Pharyngula

Posted by: chief | July 30, 2008 11:02 PM

off-topic
Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) thinks that both McCain and Obama may be closet atheists:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/decisions_decisions/

Posted by: Ric | July 30, 2008 11:07 PM

[blockquote][PZ], Dawkins, Atkins, and Dennett are just practicing a new religion.... [They] are pushing science as a replacement for religion.[/blockquote]

Oh geez. Not that hackneyed argument again. Two bad arguments in a row today. First that troll Clayton trundled out the old "atheists have no basis for morality" and now this joker rehashes the much-used "science is a religion too!" argument. Do these guys have an original thought in their head?

Posted by: Ric | July 30, 2008 11:08 PM

Sorry about the crappy use of block quotes. Thought I was typing ubb code for a second.

Posted by: Nick | July 30, 2008 11:17 PM

Isn't it kind of cute how the worst thing the religous types can think to do, time and time again, is to claim that we are like them? Cute or obnoxious, anyhow.

Posted by: Keith B | July 30, 2008 11:20 PM

Good respond to Karl's gibberish. Why does he even have an audience?

Posted by: homostoicus | July 30, 2008 11:23 PM

The science-as-religion argument always amuses me and makes me think we might finally be getting somewhere because it's an argument (an invalid one) that says science is no better than religions' blind obeisance to dogma. It's an admission that religion's got nothin'.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 30, 2008 11:24 PM

The religious do seem limited in defining everything within their own limited scope.

They can't see that atheism is about dispensing with religion; they choose to interpret that atheists want to replace it - apparently with science - because they can't understand that some people are (and all people should be) capable of living their lives without an entity of some sort to tell give them rules to abide by.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 30, 2008 11:30 PM

I second the motion that P.Z. ask for a rebuttal.

Not me. It isn't worthy of a rebuttal; such FCCwittery is not just fatuous, it's self-refuting. PZ was generous in acknowledging it enough to point and laugh from his own blog.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 30, 2008 11:31 PM

Grrr. After posting it, I realized I should have phrased my earlier comment (#8) differently. What I had meant to say (and maybe it comes across, I dunno, it's late here) is that the simple act of asking for a cracker to throw away and then throwing away the aforesaid cracker has brought the deluded out in full force. And what a sorry spectacle that is. It sorta reminds me of the first few months right after The God Delusion came out, and the earliest Courtier's Replies were burning up the book-review pages. Lots of us, I think, had the feeling, "This is the best they've got? Good grief and dear me, what demented fuckwits."

Then he recounts the tale of the "Great Desecration", but without any of the context, not bothering to mention the hideous history of the Catholic response to rumors of desecration, and not even mentioning Bill Donohue's bullying tactics. Oh, and then he compares me to Jonathan Edwards, misrepresents his own interview — he only "suggested that science doesn't know everything," which "got [him] condemned to whatever hell Myers believes in" — and claims that atheists like me, Dawkins, Atkins, and Dennett are just practicing a new religion. Over and over again.

Giberson is busily proving, by example, that his brand of mysticism can only survive in the absence of facts.

Posted by: cj | July 30, 2008 11:31 PM

TO THE MYERS-IAN ATHEISTS:

IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE "NOTHING IS SACRED", WHY DO YOU MINDLESSLY BOW DOWN & WORSHIP YOUR GOD, P.Z. MYERS, EVER FOLLOWING EVERY WORD OF HIS GOSPEL?????

How many times need I remind you folks that Science itself was the result of CATHOLICS in the first place! It's interesting to note that the first scientists were all monks, they were all clerics!

So, yes, there was "assistance from the imaginary"; that is, it was the Catholic Faith of the first Scientists which were Catholic monks, clerics, and laity, that drove them to Science in the first place and inspired them to discovery and seek out the very workings of God's Creation!

The Big Bang theory that the universe originated in an extremely dense and hot space and expanded was developed by Belgian priest, Fr. George Lemaître.

People today aren't even aware of this fact!

Here are some examples of scientists who were Catholic clergy:

1. Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.
2. Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.
3. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.
4. Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.
5. Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.
6. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.
7. Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.
8. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.

The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism in the United States comes from the Protestant tradition, not the Catholic one.

American Catholicism is in a Protestant culture. We borrow a lot of our attitudes, along with a lot of our hymns, and not always the best of either.

LIST OF CATHOLIC SCIENTISTS

Algue, a priest, invented the barocyclonometer, to detect approach of cyclones.

Ampere was founder of the science of electrodynamics, and investigator of the laws of electro-magnetism.

Becquerel, Antoine Cesar, was the founder of electro-chemistry.

Becquerel, Antoine Henri, was the discoverer of radio-activity.

Binet, mathematician and astronomer, set forth the principle, "Binet's Theorem."

Braille invented the Braille system for the blind.

Buffon wrote the first work on natural history.

Carrell, Nobel prize winner in medicine and physiology, is renowned for his work in surgical technique.

Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany.

Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.

Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.

Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity.

De Chauliac, a Papal physician, was the father of modern surgery and hospitals.

De Vico, a priest, discovered six comets. Descartes founded analytical geometry.

Dumas invented a method of ascertaining vapor densities.

Endlicher, botanist and historian, established a new system of classifying plants.

Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy.

Fabricius discovered the valvular system of the veins.

Fallopius, for whom the Fallopian tube was named, was an eminent physiologist.

Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light.

Foucault invented the first practical electric arc lamp; he refuted the corpuscular theory of light; he invented the gyroscope.

Fraunhofer was initiator of spectrum analysis; he established laws of diffraction.

Fresnel contributed more to the science of optics than any other man.

Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science.

Galvani, one of the pioneers of electricity, was also an anatomist and physiologist.

Gioja, father of scientific navigation, invented the mariner's compass.

Gramme invented the Gramme dynamo.

Guttenberg invented printing.

Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis.

Holland invented the first practical sub marine.

Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.

Laennec invented the stethoscope.

Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine.

Latreille was pioneer in entomology.

Lavoisier is called Father of Modern Chemistry.

Leverrier discovered the planet Neptune.

Lully is said to have been the first to employ chemical symbols.

Malpighi, a Papal physician, was a botanist, and the father of comparative physiology.

Marconi's place in radio is unsurpassed. Mariotte discovered Mariotte's law of gases.

Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.

Morgagni, founder of modern pathology; made important studies in aneurisms.

Muller was the greatest biologist of the 19th century, founder of modern physiology.

Pashcal demonstrated practically that a column of air has weight.

Pasteur, called the "Father of Bacteriology," and inventor of bio-therapeutics, was the leading scientist of the 19th century.

Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.

Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.

Scheiner, a priest, invented the pantograph, and made a telescope that permitted the first systematic investigation of sun spots.

Secchi invented the meteorograph. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.

Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.

Torricelli invented the barometer.

Vesalius was the founder of modern anatomical science.

Volta invented the first; complete galvanic battery; the "volt" is named after him.

Other scientists: Agricola, Albertus Magnus, Bacon, Bartholomeus, Bayma, Beccaria, Behalm, Bernard, Biondo, Biot, Bolzano, Borrus, Boscovitch, Bosio, Bourgeois, Branly, Caldani, Cambou, Camel, Cardan, Carnoy, Cassini, Cauchy, Cavaliere, Caxton, Champollion, Chevreul, Clavius, De Rossi, Divisch, Dulong, Dwight, Eckhel, Epee, Fabre, Fabri, Faye, Ferrari, Gassendi, Gay-Lussac, Gordon, Grimaldi, Hauy, Heis, Helmont, Hengler, Heude, Hilgard, Jussieu, Kelly, Lamarck, Laplace, Linacre, Malus, Mersenne, Monge, Muller, Murphy, Murray, Nelston, Nieuwland, Nobili, Nollet, Ortelius, Ozaman, Pelouze, Piazzi, Pitra, Plumier, Pouget, Provancher, Regnault, Riccioli, Sahagun, Santorini, Schwann, Schwarz, Secchi, Semmelweis, Spallanzani, Takamine, Tieffentaller, Toscanelli, Tulasne, Valentine, Vernier, Vieta, Da Vinci, Waldseemuller, Wincklemann, Windle, and a host of others, too many to mention.

CRACKERS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Michael G.R. | July 30, 2008 11:34 PM

Many Christians are expert at playing the victim, even when people form their sect rule pretty much everything. This is just one more case of this.

Posted by: Jose | July 30, 2008 11:39 PM

What an idiot. He doesn't even know that atheist Saints are known as "Aint's".

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 30, 2008 11:40 PM

cj,

Of course those people are considered catholics, moron; you had to say you were or they'd kill you. It shouldn't be a big shock that people preferred life over death.

Try reading something other than the church circulars from time to time. You might just avoid looking like the world-class tool your post suggests you are.

Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2008 11:41 PM

Nobody is trying to turn science into a "religion." Gilbertson would have been more reasonable (and more consistent) if he had compared Christianity to Secular Humanism, which weds philosophy and ethics to an understanding of reality informed through science.

You remember philosophy and ethics, don't you? The search for Knowledge and the Good? Gilbertson seems to think they're part of religion. Actually, it's the other way around. Religion is simply philosophy and ethics as interpreted through beliefs about the supernatural. Which, if false, are probably not a good frame for either.

I read the Salon article, and once again I was struck by how the central issue of whether or not God actually exists seemed to take back stage to what is evidently the much more significant question: is religious belief really, really useful? Does it help us? What's wrong with believing there is a "rational, creative, and even caring mind" behind the natural world if it fires people up?

That is, if it fires people up just a little bit. No need to get carried away and think that this rational, creative, and caring disembodied intelligence is so really, truly, scientifically, and technically real that it tells us to do things that don't make any sense. It's not real in the sense that it explains anything about the universe.

