Pharyngula

Posted by: 10ch.org | February 4, 2009 8:49 AM

Now, how many people would actually believe this when reality flatly contradicts it?

Posted by: Burning Umbrella | February 4, 2009 8:51 AM

Well, are there any pictures of Darwin in a lab coat holing a bottle of green, bubbling liquid?

A clear proof that he wasn't a real scientist.

Posted by: bric | February 4, 2009 8:52 AM

I know it's wrong but I really wanted to slap her.

Posted by: Matt H. | February 4, 2009 8:55 AM

The very definition of anti-intellectualism.

Posted by: Sigmund | February 4, 2009 8:57 AM

There's another clip from the same group on youtube that's almost as bad. It's pure Kent Hovind level nonsense.
Unfortunately the English language actually needs a new term to describe the attitude of complete ignorance combined with that arrogant air of authority on show here.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 4, 2009 9:00 AM

PZ,

HA!!! You can't ruin my morning. The firewall here at work protects me from the Stupid. Of course my evening will be totally shot once I get a chance to review this crap when I get home. All thanks to you. Good going.

Posted by: Olowkow | February 4, 2009 9:01 AM

Nice Tee Shirt.

Posted by: JackC | February 4, 2009 9:05 AM

Sigmund: What's wrong with "Weapons-grade Stupidity". I refuse to listen to this person.

JC

Posted by: Quasarsphere | February 4, 2009 9:07 AM

There is fail, there is epic fail, and there is that SHITE!!!

Posted by: Bachalon | February 4, 2009 9:11 AM

Once again, I'm reminded why I think there should be laws about lying in public or in a way that can be publicly viewed.

Posted by: Porky Pine | February 4, 2009 9:11 AM

What a surprise. Comments have to be "pre-approved" for that video.

Posted by: moneduloides | February 4, 2009 9:13 AM

I don't think you realize what you've done...

You just ruined my life.

Okay, my week. But still...

Posted by: Quinx | February 4, 2009 9:15 AM

Ouch, the dumb flows.....

Posted by: toomanytribbles | February 4, 2009 9:18 AM

ts'ok. it's afternoon here.

Posted by: Zeno | February 4, 2009 9:20 AM

If you could call a time-out after each sentence spoken by the young woman and use it to explain what is wrong with what she just said, you'd have reproduced the entire talk.origins archive by the time her speech was done. She's the full creationist package and has no idea how ignorant she is.

But she is secure in her ignorance and prideful. (I think that might be a sin.)

Posted by: Steve Ulven | February 4, 2009 9:23 AM

I've already seen this, so no need to watch it again. Parroting is exactly what she is doing. She's not even making anything up herself, everything she is saying has been said before. Hell, I'll just say it, like VenomfangX, she's a plagiarist.

Posted by: True Bob | February 4, 2009 9:24 AM

I stopped the vid when she claimed evolution (which for her includes life, the universe, and everything) was a "fairy tale for adults". Damned irony meter almost put my eye out when it blew.

Posted by: Watchman | February 4, 2009 9:30 AM

This is all October Mermaid's fault.

Posted by: Faid | February 4, 2009 9:32 AM

I'm reading a very interesting book these days. "Flat Earth: The history of an Imfamous Idea" by Christine Garwood.

It tells with a great amount of detail the history of the movement proposing a plane earth, that originated in Britain in the mid-19th century and rose quite a fuss, drawing its support from religious circles. One thing that is clearly obvious, by reading the descriptions of all the discussions, papers and "experiments" conducted, is how a completely vacuous and absurd position can be sold to willing ears, just by delivering ridiculous ad hocs and plain lies- but with a smug, condescending tone and lots of bravado.

It's been 150 years since then, but people never change...

Posted by: Slugsie | February 4, 2009 9:34 AM

I've watched this before. It annoys me that people can spout off so much about things that they're so obviously not taken even a minute to educate themselves about.

Posted by: Heidi Anderson | February 4, 2009 9:36 AM

"If you don't have the bone, leave my theory alone."

If God existed, he would smite her in an instant.

Posted by: LisaJ | February 4, 2009 9:40 AM

I wonder if she knows that the claims she's making about how atheists views and thought processes are wrong are actually directly applicable to her. It's always amazing to me how they're really talking about themselves when they speak against us.

That really did ruin my morning, PZ. Her shrill over-confident voice is still ringing in my ears, and I too really want to slap that girl.

Posted by: havoc | February 4, 2009 9:41 AM

I find the people cheering in the crowd even more annoying than her. It reminds me far too much of my church days... the more ignorant and extreme the claim, the more the sheep get excited.

...which leads me a little off topic. I had a Bible Study teacher who would talk about how it was somewhat offensive that Jesus refers to his followers as sheep, considering their not-so-bright reputation. He was so close to realizing he was getting fleeced... thankfully he helped me pull the wool from over my eyes.

Posted by: resident_alien | February 4, 2009 9:43 AM

Reminds me of a t-shirt slogan :
"arrogance+ignorance=thickness"

Posted by: PlaydoPlato | February 4, 2009 9:47 AM

Stunning. This would be no more incredible if she had been refuting gravitational theory. Funny too, how she talks about the lack of evidence for evolution, when her Bible, which she clearly hasn't read, is based on the premise of belief without evidence (i.e. faith).

This reminds me of the pentecostal cult I grew up in. These people are beyond hope. As a friend from Tennessee used to say, "That girls is dumb as a fence post."

Actually, I think a fence post could school this woman in a thing or two.

Mind. Boggled.

Posted by: Steve Ulven | February 4, 2009 9:52 AM

#42, you said you do not believe she believes what she says. I do disagree there. I do not find it difficult to believe she believes it. She's reciting practically the same thing that many people that believe the same thing say. I am not questioning her beliefs, however what you said about attention seeking, I think you are dead-on on that one.

One thing that does get me is the "EX-atheist" shirt. I suspect, like I suspect many other "EX-atheists," that she still believed in a god years ago, but has a complete misunderstanding of what atheism is, or is lying about it, like VemonfangX. VenomfangX seems to show that he was not an atheist when he claims to have been an atheist. I think he just thought accepting (sorry, believing in) evolution at one time in his life meant he was (same with this chick) therefore an atheist.

Posted by: AnthonyK | February 4, 2009 9:54 AM

Reminds me of a quote from an Australian comedian:

"She make two short planks look like a computer."

Posted by: azqaz | February 4, 2009 9:58 AM

PZ, I don't know whether to laugh, or cry, after seeing that. She was so energetic, so earnest, and so wrong.

