshit crazy fundies, and when a theist thinks atheists are a socially corrosive, god-hating bunch of people, I seek to clear that up as well. That's what communication is for.

Posted by: black wolf | May 29, 2008 9:30 AM

ouch. correction to post 474: 'McGrath winking'
clarification on post 477: I do care about the connotation when it's relevant to a discussion. What I mean is that I refuse to avoid a word that is the best one we've got just to appear as something different from what I am. I'm not a 'idon'tknowifgodsexistbutthinktheideaislogicallyinconsistentorinsufficient', I'm an atheist. period.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 29, 2008 9:38 AM

No-one is under any obligation to use such an awkward word, and I can't understand why people would so openly wear it given the negative connotations that come attached.

Negative to whom? You seem to be continually making the assumption that people (at least the ones you are addressing here) who say they are atheists only say they are atheists. I've said it before there are many terms I used to describe myself; atheist, rationalist, secularist, married, bald, liberal, etc.. There are some people that will find something wrong with each and every one of those descriptive terms, but they can all be used to accurately describe myself. I don't need to use them all or some combination of them every time I talk about certain issues.

I suspect that there are many terms people choose to use not giving a shit what others think about them because they accurately describe their person.

Homosexual comes to mind. And if you want to get frisky and snarky, Queer.

We all know that homosexual is a term that can accurately describe someone. We also know that it elicits negative reactions from some ignorant people. Should male homosexuals use the term sexually-free? Or vagina independent? Or some other equally lame moniker when Homosexual accurately describes them? They can also then bring in any other descriptive term that they chose when they feel it is applicable to the conversation.

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 9:44 AM

Given a particular circle, you only need 1 number to define a point on that circle. But to define the set of points that comprise the circle, you need two numbers; radius and angle.
OK, but for a finite line you need to have, in addition to a parameter, the position of at least one endpoint (to obtain proper knowledge of position along the line).

Posted by: SC | May 29, 2008 9:50 AM

No. I too would say I'm an atheist if asked (unless e.g. religious family members asked and there's good reason to dodge the question). What I've been saying all along is that there's no need to keep telling people you're an atheist, which is what many people here are frequently doing.

Either read my posts properly, or cut it out with this shameless strawmandering.

J, you really are a case study in bad-faith argumentation. You've ignored all of the evidentiary challenges I made in my post, choosing to focus - as I anticipated you would - on the absurd non-question of spontaneous vs. prodded use of "atheist." You keep making claims here about "people," "we," "most people," "many people," "atheists," "mainstream atheists," etc., with nothing to back them up. You're also making tactical arguments for which you've provided no substantive basis.

You are hardly one to lecture anyone here about alienating potential allies. Even if you had originally had something meaningful to contribute to a discussion of tactics and stategy (which you did not), you have proceeded to alienate numerous people by revealing yourself to be impervious to reason as well as utterly insufferable. I don't know if you're a troll (your hook-shaped moniker long ago aroused my suspicions), a lame Nisbet sockpuppet, or just a pompous windbag who insists on arguing in bad faith. In any of these cases, your monotonous three-chord riffs are unworthy of anyone's attention.

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 9:59 AM

J, you really are a case study in bad-faith argumentation. You've ignored all of the evidentiary challenges I made in my post, choosing to focus - as I anticipated you would - on the absurd non-question of spontaneous vs. prodded use of "atheist." You keep making claims here about "people," "we," "most people," "many people," "atheists," "mainstream atheists," etc., with nothing to back them up. You're also making tactical arguments for which you've provided no substantive basis.
Bullshit. A lot of posts have been addressed to me (usually slander or misrepresentations), and I can't respond to everything thoroughly. Missing out a section of your post doesn't constitute dishonesty on my part. This really should go without saying.

You don't give examples of unsupported claims I made, so I'll simply deny that there are any.

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 10:02 AM

You are hardly one to lecture anyone here about alienating potential allies. Even if you had originally had something meaningful to contribute to a discussion of tactics and stategy (which you did not), you have proceeded to alienate numerous people by revealing yourself to be impervious to reason as well as utterly insufferable.
Bullshit again. The insults started after my very first post in this thread, which was actually rather mild. The witch-hunt against me has absolutely nothing to do with my alleged obstinance or anything of the sort.

Posted by: MartinM | May 29, 2008 10:10 AM

Can we at least reach consensus that (1) Babylonian mythology visualises a flat, disc-like earth, and (2) later attempts at apologetics notwithstanding, the Old Testament references to the shape of the earth are consistent with this? Thank you.

Yes, absolutely. Looking down from above upon a circular Earth certainly seems more consistent with this than with a round Earth. But the conclusion that the Bible describes ancient Hebrew cosmology, and is not physically accurate, doesn't follow from a single word in a single passage. It follows from context, both literary and historical.

My point is simply that words like circle and sphere have specific technical definitions which don't map very well onto a) our colloquial usage of those terms, or b) ancient Hebrew. It's as wrong for us to insist that the original Hebrew must refer to a flat disk as it is for literalists to insist that it refers to a ball. The mangling of the technical definitions just adds irony, really.

Posted by: JeffreyD | May 29, 2008 10:29 AM

Re #489, "witch-hunt"? Let the persecution Olympics begin. See my posts at #348 and #370, rinse and repeat.

Ciao, y'all

Posted by: Beowulff | May 29, 2008 10:36 AM

At J #451:

What you seem to miss, is that it is the religious people that are going out of their way to come to an atheist's blog and challenge atheism, forcing the atheists here to state and restate their positions, not the other way around. It is that simple.

Posted by: Louis | May 29, 2008 10:43 AM

Another little game for you to try J: Everyone in the world does what you say and stops using that nasty word "atheist".

What then?

Let's say we use the word "Bright" to describe someone who lacks theistic belief. What happens when people realise that Brights = Atheists?

Also, as I forgot to mention it, not only have I read the entire output of Dawkins and Russell but a few other "prominent atheists" and philosophers, and they don't use the word as simplistically as you think they do. You are repeatedly conflating technical definitions and colloquial (mis)usage and asserting (humpty-like) that a word means what you says it does when you say it does even when the person using it says it doesn't. Like I said, go back, read what I wrote (not again because you clearly haven't read it) and do everyone a favour. Ta.

Louis

Posted by: Louis | May 29, 2008 10:45 AM

RevBigDumbChimp,

J is not in any way responsible for my already being well driven to drink! What did that was the simple fact that drink = good. ;-)

CHEERS!

Louis

Posted by: Grammar RWA | May 29, 2008 10:51 AM

No-one is under any obligation to use such an awkward word, and I can't understand why people would so openly wear it given the negative connotations that come attached.

You can't understand? Or you refuse to listen?

It was explained to you already, very clearly, by Carlie, among others.

If you want historical precedent, look to gay people. We didn't start achieving anything close to equal treatment under the law until we went "out and proud." If atheists fail to regularly, openly, proudly identify as "atheists", then we will only reinforce the notion that atheism is something bad, something to hide and be ashamed of.

Now, you obtuse ass, I don't have any illusion that you'll honestly consider my words, and you're such a relentless bore that you're impeding my enjoyment of the rest of this thread. So I'm turning off your comments; I inform you out of politeness, that you needn't waste your time writing a reply I can't read.

Thank the Disco Ball for firefox/greasemonkey/killfile.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 29, 2008 11:08 AM

Notkeiran, you don't get to redefine the meaning of dimensionality to suit your purposes.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 29, 2008 12:03 PM

Jesus, J, why are you still here? You're just annoying. This tired discussion ended days ago, it's time to move on. Don't you have any other interests? Why can't you try contributing to the newer threads, on topic? There's a fun one about an Atheist vs. Christian game. Play it and tell us what you think? (Without being insufferably annoying)

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 29, 2008 12:13 PM

Oops...I screwed up the html in #506...the link still goes to the right place, though (comment #350).

Posted by: SEF | May 29, 2008 1:20 PM

#329

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

Source please?