It's real in a much more special way than the tentative scientific truths which have to be built from scratch and risk being wrong. It's real in the way that makes it impossible for US to be wrong.

So, per Gilbertson, it seems that the credo is to live like a secular humanist, but reassure yourself that God is still somewhere "behind it all" and significant in some way that doesn't have to be explained, because having faith in God is just so darn useful. It's what we do.

As therapy, perhaps. To show your sensitivity. God of the gaps is there filling the empty spaces of the heart up with sweetness, warmth, and light, so that we REALLY feel at home in a universe made for us, which loves us, and cares about us, and tell us what our ethics should be.

God evidently tells those in the know that we shouldn't be arrogant, and approach the existence of God like a science question, a phenomenom which should be consistent with our discoveries. No, God should be treated like that special kind of fact that need only be consistent with our NEEDS.

Lest we become arrogant. Of course.

I also hope that Salon offers you a chance to respond. I'm not getting my hopes up, though. The media seems to assume that articles attacking atheists are only responding to unprovoked attacks. Liberal and enlightened Salon readers enjoy their place in the Golden Middle.

God exists in a moderate way, because the Fundamentalists and atheists define the extremes -- and truth is always found in the middle. How easy.

Posted by: fastpathguru | July 30, 2008 11:42 PM

But I want to believe that, through the eyes of my faith, this is how God created the world and that God cares about that world.

Religion: A crutch endlessly seeking armpits in need of support.

It's like a man on crutches expressing amazement that anyone would want to walk around without them...

(I see Narc@18 beat me to the punch.)

Posted by: Ignignockt | July 30, 2008 11:46 PM

Rebuttal in Salon ^n. PZ's lack of "felicitous prose style" is almost a requirement to publish at Salon nowadays (Garrison Keillor excepted...)

Posted by: Amplexus | July 30, 2008 11:51 PM

What is this stupid shit about "science as a religion"? I thought that it grew out of the Dover trial where it was said the religion was illegal to teach in the science classroom. The creationist tried to drive their most insipid wedge to drive science out of schools just because it makes claims about reality.

Any time some scientist tries to explain science in a poetic or narrative style suddenly he's accused of writing creation myths.

I really, really wanted to at least delude myself into being a deist, but with Gilbertson I see no virtue in faith at all.

Posted by: Jose | July 30, 2008 11:53 PM

It's interesting to note that the first scientists were all monks, they were all clerics!

Which is it, monks or clerics? That is one good sentence.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 30, 2008 11:55 PM

I'd argue against cj #19 but I suspect he's a Poe. I mean no one would actually use Galileo Galilei as an example FOR Catholicism's contributions to science!!!

Posted by: Phineas | July 30, 2008 11:59 PM

Seriously, not mentioning the context for CrackerGate nearly takes the whole article into "not even wrong" territory.

The comments are even worse, in a way. What does PZ's (or anyone's, for that matter) publication record have to do with anything? Like there's some sort of secret scientist council that has a guideline "you have to publish 6 articles a year to be considered successful." As if where PZ teaches has any impact on whether his point is correct or not.

Man, that is some annoying, stupid bullshit.

Posted by: LisaJ | July 31, 2008 12:01 AM

By the way PZ, I saw your review today in Nature about Kenneth Miller's 'Only a Theory' book. Very nicely written. Great summary of the topic in the first paragraph there, in your 'tell the stupid like it is' style. I enjoyed that. Very thoughtfuly critiqued too - nice job.

Posted by: LisaJ | July 31, 2008 12:04 AM

#38, I was responding to CJ's post at #19

Posted by: SteveC | July 31, 2008 12:05 AM

"A strange thing, though: I'm getting almost no traffic from Salon. Not even a hint of a bump." -- PZ

I bet Salon is seeing a bump from the mighty Pharygula though. Shoulda linked to the google cache to spare their servers. :)

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 12:14 AM

19#--

One can acknowledge a historic debt to individual Catholics but that has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity of specific Catholic supernatural claims.

I think the pyramids at Giza are an amazing testament to human achievement but I don't consequently feel the slightest bit more inclined to worship the Egyptian gods.

Those people you listed made important contributions to science and it is in that role that they are honored. God is still a literary character.

Posted by: wade | July 31, 2008 12:25 AM

I don't understand how these people can talk shit about science and in the same breath compare it to their religion. Thats enough irony to choke a horse.

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 12:26 AM

Two important statesmen who loathed religion and loved science, Hitler and Mussolini, were also sensible enough not to share the audacious faith in democracy, which was coming up at that time.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 12:28 AM

Bah. Salon and their "site pass".

And, OOT, today I went to the Bad Astronomy site (I usually follow it on RSS) and was dismayed to see a video load and play, plus umpteen zillion scripts and adverts - I didn't even wait for it to load before closing the tab.

Kudos to ScienceBlogs, pox on Discover Magazine.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 12:31 AM

Lucas (#53):

Two important statesmen who loathed religion and loved science, Hitler and Mussolini,

Stop right there. What part of "Gott mitt uns" is so hard to understand?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 12:36 AM

Amplexus (#35):

Any time some scientist tries to explain science in a poetic or narrative style suddenly he's accused of writing creation myths.

And when a scientist tries to speak plainly, she's accused of "bad framing". Damned if you do. . . .

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 12:39 AM

Lucas,

Tired, boring old argument.

Does your God exist or not? Can we be moral without embracing supernaturalism or not?

Those are the relevant issues, not the religious views of dead dicators.

Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2008 12:49 AM

Those are the relevant issues, not the religious views of dead dicators.

"For want of a T..."

Posted by: Nobody | July 31, 2008 12:55 AM

Hm. Little Paul Zachary called out for what he is, a Prophet of the New Fundie Church of Atheism. . .and here he is complaining about it.

Imagine that.

Posted by: E.V. | July 31, 2008 12:55 AM

Lucas: You lose. Just because I also believe"Thou shalt not kill", doesn't mean I won't.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 31, 2008 12:58 AM

I'm really loving this new meme that started on other Scienceblogs (hint -- look for the ones by authors who are say they are ashamed to be on the same blog network as PZ but don't have the balls to leave) and has now spread to Salon, that any of us who dare to post in support of PZ on any issue are just "minions" who are "worshipping" him as a "saint."

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 12:59 AM

#64--

"Morality itself, just like religion, has nothing to [do] with science."

That's not true. Religion makes scientific claims, like "prayer is effective, we know how and who created the universe, Jesus was the son of a virgin" etc. These are all claims that trespass into science and don't add up. A claim is either substantiated with evidence or it isn't. Religion can't wiggle out of that.

"Anyone who believes in "Thou shalt not kill" is as zealous as a martyr who commits a suicide attack."

I'm not sure I understand this part.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 1:04 AM

By the way, who says morality has nothing to do with science? Science is concerned with investigating reality. Suffering is part of reality and morality should be about eliminating needless suffering. Science can be in the business of aiding morality.

And #65, Nobody, in what sense are we a church? We don't worship anything or accept any extraordinary claims on faith. Maybe you just can't stand the fact that there are plenty of us who get by just fine without believing in nonsense like God?

Posted by: Rayven Alandria | July 31, 2008 1:07 AM

I was going to write letter in response to Giberson's nauseating rant, but you have to make an account at Salon to post. I have no desire to make an account at such a pathetic site.

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 1:10 AM

We hold these truths to be self-evident:
http://www.baycrest.org/spring%202002/article4.htm

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 1:13 AM

"The preference for truth over falsehood has no moral character to it?"

Keep praying.

Posted by: Atheist Boogeyman | July 31, 2008 1:16 AM

Cj,
1) The scientific method's origins -- if I recall -- stem from ancient Greece, Egypt and the early Islamic World. The Catholics were the johnny-come-latelys when it comes to scientific inquiry and have done more to supress science than promote it -- though I hear that has started to change a little these days in some isolated cases.

2) The fact there are a bunch of catholic scientists proves absolutely dick about anything. There are lots of protestant scientists, gay scientists, muslim scientists, atheist scientists ... and probably even some wiccan scientists and scientologist scientists out there too. So what. Science is not religious... Unless you're an ancient greek or something, you don't get the credit for inventing science and the idea that a bunch of scientists shared your dark age reasoning is just meaningless.

3) The only reason the clergy and not many others engaged in scientific inquiry in the middle ages was because they were the only ones with the time and resources to do so at the time while the church kept everyone else illiterate and living in shit as serfs. Read a history book.

4) I take issue with some of the scientists on your list.. some of the "inventions" seem more than questionable given research and technology that came before them.. but it would take me too long to debunk them all so I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Susan | July 31, 2008 1:21 AM

He is Richard Dawkins without the fame

Man. Somebody wasn't paying attention during the whole Expelled kerfluffle! I thought that proved once and for all that PZ is more famous than Dawkins?!

I joined Salon just so I could read Glenn Greenwald every day without the ads, and he is worth every penny. The good thing about reading articles there is that you can post comments after them, and I think I'll go do that right now.

Posted by: Azkyroth | July 31, 2008 1:23 AM

"Anyone who believes in "Thou shalt not kill" is as zealous as a martyr who commits a suicide attack."

I'm not sure I understand this part.

That makes at least two of you.

Posted by: G Felis | July 31, 2008 1:24 AM

@ comment #55:
You need Mozilla Firefox and AdBlock, John. I never even notice the dreck when I visit Carl Zimmer's blog at Discover.

Posted by: Jeremy | July 31, 2008 1:28 AM

^ I meant to cite #19, obviously.

Posted by: deadman_932 | July 31, 2008 1:29 AM

Re: Jeremy's post at #88. Nicely said.

Posted by: Oleg | July 31, 2008 1:32 AM

Jeremy @88

*applause*

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 1:33 AM

88#--

Outstanding comment, Jeremy.