Let me paraphrase her presentation...

So and so said such and such. How much more evidence could you need?!?! Since I quote mined, quoted out of context, and repeated other peoples lies that must prove that I'm right and your wrong. Since I said evolution is wrong I must be right about my sky fairy. I win!

Posted by: mayhempix | February 4, 2009 10:00 AM

"He (Darwin) decided to create evolution!"

Unfuckingbelievable.

Posted by: David Wiener | February 4, 2009 10:05 AM

Oh, and On-Topic: I worked with a JW and we argued about evolution all the time. It was like shouting down a well. Other co-workers, however, could not stand the fact that I was arguing 'against god' and HR told us both to stop talking about the subject.

I remember thinking, "Is your faith that weak? I listen to your blather all the time, and my belief in reality is still intact." Oh well.

Posted by: Goldenmane | February 4, 2009 10:11 AM

Just on my way to bed, didn't have time to read the comments. I did try ti watch the clip... managed to get about one minute into it before my brain began to melt. I'm deathly afraid now that I'm going to wake up a vegetable in the morning.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | February 4, 2009 10:11 AM

Besides being a liar from the group "Amazing Grace", what does this woman do? Does she have an education beyond eigth grade?

This woman does not suffer from ignorance, this is malicious lying. Just what fundamentalists and fanatics always do.

Posted by: AGHubing | February 4, 2009 10:12 AM

This morning has been ruined. That was worse than waterboarding.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | February 4, 2009 10:14 AM

@#51:

I have to be skeptical whenever I see a believer claiming to be an ex-atheist. A theist has a built-in incentive, in our culture, to be seen testifying that s/he used to be an atheist, but then accepted God. Their fellow believers will be happy to hear that their religion is correct, and there's no punishment by atheists for apostasy. A former Christian who turned atheist, however, could actually face social consequences.

Posted by: Richard Dawkins | February 4, 2009 10:15 AM

Any lawyers out there, may I raise a question that must seem incredibly naive. Why do the laws of libel protect only damaged individuals but not objective truth? I only watched about three minutes of this, but she uttered lie after lie after lie after lie. Any court of law could easily establish the untruth of what she is saying. Yet she gets away with it unless some individual can prove they are damaged by it. Is it completely ridiculous to imagine a revised theory of jurisprudence in which objective truth itself was protected?

Posted by: Sigmund | February 4, 2009 10:16 AM

#38 HumanisticJones
"I'd like to nominate the adjective ignoritarian for english language word to describe "having an attitude of complete ignorance combined with an arrogant air of authority". Noun form - ignority
adjective - ignoritatively"
Very good!

Posted by: MikeySize | February 4, 2009 10:16 AM

Another failure of the American public education system. It makes me want to resign my teaching position.

You're right PZ, it ruined my day. And since I teach in Texas it's probably not going to get any better.

Posted by: Doug | February 4, 2009 10:20 AM

Now I see where Kent Hovind sends his materials too. Isn't it dishonest for a woman, who clearly was never an Atheist, to wear an ex-Atheist shirt? Nah, she's a fundy, it's not dishonesty, it's lying for Jesus. I'll bet she's never talked to an Atheist in her life.

Posted by: Nichole | February 4, 2009 10:23 AM

Perhaps because the meek are supposed to inherit the earth? And stupid = meek? And if you can't be stupid, you can be willfully ignorant and self-righteous and that's kind of the same.

You know what I blame this on the break down of? Society.

Posted by: Curtis Quark | February 4, 2009 10:25 AM

Yup - that ruined my morning. I saw her before, and thought I might make my first YouTube video to refute it. I don't think she deserves the time though. Far too ignorant.

LOL - "founder" of evolution!

Posted by: MrSquid | February 4, 2009 10:28 AM

#9 - Sigmund

Unfortunately the English language actually needs a new term to describe the attitude of complete ignorance combined with that arrogant air of authority on show here.

How about "smugnorance?"

Posted by: GorunNova | February 4, 2009 10:29 AM

A bunch of ignorance and nonsense regurgitated, ratings disabled, comments not disabled but most likely HEAVILY moderated... yeah, your usual YouTube Christian crap.

Seriously, do NOT watch this video, because it'll only inflate it's viewing number with no option for giving it low ratings or giving reasonable directly accessible criticism. Besides, everything she says you've probably heard (and seen debunked) a hundred times before.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 4, 2009 10:32 AM

If you despise this crap so much, when then do you team up with those who teach this kind of nonsense to fight those of us in the middle (scientist/theists)? - heddle

We don't, you lying toad. To "team up" has a specific meaning. Just because Christian dominionists and Leninists both attack liberalism, it does not mean they have "teamed up".

Posted by: Richard Dawkins | February 4, 2009 10:38 AM

Rich Dawkins, that is her expressing her free will to speak to an audience. It is our duty to fight her at her own game, but no rule of law should have governance over what is truth. The reason we have libel, is to protect people from harm. While she is harming truth (and rotting her listeners' minds) she is not committing a crime. She is not holding them captive. They decided to sit there and listen to this drivel. I don't know if you were serious or not, but that sounded pretty scary to me that you would propose that.

Posted by: CitizenVA | February 4, 2009 10:39 AM

Oh My! That truly messed up my morning for sure! I'm actually ANGRY at this point that there is such smug ignorance out there!

Here's something to get your mind off that:

http://carriefisher.com/?p=178

From Carrie Fisher's blog...

CVA

Posted by: Tulse | February 4, 2009 10:41 AM

if you haven't already read Sam Harris' response on the same page, or Dennett's, it is well worth it IMO.

Harris's is brilliant. His mock-apologism is hilarious and deadly. My favourite line: "If Francis Collins wants to believe that the historical Jesus was actually raised from the dead and still exists in an ethereal form which renders him both clairvoyant and mildly disapproving of masturbation, these beliefs do not even slightly detract from his stature as a scientist." That is comedy gold.

Posted by: Matt L | February 4, 2009 10:46 AM

Daniel Florian of UnreasonableFaith.com beat you to this one, Dr. Myers.

Different videos, same ignorant, arrogant, useless excuse for a human.

Posted by: karen | February 4, 2009 10:47 AM

She called it "irresistible complexity"...several times, I think. I'm NOT going to re-watch to check. I made it through the whole thing, though I admit, I kept pausing it to steel myself. Can't even get her lies straight.

"Lax firearms laws are wasted on Americans, if bitches like this haven't been shot."

Agreed.