Posted by: frog | May 29, 2008 1:53 PM

NickGotts: I agree with you entirely (this was my main point) that the existence of suffering shows that Walton's God does not exist, and all the attempts to get round this that I am aware of clearly fail. By "logically impossible" I mean "cannot exist because its description is internally inconsistent"; like a "three-sided pentagon" or "even prime greater than 2". It's useful to distinguish that kind of impossibility from the kind you rightly attribute to Walton's God, where nonexistence cannot be deduced from the meaning of terms, but which we know cannot exist given the nature of the real world.

I disagree that this is a case distinct from "even prime greater than 2". Given that we all assume that there is a problem with theodicy, the existence of God is not logically consistent with that assumption. QED and so forth. You assume that suffering is simply an empirical fact; I say that suffering goes beyond that to the very nature of consciousness, and so is embedded a priori in the problem of God, or whatever have you.

Of course, I've just realized one hole in my argument. God could be omnipotent, omniscient and and omnibenevolent and still co-exist with sufferring if he was an insufferable moron. It's an out on the omniscient clause - he "knows" all, like in a database, but is too stupid to connect them together in any meaningful sense. In other words, he has ultimate knowledge, but lacks wisdom. I don't think that would be terribly satisfying to the faithful, though.

Posted by: frog | May 29, 2008 1:59 PM

cl #395: That's exactly the point I'm arguing, and if you're debating me, it's strawman argumentation. To repeat the thesis of comment #380, "All this making any definitive claim based on Isaiah 40:22 speculative at best, which in a roundabout way was my original point. I think we can agree that all approximations concerning Earth's shape in scripture are conveniently packaged in dreams, visions and arguably metaphorical language, which only complicates things." (emph. mine)
Make sense?

Maybe my "poetic license" made my point unclear. I'm going beyond "it complicates things". I'm saying that much of the bible has no prosaic meaning, any more than Milton was describing a real underworld geography. The ancient Hebrews may not have really cared what the shape of the world was --- it's was simply a trope, like "God has the whole world in his hands" has no implications about the physical location of God, or the world, or beliefs about gravity embedded in it.

It's not just poetry, but it's just poetry. Of course, they didn't take to aesthetic criticism very well, but that's a separate question. Physical interpretations may just be completely anachronistic.

Posted by: Basil Fawlty | May 29, 2008 2:01 PM

"The witch-hunt against me has absolutely nothing to do with my alleged obstinance or anything of the sort."

Whined by: J | May 29, 2008 10:02 AM

Oh dear, another burning martyr...somebody get some nice beef and venison roasts so we can enjoy the self-immolation.

Posted by: Walton | May 29, 2008 2:18 PM

Looking at this thread, I have to say that the problem is that people are trying to carry on five or six different conversations at once.

As regards J, I don't even understand what people are arguing about. Is it simply whether it's appropriate to use the term "atheist"? I don't think "atheist" carries any particular negative connotations; it's a fairly neutral statement of position. It may be viewed negatively as a term in heavily religious societies such as the US "red states", but in that sense it's no more a negative term than "conservative" or "liberal"; while it can be used as an insult, it's only an insult in the view of its enemies.

I do realise that some non-religious people dislike the term "atheist" because they don't want to label themselves in relation to a concept (God) that has no meaning for them (I believe Sam Harris made this argument, if I understand correctly); in this sense, to an atheist, the term "atheist" is no more meaningful than "non-astrologer" or "non-believer in fairies". But in practice, this argument is nonsensical; since belief in a God or gods is extremely widespread and informs the majority of people's worldview, it is perfectly legitimate for those who don't believe in a God or gods to define their position in relation to that question.

So I really don't see what J and others are actually debating about, in terms of substantive points. Sadly, this tangential line of argument has swallowed up the thread and made it impossible to continue the original discussion.

Posted by: CJO | May 29, 2008 2:29 PM

Sadly, this tangential line of argument has swallowed up the thread and made it impossible to continue the original discussion.
Carrying on a conversation in the comments of any well-traveled blog is an excercise in discerning a signal amidst the noise. There are often several discussions going on in any given thread of any length here, but that's part of the charm. Imagine you're talking over the chatter in a noisy pub. Difficult perhaps, annoying possibly, but certainly not impossible.

Posted by: ndt | May 29, 2008 2:35 PM

Well I'm British, and I think "atheism" definitely has negative connotations in my country as well as America.

I live in the US, and "atheist" doesn't have any negative connotations among my family or social group, nor is it an awkward term.

I call myself an atheist because the word accurately describes my views regarding religion.

Posted by: SC | May 29, 2008 2:52 PM

mezzobuff and DiscoveredJoys,

The only possible problem I have with "science" as an antonym is that it does have a generally-accepted narrower definition - describing not only the scientific method but also "the sciences" and the people and institutions involved in them. "The scientific worldview" works, but it isn't a single word, and isn't quite verby enough for my taste. I'd like something a bit more active, implying not just a way of seeing things but a way of doing things...

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 29, 2008 3:04 PM

Of course, I've just realized one hole in my argument. God could be omnipotent, omniscient and and omnibenevolent and still co-exist with sufferring if he was an insufferable moron. It's an out on the omniscient clause - he "knows" all, like in a database, but is too stupid to connect them together in any meaningful sense. In other words, he has ultimate knowledge, but lacks wisdom.

:-o

Man. You have just explained Stupid Design.

Consider this a Molly nomination.

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Moron!!!

Posted by: CJO | May 29, 2008 3:18 PM

I have yet to see an English sentence containing the word "ineffible" where "imaginary" wouldn't fit as well, or better.

Consider gods imaginary, and the problem of evil just goes away. Funny how that solves so many seemingly intractible questions.

Posted by: cicely | May 29, 2008 4:26 PM

frog @511:

Of course, I've just realized one hole in my argument. God could be omnipotent, omniscient and and omnibenevolent and still co-exist with sufferring if he was an insufferable moron. It's an out on the omniscient clause - he "knows" all, like in a database, but is too stupid to connect them together in any meaningful sense. In other words, he has ultimate knowledge, but lacks wisdom. I don't think that would be terribly satisfying to the faithful, though.

Unfortunately, that loophole is already spackeled shut, since much is also made of god's "infinite wisdom". So...he knows all, is everywhere present, is all-powerful, and is infinitely wise, BUT...is he always all of these things at the same time? I see room for another explanation, one backed up by common Christian belief (at least, in those denomiations that go with the Trinity); God has Dissociative Identity Disorder. Verily, He knows not what He doeth.

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 29, 2008 4:36 PM

SEF (@509, 510, 516) and SC (@514) -- thanks for the refs!

IMO religion is very dangerous for individuals with mental illnesses because it provides false explanations for real problems. Depression is a struggle with one's sinful nature, mania is religious ecstasy, hallucinations are messages from God (or the devil), etc. A lot of things that might be seen as clearly problematic in a psychiatric context (eg, hyperreligiosity in bipolar mania) are considered normal or even positive in the religious context. Combined with the stigma already attached to psychiatric care in a lot of Western culture, this is a very real problem.

But since our culture -- popular and academic -- treats religion so uncritically, it's a problem that is only rarely and insufficiently addressed...

Posted by: J | May 29, 2008 4:42 PM

I live in the US, and "atheist" doesn't have any negative connotations among my family or social group, nor is it an awkward term.
I don't know about your "social group", but if you don't think the word "atheist" carries negative connotations in the United States as a whole, you must be delusional.

Posted by: windy | May 29, 2008 5:03 PM

God could also be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent if this is the best of all possible worlds ;)

Posted by: frog | May 29, 2008 5:43 PM

Windy: God could also be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent if this is the best of all possible worlds ;)

Well, now isn't that a depressing thought - it does imply a not-so-omnipotent god, now doesn't it? Maybe god just has a very limited imagination.

I guess we'll have to ask the physicists whether it is the case that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 29, 2008 6:04 PM

The witch-hunt against me has absolutely nothing to do with my alleged obstinance or anything of the sort.

of course not, that's why you're the only one being attacked, right J?

dude, you have serious issues.

Posted by: buckyball | May 29, 2008 7:48 PM

@504, BlueIndependent:

"Indoctrination of children is the hallmark of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and many others."