Unfortunately, I fear it's wasted tonight on a petty, petty troll who has yet to make a single substantive argument.

Posted by: Jupiter BFPOE | July 31, 2008 1:37 AM

I definitely don't think we could replace religion with science. True science demands challenge and religion must be believed without challenge. Don't we really want to replace religion with rational thought. Belief in magical creatures is inherently irrational. I think people who tend to be more rational go into science because science, with some exceptions, is rational. The religious don't make a distinction between a rational thinker and a scientist. I find it interesting that, according to the religious, we have to be worshiping someone, something, Dr. Meyers, Dr. Dawkins, or Tinkiewinkie the Teletubby.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 31, 2008 1:39 AM

screechy monkey (#69):

If you really want to get Chad's goat, you need to post as "screechy monkey, FCD." He hates that FCD thing.

I wonder if cj knows that an Islamo-Fascist invented algebra, or that the pagan Hindu's invented "zero." Okay, that's math, not science. But just try to do science without statistics, which rely on algebra. Try to define a standard deviation without zero.

Posted by: Dustin | July 31, 2008 1:44 AM

a pantheon of straw men and women that includes theologians, journalists and churchgoers

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 1:51 AM

Notice, also, that the list includes alchemists and astrologers — Gassendi, Helmont, Lully and Albertus Magnus spring out to my eye — while omitting Greeks like Thales, Theodoros, Empedocles, Democritus, Aristarchus, Archimedes and so forth. Not to mention the scientific geniuses of the Arab world — I'll trade a dozen Catholic mediocrities for one Alhazen, thank you very much.

Oh, and this is droll:

The list includes Pierre-Simon Laplace, famed astronomer and mathematician of eighteenth and early nineteenth-century France. Of course, it was Laplace who wrote Mécanique Céleste, a landmark five-volume treatise on celestial mechanics; and it was Laplace who was asked by Napoleon why that treatise made no mention of God; and it was Laplace who answered, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" (I had no need for that hypothesis).

Posted by: Suzanne | July 31, 2008 1:52 AM

Why is it that these types of articles refer to Science (capital S) as "knowing" things? Is Science not the tool by which HUMANITY can know things?

Apologies if this point has already been made but it really annoys me to see the scientific method personified like that.

Posted by: Jeremy | July 31, 2008 1:53 AM

Was it Sam Harris who pointed out that "atheism is no more a religion than 'bald' is a hair color?"

Posted by: Brian | July 31, 2008 2:00 AM

In response to #96: Many "catholic" scientists were well supported by the catholic Church. Copernicus was written letters of encouragement by bishops and cardinals and dedicated his work to the pope. Mendel was made an abbot. Even Galileo was treated quite well by many cardinals and archbishops who realized he got a bum deal. There are plenty of other examples. Many scientists were Catholic because the church supported science as a way to prove what they taught. Once the inquiries and proofs of science started to threaten the teaching, the catholic church abandoned those scientists. So whoever pointed out that many important scientists were catholic was correct but is certainly wrong to characterize the church as accepting of the scientific method. They liked what the scientists said, not the method behind what led to their discoveries.

Posted by: llewelly | July 31, 2008 2:12 AM

The stupidity is so vast I feel like I'm at Helm's Deep.

Posted by: yoyo | July 31, 2008 2:22 AM

great points at #27 and #96. I read salon occasionally for greenwald and ask the pilot but the woo factor and the misogyny that is camile paglia has nearly driven me totally away. What a lazy piece of reporting two stupid memes, science is religion and without religion we'd all be bad and a good long whinge because "PZ said I was silly". But it was the lack of context that really marked him out as an appalling journalist.

Posted by: Jeremy | July 31, 2008 2:26 AM

Lucas@110:

"Moral and also medical ("scientific") practices are derived from religion."

Evidence?

Funny how in the absence of an oppressive theocracy, science operates completely independent of religion. In an oppressive theocracy, science is silenced by threats of execution whenever it contradicts the fairy tale in power.

Please, I implore you, explain to me how the scientific method is based on religion.

Morality is another issue. I have no religion, I have no fear of punishment from an all-loving yet paradoxically vain and wrathful god, and yet I don't feel any sort of need to pillage, rape, and murder. Please, explain to me how that is.

Posted by: Eris | July 31, 2008 2:44 AM

You know, in the middle portion, where he talks about this new "religion" of science, he makes a pretty good case for it. A religion that reverse learning, claims not to have all the answers but instead a willingness to seek them out, a religion that lets people find meaning in their lives without dictating it to them, etc.

I mean, check this out:

"Trust traditionally placed in God can be relocated to science, which is reliable and faithful, as well as ennobling. Life can be oriented in a reverential way around the celebration and protection of the great diversity wrought by the evolutionary epic, a diversity that has produced creatures capable of reflecting on this grand mystery."

Why yes, Mr. Giberson, science _is_ reliable and faithful, unlike God, and it would be wonderful if people celebrated and protected the living things of Earth and stopped treating them as mere fodder to feed human whims.

Karl Gibberson, you have converted me! Thank you so much for showing me a better religion!

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 2:48 AM

"Lucas, if there were no religion, scientists would be free to pursue independent research without being pressured to find scientific support for religious claims - like the so-called Intelligent Design movement."

Research funding
US
See also: Military funding of science

Government funding for research into defense-related technological research has historically been significant. Some of this takes place in public research institutions such as DARPA, whilst much else is carried out by major defense contractors in expectation of being able to sell the results to the government (so is funded privately, but on the basis of implicit or explicit agreement of costs being recouped from the government).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_funding

Science's Worst Enemy: Corporate Funding
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding/article_view?b_start:int=3&-C=

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 3:00 AM

"We nonbelievers arrive at moral principles anyway using conscience and reason."

That's nothing more than replacing the word God for conscience and reason.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

And it this reason and conscience, this "living word", which is served during Mass.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 3:07 AM

Lucas,

"That's nothing more than replacing the word God for conscience and reason."

Okay, so you agree that God is merely a metaphor that exists only in the heads of people. Great, that's my view too.

"And it this reason and conscience, this "living word", which is served during Mass."

No it's not, mass is simply a human-made ritualistic ceremony. Nothing more.

God is as fake as Santa Claus. The sooner you accept this the better.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 31, 2008 3:10 AM

"That's nothing more than replacing the word God for conscience and reason."

This is little more than a lame bit of "heads I win, tails you lose" rhetoric. If one believes in God and is moral, that belief gets credit. If one doesn't believe in God and operates from conscience and reason (and empathy, I would add), God still gets credit.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 3:14 AM

I see Lucas likes references.
How's this one?
"Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets, which were considered to be more damaging and would convince the Turks of the "benefits of Christian civilization"."

Because Christians are so civilised.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 3:17 AM

#126--

Yep, Lucas should look into the policies supported by the Dutch Reformed Church in Apartheid South Africa. They viewed racial separation as divinely ordained.

He messed up with that reference for sure.

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 3:24 AM

Puckle would be awed is he saw how the Iraqi population is convinced of the benefits and the moral superiority of Western civilisation by the use of airstrikes.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 3:27 AM

Lucas,

I oppose the Iraq War, for what it's worth.

Could you please state clearly what it is you are trying to argue? It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion when you do nothing but drop hints and seemingly random links.

For instance, I've been very clear--I believe there is no god and that morality precedes religion. Can you state something approximately that clear so we can have a real engagement?

Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 31, 2008 3:34 AM

No, Karl, it makes you foolish. The eyes of your faith are delusions fostered by tradition and dogma, there is no evidence for your god or that he created anything, and there sure as heck isn't any evidence that your imaginary friend cares about us

OK, PZ...I'll bite. Aren't you really sidestepping here? Because, after all, you do think this 'foolishness' can be perilous, and not just the fool...right?

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 3:52 AM

Religion is nothing more or less than morality.
Morality in the sense that universal interests precede individual interests. That this message, repeated over and over again in the Holy Script, is perceived by some otherwise cannot be blamed on the Word/Conscience itself.You don't have to stick your eyes out if you see something ugly.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 31, 2008 3:58 AM

137#--

Religion is NOT the same as morality. Religion makes numerous unsupported claims about the universe.

"universal interests precede individual interests"

What on earth does that even mean? That's a lot of gibberish.

How is an action moral simply because it says so in a holy text? You decide what it moral, not the book.

Posted by: RR | July 31, 2008 4:12 AM

The first comment says it all:

"Why does anyone pay attention to this [PZ Myers] guy?
He's a failed scientist. He hasn't published anything in 15 years so he withers away in obscurity at some shitty teaching university and spouts garbage."

Ouch! Of course, it is true.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 31, 2008 4:22 AM

RR squawked

He hasn't published anything in 15 years so he withers away in obscurity at some shitty teaching university

Yeah, because teaching is such a lame thing to do - why the heck would we want to educate anyone? Especially kids - what do we need them to be smart for?

Please tell me you aren't intending to breed - you fucking cretin.

Posted by: nacky | July 31, 2008 4:37 AM

It says a lot about one's religious beliefs when one proposes that a real religion has to have "'saints' of some sort and inquisitors of another sort". Can' get by without those inquisitors.

Posted by: themadlolscientist | July 31, 2008 5:09 AM

Archimedes, Heron of Alexandria, the Muslims who kept Classical science and technology alive through the Dark Ages, and all those unknown Chinese folks who did some pretty kickass naked-eye astronomy and invented all kinds of Really Cool Stuff(TM) several centuries before Westerners ever thought of it, say that cj (@ #19) is a Poe wannabe.

@ #53:

Two important statesmen who loathed religion and loved science, Hitler and Mussolini

[1] Hell of a stretch to call those two megalomaniac dictators "statesmen," don't you think?