Posted by: Mystyk | February 4, 2009 10:47 AM

I'm in Sweden, so you ruined my afternoon

:(

Posted by: BigZ | February 4, 2009 10:48 AM

Steve Ulven (post 51), you seem to be suspicious of the shirt too, and the attention seeking.

I agree with #69 (duuuude!). I doubt a chruch going Christian that would have the word Athiest anywhere on thier bodies. Even preceded with an "Ex". I still think she is a poser.

Either way, seems we would have picked up on her other red flags, and called her out.

Too bad, she's a little cute. :)

Posted by: Marley | February 4, 2009 10:50 AM

Ruin my morning? Au contraire, mon ami..........YOU MADE MY DAY.

That's not MY kid.........I'm not the Mom whom raised that stupid child. My kids would watch this video (at least some of it) and laugh their asses off. And, if they had the chance to speak w/ this "genius", I have a feeling she'd be reduced to tears. (My kids have a mean streak when it comes to stupid people.)

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 4, 2009 10:53 AM

Garfunkel,
Yes they could be right. Or it could have been the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezing. Or we could all be living in a simulation. So fucking what?

The so-called argument from the "anthropic principle" is as entirely worthless as your arguments from authority. In the first place, no-one has actually shown that the universe has to be as it is for life to occur. in the second, even if it were shown that values of constants very close to those we find are essential to life appearing, we have no way of assessing the probability of those constants having the required values. Third, even if we did, and it turned out that we live in a very improbalbe universe, all that would indicate is that we live in a very improbable universe - it would not go any way whatever toward showing the universe was designed for life. It is undoubtedly the case that if we can sensibly assign such probabilities at all, a universe in which I appear is far more more improbable than one in which life appears. Can I then reasonably conclude that the universe was designed to produce me? My ego is admittedly large, but not that large.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | February 4, 2009 10:54 AM

This calls for some Edward Current satire. It might relieve the stupid-burn.

Posted by: Mystyk | February 4, 2009 10:57 AM

#69:

I am an ex-Christian. I do feel social consequences, including from my parents. It hurts, but I can't simply undo all of my education in order to blissfully believe again, nor would I want to. It's tough having people you've known all your life avoid you because you refuse to buy into their shared delusions.

I grew up always having lingering doubts over claims from figures of authority. It bugged me enough that I eventually had to learn both sides of the issue to find the truth. It was only then that I realized there was only one side, and that religion requires the willful suspension of truth in order to make room for faith.

Posted by: Porco Dio | February 4, 2009 10:59 AM

it burns indeed.

is she allowed to vote?

if so, should this be allowed?

i am interested in studying the philosophical social implications of people not fulfilling their intellectual responsibilities while claiming their legal rights.

Posted by: CrypticLife | February 4, 2009 11:03 AM

Coming from the same sort of people who bring such gems as this bit of "science"

Enjoy washing your eyes and ears...

Posted by: Bobber | February 4, 2009 11:05 AM

Garfunkel at #92:

They could, of course, be right, notwithstanding your belief that they're wrong. Truth be told, no one knows "how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be."

(a) I don't believe just that they are wrong, I believe they are wrong because their belief is unsupported by evidence, and is a result of indoctrination, not scientifically informed investigation.

(b) I didn't say that I know how the universe and life began. I do acknowledge the work of experts in relevant fields (cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.) whose investigations have contributed to an emerging consensus in answering these questions. There are always new discoveries, there are competing theories to explain observed phenomena,; yet none of the questions that science confronts has yet to be satisfactorily answered by the statement "God did it."

And while questioning what you consider to be my "belief" in a particular answer, I note that you quote a number of authorities that I assume agree with your particular answer (again, "God did it"). Please don't denounce what you think is my certainty when you present evidence of your own. I acknowledge that there are questions yet to be answered. Do you? Or has all been revealed to you?

Posted by: Mystyk | February 4, 2009 11:07 AM

Oh my.

Not only did I somehow make it through all 10.5 minutes without vomiting in my hat, but I decided to learn more about the group that would have so many "vidiots."

They have even more of those t-shirts, with logos like "EX-Diva", "EX-Slave", "EX-fornicator", "EX-Masturbator", and my personal favorite for stunning levels of irony: "EX-Hypocrite".

This is what they say along with the entry that links to the anti-atheist lying screeds:

We are here for the Christian who is confronted by people who don't believe there is a God. There is a reasonable logical basis for the Christian faith and we are here to show it to you. We're showing you so you can build yourself up in your own faith and also so you can speak powerfully against the growing army of atheists who seek to undermine the Christian and our faith.

Listen as Blair and Nyasha convince an atheist to give up his beliefs.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 11:07 AM

Dahan: "Maybe you could blow our minds with Pascal's wager."

What minds? In the Darwinian scheme of things, thoughts are nothing more than secretions of the brain (much like bile is a secretion of the liver). That being the case, you have no reason for trusting that your thoughts are more truthful than my thoughts. Indeed, if that's the case, neither one of us can trust that our thoughts are rational and valid. On the materialistic conception of the mind offered by Darwinism, the electro/chemical activity in your brain produces certain thoughts, and the electro/chemical activity in my brain produces different thoughts. On what grounds, then, can it be said that the electro/chemical activity in your brain is more likely to secrete rational, valid thoughts than the electro/chemical activity in my brain? Neither one of us would actually be in control of that activity, which would be entirely the result of irrational material causes (i.e., causes lacking reason and understanding). Thus we'd have no grounds for claiming that our thoughts are oriented towards truth.

Posted by: FlameDuck | February 4, 2009 11:08 AM

I really don't get it. Compare evolution and creationism, and conclude that evolution is the "magical" explaination. How fucking scientific!

Unfortunately the English language actually needs a new term to describe the attitude of complete ignorance combined with that arrogant air of authority on show here.

Those of us who are theists and scientists are

Most religions emerged, well before science, and thus represent an unscientific and anachronistic philosophy. The only major exceptions is Mormonism and Scientology which really have no excuse for being batshit insane.

Posted by: Chas Stewart | February 4, 2009 11:11 AM

#112

I like how atheists and non-believers are not all alike and we get to have incredible arguments on things other than religion. Those people were stupid. Sorry. Shamans did this type of thing all the time. Sometimes it worked (probably because these shamans made people secure and confident that they would overcome the disease, and being positive can go a long way) and sometimes they didn't. Sometimes, the shamans do damage instead of good. But, this is the kicker, the other adult (children need to be protected from this) decided to follow the advice. The other adult is the problem. If I was a Christian, Muslim... and decided to kill other people because my pastor or whatever told me that others were evil, then prosecute ME. I'm the one committing the crimes. Those people going blind did it to themselves all because someone suggested it to them. I'm sorry, but I don't want a human race that has to be protected from their own idiocy. I want smart people who are rational and know how to protect themselves.