Well, in Proverbs 22:6, it does state "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it" and then there's Matthew 18:5-6. But neither imply "indoctrination".

"The fact is children are converted early because they have no power, they cannot consent, they have no knowledge, and they have no experiences. They are ripe for the picking."

Ever met a strong-willed child? Especially one that likes to bury themselves in encyclopedias? And read books on dinosaurs, study astronomy, and tear apart electronics before the age of ten?

@ #522, David Marjanović, OM:

"If they would, ¡¡¡hasta la victoria siempre!!! Have you never considered how many lives communism has transformed (and I don't mean "ended", I mean "transformed" in exactly the sense you are using)?"

I meant "transformed" in a positive way; not in a "let's-stand-in-line-for-five-hours-for-a-loaf-of-bread-wow-all-hail-the-party" kind of way.

Posted by: Hematite | May 29, 2008 8:34 PM

Wow, I stand thoroughly corrected! I swear, I managed to get through my entire entire schooling and bachelor's degree on the understanding that a circle was a disc not a line.

Now I wonder if I was specifically taught that a circle was a disc, or if I misunderstood it once and never corrected.

Posted by: Hematite | May 29, 2008 8:45 PM

CJO (#527):

I have yet to see an English sentence containing the word "ineffible" where "imaginary" wouldn't fit as well, or better.

Posted by: SC | May 29, 2008 9:35 PM

Odd question: Is it possible to define a circle or sphere without reference to a center point? In other words, solely in terms of the relationship of the points on the circle or sphere to one another?

Posted by: DingoDave | May 29, 2008 10:40 PM

Ref. #511 -"God could be omnipotent, omniscient and and omnibenevolent and still co-exist with sufferring if he was an insufferable moron."

If he was an insufferable moron, or if he was originally nothing but a spoiled child!
The god Yahweh originally started out as the upstart son of the Caananite high god El. He was just one of El's 70 sons. The ancient Hebrew priests gradually ascribed more and more of his father's attributes to him, until he eventually supplanted his father entirely. This is why the attributes ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible are so confusing.

Many scholars argue that the plural form of "Elohim"
reflects this early Judaic polytheism. They argue it originally meant 'the gods', or the 'sons of El,' the supreme being. They claim the word may have been singularized by later monotheist priests who sought to replace the worship of the many gods of the Judean pantheon with their own singular patron god YHWH alone.

The following Bible passage absolutely gives the game away as to Yahweh's original status in the Caananite pantheon.

Deuteronomy 32: 7-9
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.
When the Most High (Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (El).
For the LORD's (Yahweh's) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

For an interesting discussion of Yahweh's rise to power, and the origins of Biblical monotheism, take a look at this article which discusses Mark Smith's book, 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts' (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

For those of you who might be curious as to why Yahweh seems to make such a hash of everything in the book of Genesis, then take a look at this article.
'Is Yahweh a Boy?: The Concept of the J Text Deity in Genesis.'
http://www.georgeleonard.com/yahweh.html

Posted by: buckyball | May 29, 2008 11:02 PM

@544, Tony (not a vegan):

"But like all Xian apoologists - you now seek to shift the goalposts and suggest that THOSE are not REAL transformations. You only wanted to see positive transformations to Christianity?"

Nobody is "shifting the goalposts". I misinterpreted his comment. I would agree there are such transformations...just as I would agree that there are atheists and agnostics who certainly have a sense of morals.

Also, by the same token, there are peaceful Buddhist monks. Just as there are peaceful Hindus, Taoists, etc.

But in any of those cases, is it a "peace that passes all understanding?"

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 29, 2008 11:11 PM

@#551 Buckyball --

But in any of those cases, is it a "peace that passes all understanding?"

If you think you feel a "peace that passes all understanding," chances are that it's because you're limiting your understanding.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 29, 2008 11:12 PM

But in any of those cases, is it a "peace that passes all understanding?"

blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Kseniya | May 30, 2008 12:13 AM

When I think "circle projected into a third dimension" I think "cylinder" not "sphere" ... but I'm rather simple-minded about these things. :-) Rotating a circle through a third dimension around some axis could yield a sphere, a torus, or some other shape, depending on the circle's position and orientation relative to the axis of rotation...

Should we then have faith in Harrius Potter?

Sigh. That was brilliant. You're speaking my language, dude. That's even better than the "Santa and Satan are the same person" argument.

I am reminded of an old story I read when I was a kid. Probably Clarke or Asimov:

The story opens during a severe ice age going on. Our unnamed hero, clad in bearskins, struggles up the mountainside. He holds in his hands a precious item, a container of some sort. He reaches the top of the mountain and places this item on the highest point.

Some years pass.

Millenia, perhaps.

An alien race discovers Earth. The surface is devoid of any intelligent life-forms. However, one day an amazing discover is made - a disk-shaped, metal container, clearly manufactured, is found on a mountaintop. Inside, all that is found is a metal spool, around which is wound a long, continuous strip of some kind of transparent synthetic material, upon which a series of small but uniformly-sized, transluscent pictures have been imposed. One of the aliens realizes that if the pictures are viewed in rapid succession, the effect is that of watching a moving image.

A projector is developed, and then The Big Day comes when the film is viewed by the top minds of the alien race, in hopes of learning something about the long-dead race that left this artifact on the mountaintop.

What they see is apparently a group of unlikely creatures engaged in a series of bizarre and rather violent adventures. The creatures somehow survive all manner of physical trauma in pursuit of their unknowable goals. The aliens watch in amazement as the incomprehensible story unfolds. As the film comes to a close five or ten minutes later, some strange shapes, perhaps writing, appear on the screen, relaying a message the aliens will never decode, and would not understand even if they could:

"A Walt Disney Production"

Posted by: Friendo | May 30, 2008 12:40 AM

@Hematite #552

A "curved plane" is a contradiction in terms - a plane by definition is a surface with no curvature. What you mean, I think, is just any curved surface. A "manifold" is just the fancy name for a smooth surface (of arbitrary, but uniform, dimension).

First of all, you should know that, once you start doing geometry on curved surfaces (what is called Riemannian geometry or differential geometry), things get more complicated, and you can't rely on intuition all the time, ie the concepts of distance and straightness are not obvious.

You have to define, a priori, what is called a Riemannian metric that measures (infinitesimal) distances. In flat space, this is just the distance/Pythagoras formula, but on curved surfaces, you need integrals to calculate distances. It's only when you have a metric that can you define "geodesics", which is the name given to "straight" lines. Basically, a geodesic is the curve that minimizes the distance between two points.

On a sphere (ie the earth), straight lines happen to close up on each other. But this is just a fluke - on a less symmetric surface (an ellipsoid, say), geodesics would not close up, they'd wind around a (possibly infinite) number of times. So you definitely can't specify a point, a direction, and arbitrary curvature, and expect it to resemble anything like a circle.

Also, you're conflating two different things: in the 3D embedding space, the equator is a "circle", but on the 2D surface, the equator is a straight line, and you can't just go back and forth between the two as you please.

All of this may hurt your head more, but this is graduate level math, so don't worry. I'm not sure what reading to recommend to a layman on the subject - the wikipedia article on Riemannian geometry doesn't start with concrete examples, so I don't know how illuminating that would be. I know I learned a lot of this when I learned general relativity.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 30, 2008 1:22 AM

It was Clarke, and the short story was titled "History Lesson":

http://web.math.hr/~veky/T/T1/historylesson.txt

Posted by: Leigh | May 30, 2008 2:18 AM

@JeffreyD -- I can't imagine how fucked up someone has to be to tell a grieving lover that his late beloved is in hell. I'm so sorry that some worthless piece of shit said that to you. And I'm sorry for your loss.

Depression can indeed be a fatal illness. In my experience, that kind of deep depression is usually biochemical and must be treated pharmaceutically; talk therapy is not so helpful. And yes, I speak from personal experience.

I have also witnessed the ignorance and callousness of some Christians who criticize victims of depression for inadequate faith. It's cruel and hateful.

Posted by: Notkieran | May 30, 2008 4:03 AM

Stephen @#503:

>Notkeiran, you don't get to redefine the meaning of dimensionality to suit your purposes.