[2] Both were cynical opportunists who weren't afraid to use every tool in the toolbox. They may well have loathed religion, but both were politically savvy enough to co-opt it for their own purposes by merging it with überpatriotism.

[3] Nazi Germany, at least, was decidedly unkind to science per se. As is all too often under totalitarian rule, German "science" was overshadowed by technology, and research was valued only for what it could contribute to the machinery of war. (As for Italy - not much of note going on there in either science or technology. But who needed it when you could buy anything and everything from Germany?)

@ #55:

Bah. Salon and their "site pass".

I don't know wotthehell I did right, but I haven't been blocked by the "site pass" thing in quite a while. (I suppose I'd better not say that too loudly......)

I went to the Bad Astronomy site ... and was dismayed to see a video load and play, plus umpteen zillion scripts and adverts

Firefox, outfitted with Flashblock and Adblock Plus, is your friend!

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 5:23 AM

SoMG, on certain threads, it's almost impossible to determine whether a post is the emmision of a clueless godbot or a trollish scat or both.

Though godbots have (IMO) a greater predilection for cut'n paste spamming, I suspect in this case it's a troll godbot.
See here.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 5:29 AM

@147 I thank you. However, see #100.

Posted by: Arno | July 31, 2008 5:30 AM

Bloody hell, another morality and religion poster? Can't we point them to a single thread where this is discussed in detail?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_been_a_while_since_we_boos.php is a good one.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 31, 2008 5:33 AM

Obviously it means 'got mittens'. Maybe they were worried about their hands getting cold...

Posted by: notkieran | July 31, 2008 5:49 AM

>Try to define a standard deviation without zero.

Isn't that what happens when priests do the standard deviant things with the choirboys?

Posted by: SoMG | July 31, 2008 5:51 AM

Forgot to say the second quotation was Feynman, The Introduction to QED, TTTOLAM.

Posted by: Carlie | July 31, 2008 5:59 AM

As Ian said way up top, they ought to give you some space to reply, since the whole thing was a hatchet job on you. They don't want any libel lawsuits now, do they?

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 31, 2008 6:04 AM

cj wrote:

How many times need I remind you folks that Science itself was the result of CATHOLICS in the first place!

Your Catholic teachers have told you one huge lie there, cj. Science goes back to a time long before Christianity existed. The Greeks were good at it, the Hebrews sucked at it.

Archimedes was doing science a couple hundred years before Jesus was born. He was a Greek mathematician and engineer. He made up the theory of buoyancy called the Archimedes Principle. One of his inventions is Archimedes Screw which is still used to irrigate fields in some parts of the world.

Here's a list of pre-Christian scientists:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/~vsiris/other_info/ancient_greece_periods.html

Then check out what the Muslims and the Chinese were up to.

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | July 31, 2008 6:58 AM

Re: #19,

Get fucking real you stupid moron. Your world view seems to be rather limited to say the least, as underscored by your list of mostly white European scientists. Ever hear of Africa, Asia and the Middle East? Science is a human endeavor and most definitely not the result of Catholicism!

http://science.jrank.org/pages/11230/Science-History-Middle-Ages.html

The Middle Ages, from about 500 to about 1600, are in the early twenty-first century recognized as a fertile period marking a transition from the dominance of a handful of ancient authorities to a broad range of theory and experiment. These developments took place throughout Europe, North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia. For the eventual rise of science in Renaissance Europe, developments in Islamic nations were especially important. For a comprehensive survey of this cultural transfer, see David Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), which traces the development of ideas within cultures and their transfer from one culture to another as well as the cultural contexts that enframed these developments. As an historian who pioneered studies of the close relationship between science and Christianity in the West, Lindberg is especially good at laying the "religion versus science" myth to rest. He does this in a number of ways, including explanations of support for science and medicine in the medieval church and the transfer of Greek science from Islam to Europe through Christian scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas.

Asshole!

Disclaimer: I'm channeling George Carlin today, so don't fucking mess with me...

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 7:10 AM

I wold suggest that even the most primitive societies practice crude science. How else would they find edible foods, medicinal plants, etc. In fact, it seems that Pan troglodytes has practiced science enough to develop tools - tools that rely on knowledge of other animals' behaviors.

Beyond Giberson being such a tool, it sounds like he's a big fan of the "I have a god shaped hole in my heart" argument. He seems to think "science" wants to fit that hole.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 7:34 AM

Having browed many comments here in the past, I find trolls easy to recognise.

Posted by: John Morales | July 31, 2008 7:37 AM

clinteas, why the disdain for whitespace?

Posted by: clinteas | July 31, 2008 7:49 AM

//why the disdain for whitespace?//

excusez moi??

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 8:04 AM

clinteas, Lucas is just troll-tastic. If it could think, it'd realize medical experiments are being performed on humans right now, with those humans' consent.

Posted by: clinteas | July 31, 2008 8:08 AM

True Bob,

yes for sure,I got the feeling it was referrring to those experiments without consent 65 years ago tho....

*Looks lovingly at his killfile*

Posted by: SEF | July 31, 2008 8:12 AM

@ #80

Are there any non-troll theists who wish to have a real debate?

Religious people are forced by their religion to be dishonest. The more religious they are the more dishonest they have to be about it (so that the most honest among them tend to be modern Unitarians and the non-religious subset of Buddhists) and the more dishonest they are, the more likely they are to come here as trolls.

In contrast with the usual theist posters, on arrival here (and perhaps most other places too) Scott Hatfield has his religion window minimised and his science window maximised as the default settings on his world-view browser.

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 8:16 AM

I really must get that killfile add on. Helps me naught here, we are "standardized". Which is shorthand for "no you can't have that, WE decide what s/w you get". So no Firefox, but plenty of Microsoft. Gott IT uns*?

*Just messing with you IT folks. I know you aren't much more dangerous than other control freaks

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 31, 2008 8:18 AM

as a rather disinterested observer - Casual Observer

Liar.

Posted by: joolya | July 31, 2008 8:51 AM

He just ... doesn't get it. Karl just does not get it. He will never get it. He's too entrenched in his worldview to entertain the idea of a fundamentally different worldview, which is not religion-centric.
How can he just not get it so completely, so forcefully, and so foolishly?
I'd write something elegant and succint about this but my guts are boiling.

Posted by: James F | July 31, 2008 8:53 AM

Giberson's characterization of PZ as inquisitor was completely unwarranted and his failure to provide context for the "Great Desecration" was a glaring omission. I'm reminded, however, of some of Michael Ruse's writings:

[T]here is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists.

Ruse isn't saying that science or evolution is a religion (although he has been quotemined as doing so), but I think he's saying that secular beliefs can be informed by science, especially evolutionary biology. It reminds me of Dawkins' idea of a shifting moral zeitgeist in which slavery moves from common to unacceptable over time in society. I think it is a viewpoint echoed to some degree by Giberson as well:

Life can be oriented in a reverential way around the celebration and protection of the great diversity wrought by the evolutionary epic, a diversity that has produced creatures capable of reflecting on this grand mystery.

If Giberson dispensed with the "science is a religion" idea, we might find more common ground.

Posted by: Kate | July 31, 2008 8:56 AM

...and the theist commenters here are *still* using the same intellectually dishonest arguments that have been refuted time and again by the rational, thinking commenters.

I used to feel "left out" as a child, being a born atheist in a moderately religious household. Now I'm glad I was left out of all of it. I wouldn't want to live my life so blindly, with my intellect and moral compass so stunted by religion that I would be unable to formulate a simple thought about the world around me that has any internal consistency.

Ugh. I wonder sometimes how sites like Salon can even publish such poorly written and badly cited pieces like the travesty of "journalism" that's being discussed here. I mean, how can anyone even think it's appropriate to allow someone to outright lie to others, to the very audience that pays their bills? Don't they care at all?

It's like a really stupid post I saw on "lifehacks" wherein it was suggested that you should put mustard on a burn because it will heal faster and "take the burn out". I commented that this was dangerous information, that it was an outright lie and someone who followed that advice would come to harm and received a bunch of replies about how I was attacking the author and why didn't I like the person who wrote the piece, because they were really nice and funny. Yeah, sure... I should just shut up about someone lying and potentially causing harm to others because they're *popular*. Right. That's certainly how I want to evaluate medical advice, whether or not the person giving it is popular on a website, not at all basing it on whether or not the person is telling me the truth.

It's as though the idiots far outnumber the intelligent and rational. It makes me weep for the fate of humanity, I tell you.

Posted by: craig | July 31, 2008 9:09 AM

"Just browsing the comments, and as a rather disinterested observer, I find that most of the commentators posting here in defense of the good professor and atheism match the worst of religion in their contempt for their 'unbelieving' fellow human beings."

Really? Dang, you mean there were murders in this comments thread and I missed them?

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 31, 2008 9:23 AM

PZ,

Maybe you should contact Salon and ask to have them publish a response, if only to get some more Salon readers to visit your blog.

You've already got the material for it in the posts you've already written here.

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 9:32 AM

What do you think the odds are that Salon has asked PZ for a rebuttal* piece. They have more to gain in that exchange, more and smarter readership.

*Seems they are pretty buttaled already.

Posted by: extatyzoma | July 31, 2008 9:44 AM

"evolution/science is (just) a religion"

my reply: 'is that supposed to strengthen my position, or weaken yours?'.

usual nonsense.

faith trumps all does it not? so if science is faith then it equally trumps all?

if evolution as such were a religion then id be saying evolution were true 'because its says so in the origin of species, no evolutionist says that of course. another asinine set of shit from a theist who realsises that if they talk enough garbage that somebody somewhere will listen.