That quote you put of me sounds bad b/c the court does have to protect what is true in this world, but what I mean is that they shouldn't have the right to stifle free speech. What if they judged truth from their own idea of truth. There's no reason to think that they would judge truth from our point of view (a point of view from science and non-theism) because we are the minority. She can yell and scream about atheists being naive but we know better and those people she was talking to didn't need any convincing any ways.

Posted by: Tulse | February 4, 2009 11:11 AM

Science does not reject the supernatural.

Science rejects supernatural explanations -- that is precisely what methodological naturalism means. And all religions, apart from watered-down Deism, demand supernatural explanations for some physical events.

Posted by: Desert Son | February 4, 2009 11:12 AM

After the post about the suicide bombing recruiter, this doesn't really ruin my morning. In fact, it's a nice renewal of purpose, in a way. Still lots of work to be done, still lots of ignorance out there, but even in smug certainty, some people can be reached, some cognitive dissonance can be achieved to breakthrough realization.

For as long as people have been "coming to Jesus" (hello!) or other imaginary beings, people have also been abandoning the supernatural.

Granted, the numbers seem fairly skewed to the goddidits, but not all the minds out there are in supernatural shutdown mode.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Dr. Richard Dawkins | February 4, 2009 11:14 AM

This is Chas Stewart.

Yes, I know who Dr. Dawkins is (I'm anxiously awaiting his speech at OU and wish he could give a shout out to our local group, Oklahoma Atheists) but cannot anyone just write in that name? I hope that is him but I cannot be sure. And, him being Dr. Dawkins means that I cannot disagree with him?

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 11:15 AM

Knockgoats #120

It does not seem to occur to you (indeed, how could it?), that if one has a conviction that science and religion are incompatible, it is a matter of elementary honesty not to pretend otherwise.

Actually what occurs to me is related: if one has a conviction that science and religion are incompatible, it is a matter of elementary honesty to prove it, not just say it, as Coyne does. And most people on here do. (And saying “compartmentalization” is not a proof. It is a chant. Like the Krishnas.)

Posted by: BigZ | February 4, 2009 11:18 AM

Anyone wearing an "EX-fornicator" might as well print another comment on the backof the shirt. "Ex-DatingNormalGuysButNowDatingOnlyNeuroticBluBallsGuys".

It could be written in a smaller font.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 11:19 AM

Knockgoats: "In the first place, no-one has actually shown that the universe has to be as it is for life to occur."

To the contrary, it has been shown that minute variations in the forces and constants of the universe would make life impossible. For example, it has been shown that if the expansion rate of the universe varied by even one part in 10^55 from the actual rate, no galaxies would form; if no galaxies formed, no stars would form; if no stars formed, no planets would form; if no planets formed, there would be no place for life to exist.

Posted by: abb3w | February 4, 2009 11:27 AM

Garfunkel: To the contrary, it has been shown that minute variations in the forces and constants of the universe would make life impossible.

Life of the sort we presently have. I suggest Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" so you might have a better grasp of how "simple" it can be to get arbitrary levels of complexity.

Posted by: Janine, Queen of Assholes | February 4, 2009 11:29 AM

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009

What minds? In the Darwinian scheme of things, thoughts are nothing more than secretions of the brain (much like bile is a secretion of the liver).

So that is what has been running down the back of my neck.

New trolls are so much fun.

Posted by: AJ Milne | February 4, 2009 11:30 AM

Another fascinating point to be made about these 'such and such a constant must this exactly even for stars to exist' claims is it also doesn't really address the presence or absence of (a) complex systems and (b) complex self-reproducing systems (which may or may not reproduce with occasional errors) given such differences. (I can't claim to have made the insight myself--it was from some clever character's letter to Nature a while ago--I regret I cannot name him off the top of my head, as it did strike me as an excellent point.)

The point is: we really are back to Douglas Adams happy little puddle when we make such claims.

Posted by: Lurky | February 4, 2009 11:32 AM

Oh. My. Dog.
I couldnt watch more than half a minute of it before bursting out in laughter and shame.

The world "just came together magically" and "it's just a story". The self projection... it burns!

Posted by: The BeadKnitter | February 4, 2009 11:32 AM

Phooey and Rats! I was hoping for a morning not ruined by someone/something. Thanks PZ.

Posted by: pough | February 4, 2009 11:33 AM

Unfortunately the English language actually needs a new term to describe the attitude of complete ignorance combined with that arrogant air of authority on show here.

Egnorance.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 11:33 AM

Bobber: "I acknowledge that there are questions yet to be answered. Do you? Or has all been revealed to you?"

Nope. As I've already said: "Truth be told, no one knows 'how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be.'" That's why it was so silly for Knockgoats to say that Dawkins's book ("The God Delusion") has the advantage of being true.

Posted by: AJ Milne | February 4, 2009 11:35 AM

(Adding to 141)--in case anyone's missing this, note, of course, we'd be talking about systems that looked nothing like those we're familiar with--indeed, universes that look very, very little like ours. The very structure of matter could be wildly different. But that doesn't say on its own there wouldn't still be the interesting and long-lasting and complex structures like stars that exist as a consequence of the way things work there, nor the essential phenonmenon of localized complexity being distilled by natural algorithmic processes. All those 'the variable must be this' arguments tend to say is: well, it wouldn't look anything like it does now. But this on its own pretty much falls into the 'well, duh' category, from where I'm standing.

Posted by: Nichole | February 4, 2009 11:37 AM

OMFG I'm religious now all of a sudden now that I know it's not counter-intuitive to science!!!1

Thanks, Garfunkel! Thanks heddle!

So you don't say, Newton believed in god? Wow, I thought no one believed in magic in the 1600s!

Actually, I changed my mind. Fuck the Concern Trolls. Swear at them until they go away.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 11:40 AM

Dahan: "In the future you may find you don't need to use nearly as many words to make a complete ass of yourself and show your ignorance. Something to look into, seeing as this seems to be your only mission."

Were you born an insufferable ass, or is it an acquired trait?

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 4, 2009 11:43 AM

Garfunkel@119."What minds"
The crude Platonism,it burns!

The next person I see arguing on the basis of "a belief that X is a natural phenomenon is identical to the belief that X doesn't exist" is getting a copy of Darwin's Dangerous Idea shoved up their arse.