Now _that's_ just an absurd accusation. Firstly, I never spoke about defining dimensionality. I spoke about the definition of "variable", and it should be very clear that when you define circles-- _plural_-- radius _is_ a variable. In fact, when defining a circle in a plane, its radius is one of the _key_ variables that you need (the other being the location of its centre.

Secondly, I am not the one defining a circle or disk in the wrong dimensionality.

Let us recap what we know about dimensions that is not in dispute:

i. a dot is zero-dimensional.
ii.A straight line is one-dimensional, because you may define a point on it with just a number that determines its displacement from a reference point.

Now, convention and the large proportion of the world that is not you would agree that any polygon defined on a plane is two-dimensional. You disagree, giving a seemingly reasonable argument that a circle is one-dimensional because the circle is defined by its line. I say that your argument is flawed.

Let us see what can be said:

IF your argument is correct, we should be able to define any point on the perimeter line of the circle with a single referent. Can you?

No, you cannot, because no matter which axis you choose as a straight line, the moment you move along that axis in any direction, you depart from the circle; hence, you require a second referent. If you wish to argue with me about this, please refer to your secondary school maths textbooks in the index under "tangent" and "secant", find an argument that refutes those definitions, and then bring it to my attention. Thank you.

Another way of looking at it.
We agree that a STRAIGHT line is one-dimensional. What is your view of two lines that join at an angle? Is that one-dimensional? Can it be? The only way to describe the second line in reference to the first is via an angle, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Can you have an angle in one dimension? Yes? If yes, please show me. If no, then how do you propose to go from one straight line to the other?

Ah, you might argue that this is just for two straight lines, but you are talking about a circle.

A circle may be defined as an infinite number of infinite straight lines; at every connection between two of those lines, the locus that describes a circular perimeter ceases to be one-dimensional and becomes two dimensional.

In a sense, I like the second counterargument; it suggests that not only have you made an error, but you have made it infinite times.

Posted by: Notkieran | May 30, 2008 4:44 AM

Argh. "infinitely short", not "straight".

*examines closely*

This looks fine.

Yep. Everything's perfectly accurite.

Posted by: Beowulff | May 30, 2008 5:06 AM

Notkierian: read #482 again and again until you understand what he's saying: The parameters needed to describe the circle do not determine the dimensionality of the circle itself.

Another argument: there are continuous transformations that transform a line into a circle and the other way around. Clearly they are equivalent. On the other hand, a disc can be mapped onto a line, but because this is a non-unique mapping, the reverse is not possible: information about the second dimension is lost in the mapping.

Posted by: JeffreyD | May 30, 2008 6:52 AM

Leigh, re your #563, thank you for your kind words, dear lady. I will respond a little further to you off line. I do regularly speak out to people on depression and the need to explore the ways to deal with it. I am also starting to work on being able to speak to the real victims of suicide, the survivors. However, a little early for that, only been six months and just now getting past the serious anger. I do not want to bore anyone here with this issue, but I push for treatment because you are right, depression can be fatal.

Ciao, y'all

Posted by: Notkieran | May 30, 2008 7:16 AM

My bad: point one should be addressed to beowulff.

But all that is detail. The real issue is this:

If a circle IS one-dimensional, then it should be possible to inscribe a circle in a one-dimensional space. Can you do that?

In order for this to be so, it must be possible to define non-straight lines as one-dimensional; the argument then hinges on whether using a two-dimensional transformation on a one-dimensional object leaves it one-dimensional.

If the argument is yes, then I would argue that the same logic makes a plane two-dimensional:

Take a line running in the x-direction. Translate it by an infinitesimal amount in the y-direction. Repeat an infinite number of times. Voila. You now have a rectangular plane.

Since I only used a one-dimensional element (a line) and a one-dimensional continuous transformation to transform it into a plane, by your argument, beowulff, a plane is two dimensional.

In fact, then, isn't a cube one-dimensional too? Just translate the one-dimensional plane through z....

This is my argument. It is an absurd argument. The way in which you should disprove it, therefore, is to explain to me why the transformations that transform a line into a circle are different from the infinite translations that I have mentioned here, and thus prove that my argument does not apply.

Am I right?

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 7:50 AM

Notkieran,

Much of what you say makes (intuitive?) sense to me. So thank you for arguing the point, even if it turns out that you're wrong (or just technically wrong, according to the conventional definition of dimensionality). I'm enjoying the responses.

Posted by: CosmicTeapot | May 30, 2008 8:30 AM

Dustin @ 279

"Teapot. Orbit. Neptune."

Ohh, must I?

Too many comments to read, too much work to do, too little coffee!

Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 30, 2008 10:35 AM

But PZ you completely do not understand how good it feels to believe in those new clothes.

Other things being equal, PZ lives in Minnesota. New clothes of that cut of that cloth do not work well in Minnesota, say October 1 through June 15. And if you insist on trying to sell a suit of those clothes, please don't take the shotgun as anything more than a hint that it's time to carry one's peddling elsewhere.

Posted by: J | May 30, 2008 10:50 AM

I was also told (by Malcolm, #458) to "take a basic mathematics class", as well as my "meds", in response to my saying a circle is one-dimensional. I'm sure if you mathematicians didn't clear things up , more of those frothing animals would have jumped on Malcolm's fallacious bangwagon.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 30, 2008 10:57 AM

No, J, you were treated kindly after your first post on Pharyngula. I was there. Then you continued ranting and concern trolling and telling everyone they don't know cosmology and are a cult and arguing in bad faith until everyone dislikes you. You will be treated like this on every thread until you shape up.

Posted by: J | May 30, 2008 11:13 AM

No, J, you were treated kindly after your first post on Pharyngula. I was there. Then you continued ranting and concern trolling and telling everyone they don't know cosmology and are a cult and arguing in bad faith until everyone dislikes you. You will be treated like this on every thread until you shape up.
Either your memory is playing tricks on you, or that's a barefaced lie. I've been treated like scum on almost every single thread I posted on. And usually after my very first post, too.

As for this stock bullshit about "concern trolling" -- you have no evidence whatever that I'm deceitfully adopting a position I actually don't believe in. You can only accuse me of being a concern troll in the trivial sense that I disagree with a consensus opinion on Pharyngula.

I have to admit, it's an impressively clever strategy for suppressing contrary views: Brand deviants "concern trolls", thus giving you license to treat them as maliciously as you please!

Posted by: mds | May 30, 2008 11:21 AM

Notkieran @ 582

Let me try to explain why your spiral example doesn't work how you intuitively expect it to. Hopefully I won't make any mistakes.

Your argument seems to be that at each step in the sequence, if we, say, halve the distance between coils of the spiral, as the sequence approaches infinity, each point in R^2 will be arbitrarily close to some point on the spiral. This is correct. The problem is that given any point on the spiral, as the tightness increases, it's going to get pulled closer and closer to the center of the spiral (say, (0,0)). Thus the limit of the pointwise transformation functions is actually f(t) = (0,0) --- every point on the spiral maps to the center.

Another way of looking at it is asking yourself, for each point on R^2, which point on the length of the spiral does it map to?

Posted by: mds | May 30, 2008 11:31 AM

To add to my previous post, I previously was using length along the spiral as the variable. If we instead use Euclidean distance from the center in R^2, we get a different problem: while we don't get all points mapping to the origin, we instead have f(t) = { (x,y) \in R^2 | x^2 + y^2 = t^2 }, which is clearly not a the function from R -> R^2 that we're looking for. I suspect that any other continuous function from the spiral to R^2 would lead to similar problems when taken to the limit.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | May 30, 2008 11:35 AM

My argument was that from the vantage point of an observer in space, that Earth appears circular is a legitimate observation, even though Earth is in fact spherical.

First, that would be sloppy language combined with a non-sensical description, in the sense that your magically space floating visionary most definitely would observe (sense) a sphere. Or haven't you ever seen a view of Earth from space? You very definitively see more than a circular edge, you can see the curvature of the area below you.

Second, the empirical observations at that time predicts a spheroid (not spherical) Earth, as phases of the moon will have different parts of the Earth shadowing it.