Posted by: mgarelick | July 31, 2008 9:48 AM

One quick illustration of incoherence:

And we have inquisitors like Myers to ferret out heretics and martyr them on his Web site when they appear.

Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 31, 2008 9:58 AM

I can't add anything to the debate, but felt compelled to say to Jeremy @88...call me!

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 10:04 AM

#186

Tactics.

"As dictator of Italy, Mussolini's foremost priority was the subjugation of the minds of the Italian people and the use of propaganda to do so.

In 1929, a concordat with the Vatican was signed, the Lateran treaties, by which the Italian state was at last recognised by the Roman Catholic Church, and the independence of Vatican City was recognised by the Italian state.

In 1927, Mussolini was baptised by a Roman Catholic priest in order to take away certain Catholic opposition, who were still very critical of a regime which had taken away papal property and virtually blackmailed the Vatican.

However, Mussolini was never known to be a practicing Catholic, and was privately very hostile to the church.

Since 1927, and more even after 1929, Mussolini, with his anti-Communist doctrines, convinced many Catholics to actively support him.

In the encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno, Pope Pius XI attacked the Fascist regime for its policy against the Catholic Action and certain tendencies to overrule Catholic education morals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini

Posted by: mwb | July 31, 2008 10:07 AM

Even if he insists on rendering words meaningless by pretending that science is a religion, he has to cede that it is then a religion predicated on results. The resulting scorecard won't favor his magic any.

It is really boring that the superstitious refuse to acknowledge the obvious: their opponents aren't shopping for an isomorphism, but rather wish for the crazy to stop. Replacing a broken window with a window that is ostensibly broken in the same way is utterly pointless. I am skeptical that so many demagogues are blithely unaware of this when they practice their atheist sacrifices.

Posted by: Denis Robert | July 31, 2008 10:08 AM

#53 Lucas:

You said:

"""Two important statesmen who loathed religion and loved science, Hitler and Mussolini, were also sensible enough not to share the audacious faith in democracy, which was coming up at that time."""

Uhh.. You must be reading some pretty weird history books, if you believe that Hitler and Mussolini "loathed" religion and "loved" science. It's quite the contrary, really. Hitler made quite a point of fostering religion, and had strong allies within the Catholic church. Mussolini found that he had to ally himself with the Church, even though he had claimed in his younger days to be an atheist (he was also a socialist at that time). In the end, Mussolini used the Church as much as the Church used him. But one cannot say that Mussolini "loathed" religion with a straight face. He just couldn't accept any religion that didn't have him as its leader.

Both had very ambivalent relationships with science; they both thought little of science's insistence on openness, and of science's insistence on separating politics from the pursuit of knowledge. Hitler is famous for the persecution of what he called "Jewish" science, now wasn't he?

Simple fact, also, is that neither knew anything about science. Hard to claim that they "loved" it then. But they knew all about the power of religion to keep people from asking questions.

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 10:14 AM

#147

"Marchese Guglielmo Marconi [guʎe:lmo mar'ko:ni] (25 April 1874 - 20 July 1937) was an Italian inventor, best known for his development of a radiotelegraph system, which served as the foundation for the establishment of numerous affiliated companies worldwide. He shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics with Karl Ferdinand Braun, "in recognition of their contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy". Later in life, Marconi was an active Italian Fascist and an apologist for their ideology (such as the attack by Italian forces in Ethiopia)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi

Posted by: anonxian | July 31, 2008 10:16 AM

Concerning the post by Ric, way above (July 30, 2008 11:30 PM ):

It's like Sauron. He fell because he couldn't believe that someone would want to destroy the Ring. He could only envision someone taking it and using it, like he wanted to and would have done.
The religious can't conceive that some people don't think reality has anything to do with religion and don't think there need be anything to replace religion at all.

You do realize that The Lord of the Rings was written by a Catholic, don't you? The man responsible for converting C.S. Lewis to Christianity, calling it a "myth that is true"?

I wonder how Tolkein would feel about your comparison.

Posted by: craig | July 31, 2008 10:23 AM

""Martyrs" are good guys, right? And "inquisitors" are also, from the point of view of the religion? So if we're making up a new religion, we say, "Myers, you can be the inquisitor and torture the martyrs!" ??

Plus, ferrets are nice too.

Posted by: C R Stamey | July 31, 2008 10:25 AM

I wonder how Tolkein would feel about your comparison.

Posted by: anonxian | July 31, 2008 10:16 AM [kill]​[hide comment]

As the LotR was used as an analogy only, I doubt most people would care what he would think. LotR was a fantasy, and Tolkien is not being held up as an authority. Fantasy writer and Christian. Big surprise, but that is being unkind to authors of fantasy. I guess theists have to appeal to authority to make a point and assume others do as well.

Posted by: PhysioProf | July 31, 2008 10:33 AM

Salon sucks shit. Other than Glenn Greenwald and Carol Lay, it is Parade Magazine for liberals.

Posted by: Iain Walker | July 31, 2008 10:34 AM

Lucas #209

Later in life, Marconi was an active Italian Fascist and an apologist for their ideology

So a prominent inventor (not exactly a scientist, but we'll let that slide) was a supporter of Fascism, ergo the Fascists "loved" science? By that logic, Ezra Pound's fascist sympathies demonstrate that the Fascists loved poetry, and the fact that a number of Italian Jews supported Mussolini during the earlier part of his regime shows that the Fascists loved Judaism.

Logic: apparently not a strong point of yours.

Posted by: heddle | July 31, 2008 10:41 AM

#216 deadman_932,

If you're David Heddle (1) Read for actual comprehension next time (2) Avoid sarcasm of the statements of others when your own beliefs are far, far more open to ridicule. (3) Apply some balm to that bum ; I think I hit a nerve there with my boot.

Actually I understood your point. My comment had an implied:

(a) Do you think the editors at Salon didn't know they were giving a byline to a conservative Christian? and

(b) if so, do you not think they have the rudimentary knowledge that most conservative Christians would affirm the Trinity, the deity of Christ, some variant of Original Sin (as a Nazarene, its a weak version compared to Augustine) and the sinfulness of homosexual activity?

Perhaps Salon would not be surprised by the revelation. Perhaps they would say "duh, it's Karl Giberson, do we look stupid?" Perhaps, even though they have a liberal bias, they believe that providing a forum for different perspectives is part of the journalistic tradition.

No need for the bum balm--nothing here deserves a butt-kick metaphor. I lurk for amusement purposes only.

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 10:49 AM

heddle & deadman,

Salon is probably doing what my local paper does - print outrageous LtoEs, thus generating more LtoEs, etc. you don't have to take a side in order to profit from bickering.

Posted by: Sastra | July 31, 2008 10:50 AM

"When Salon interviewed me about my new book, "Saving Darwin," I suggested that science doesn't know everything, that there might be a reality beyond science, and that religion might be about God and not merely about the human quest for a nonexistent God. These remarks got me condemned to whatever hell Myers believes in."

Condemned to hell = brought in and subjected to sharp critique. Seems to me there's a significant difference.

And from what I can tell Giberson didn't "suggest" it as a sort of idle speculation, a bit of 'what-if' whimsy, perhaps. It was an argument that was one of the major themes of the book.

Those theists who fit science into their theology play a fun little game. When atheists look at religion and find both its truth and virtue lacking, they laugh merrily and say that well of course SOME versions of religion are patently wrong. The extremist versions are wrong. Atheists are really only going after soft targets, assuming that all versions of God and all religions are like anti-science Fundamentalism. Please.

The atheists are extremists themselves. They know better than to ever seriously address the more reasonable, sophisticated understandings of God. They can't touch the moderates. That's where the GOOD apologetics are. Let me make them for you.

But read their arguments and go after that more "reasonable, sophisticated understanding of God" and show it as vacuous, obscure, contradictory, muddled, or unnecessary, and they act like wounded puppies.

"Hey, look! He's going after the MODERATES! This is just like the INQUISITION where you're not allowed to say ANYTHING the least little bit spiritual or they ATTACK! See how extreme atheists are?"

Nice racket. Heads you win, tails we lose.

Is God a hypothesis? Is it something that might actually exist as a real thing? Then we can and should subject it to analysis in the light of modern science to see if it's likely or not. And if it's not your hypothesis, then WHAT the heck is it? A matter of taste? A personal narrative? An expression of longings? A bad analogy? A bit of tradition? A poetic metaphor? A crutch for the weak?

Any and all of these. Whatever tack gets the atheists to leave it alone. Whatever gets us to stop committing the crime of being picky.

Giberson the good scientist is apparently whining that someone is taking his beliefs seriously for a change by applying that big, bad, "scientific way of knowing." Oh noes. Who would have expected a scientific inquisition coming after such a defenseless delicate flower of faith.

Posted by: Janine ID | July 31, 2008 10:56 AM

I lurk for amusement purposes only.

Posted by: heddle

More accurate would be this; I lurk for my amusement only.

killfile

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 10:58 AM

#207
"He just couldn't accept any religion that didn't have him as its leader."
Sounds like Lucifer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

"Hitler is famous for the persecution of what he called "Jewish" science, now wasn't he?"
Hitler's ideas are based on those of Max Nordau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Nordau) and Cesare Lombroso
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Lombroso).

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2008 11:04 AM

Sauron was an atheist, and thus a self-worshipper.

Posted by: thorton | July 31, 2008 11:05 AM

To paraphrase one of my favourite podcasters, Denis Loubet: Religion is a sickness, or a disease. If someone asks what you'd replace religion with, the answer is "health."

Posted by: Steve_C | July 31, 2008 11:08 AM

Lucas,

Give it a rest. Arguing the same fallacy over and over doesn't make your argument anymore true.

Pope Ratzy was a Hitler Youth therefore all Catholics are Nazis? All Popes?

Yeah, you still don't get it.

Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 31, 2008 11:10 AM

Something that surprises me--but shouldn't, because I know it's part of the routine brainwashing--is that people get away with making arguments that something must replace religion. What exactly do they think religion does that can't be replaced? OK, fine, there are specific kinds of experiences that might be accessible--or most easily accessed--through religious ritual. In the wake of Crackergate, I explained to my also-atheist girlfriend that communion really was for me a time of powerful connection, reflection, and sometimes epiphany. It's true, religious settings can provide a context for certain experiences. But they are by NO MEANS exclusive, and I have often felt a similar kind of connection at concerts, with my children and other loved ones, flat on my back in a field look at clouds--whatever. The idea that only religion can provide mystery, connection, a source of morality, or any other function is a malicious fiction, propagated by religious leaders to keep the votaries in line. It might take a little bit of work on our part--people and religion have been co-evolving to fit each other for centuries, after all--but we have the opportunity to jettison off-the-rack Emperor's brand clothing, and weave something really spectacular. We don't need to get rid of every vestige of what makes religion attractive to people. We can still meet in groups to share a meal, as we did at Q. Cumbers last Sunday, for example. We can still take on charitable projects and perform acts of empathetic kindness. In fact, it is a celebration of our humanity to do so, and probably an important key to a richly lived life. In point of fact, eliminating boring and often pointless sermons and archaic or repetitious songs of mediocre quality might give us all substantially more time to do the very things that make life richer. This argument that something must replace religion is just knee-jerk egoism that takes no account of the active ingredient that religion provides, which is widely available, versus the side-effects of religion, which are easily avoided in the absence of dogma and superstition.

Posted by: anonanon | July 31, 2008 11:11 AM

Mother Teresa, who knew little science, would deliberately touch lepers to convey God's love to them. Usually no one would touch them. So she made a point to touch them, as Christ touched the untouchables in His day.

I wonder how many of the oh-so-brilliant-and-superior commenters here have done the same?

And of course, now will come the knee-jerk reaction: But Mother Teresa was plagued with doubt. And that is what true faith is - not blind, but filled with a life-long groping.

Posted by: Kelly | July 31, 2008 11:11 AM

Looks like its being dug on digg.

http://digg.com/general_sciences/How_Science_May_be_in_Danger_of_Becoming_a_Radical_Religion

*burys head back in sand*

Posted by: blabblab | July 31, 2008 11:15 AM

I agree with William F. Buckley: "Bach's music is proof of the existence of God."

How many commenters here listen to Bach? Can they comprehend him? Or is he boring?

Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 31, 2008 11:18 AM

I love Bach.

Bach's music is proof of the existence of Bach.

Posted by: Janine ID | July 31, 2008 11:20 AM

I wonder how many of the oh-so-brilliant-and-superior commenters here have done the same?

Posted by: anonanon

I would say that many commentators here have done more than just touch lepers. They have done work to prevent illnesses and afflictions from happen. While comforting those in pain is needed(And one does not need to be a nun to do this.), even better is to prevent the pain. This come from learning, not from faith.

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 11:23 AM

#236

Entartete Kunst (degenerated art) was defined by Nordau.

"Nordau's major work Entartung (Degeneration), is a moralistic attack on so-called degenerate art, as well as a polemic against the effects of a range of the rising social phenomena of the period, such as rapid urbanization and its perceived effects on the human body."

I wouldn't call the thesis that people with hawk-like noses and fleshy lips are criminals Zionist.

"Lombroso rejected the established Classical School, which held that crime was a characteristic trait of human nature. Instead, using concepts drawn from physiognomy, early eugenics, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal"' could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage, or atavistic.

If criminality was inherited, then the born criminal could be distinguished by physical atavistic stigmata, such as:

* large jaws, forward projection of jaw, low sloping foreheads
* high cheekbones, flattened or upturned nose
* handle-shaped ears
* large chins, very prominent in appearance
* hawk-like noses or fleshy lips
* hard shifty eyes, scanty beard or baldness
* insensitivity to pain, long arms.

Posted by: Janine ID | July 31, 2008 11:25 AM

How many commenters here listen to Bach? Can they comprehend him? Or is he boring?

Posted by: blabblab

If only MAJeff were here to bury this comment. So, are you implying that one's taste in music determines if one can detect the big sky daddy. Methinks you gave yourself the perfect moniker. "Blab", in deed.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2008 11:27 AM

*stabs self in eye with blockquote tag

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 31, 2008 11:32 AM

blabblab@243
Can you really be that stupid?

As it happens I am listening to Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No.2 as I type this.

Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 31, 2008 11:36 AM

@ Lucas #92
Absolute truth is neither.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 31, 2008 11:38 AM

Celine Dion is proof that there is no god. A true god would never let her exist.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 31, 2008 11:40 AM

anonanon@239,
"Mother Theresa" was a disgusting sycophant to vile dictators, who deprived her charges of adequate pain relief and urged them to dedicate their sufferings to God.

Posted by: blahblabwhatever | July 31, 2008 11:43 AM

My point to those here who are fellow Bach-lovers, is that you have tremendous disdain and contempt for "theists" or people of faith. Yet Bach composed his music "for the glory of God." And Bach would consider you incapable of truly comprehending his music, whether sacred (i.e. St. Matthew Passion) or secular (i.e. Brandenberg Concerti).

Posted by: jj | July 31, 2008 11:45 AM

anonanon wrote,

And that is what true faith is - not blind, but filled with a life-long groping.

Yes, Catholic priests are infamous for their life-long gropings.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2008 11:47 AM

Bach would consider you incapable of truly comprehending his music

Posted by: Sastra | July 31, 2008 11:53 AM

anonanon #239 wrote:

Mother Teresa, who knew little science, would deliberately touch lepers to convey God's love to them. Usually no one would touch them. So she made a point to touch them, as Christ touched the untouchables in His day.

Bad example. Apparently, her personal theology involved something about the "touch of Christ" as a way to participate in his crucifixion. Mother Teresa believed that suffering ennobled the sufferer, pleased God, and helped pay the price for sin. Therefore, she had little or no pain medication in her "hospitals/hospices," which were a horror of nuns rewashing bandages and patients lying on rows of hard, miserable cots. They had more than enough money to buy real equipment and comfortable beds. But no. The money she received "for the sick" went to build more nunneries.

""The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering."" (Mother Teresa)

A reporter told of her visiting a man in her care who was dying in great agony, with no drugs given for his discomfort. She told him "Jesus is kissing you." He responded "please tell him to kiss someone else." Better he had asked for morphine -- though it probably would have been refused. And miss Jesus' "kisses?"

Of course, even if Mother Teresa had been a wonderful fount of love and compassion in the secular (reasonable) sense, that would not do anything to show that either God exists, or the Catholic Church must be true. Some of the nicest people I know are New Agers. That's a load of crap, too.

Theists find it far too easy to fall into the temptation of changing the question on whether God exists to whether some religions can be useful, sometimes, for some things. Short answer: sure they can.

But only a religion could provide the justification that would encourage an otherwise kind, loving person to withhold modern pain medicine from a person wracked in agony, in the firm faith that suffering is a blessing which brings God closer.

Posted by: spurge | July 31, 2008 11:55 AM

blahblabwhatever posted

"And Bach would consider you incapable of truly comprehending his music, whether sacred (i.e. St. Matthew Passion) or secular (i.e. Brandenberg Concerti)."

You know this how?

Posted by: blahblabwhatever | July 31, 2008 11:58 AM

By reading biographies of Bach, and being familiar with Lutheran Germany's musical history.

Posted by: deadman_932 | July 31, 2008 12:03 PM

blahblabwhatever @ # 263. Heh. "Argumentum ad verecundiam Bachulum."

Bach would consider you incapable of truly comprehending his music, whether sacred (i.e. St. Matthew Passion) or secular

Glad you're capable of reading the minds of the dead. Can you pull a rabbit out of your ass, too? P.S. I listen to Bach all the time. What a dead composer *might* think of my ability to comprehend, dissect and interpretively play his music...is irrelevant. It's a fallacy, as is any "ipse dixit" you might dredge up.

Posted by: Sastra | July 31, 2008 12:05 PM

blabblabwhatever # 263 wrote:

My point to those here who are fellow Bach-lovers, is that you have tremendous disdain and contempt for "theists" or people of faith.

No, you misunderstand. Our contempt is for bad or false ideas and their consequences. We admire many theists -- but not for their religious beliefs.

As for the work inspired by their beliefs, it stands on its own merits. Every impulse in religion -- love, compassion, beauty, wonder, joy, and gratitude -- has its analog in personal experiences in this world. We can relate to all of it. None of it is foreign to us.

Posted by: Lucas | July 31, 2008 12:08 PM

#268

Hitler can't have been a Christian, because he abhorred Jewish literature and therefore also the Bible.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2008 12:13 PM

#268

Hitler can't have been a Christian, because he abhorred Jewish literature and therefore also the Bible.

/headdesk

Did you really just make that argument?

Posted by: SC | July 31, 2008 12:15 PM

http://www.who.int/lep/en/

Science, baby.

Posted by: waldteufel | July 31, 2008 12:17 PM

Lucas, every German soldier's belt buckle in WWII was inscribed with "Gott mit Uns".

Look in your bag of fortune cookies and see if you can find an explanation for that.

Posted by: Mena | July 31, 2008 12:20 PM

Yet another example of people who are born followers not understanding that no one is substituting anything for religion. Lamb of god, no. Flock of sheep, yes.
It looks like there are a lot of trolls here today. Ah, the fall out of Crackergate: new trolls who won't leave and people who won't stop feeding them. :^(

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 12:25 PM

I have read LoTR, and many of JRR's other works, and I don't once recall or , but i can't

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 31, 2008 12:31 PM

Frankly, the whole article is simply ridiculous.