Posted by: Paul | February 4, 2009 11:44 AM

A couple seconds into the video and I find it utterly ironic how she uses the word "magically."

Posted by: mothwentbad | February 4, 2009 11:50 AM

Jesus Christ. She skipped the part where Darwin spent years giving himself ulcers worrying that he was wrong. And the part where evolution was largely regarded as a huge joke by the scientific community at the time, having Darwin's soon-to-be Bulldog Thomas Henry Huxley himself as a vocal detractor. And the part where he actually got taken seriously because he actually posited an observable and imminently likely mechanism, natural selection, for how this is accomplished, a principle which is so self-evident that it didn't find mainstream attention until the latter half of the 19th century. And... well, she pretty much skipped hundreds of pages of Janet Browne's biography of Darwin. Who's the moron who will just throw out whatever idea comes to them because they have an agenda now?

Posted by: AnthonyK | February 4, 2009 11:53 AM

If religion is in any sense "true" then it cannot be incompatible with science in any way.
The problem is that through the thousands of years of pure religion, without the knowledge system that science provide, no diseases were reliably cured, no real insight into the "how" of the universe came along, and no realisation of the tree of life were ever produced.
Prayer just doesn't work, either as a curative or as a contemplative aid - at least as far as anything universally true is concerned.
While it may be nice for religious people to have the unshakeable conviction that they, and only they, can know the mind of god this is, alas, an entirely useless insight for the rest of us.

Posted by: Kristin | February 4, 2009 11:54 AM

i think she said 'palin-tology.' hmmmm.

Posted by: strangest brew | February 4, 2009 11:56 AM

Behold the product of not upsetting the little darlings in their 'belief'

Until the gloves are removed and text books state categorically the state of play and proudly...and teachers and educators do not have to skate around the E word then this is what the future holds...
Multiply that young lady a few thousand times and that will be the workforce in less then a few years!

Religion is far to far out of its kennel...time to chain it up firmly and muzzle personal belief in public...they can do their thang in their church or home environment if they must but it should remain their dirty little secret..not everyone else's!

It is nothing but spouting lies and ignorance because they are not challenged with incisiveness ...they are allowed to get away with any claim and no comeback...of course this free for all results in a feedback loop with them all trying to out do each other in the lying for jeebus stakes.

Everyone must pussyfoot around the nonsense...and the greatest betrayal is the fact that moderately positioned church bunnies say nothing and smile indulgently at the deluded!

That is the crux of the matter...have your belief by all means but be aware that scientific evidence is what it is...a fact that the majority of scientists can check double check and check again...and what walks quacks and looks like a duck....very often is a duck... rather then not!

That no one challenges this religiously barking nonsense at a meaningful level is the point...and it is a danger to the rest of us because it is simply wrong and very wrong at that!

It should be held that in a lawful sense parroting palpable rubbish is an offence...it is a form of terrorism against rationality..a few test cases might clarify that one...

Maybe part of lawyer training should be a science a based module that deals with...ahem! the evidence... they seem to think that aspect of any claim important...although admittedly only sometimes......

Anyway a module across a range of subjects with a few extra pages on evolution and the facts about transitionals and how the theory of natural selection operates at the micro and macro level...not to the level of equational manipulation but access to the present ideas relating to principles of science...

Maybe seminaries would benefit as well..more so in fact...going out into the world to preach lies and distortions is not a morally justifiable position in any religion...they have been getting away with that for far to long...but they will be better educated...they will have no defence...where before a mumbling about ignorant of detail could be made..now it would be a matter of ignorance is definitely no defence... and if they put themselves into a position to promote this nonsense then not only is it a crime against jeebus cos they are lying and they know it...but also in a court of law!

Until there is more honesty in the major disciplines that society is comprised of nothing will change...few will be persuaded by the odd voice they hear or see in the media that is critical of the delusion...and they damn well will not hear those voices in their community that is for sure!

About time society grew up a tad methinks!

Posted by: Sean Chinery | February 4, 2009 11:58 AM

Ow! Ow! Ow! This hurts soooooo much! I can't stand her la-di-da-di-da tone. Oh, and I think it's great how she's using phrases like, "magic" and "story." Oh, and I suppose those were just "suggestions" littering the deck of the H.M.S. Beagle. I hope she's not representitive of students at NYU. Oh, and transitional fossils are not the same as photo morphing, it's a little more complex than that, but you've already shown that you are unable to grasp it. Oh, and the whole countdown to death thing, what do you care? You're waiting do die anyway because the afterlife is the real party, right? Why waste your time on this one? No, I have to stop now. It really is too painful. Thanks PZ, I think...

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 12:00 PM

KevinB, #164

People compartmentalize.

In other words, you can't prove it. You can't detect it. You can't measure it. So you are just going to continue saying it. Like a chant. Like the Krishnas.

Doing precisely what I said you would do doesn't make your silliness more palatable. It makes you look sillier.

Posted by: Janine, Queen of Assholes | February 4, 2009 12:00 PM

Not to belabor a point too much but come on;

What minds? In the Darwinian scheme of things, thoughts are nothing more than secretions of the brain (much like bile is a secretion of the liver).

Am I the only one to find this scream out loud funny?

Posted by: Menyambal | February 4, 2009 12:02 PM

Dammit, PZ, I hadn't even had breakfast.

She's projecting like hell. Never seen better projection.

She seems to have respect for scientists and for evidence, really, but doesn't think it through. Why are all the bones being dug up, if they don't show anything new?

New York did just grow, really. I learned in my planning classes just how hard it is to fix the problems that should have been foreseen there.

It's really sad that anyone would think that video is convincing. Someone stands up, spouts some words, and I'm supposed to chuck a lifetime of thought? Ffffht!

I think that the key difference between religion and science can be summed up thus: A religious audience believes what the speaker says, while a scientific audience is thinking, "The bastard could be lying."

Posted by: KevinB | February 4, 2009 12:03 PM

You cannot point out where I have run from a substantive argument. The trouble I get in is I tend to hijack threads. But I don't run from arguments. Or can you prove that? No, you can't. So you know what? You can go suck that egg, jackass.

heddle, you never actually prove anything. You just make really, really backass arguments until people quite literally run out of time/energy/get bored to discuss mindless clatter with you.

That there are pro-science people who are religious is not in doubt. But PZ is correct that accepting this as true does not deal with all the underlying assumptions that make people think their religion is correct in the first place.

Whether this is a good thing or not is often where the debate really is. From my perspective it is obviously false that the majority of religions are compatible with science. Especially the western forms. While one can be fideistic about it and be be fine, the other option is to allow the religion to operate in the social/emotional part of the brain and science in the reasonable part and hope they rarely comingle.