Third, the easiest explanation for your visionary's claims is that it wasn't a vision, merely an observation of how the surface of Earth looks for a ground observer - flat with a circular horizon.

All spheres are by default three-dimensional circles.

There isn't such a thing. It depends on the area under discussion and the embedding used.

In math Earth is approximately a three-dimensional ball, a 3-ball, or its surface is a two-dimensional sphere,a 2-sphere. In physics Earth is approximately a three-dimensional sphere. (Or 4-dimensional, if you use relativity.)

You can express an n-sphere as a construction of circles, 1-spheres, or an n-ball as a construction of disks, 1-balls. I wouldn't call either constitutive equation "three-dimensional circles".

Moreover, a circle is either a 1-dimensional path (topology, no embedding space) or a 2-dimensional curve (geometry, embedding in a plane), in analogy of above.

To argue which dimensionality should be used, intrinsic or extrinsic, which embeddings or parameterizations (coordinates) in the later case, et cetera, is meaningless as the definitions and use depends on context, see the links.

However, I think this makes the original claim weaker. The context is that of an illiterate sheep herder, see above.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 30, 2008 11:38 AM

Are you saying that a circle is one-dimensional solely because it IS a line?

Yes; any point on it has an open neighbourhood homeomorphic with an open line segment.

There are different mathematical ways to define dimensionality, by some of which fractals can have non-integral dimensionality, but by any that I'm aware of, a circle (S^1) is one-dimensional.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 30, 2008 11:42 AM

I think it's imprudent for atheists to go around telling people they're atheists. You act as if this is a completely outrageous opinion.

We don't act like it is outrageous. We disagreed at first; now we're on to the stage where what's outrageous is you continually bringing it up after we've moved on.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 30, 2008 11:51 AM

How about if we dump this controversial "atheist" tag and use "pariah" instead?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 30, 2008 12:00 PM

I was insulted viciously after my very first post. - J

No you weren't. That was #81. Nobody responded until after your second post (#86). After that, Janine ID @89 admittedly called you a "Schmuck", for suggesting that people who call themselves atheists do so in order to shock. I can quite see how that vicious insult could have caused severe PTSD; but the only advice I can give is not to post comments to Pharyngula any more, in order to avoid responses that might exacerbate your condition.

Posted by: MartinM | May 30, 2008 12:07 PM

FRW metric? Being an exact solution of the field equations, it has one term for time, and three for a spherical polar coordinate.

Careful; the three spatial coordinates may look like spherical polars, but they're interpreted rather differently.

Since a spherical polar coordinate system implies three dimensions, I would place my answer as "four".

Right. But what do spatial slices of that manifold look like, in the case of a closed Universe? They're not Cartesian 3-spaces - R^3 - but rather the surface of a 4-ball - S^3. If you can accept that as a three-dimensional space, without requiring it to be embedded in R^4, then you should be able to apply the same reasoning to S^1.

My argument is that while the equations describing the LOCAL behaviour of points ON a circle's perimeter are identical to that of a straight line, this is solely due to the fact that a circle is mathematically identical to an infinite-sided polygon.

But the local behaviour is precisely what defines dimensionality. A manifold is n-dimensional if it is locally homeomorphic to R^n.

Let us now "tighten" the spiral until every coil is adjacent to the previous one. Is this now one-dimensional or two-dimensional?

An excellent question - there do exist plane-filling functions, which map R^1 -> R^2, though I don't think your spiral is one of them. Problem is, they're not invertible - they self-intersect, such that one can't construct a mapping back from R^2 to R^1. That means there's no homeomorphism.

I'm not a mathematician; I'm just a physicist.

That's my background too, actually; you might enjoy Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists, by Chris Isham.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 30, 2008 12:17 PM

As my mom-the-therapist used to say, "If you have a problem with someone, well, ok. If you have the same problem with everyone, well - it's probably you."

Posted by: J | May 30, 2008 12:25 PM

No you weren't. That was #81. Nobody responded until after your second post (#86). After that, Janine ID @89 admittedly called you a "Schmuck", for suggesting that people who call themselves atheists do so in order to shock. I can quite see how that vicious insult could have caused severe PTSD; but the only advice I can give is not to post comments to Pharyngula any more, in order to avoid responses that might exacerbate your condition.
Talk about "arguing in bad faith". You're probably saying this on the assumption that people will read what you wrote and get the impression that I'm a liar, without scrolling up and finding out the truth of the situation for themselves.

I was called "schmuck" several times immediately following my first post. The fact that the real nasty insults started only after my second post rather than my first is of no relevance to anything. The second was very brief, and even milder than the first.

Your attempt to portray me as thin-skinned is either ill-informed or dishonest. The name-calling against me here has contained some of the most unpleasant insults I've ever witnessed in an online discussion group. Take this, for instance:

You are an uninteresting, unachieving waste of skin. Begone you stale streak of spastic piss, you sweat from a boy-touching priest's balls, you vile smear of snot. You are not worthy of this blog.

Now I wouldn't keep going on about this if it weren't for this insane contesting of every single claim I make, even when I quite obviously have a non-dismissible point.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 30, 2008 12:26 PM

"...Majorities are often mistaken."

Is this an admission that perhaps religion and those who follow it are, in fact, mistaken?

Posted by: foldedpath | May 30, 2008 12:35 PM

J, at #590: OK, let's adumbrate somewhat:

I think it's imprudent for atheists to go around telling people they're atheists. You act as if this is a completely outrageous opinion.

And yet you yourself, more than once in these threads, have told us you're an atheist. Curious, eh?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 30, 2008 12:36 PM

Re #605. J, you are apparently unable to read. You made a comment at #81 and another at #86. None of the intervening posts mentioned you or responded to you in any way.

Posted by: J | May 30, 2008 12:40 PM

Re #605. J, you are apparently unable to read. You made a comment at #81 and another at #86. None of the intervening posts mentioned you or responded to you in any way.
OK, I'm wrong. The name-calling against me started after my first two moderate, intemperate posts.

Nitpicking on totally inconsequential details to give the illusion that I'm being disingenuous. Good tactics.

Posted by: bPer | May 30, 2008 12:44 PM

Torbjörn Larsson @#591:

phases of the moon will have different parts of the Earth shadowing it

Please tell me you meant "phases of the lunar eclipse". Otherwise, it's back to Grade 2 science for you, young man!

An afterthought: just in case my reaction, Torbjörn, is puzzling, "phases of the moon" generally refers to the appearance of the moon as it orbits the Earth (new, waxing, full, waning, new again). Your English is always so good, I did not initially consider that if English is not your native language, you may have learned the concept of the phases using another name for it. I hope that explains my surprise.

Posted by: J | May 30, 2008 12:45 PM

I'm not going back in another fucking closet.
You don't have to. Coming out of the closet is equivalent to declaring you reject religion (and I urge you to do that). Rejecting religion is not equivalent to atheism, which is a philosophical/cosmological position of no social significance.

How is this hard to understand?

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 12:52 PM

The name-calling against me started after my first two moderate, intemperate posts.

And after another whole thread, to which I linked above. I don't even think you're being disingenuous. I think you have a fundamentally warped perception of these exchanges.

And for the record, this

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.

is extremely snotty and presumptuous, and had little or nothing to do with the ongoing discussions, despite your attempt to shoehorn it in. This is why it was ignored at first.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2008 12:58 PM

Rejecting religion is not equivalent to atheism, which is a philosophical/cosmological position of no social significance.

flap your arms harder. You might eventually take flight.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2008 1:13 PM

Statements of belief or disbelief in a creator-deity is an extremely significant thing in this society. The current President's father said, while running for President, those without belief in a deity are not citizens. The former governor of my state, while running for President, claimed that belief in a deity is absolutely necessary for governing a free and democratic society (he backtracked after getting criticized, but he meant it at the time--otherwise he would have said something different.) Public opinion polls show that a lack of belief in a deity is associated with untrustworthiness, a lack of moral and ethical standards, and a general desire to not have us as a part of the nation. Several state constitutions--admittedly in violation of the federal constitution--have clauses barring non-believers from holding office. If you think that's not significant, you're beyond ridiculous.