No scientist should suggest that another scientist wants to make a religion out of science--unless it were somehow true. The jerk is producing quotes for the IDiots to mine, which would seem to indicate that he cares little about the prospects of science in our society.

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

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 31, 2008 12:33 PM

"Mother Theresa" was a disgusting sycophant to vile dictators, who deprived her charges of adequate pain relief and urged them to dedicate their sufferings to God.

Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 31, 2008 12:38 PM

@ 260
Heddle, please open your mind to the distinction between scientists and science - as in process or method of science. What you quote from my post refers to the latter, what you are discussing concerns the former.

Posted by: CrypticLife | July 31, 2008 12:41 PM

"as a rather disinterested observer, I find that most of the commentators posting here in defense of the good professor and atheism match the worst of religion in their contempt for their 'unbelieving' fellow human beings."

Oh? The worst of religion -- current religion, not even going back to mass slaughters, and in relation to PZ Myers -- has been calling for PZ to be fired and for Webster Cook to be expelled. If you want to go to comments of supporters, there have been wishes for PZ's death and eternal existence in hell. What's been said here in PZ's defense is that a belief in religion is idiotic.

Take what PZ actually did with what another teacher, John Freshwater, did. Freshwater displayed a Bible in his high school classroom, and Christians jump all over themselves defending this as proper expression. PZ desecrated a Eucharist on the internet, and there are cries for his termination and for him to be charged with a hate crime. Some atheists (myself included) think Freshwater should be fired, but there would have been no notice at all of his activity if he'd merely made internet postings supporting Christianity.

Here's the comparison
Freshwater: display concurrent with official duties
PZ: display separated from official duties
Freshwater: captive audience of minors who were in his class by virtue of their parents' residence
PZ: public but not in class, but if it were to his students they would be adults who chose to be in the class

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 12:51 PM

Oh FFS. I meant to state that Sauron was not an atheist.

The highest form of self-worship is god-belief.

Posted by: Carlie | July 31, 2008 12:59 PM

Don't forget Freshwater: BURNED CROSS-SHAPED BRANDING MARKS INTO STUDENTS' ARMS.

Ah, the fall out of Crackergate: new trolls who won't leave and people who won't stop feeding them.

We don't try to feed them, it's just that chomping down on a few dozen eucharist crackers at a time tends to be messy and leave crumbs that they hoover up.

Posted by: Richard | July 31, 2008 1:11 PM

Sounds like Giberson wants science to compromise.

science needs to coexist as peacefully as possible with the creation stories of our religious traditions.

Reminds of what John Galt has to say on the subject,

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. ... In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.

Posted by: James F | July 31, 2008 1:13 PM

#300 Rev. BDC wrote:

[A]s an atheist, I don't have authorities I look to on how I should behave in an atheistic fashion.

I think this is the single best encapsulation of why atheism isn't a religion that I've come across.

*sets it aside for the next Molly nominations* ;-)

Posted by: GuyIncognito | July 31, 2008 1:18 PM

#228: Calling Sauron an atheist is like calling Satan an atheist. Do you even know what an atheist is? Your comment occupies a special place amongst the many stupid claims made by theists.

Posted by: GuyIncognito | July 31, 2008 1:24 PM

"...science needs to coexist as peacefully as possible with the creation stories of our religious traditions."

Why does this sound like a threat?

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 31, 2008 1:28 PM

Karl, you know you're a religious whore, pandering to the delights of misguided idiots. If you had any sense, you would wake up and embrace reality, but all you do is wrap your mind around some comfortable blanket of imaginary beliefs, hoisted aloft by mindless drones who never stopped to think of their irrationality.

As for you apologists, religion is just another excuse for xenophobia, mindless exercises of repetitive rituals, indoctrinated dogma, limited imagination, and the swamps of ignorance that cloud your judgments. You feel a moral superiority complex because of your ignorance, but all we see is a mass hallucination that is completely devoid of rationality and reality. Your beliefs, regardless of your religious views, whether you're Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Animists, neo-pagans, etc., are all completely wrong. It's called brain washing folks, and if you can't dissociate from it, then don't defend it. It's impossible to defend your irrational beliefs when faced with evidence, and honest arguments.

Posted by: heddle | July 31, 2008 1:34 PM

BlueIndependent, #308

Nevermind the fact that he invoked the Christian god several times, invoked religion overall very often, and that we have photographic evidence of the intertwining of Hitler's efforts with Christianity. Swastikas and crosses holding hands.

How inconvenient for you.

Sorry, I wanted to stay out of this tiresome debate, but I endured one too many stupid "Hitler was a Christian" comments. I have to jump in again and remind you that the Nazis had a master plan for persecuting Christians.

Here is one on famy links:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=105001815

and here is another:

http://www.nationalreview.com/shiflett/shiflett012102.shtml

and the Rutgers documents are here:

http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml

Could it possibly be that Hitler used Christian symbology for political expediency? Could it be (*gasp*) that Hitler was sometimes less than truthful? I know, it does make the mind reel...

How inconvenient for you.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 31, 2008 1:41 PM

Heddle,

Was the Nazi party, the SS, the german people; all atheists?

Hitler was one man. It took a nation of followers to do what they did. They were Christian and their nationalistic, fascist ideals were wrapped in God and Country.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 31, 2008 1:46 PM

"Could it possibly be that Hitler used Christian symbology for political expediency?"

Could it be possible that the Catholics use it for the same purpose?

Posted by: Ксения Николаевна Кириленко | July 31, 2008 1:48 PM

"...science needs to coexist as peacefully as possible with the creation stories of our religious traditions."

Indeed.

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

FYI: Literally, Bielobog = "Whitegod", Chernobog = "Blackgod"

Posted by: Elyse | July 31, 2008 1:50 PM

I think the most effective thing at this point to ask the Giberson type when they assert that science is the newest religion -

How do you define science?

I think that'll trip them up a bit.

Posted by: Sam | July 31, 2008 1:56 PM

That guy who shot up the Unitarian church was an atheist who hated Christians. Like it or not he was one of you. He just happened to be a conservative atheist. Atheists are violent and filled with hatred.

Posted by: GuyIncognito | July 31, 2008 1:57 PM

"I am not pressing the existence of a Nazi plan to persecute the churches any farther than this: it provides compelling evidence that the kind of arguments presented on here, that Hitler was a Christian because we can find some quotes to that effect, are simpleminded, willfully naive, transparently wishful thinking, hideously muddled thinking, and childishly superficial."

Christians are certainly not known to persecute other Christians. That's never happened...

(Are you fucking kidding me?)

Posted by: heddle | July 31, 2008 2:01 PM

GuyIncognito,

Christians are certainly not known to persecute other Christians. That's never happened...

(Are you fucking kidding me?)

Read the Rutgers documents, jackass. Hint: They don't say: "let's get rid of all those pesky Methodists and Presbyterians, confiscate their churches, and hand them over to decent and proper God fearing Lutherans."

Posted by: Kseniya | July 31, 2008 2:02 PM

Atheists are violent and filled with hatred.

Wow! All of them? I had no idea!

Oh, by the way... Virginia Tech?

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 2:06 PM

Sam, that guy was a conservative (suckling at the teat anyway) who hated progressives. One thing there probably not a lot of in there, were christers.
Conservatives are violent and full of hate.

Oh sorry, he was old, and hated young people. Old folks are violent and full of hate.

No wait, he liked Wendy's and he hated folks who liked McDonald's, as the UUs did. People who like Wendy's are violent and full of hate.

Or was it that he was a Vogon and hated them for not loving his poetry. Vogons are violent and full of hate.

Sam, this specious argument could go on forever.

Goats have beards.
Santa has a beard.
Santa is a goat.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Sam | July 31, 2008 2:08 PM

Blake, he was muttering about how the Bible contradicted itself while he shot those people. He hated religion. This is what hatred does and what atheists do. I have been told many times that not all atheists are alike. So this guy was a conservative atheist, but an atheist just the same.

Kseniya, yes they are. They say Christians are all stupid and evil. I say you are all stupid and evil. I am just using your logic and tactics.

Posted by: Berlin | July 31, 2008 2:09 PM

Dr David Berlinski is an award winning mathematician and an author of many books on evolution. A theory he chokes on, mind you. Most interesting of all is that he is more or less an agnostic, not a believer in any faith ---- therefore, no axe to grind against non-believers and no reason to support Biblical teaching. Go read his many articles questioning evolution. They are entertaining. Or watch his 5 minute YouTube video. If nothing else, it pretty much points out that evolution does not and cannot deal with pragmatism or probabilities. No, they need faith to complete their puzzles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-UCo7JQm-A&feature=related

Quote: "Anytime science avoids coming to grips with numbers, it's somehow immersing itself in perhaps an unavoidable but certainly unattractive miasma (i.e. cloud of murkiness)."

Posted by: Sam | July 31, 2008 2:12 PM

True Bob, that is strange. I use the exact words and logic that atheists use about Christians and yet you don't find that convincing? So do you think that calling Christians names and blaming them for everything is convincing? If not then maybe atheists better find another form of argumentation. How about using something like reason? Or is that asking to much?

Posted by: StuV | July 31, 2008 2:14 PM

And that is what true faith is - not blind, but filled with a life-long groping.
Posted by: anonanon | July 31, 2008 11:11 AM

Odd. I thought priests only abused children.

Posted by: Sastra | July 31, 2008 2:17 PM

Berlin #336 wrote:

Dr David Berlinski is an award winning mathematician and an author of many books on evolution.

Hi, Berlin.

PZ Myers and the rest of us have looked at some of Berlinski's work, and have found it less than impressive. At the top of this page on the left hand side there is a little search window and button which scans some of the back posts in this blog. I think you will enjoy typing in the word "Berlinski," and reading what comes up.