This isn't new and people have been asking questions about the sense of religion since it's inception. And really what are it's fruits? The charity that people do in it's name would likely be done in another form and the HUGE sums of money sucked from the populace through the years has in a much greater percentage gone to enrich those already in the priesthood than those needing a meal.

Posted by: DrCogSci | February 4, 2009 12:05 PM

I always smirk when people say "this post is going to ruin your day etc..."

This one actually made me despair. It's so, so sad.

Posted by: Andysin | February 4, 2009 12:07 PM

Let's pharygulate this video:

http://www.p4cm.com/p4cm/events/debate-series/give-up-atheism#comments

I've already started.

Posted by: Urmensch | February 4, 2009 12:07 PM

Sigmund @ #9
In Ireland we say gobshite.

Posted by: KevinB | February 4, 2009 12:11 PM

In other words, you can't prove it. You can't detect it. You can't measure it. So you are just going to continue saying it. Like a chant. Like the Krishnas.

Or any number of prayers said by any number of religions. Why single out the krishna's? Or do you intend to demean yet another group of people?

And your wrong, we can detect when people are using different parts of their brain for different things. I suspect this would be relatively easy to detect and prove.

Doing precisely what I said you would do doesn't make your silliness more palatable. It makes you look sillier.

You have it exactly backwards. You are simply a creationist in fancy clothes. What you can't explain you simply say is outside of science. It's a dishonest dodge.

Posted by: Tulse | February 4, 2009 12:13 PM

I don't run from arguments.

OK, then, so to repeat above, your claim that "Science does not reject the supernatural" is false in practice, because methodological naturalism does reject all supernatural explanations. And since all religions (Deism excepted) believe in some variety of supernatural intervention in the natural world, such beliefs must be opposed to science.

Want to take a crack at that, or will you continue to ignore it?

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 12:15 PM

Knockgoats: "Rationality does not lie in the brain, but in the procedures we adopt - or in your case, refuse to adopt -to determine whether the ideas we come up with correspond to reality."

Given the materialistic conception of the mind offered by Darwinism, if we "adopt procedures" to check our thoughts against reality, the procedures themselves would be nothing more than products of electro/chemical activity in our brains - activity resulting from irrational material causes beyond our control. You are assuming that we have the ability to control our mental processes, an ability we can't have if mind is a material phenomenon (as it must be if Darwinism - a wholly materialistic account of human existence - is true). Indeed, if you accept the Darwinian account of the human mind, you have no warrant for using the word "we," which implies free will (i.e., the ability to think and act with at least some freedom from materialistic determinism). But free will is something that can't exist if the materialistic account of our existence offered by Darwinism is true.

(Note: To remind you, I'm using "irrational" to mean "lacking reason or understanding.")

Posted by: SteveM | February 4, 2009 12:19 PM

Another fascinating point to be made about these 'such and such a constant must this exactly even for stars to exist' claims ...

The other side of the coin is that even though we don't currently understand why these constants have the values they do, that does not mean there isn't a physical reason for them. That is, these constants may not be arbitrary with a very low probability of being exactly right in order to "produce" life as we know it. It could be that they can only be the values that they are. Actually, shouldn't that be a requirement for a "theory of everything", that it actually predicts what the electron charge has to be, etc? Not just what the universe would be like if the electron charge was different? In much the same way that Maxwell's Laws predict the speed of light and then Einstein showed that inherent in the laws is the fact that the speed of light must appear to be the same in every inertial frame of reference. A good theory must be able to predict reality, not just catalog it.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 12:25 PM

Garfunkel: "For example, it has been shown that if the expansion rate of the universe varied by even one part in 10^55 from the actual rate, no galaxies would form; if no galaxies formed, no stars would form; if no stars formed, no planets would form; if no planets formed, there would be no place for life to exist."

MartinM: "That would be a neat trick, given that the expansion rate is not a constant."

I should have said the *initial* expansion rate of the universe. If that rate had been too great, no galaxies, stars, and planets would have formed (neither would the heavy elements necessary for life, elements formed within stars). If it had been too slow, the universe would have collapsed on itself prior to the formation of galaxies, etc.
Now that galaxies, stars, planets, and life exist, it doesn't much matter that the expansion rate appears to be accelerating.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 4, 2009 12:28 PM

Actually what occurs to me is related: if one has a conviction that science and religion are incompatible, it is a matter of elementary honesty to prove it, not just say it, as Coyne does.

Yes, the video just screams compatibility between science and religion, doesn't it!

She's one of yours, heddle, every time you deny the evidence like the clip presented above and leaping into the fray to scream at us, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" How could anybody look at that video and believe that there is some sort of conflict between science and religion?

Piss off heddle, you lying sack of crap. You're too stupid to breath, and what's worth, you act as if you think we're as stupid as you are.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 4, 2009 12:30 PM

Fuck off heddle. Your Calvinist bullshit is just as stupid as this woman's crap.

Posted by: Bachalon | February 4, 2009 12:34 PM

Garfunkel, what is "darwinism?"

Posted by: Tulse | February 4, 2009 12:34 PM

free will is something that can't exist if the materialistic account of our existence offered by Darwinism is true.

How does free will have anything to do with evolution? The problems for free will would be just as knotty if we poofed into existence. Or do you also doubt the "materialistic account" of neurology?

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 4, 2009 12:37 PM

What'th worth? Throwing a shthew at that jackath heddle hath me tho angry I'm lithping.

Every time PZ presents battlefield footage of theists taking potshots at science and science lobbing grenades back, heddle wanders through in his little irreality bubble, demanding that we acknowledge there is no battle and that it's the atheists who should STFU. He's like Eyegore in Young Frankenstein, asking, "What hump?" except that the joke stops being funny for the one hundred and fifteenth time heddle pulls it.

Posted by: Matt Heath | February 4, 2009 12:40 PM

*Inserts popular philosophy book in Garfunkel's backside*

More crude, stupid Platonism. More blatant assertion that denying that things like free-will and subjectivity are transcendent and outside of physics is the same as denying they exist. Nearly every religious poster on Pharyngula brings this same shit.

O Internet, I beg of you, send better trolls.

Posted by: strangest brew | February 4, 2009 12:49 PM

There might be another explanation because it is difficult to believe that so much stupid can congregate in one brain without reaching critical mass and imploding.......

So playing devils advocate here...

It is a poe!