As we queer folks demonstrated by coming out of the closet and making positive affirmations of identity, you break down those things not through argumentation but through example. You come out of the closet as one without belief in a deity in order to: 1) confront the god-bothering nonsense that's out there; 2) break down stereotypical associations of non-belief with social maladies. You don't break down those associations with silence.

Now, go sit in your corner and practice the silence you're so fond of.

Posted by: windy | May 30, 2008 1:16 PM

J wrote:

I think it's imprudent for atheists to go around telling people they're atheists. You act as if this is a completely outrageous opinion.

It may or may not be "outrageous" but what you don't seem to get is that it's insulting to say that our self-identification should be kept hidden when possible. Now, claims which initially insult should be considered if someone makes a good enough case for them, but you don't.

For example, this:

Rejecting religion is not equivalent to atheism, which is a philosophical/cosmological position of no social significance.

Well I'm British, and I think "atheism" definitely has negative connotations in my country as well as America.

It might be better to say that you think society shouldn't attach social significance to it. Have you considered that having as many people as possible to publicly identify as atheists may be a way towards achieving that goal?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 30, 2008 1:25 PM

Re J@613. The first post I can find in this thread, in which anything worse than "schmuck" was aimed at you, is from Matt Penfold@263, where he says you're "rather full of shit". This was after you had several times repeated your point, which no-one else appears to agree with or be interested in, that it's unwise for atheists to call themselves atheists. If you keep repeating such a point, particularly in the somewhat truculent tone you use, people are eventually going to get annoyed with you, and on a blog as lightly moderated as this, start calling you names. You are not convincing anyone, and you don't like the name-calling, so why don't you drop the point, and either discuss something else, or go away?

Posted by: SteveM | May 30, 2008 1:44 PM

@SteveM

So the shape of circle is a disk and the shape of a sphere is a ball.

The word you're looking for is interior

No, what I am looking for is a definition of "shape", I am arguing that an object's shape (at least for closed objects) is defined by its interior.

Posted by: Brad | May 30, 2008 1:53 PM

One could say that Notkieran commited the fallacy of composition: because a circle is a line, and a line is a one-dimensional object, a circle is a one-dimensional object. This ignores the fact that a circle can only be scribed in a space of at least two dimensions.

Posted by: WRMartin | May 30, 2008 2:45 PM

@Dennis N #505
J would start harping on and on about how the game's title should be "Cosmological Positionists vs Christians" and we'd be back where we started.

Kseniya #597 suggests using "pariah". I'm thinking "heathen".

Let's have a vote (a poll maybe?) -
All in favor of dropping the 'atheist' term and replacing it with whatever J is proposing?
[crickets] Ah, we have 1 vote. Thank you J.
All opposed?
627, 628, ..., 632. Thank you everyone.
Atheist it is.

Posted by: J | May 30, 2008 3:09 PM

This was after you had several times repeated your point, which no-one else appears to agree with or be interested in, that it's unwise for atheists to call themselves atheists. If you keep repeating such a point, particularly in the somewhat truculent tone you use, people are eventually going to get annoyed with you, and on a blog as lightly moderated as this, start calling you names. You are not convincing anyone, and you don't like the name-calling, so why don't you drop the point, and either discuss something else, or go away?
Oh, fuck off. You're willfully disingenuous. I had no choice but to repeat the point, as my posts were being persistently distorted. Even now some people don't seem to understand that I'm no apologist for religion.

I would have let the matter drop long ago if the response to me weren't so intellectually dishonest and downright uncivilized.

Posted by: GTMoogle | May 30, 2008 3:22 PM

So a disk contains a circle, a circle can contain both lines and circles, but not all lines can contain a circle? Davis brought good stuff indeed, and like so many issues it seems to be a contest of common and precise usage, and what people mean when they refer to a thing's dimension. When someone turned on the pedantic flag, we left common territory. Entertaining anyway. :)

Walton, there's no need for modesty or tentativity. Even if that thread of conversation got a little bogged down, it still felt like it was getting somewhere. Many interesting things to learn along the way for me. And I always appreciate a devil's advocate as long as they're being more than just contrary.

J... Just wow.
There's no group waving Atheist flags shouting about atheism. A couple people have written books or have blogs, which the public can choose to ignore. Hell, there's so much cross-talk here (a forum owned by one person) there are often bad assumptions made either way when someone DOESN'T declare their 'cosmological' viewpoint, as you insist it is.

No one here is trying to tie various causes to the Atheist label. The NCSE is carrying the banner of good science education being simply secular and nothing more. If the deists are failing to support good causes, the fault of that lies only at those individuals feet. And they're assuredly no more a homogeneous group than anyone else, I'm sure plenty are active and plenty aren't.

Your continued assault seems to to stem from your unwavering devotion to a definition of Atheism that NO ONE HOLDS. Not the authors you cite, the people here, nor the general public. I'm sure we don't have to go into a conversation about the meaning of words, but please get a grip!

We know a lot of people who haven't considered it think atheism == strong atheism. Are you failing to consider that it's also tied into ANY concept of lack of belief for those people? That defining a new word to mean weak atheism will be just as hard as re-defining atheism itself, if not harder? If you tell people you're a 'bright' (which is still horrible on its own merits), you're going to have to not only explain it, you'll then have to explain how it isn't atheism anyway.

Hell, there's no reason to get everyone on the same message in the first place anyway. How about we try to get understanding of atheism over here, and you can go over there and get people behind your idea over there, and we meet in the middle with the deists, agnostics, scientists, rationalists, and everyone else that has the goal of making society tolerate things on the other end of the scale from fundamentalism?

(Why do I get the feeling this is a lost cause? Well, it's been a good thread with lots to learn anyway :D )

Posted by: Brad | May 30, 2008 3:40 PM

Notkieran, sorry about the mix-up. A quick search would have quickly corrected me had I taken the time.

Friendo
I understand your position perfectly now.

Unfortunately, geometers and topologists adopt incompatible conventions for the meaning of "-sphere," with geometers referring to the number of coordinates in the underlying space and topologists referring to the dimension of the surface itself (Coxeter 1973, p. 125). As a result, geometers call the circumference of the usual circle the 2-sphere, while topologists refer to it as the 1-sphere... - http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html

I hadn't appreciated this distinction until now.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | May 30, 2008 3:46 PM

J,

I give people the benefit of the doubt when they're being attacked, since I've seen a couple of people being savaged very unfairly (by one person in particular), and I'm conscious of my own weakness in following herd mentality.

But here's the thing: you started off with two comments which continued a contentious and disagreeable line of argument from an earlier post regarding the use/definition of "atheist". By posting twice in rapid succession, you pushed this argument under the noses of the people who disagreed with you earlier. This is at least tiresome and, I think, provocative.

From the point of view of this bystander, the tone of the first two comments is censorious and condescending, and the tone of many of your posts is arrogant: you have a tendency to assert things by fiat when they are arguable, even when you are, em, "underinformed". Now "tone" is a pretty hard thing to put one's finger on, and you probably disagree with my characterisation of yours, but I think it's pretty obvious that I'm not alone given that several people have reacted so negatively.

It also seems to me that you are droning on about a single issue, dragging it from thread-to-thread, pursuing your position with dogged tenacity, insisting that everyone adopt your definition of terminology, misrepresenting the way prominent people use that terminology, failing to conduct the most basic fact-checking of even your own comments.

I think the comments in each post start anew until people start to formulate an opinion about you based on your history. Some people already think you're a concern-troll; how long before others follow suit?

It seems that people are reacting to you, not responding to what you're saying. That should tell you something.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 30, 2008 3:51 PM

"If they would, ¡¡¡hasta la victoria siempre!!! Have you never considered how many lives communism has transformed (and I don't mean "ended", I mean "transformed" in exactly the sense you are using)?"

I meant "transformed" in a positive way; not in a "let's-stand-in-line-for-five-hours-for-a-loaf-of-bread-wow-all-hail-the-party" kind of way.

That's what I mean. I mean people who Saw The Light™ and were inspired to, like, devote their lives to the tireless fight for freedom & equality all over the world.