By the way, Karl Giberson is a scientist who has no problems with evolution. This wasn't really a thread about creationism.

But nice that you could join us.

Posted by: Sam | July 31, 2008 2:18 PM

Sastra, okay he wasn't a very bright atheist. Lot's of those around. He probably just picked a liberal church. Atheists hate all churches and religions. They do not discriminate among those that they kill.

Ksneyia, Jeff Dahmer was an atheist who rejected religion. Only later did he go back to his childhood faith. In his atheist days he killed and ate people.

So are you all convinced yet that atheism is wrong? What? No? Then why do you think these same kinds of "arguments" will convince Christians? You think the usual "Hitler" argument is going to work when it hasn't the last thousand times you tried it? Come up with something NEW for God's sake! Use reason maybe?

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 2:20 PM

What's odd Sam, is that you think an isolated incident means something magical or profound. If he is an atheist, maybe it's a miracle?

Did you not understand what I wrote about Santa the goat?

And how does any of that present an argument in favor of whatever you're trying to convey (whatever that is)?

Riddle me this - what's a god?

Posted by: craig | July 31, 2008 2:20 PM

"Then why do you think these same kinds of "arguments" will convince Christians? "

Actually in my experience NO arguments will convince Christians.

Posted by: heddle | July 31, 2008 2:24 PM

Gustav Nyström

So what you are saying, heddle, is that Hitler was No True Scotsman?

No, but I would have bet the farm (and won) that it wouldn't be long until someone brought up that pinheaded argument.

Here is how it might apply. If I was arguing that, yes, Hitler claimed to be a Christian but from his actions you can see that he isn't a True Christian™, then you might be justified in pulling the hair trigger on the No True Scotsman charge. You'd still be wrong, but you'd at least have a case.

And I have made that argument before, but I haven't made it here.

This is different. With the documents I can claim that it is at least plausible that Hitler only feigned Christianity when it was politically expedient. If so, the overused True Scotsman argument would not apply.

GuyIncognito,

I shouldn't have to download several huge files to respond to the words in front of my face, dumbass. If the Rutgers documents say something more than the stupidity quoted above, perhaps you should do a better job representing their position, dipshit.

Posted by: WRMartin | July 31, 2008 2:26 PM

Mena #287

Ah, the fall out of Crackergate: new trolls who won't leave and people who won't stop feeding them. :^(

To others who have pointed out the SEP effect - that is a bull's eye. It's quite amazing and baffling to talk to religious types from the fundamental sect. They simply cannot imagine what we occupy our time with. To them if we aren't Christian then by default we are Pagan or worship the Occult. I asked my wife once what it is they think I do on Sundays - Am I suposed to dance naked in the Papa John's Pizza parking lot wearing snake livers for shoes? Although I do confess I did have a secret wish to lay down a large tarp in my living room and 'accidentally' be discovered by one of our fundamental neighbors while I was going through my weekly ritual of dismembering a goat and eating its brain raw without utensils while standing naked in a puddle of blood and entrails using the blood and guts to paint designs on my body.

P.S. Just for funzies, the next time your local (or related) Christian is requesting money for their next mission trip tell them that instead of money you are going to pray for them. They never get the irony but it sure does feel good.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 31, 2008 2:28 PM

And no, I don't have a spell-checker or typo-filter.

*mutter*

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2008 2:32 PM

The man is interesting, entertaining, and really quite brilliant. It doesn't take too many agnostic, well credentialed scientists to discredit the entire body of evolutionist lovers, IMO. They are just sick of the games you people are playing.

yawn.

Come up with the science. Hours upon hours of marketing takes and PR campaigns are not science.

Posted by: True Bob | July 31, 2008 2:34 PM

Sam, I don't think most atheists bring up Hitler as an example of christiness gone nutsy-fig. Usually some christer brings it up, saying "Hitler was an atheist intending to kill religiofolk". We usually don't leave that (or Stalin, or Mao, or Kim, or [name of tyrant here]) undefended. There are so many better examples of why any religion is snafu, anyway.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2008 2:35 PM

The man is interesting, entertaining, and really quite brilliant.

It doesn't take too many agnostic, well credentialed scientists

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 2:36 PM

Dr David Berlinski is an award winning mathematician and an author of many books on evolution.

As previous commenters have pointed out, Berlinski is neither a mathematician nor an author of many books on evolution. He is, however, a demented fuckwit.

Posted by: Damian with an a | July 31, 2008 2:40 PM

Perhaps, Sam, you'd like to explain how non-believers only make up 0.209% of the prison population?, given that roughly 10% of the US population are non-believers,

I don't read too much in to that, to be honest, but it is difficult to deny that non-believers are vastly under-represented in prisons.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 31, 2008 2:43 PM

Sastra:

When theists bring up Hitler, they often do so to bolster the claim that religion is necessary for morality. They insist that, because Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. were "atheists," that must be what atheism leads to.

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did not believe in Zeus. Therefore, Zeus-belief is necessary for morality.

Simple, ain't it?

Posted by: Sastra | July 31, 2008 2:44 PM

Berlin #352 wrote:

It doesn't take too many agnostic, well credentialed scientists to discredit the entire body of evolutionist lovers, IMO.

Yes it does, if you're talking expert opinion. David Berlinski has not persuaded the scientific community.

But of course, he is not trying to persuade the scientific community, is he? He's trying to please folks like you -- no real education, expertise, or experience in the field of biology, but, by gum, you've got more'n a lick 'o common sense, and can see through all those pointy-headed scientists for what they are.

They all get it wrong. All of them, thousands and thousands of experts get it completely, totally wrong for over a hundred years of research and discovery across multiple fields and NOBODY NOTICES. None of them! It takes Brave Maverick Scientist David Berlinski and Ordinary Guys just like you to finally get it right. And point it out.

That's very exciting, but don't you think it's a bit far-fetched?

Posted by: JimC | July 31, 2008 2:50 PM

If so, the overused True Scotsman argument would not apply.

It's certainly not overused.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2008 2:55 PM

@#366: James, you're right!
Although I could think up some "awards" I'd like to "award" to Berlinski. That guy gives me the serious creeps.

Posted by: kjdamrau | July 31, 2008 2:59 PM

Arguing with - or imparting information to - believers in bronze age myths is ultimately futile. It is akin to arguing with a 3 year old. They lack the requisite intellectual equipment.

I say we leave them with their myths. Don't bother them. Like Zeus and Osiris, these "ideas" will fade and eventually become quaint and laughable. Surely we see the seeds of that future in blogs like this.

As for the adults in the room, embrace the future, for it is ours.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 31, 2008 3:10 PM

Of course there were Christian Nazis and atheist Nazis and even Jewish Nazis. There were, after all, a lot of Nazis. - heddle

How revoltingly disingenuous. You know as well as the rest of us that the vast majority of Nazis were Christians. If Hitler was feigning Christianity (actually the evidence is pretty clear that he was not an orthodox Christian but was a theist), why would he do that?

Posted by: kermit | July 31, 2008 3:13 PM

"I agree with William F. Buckley: "Bach's music is proof of the existence of God." How many commenters here listen to Bach? Can they comprehend him? Or is he boring?
Posted by: blabblab"

One of my favorites is his "Coffee Cantata", which clearly establishes that coffee is the divine drug. I like baroque, but usually prefer ecstatic jazz. Alice Coltrane's "P'tah the el Daoud" proves that God was the first divine ruler of Egypt, and the father of Ra.

Kermit

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 31, 2008 3:20 PM

One of my favorites is his "Coffee Cantata", which clearly establishes that coffee is the divine drug. I like baroque, but usually prefer ecstatic jazz. Alice Coltrane's "P'tah the el Daoud" proves that God was the first divine ruler of Egypt, and the father of Ra.

Kermit

And Sun Ra & His Intergalactic Solar Arkestra informed us that Space is the Place.

Posted by: Damian with an a | July 31, 2008 3:28 PM

heddle:

I would agree with you that Hitler used, not only Christianity, but anything that he felt was of use to him, to further his aims.

However, he was either a Christian or he was not [and we know that Germany was overwhelmingly Christian]. So unless you can provide compelling evidence that he was an atheist, it is perfectly reasonable to point to the fact that his writings, as well as many of his actions, do suggest that he was a Christian, whether a good one or bad.

To claim that pointing that out -- when told that Hitler was an atheist, don't forget -- is "simpleminded, willfully naive, transparently wishful thinking, hideously muddled thinking, and childishly superficial", is, I'm afraid, meaningless, and rather misses the point.

All that you have done is provide evidence that he was planning to persecute the churches in Germany. That may well be evidence that he wasn't a Christian, or that he wasn't a very good Christian, or that he felt that he needed to rid Germany of the churches in order to further his own aims.

As you are quite aware, there is much evidence that he thought of himself as a Christian. That is all that most people suggest, in my experience, and it is a counter to the claim that he was an atheist.

So you have far more work ahead of you to show that it is "simpleminded, willfully naive, transparently wishful thinking, hideously muddled thinking, and childishly superficial" to claim that Hitler was a Christian.

Thus far, you haven't even come close.

Posted by: Baba | July 31, 2008 3:31 PM

If Hitler was feigning Christianity (actually the evidence is pretty clear that he was not an orthodox Christian but was a theist), why would he do that?

This is a stupid question posed by an obviously unthinking moron. Let's free murderers from prisons because they say that they're innocent!!! Why would they do that!!!??

JESUS. H. CHRIST!! Some of you guys will believe anything.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 31, 2008 3:35 PM

And Sun Ra & His Intergalactic Solar Arkestra informed us that Space is the Place.

They plan to leave...