Could it be one of those famous debating societies where the topic is chosen and two teams...or two individuals... are asked to give a presentation representing the two sides of the debate?...whether or not they support one side or the other in reality?

It just seems she included every creationist fallacy that Talk Origins has documented...and then some...seems to cheap and raving to be a true position...one or two delusions at best float in every creationist heart...not this veritable ocean going leaky old liner full of holes larger then the hole that sank Titanic!

Just seems overkill!

Posted by: Danio | February 4, 2009 12:51 PM

*shudder*

I had to stop it at "If you can't find a bone, leave my theory alone!", as the audio was becoming difficult to hear over my moans of anguish.

I have had the occasion to mentor several students with similar views who have participated in our Summer undergraduate research program. Many of them are medical school hopefuls. Many are chemistry or physics majors who want to get some experience in another science. The projects they undertake are necessarily very focused and self-contained, but they are clearly bothered by their inevitable brushes with evolution.

When they give their oral presentations at the end of the Summer, they invariably put "GOD" (all caps) first on their acknowledgement slide, before any (living, demonstrably real) mentors or hosts. It's more than a little bit sad.

Posted by: Valis | February 4, 2009 12:54 PM

Hey Garfunkel, where's Simon? Do you maybe think there's a reason why he's always been more popular than you?

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 12:55 PM

Matt Heath: "More blatant assertion that denying that things like free-will and subjectivity are transcendent and outside of physics is the same as denying they exist. Nearly every religious poster on Pharyngula brings this same shit."

In his 1998 Darwin Day address, Darwinist William Provine
(Cornell), an ardent atheist, aptly observed:

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.

1) no gods worth having exist;

2) no life after death exists;

3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;

4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and

5) human free will is nonexistent."

If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will? As wholly material beings, what is the source of their rationality and their desire to know truth?

Posted by: Dan Jensen | February 4, 2009 12:57 PM

This video is just sad. Ignorance heaped upon ignorance. Cosmology, biology, and theology all thrown into a food processor. Please tell me this video is the exception and not the rule.

Posted by: strangest brew | February 4, 2009 1:01 PM

193*

Interesting points...where did you find these damning 'facts'
about this goldilocks scenario?

Cos methinks they sold you a pup in a basket and not the pie!

Posted by: Janine, Queen of Assholes | February 4, 2009 1:03 PM

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009

I use "Darwinism" to refer to "the scientific theory of evolution," but I think the chief props of the theory are philosophical, not scientific.

Your Inner Fish. Largely a work of philosophy. The recent announcement of Maiacetus inuus, a philosophical work. The documentaries of David Attenborough, a series of talking heads waxing philosophical about Darwinism.

Garfunkel, you are insulting.

Posted by: NNYSkeptic | February 4, 2009 1:07 PM

She is cute, tho. :-)

Posted by: Christopher Balambao | February 4, 2009 1:08 PM

I found that last bit ironic.

Posted by: Dan Jensen | February 4, 2009 1:15 PM

Garfunkel writes: "If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will?"

Ask Spinoza. They share one free will: the will of God, to put it in theistic--or pantheistic--terms. Freedom is possible; you just have to give up all the bullshite about individual freedom. That's not such a loss when you realize that each of us is a unique expression of that "divine" will.

Besides, "atoms are not things" anyway, so relax. Natural selection doesn't have to be strictly physicalist to be the beautiful science that it is. Just because one atheist suggests that Darwin annihilated all that is transcendent doesn't mean that he's right, or that he speaks for all atheists (non-theists).

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 1:18 PM

Ken Cope,

Get off your ass and do something about the problem that you make worse with all your quacking here about theist/scientist compatitiblity on a forum that you claim (with biohazard levels of stupidity) nobody will listen to.

I do, jackass. I talk to groups believers all the time about why they do not have to be anti-science. Even in my university my students know that I am a believer and a scientist, and this opens up many chances for discussion. What do you do, beyond sitting your ass down on this blog and backslapping your fellow Pharyngulites? Are you even a scientist? Do you know anything about science? Anything?

Posted by: Caymen Paolo Diceda | February 4, 2009 1:22 PM

This is an endless debate with these creationists/IDers that will likely never convince anyone in these forums to switch their ideas. Sometimes it's fun, other times it's just tedious. Anyone who takes the time to spout drivel like the above video is probably beyond the reach of critical thought. It is surely fun to tweak them, but that gets old after a while.

Probably more important is to speak/write to the greater numbers out there who don't think about this daily in forums where the sides have not already been drawn. I suspect that most of the time, our outrage expressed in this forum at stupidities like the above is preaching to the choir ... although I do periodically see postings like Garfunkel's.

I used to be much more "live and let live - they can think what they want, so long as they don't bother me," but there is more at stake now. Creationist/ID weak thinking is a proxy for general weak understanding of science and technology and leads to cop-outs in solving hard problems (uhh - I don't understand so it must be god who did it). It will be the death of us in competition with China and India.

Creationists/IDers can think what they want so long as they keep it to themselves and don't muck up important problems in society like stem cell research, family planning, gay rights, etc. They cannot be allowed to screw up the critical thinking skills of our kids through perversion of academic standards. We'll never convince them, but we have to fight them on substantive matters that screw up society, until they die out ... which will likely be generations.

Posted by: JSug | February 4, 2009 1:29 PM

Couldn't get through it. I gave up after she said something about how Darwin was an ex-Christian looking for a way to justify his life, so he created evolution.

Posted by: SteveM | February 4, 2009 1:29 PM

If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will?

Isn't there a similar problem with an omniscient god? If god knows what will happen thoughout all space and time, how can there be free will?

As wholly material beings, what is the source of their rationality and their desire to know truth?

"emergent phenomena", look it up.

Posted by: MartinH | February 4, 2009 1:46 PM

Garfunkel at #193 and elsewhere

Please provide a reference for your claim that it has been demonstrated that the initial expansion of the universe had to be precisely set to 1 part in 10^55. Absent some mathematical mapping which compresses a physically realistic range of the variable into a tiny part of the number line, I assert that our scientific knowledge is inadequate to make statements about the universe to that precision, or anything remotely close to it.

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 1:50 PM

siddharth

Specifically, how is a belief in a resurrected human being, or a virgin birth, compatible with modern science? How does one excuse such beliefs as being "outside science" when they make claims about the universe which directly contradict scientific knowledge?