Sure, the effects of such transformations on other people, of which standing in line for 5 h is by far the least horrible one, are a different matter. But you can get that from Christianity, too. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995? There are Christian terrorists out there. Just how like the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan) used to have Stalinist suicide bombers.

Bah, I put <strike> tags around the "the surface of" (a sphere) in my previous post, looks like they didn't come through.

That's because ScienceBlogs uses its own HTML. (As if it were Microsoft.) You must use <s> alone!

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 5:15 PM

David Marjanović,

How do you create accents?

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

I'm not sure I understand the importance of the local definition of dimensionality. Going back to Davis' example of how a circle looks like a line from a very limited perspective, I'd say that if he looks at his feet, the circle resembles a point. Does that mean a circle has zero dimensionality? No, but I'm very curious why Davis draws the distinction.

Posted by: Friendo | May 30, 2008 5:46 PM

@Brad

Going back to Davis' example of how a circle looks like a line from a very limited perspective, I'd say that if he looks at his feet, the circle resembles a point. Does that mean a circle has zero dimensionality? No, but I'm very curious why Davis draws the distinction.

I don't understand what you mean by "looking at his feet"...the point is that a being living on a circle can move back and forth in one, and only one, direction.

But thanks for the MathWorld reference upthread...I haven't come across these geometers who call a circle a 2-sphere. I didn't know there was any ambiguity among mathematicians. I suspect, however, that that convention is much less prevalent now than in 1973. I mean, I took a diff. geometry class last year, and there was no question as to what n-sphere meant.

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 6:05 PM

Greatest Common Denominator?

Posted by: Kseniya | May 30, 2008 6:20 PM

As I understand it, J's 'cosmological position' argument seems to be [...]

FWIW, I agree completely with this analysis of J's position.

I'm not sure I understand the importance of the local definition of dimensionality. Going back to Davis' example of how a circle looks like a line from a very limited perspective, I'd say that if he looks at his feet, the circle resembles a point. Does that mean a circle has zero dimensionality? No, but I'm very curious why Davis draws the distinction.

No, if he looks at his feet, the circle looks like a line, for the same reason the equator looks like a line. When he speaks of "living on" a circle, he means on the outside rim - like an ant on the tread of a bicycle tire, not like a train on a circular train-track.

Imagine yourself walking the Equator. That's what he means. The line you'd be on, though it is in fact a circle, would appear to be a straight line from your limited perspective. Make the rest of the universe to *poof* and you'd be on the outside of a very large ring - so large that you'd have trouble figuring out that it was a ring and not an endless straight line.

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 7:08 PM

Or, maybe another way of coming at it - If we didn't stop there, it would lose its "lineness" and cease to be an object, since it's composed not just of an infinite number of points, but points in a particular relationship to one another.

I hope I'm making some sense.

Posted by: windy | May 30, 2008 7:22 PM

As I understand it, J's 'cosmological position' argument seems to be that the only difference between deism and atheism is that one believes the universe was created by an absentee deity, and the other believes that, since deities don't exist, it wasn't. Since the only difference between these two positions is the whether the universe was created or not, the only defining characteristic of atheism is this particular cosmological position (i.e. not created), and that we should limit ourselves to identifying ourselves as the GCD of atheism and deism. He feels that the Brights embody this ideal.

According to the Brights website "the term bright refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements." I wonder if they would agree with J's definition.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 30, 2008 7:43 PM

Either Euclid was wrong, or.... space is curved! - Kseniya@652

Hence, Non-Euclidean geometries. Replace Euclid's 5th postulate - that through a given point you can draw exactly one line parallel to a given line (that does not run through the given point) - by a postulate that you cannot draw a line parallel to a given line through a point not on the line, and you have spherical geometry. If you replace it instead by a postulate that you can draw at least two lines parallel to a given line through a given point off the line, you get hyperbolic geometry, which also has applications in physics IIRC.

Posted by: windy | May 30, 2008 7:51 PM

did you mean that rhetorically?

or sarcastically...

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 30, 2008 7:57 PM

as if anyone who ever suggests a potential course of action needs to have a peer-reviewed study backing him up

based on your repeated re-statement of the issue, to the point of being beyond tiresome, one would almost expect you had, in fact, many peer reviewed studies to support your contentions.

are you fucking DONE yet?

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 8:12 PM

Look, you smug little putz: You have made numerous claims about the social world and social dynamics with nothing in the way of evidence to back them up. I would have been happy to discuss evidence that fell short of peer-reviewed research, but you didn't provide that either.

You came to an atheist's blog proclaiming that atheists should refer to themselves as something else. You are the one making the contention: that "atheism" is socially problematic and that a replacement term would be possible and preferable. The burden of proof is on you.

In the Q&A subsequent to his 1985 Gifford lectures (now in The Varieties of Scientific Experience, Carl Sagan participated in the following exchange:

"Questioner: ...Talking about proofs for the existence of God, I'd like to put it in perspective that there's no completely satisfactory proof that everyone in this room exists. I don't know if you know of one. I think it comes down in the end to belief of one sort or another that people in this room exist, and putting the proofs about God's existence in that context, we're demanding a lot more in proving God's existence than we are in proving our own existence.
CS: But the burden...the burden of proof is on those who claim that God exists. Or do you think not?

Questioner: I think you say that. I don't think that, in fact.
CS: You think the burden of proof is on those who say that God does not exist?

Questioner: An equal burden of proof, I would say. I don't see why it should be put to those who say He exists.
CS: But would you say that, no matter what contention is made, that the burden of proving or disproving it falls equally on those who agree and those who disagree?

Questioner: I would say that.
CS: Have you thought of the political implications of this?

Questioner: Well, it's not a political issue, I don't think.
CS: No, but I thought it was a general proposition you were proposing.

Questioner: If you take a physical proposition, would you say you know that in every case the burden of proof rests to prove one type of case or the other type of case?
CS: The burden of proof always falls on those on those who make the contention.

Questioner: Well, all right. Yes. But only in the sense that it's disproving the other contention.
CS: No, no. It can be in an area where no one has any other contentions.

Questioner: Yes, well...
CS: It is - and it seems to me quite proper. Because otherwise opinions would be launched very casually if those who proposed them did not have the burden of demonstrating their truth. Here is a set of thirty-one proposals that I make, and good-bye. I mean, you would be left with a chaotic circumstance.

Questioner: Yes, all right. Yes, I see. I see your point. Yes." (240-2)

Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 30, 2008 8:19 PM

Don't be taken in by Nick Gotts. His habit is to focus on a pointless detail and draw from it damning conclusions that he's not entitled to. - J.

Curses! Unmasked! (Twirls ends of waxed moustache. Exit, pursued by a bore.)

Posted by: J | May 30, 2008 8:26 PM

...and that a replacement term would be possible and preferable.
I'm not claiming that, I'm claiming it's a possibility that needs to be considered. You have absolutely no justification to take "atheist is the better word" as the null hypothesis.

(Yes, I repeat a point -- by necessity. It's not my fault many people here are too stupid and intellectually dishonest to understand me the first time.)

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 30, 2008 9:04 PM

It would have died down ages ago if...

that's funny, that's remarkably similar to the arguments Kenny makes as to why he too sticks around.

you too have a lot in common, though you probably don't want to think to hard about why.

tell us, you don't have a thing for NDE's, do you?

Posted by: Friendo | May 30, 2008 9:12 PM

I think it's obvious what's happening here.

1. J wants to convince us that, by being belligerent and insistent, atheists are ostracizing themselves.
2. He comes onto this thread and acts in a belligerent and insistent manner.
3. We ostracize him.
4. QED!

Pure unadulterated genius.

Posted by: JeffreyD | May 30, 2008 9:25 PM

J, may I call you dufus? As a member of the the stupid and intellectually dishonest rabble whose only mission is to make your life miserable while hiding your brilliance from the world, I do courteously and humbly beseech you to take a moment to perform a simple duty, i.e., fuck yourself, using whatever large and square cornered object you can find. You poor persecuted piece of human debris. Please note, this is a pure insult, no attempt to engage you in a battle of wits as you are clearly unarmed.

Ciao

Posted by: Spacesocks | May 30, 2008 9:48 PM

I used to be in complete agreement with PZ on this point, until I took Philosophy of Religion (don't worry, I'm still an atheist...I just realize now that religion is more complicated than emperors and their invisible clothes).

There's a huge difference between apologetics and high-quality theology. The former is a bunch of circular rationalizations. It refuses to seriously engage any critiques of the concept of God, continuing to maintain that the emperor IS SO wearing clothes, and what's more, they're the loveliest clothes ever, and the only reason you can't see them is because you're too ignorant and blind to see with the eye of faith, etc. This is the bulk of what passes for theology in actual practice (i.e., most churches, the Internets). It is entirely proper to dismiss it, and not loutish; nor does dismissing it necessarily constitute killing a strawman version of theology, because apologetics is how most people justify belief in God anyway.

But there is theology that actually takes atheistic critiques seriously. A lot of these theologians are technically atheists as we understand the term; some aren't, but they reject the absurd "perfect being" theology (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) in favor of concepts that are at least internally coherent. Paul Tillich, in "Dynamics of Faith," said, "If 'existence' refers to something which can be found within the whole of reality, no divine being exists." David Blumenthal, in "Facing the Abusing God," provides one of the most interesting theistic answers to the problem of evil, in light of the holocaust: "God is abusive, but not always." He even says it is perfectly all right for believers not to love God, or to rage against him, for the horrors he has allowed innocent people to suffer. This God is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent, so Epicurus would say, "why call him God?" You might say God is "only human." But if you think about it, most theists don't really believe in a truly ethereal God anyway; their Gods are just as abusive and ineffectual as Blumenthal's, they just pretend he isn't. So you have to give Blumenthal props for honesty, even if he continues to believe in a personal God.

The problem with these more reasonable theologians, as far as I can see, is that it is easy for apologists to cherry-pick their work without really understanding it, then throw it at atheists and go, "See? Problem solved!"...while still continuing to believe that God exists in external reality, is perfect, and wrote the Bible.

And the problem with academic theologians who DO understand these works is that so many of them are angry at Dawkins and the rest for "mischaracterizing" theism. They accuse the "new atheists" of making a strawman argument. And then the millions of people who worship that very same strawman go, "those atheists meanies are arguing against a strawman! We don't worship a strawman!"

Rather than write off all theologians as apologist wafflers, we should try to get them on our side. We should say, "If you think we're arguing against a strawman, go tell the people over there to stop worshipping a strawman!" We should say, "you think apologetics is bad theology? Then please, please tell that to the apologists!"

And we should stop saying, "well, if you're not talking about this strawman, you're not talking about God." It's perfectly OK to say that the strawman is "God as most people understand the word," but since the word "God" is basically content-free anyway, I think people have the right to attach whatever content they like to it, as long as they acknowledge that they're going with a nontraditional definition.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2008 10:05 PM

ou people here like to play these shenanigans with "burden of proof", I've noticed. I was once even asked for "sociological, anthropological, or historical evidence", as if anyone who ever suggests a potential course of action needs to have a peer-reviewed study backing him up.

And to think, someone here actually studies social movement activity, discourse, and strategy. And it's not J.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 30, 2008 10:11 PM

we should try to get them on our side

they already are.

see for example, Hector Avalos.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 30, 2008 10:32 PM

More than one person. But what do I know about it, either? Not like I wrote a dissertation on social movements or anything. Oh, wait, I did that

And I'm only in the middle of one about identity, strategy, and the construction of social types. Nothing to notice here.

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 10:41 PM

And I'm only in the middle of one about identity, strategy, and the construction of social types.

Which I'd still love to read...:)

Hope it's going well.

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 10:52 PM

Still in Boston, and that sounds interesting. For my part, I'm working with a group of local academics and activists organizing a summer conference. You might be interested in that, if you're around.

Posted by: buckyball | May 30, 2008 11:03 PM

@ BlueIndependent, #676:

"Expecting a 2000 year old book to speak in today's vernacular is dishonest."

There are many "modern" translations currently in existence. Or were you implying that that the concepts are outdated?

"I'll explain it for you, since you seem to be persisting in the same disingenuous activities others like J are: Children are typically indoctrinated - yes, that IS the appropriate word - as early as age 3 or 4, as I was."

So, how would you approach the issue instead? What is your solution?

Posted by: SC | May 30, 2008 11:24 PM

It can be when the radius equals zero.

But then how would you know it's a circle?

Posted by: Brad | May 30, 2008 11:47 PM

I suppose that if you were so inclined, you could say that all points are circles, but not all circles are points.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2008 12:02 AM

I'm bemused by the contradiction between the opinion that seems to be your hobby-horse (essentially a "good marketing" message), and the way that you express it (with pretty poor "marketing").

coincidentally, this is the exact same problem Mathew Nisbet has, if you are aware of who that is.

if not, just do a search on this blog, and you'll find it.

his blog is "framing science"

Posted by: Brad | May 31, 2008 12:08 AM

If a circle with a radius equal to zero is a point, then it follows that any point can be expressed as a circle with a radius equal to zero. However, because there are circles with radii greater than zero, the reverse is not true.

Posted by: SC | May 31, 2008 12:20 AM

If a circle with a radius equal to zero is a point, then it follows that any point can be expressed as a circle with a radius equal to zero. However, because there are circles with radii greater than zero, the reverse is not true.

But then it follows that any point can be expressed as anything (a square with H and W equal to zero, a line whose length is zero, etc.). On the other hand, all circles consist of points (with "degenerate" circles consisting of only a single point).

Posted by: SC | May 31, 2008 12:43 AM

did you catch this one?

Caught, and fielded:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/speaking_of_pulling_ads.php#comment-908466

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2008 3:07 AM

It seems to me that the kernel of Nisbet's problem is his lack of any qualification in science; it puts him in the position of being "outside" telling people "inside" what's wrong with them. That's always popular :o)

I'd say you nailed a big part of it, which is why it always puzzles me so that AAAS has apparently glommed on to much of what he has to say.

I'd guess just random curiosity, and if I'm right, it will die down in a few more months.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2008 6:32 AM

People were very interested in Nisbet when he started out.

he was a curiosity: someone who published on science communication and essentially got their PhD thesis published in Science (that ain't common in ANY field).

that tends to attract attention.

A) doesn't back up what he says with any convincing evidence

he thinks his paper says it all, but won't actually respond to criticisms of the paper itself.

It was at that point that I started to wonder who the hell was on his advisory committee.

for a new postdoc to be as reluctant to defend his work as Nisbet was, it was a bit of a warning sign for me.

all of what you say is true, but I still think that Emmet also has a part of the "puzzle of Nisbet".

bottom line, I say the same thing as I did when he first popped on the scene:

he's playing the false confidence card and riding his early success in order to try and establish a career for himself.

I suspect, after a few years in the real trenches, he will indeed have more interesting and useful input.

I just hope that there aren't too many drawn in by the novelty of his approach, simply because the reverse is also true:

while Nisbet might not know too much about how science works, most scientists know even less about communication.

that could lead to some really stupid decisions being made.

I hope not, but was very put off by the way the last AAAS meeting on the issue was put together and run.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 31, 2008 7:51 AM

"I hope not, but was very put off by the way the last AAAS meeting on the issue was put together and run."

Have you seen the AAAS video on how science and religion are compatible ? Nisbett has it posted on his blog. I suspect he is rather delighted with it, as it manages to totally ignore those scientists and philosophers who think the two are not compatible. I fear we have seen the future of science communication as Nisbett would have it, and it is not pretty. Larry Moran has a good take on it: He argues that the AAAS should preferably not comment on the issue, or if they do make it clear that it is a controversial subject with scientists disagreeing.

Posted by: Beowulff | May 31, 2008 7:59 AM

At Buckyball, #662:

There's a fine line sometimes between guiding someone and controlling them.

Maybe some of the insecurity on the part of the parents comes from a lack of knowledge (Biblical and otherwise)?

Posted by: SC | May 31, 2008 9:47 AM