Fair question, and one that seems to be asked honestly. (Aside: Do you know where you are?) When you mention something like the virgin birth, you are correct that it is incompatible with science. It is supernatural. But nobody makes the claim that the supernatural is compatible with science. That would be absurd. By its very definition it is not. The claim is about religion and science. Or, in terms of the supernatural, the actual argument is not over the compatibility of the supernatural with science, both sides agreeing that there is none, but rather a belief in the supernatural and science. Is a belief in the supernatural compatible with science?

And since all theists (and even deists) believe in the supernatural at some level, the question is equivalent to whether or not theism is compatible with science.

Ken Cope,

I expect progress reports, heddle

Can’t do that Ken, it is a struggle to find words small enough that I am sure you’ll be able to understand.

Posted by: MartinH | February 4, 2009 1:57 PM

Heddle at #237

You may not accept the story of the virgin birth, but perhaps you can clear something up for me.

Is there any basis on which someone should accept the claim of virgin birth for Jesus? Even if the gospels are historical documents, what evidence could have been presented to someone who associated with Jesus only as an adult that his mother was virgin when he was born? What evidence could have been produced at his birth? Or before?

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 4, 2009 2:03 PM

Can’t do that Ken, it is a struggle to find words small enough that I am sure you’ll be able to understand.

Why not let Patricia or Janine or SC know how your little project is coming along, heddle, they can explain it to me in terms even I can follow. I hope you achieve more success convincing theists that there's merit to science than you have on pharyngula convincing us that we're all wrong.

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 2:05 PM

MartinH,

Is there any basis on which someone should accept the claim of virgin birth for Jesus? Even if the gospels are historical documents, what evidence could have been presented to someone who associated with Jesus only as an adult that his mother was virgin when he was born? What evidence could have been produced at his birth? Or before?

None that I know of. After all, virgin births are not impossible. But the claim is that Mary’s pregnancy was not the result of some unlikely set of circumstances or a medical procedure, but a supernatural intervention. Perhaps a strong case could have been made by examining Jesus’ Y chromosome.

Posted by: Janine, Queen of Assholes | February 4, 2009 2:09 PM

Ken Cope, some one would have to relay heddle's words to me. I killfiled him long ago. I was not able to follow his simple words.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 4, 2009 2:11 PM

Any Calvinist knows that.

No, any Calvinist thinks they know that, which is among the reasons you're such a tedious fuckwit and laughingstock around here.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 2:13 PM

Janine: "Garfunkel, you are insulting."

And you're not? In my short time here, I've learned that hurling insults must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula.

Posted by: Janine, Queen of Assholes | February 4, 2009 2:17 PM

And you're not? In my short time here, I've learned that hurling insults must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula.

Says the man who compares thoughts to bile and claims that evolution is more philosophical than evidence based.

Sorry, you are arguing from bad premises and will get insulted for it.

Posted by: Tulse | February 4, 2009 2:19 PM

heddle:

True enough. Methodological naturalism rejects supernatural explanations as a proper method of methodological naturalism. So when I invoke the supernatural to explain experimental data, then you will have a point.

The point, which I thought I made clear, is that all religions demand rejection of methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, and thus are antithetical to science in that sense. Once again you have dodged this point.

Posted by: MartinH | February 4, 2009 2:23 PM

Heddle at #243

It seems to me that science, with its methodological naturalism, would readily respond to the existence of the story of the virgin birth by recognizing:

1. That there could be no practical evidence for such a claim available to people with the science of the day
2. That therefore such a claim must be hearsay at best
3. That it is not uncommon for people to lie and/or err

Given these, the simplest explanation, thoroughly and easily compatible with methodological naturalism, is that this supposed virgin birth did not occur. Unlike the other supposed miracles, this one could have no eye witnesses except, perhaps, Mary.

Of course, there are similarly strong reasons for rejecting the entire story of Jesus as mythical.

Given this, surely those who believe in Christianity have abandoned science, and the scientific method. Is this not, at least in this instance, a pretty clear incompatibility between science and religion?

Posted by: J.D. | February 4, 2009 2:24 PM

Garfunkel said:

"Richard Dawkins has suggested that religion is tantamount to a computer virus that infects the brain. But what about Dawkins's own beliefs? On his own terms, his commitment to Darwinian evolution must also result from infection by a mental virus. Why should he suppose that his mental infection results in valid thoughts, while other mental infections don't?"

Well you see Garf that is where the whole scientific method comes in with testable predictions to let the universe tell use when our memes our wrong. Something completely foreign to the cocksure ignorance of your memes.

Garfunkel also regurgitated:

If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will?

Do you think your deity has absolute knowledge of your destiny?

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 2:27 PM

Tulse,

I have not dodged that point, such as it is. It is certainly true if not “duh” quality obvious that, say, Christianity rejects methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, such as the resurrection. Why is stating the obvious so important to you? What it does not do, except in the hands of the likes of the DI, is reject MN as the means for studying any physical phenomena that we might encounter. Ever. Anywhere. Nothing is excluded. Use science to attempt to explain all data ever encountered in the field or in the lab or in the observatory. Never invoke a miracle to explain anything you are examining. Christianity is compatible with that, and hence with science.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 4, 2009 2:37 PM

Christianity rejects methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, such as the resurrection.

Begging the question that resurrection could ever be a physical phenomenon, but that isn't the punchline:

Never invoke a miracle to explain anything you are examining. Christianity is compatible with that, and hence with science.

Just because you use the word "hence" and tack it on where the conclusion would go in a valid deductive argument doesn't mean that it's what would have to be true with the premises you offered. That is some criminally tortured logic, but otherwise just more comedy gold from heddle.

Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 4, 2009 2:44 PM

Tulse: ...all religions demand rejection of methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena.
No. There's variation and popular "vulgarization" contaminants but AFAIK neither Buddhism nor Taoism (harder to define) makes any such demands. Neither in principle does Hinduism at the same high level, unless we take the creation of the universe itself to be the phenomenon. Certainly not anything else.

Posted by: MartinH | February 4, 2009 2:52 PM

Garfunkel

I've been waiting for an hour for the reference that I requested at #239 to your claim about the required precision of the initial expansion of the universe. In the meantime you have made several other postings.

I suggest you withdraw your claim until you can support it with evidence that can be evaluated.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 3:02 PM

Garfunkel: "In my short time here, I've learned that hurling insults must be the primary purpose of Pharyngula."

Janine: "Says the man who compares thoughts to bile and claims that evolution is more philosophical than evidence based."

Well, if you see those remarks as insults, then I guess I've managed to fit right in.

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 3:06 PM

BdN,

In humans ? I'd really like to see that...

I don't know if you can see it. But go read up on in vitro fertilization. Then imagine, say, a single woman using that method with donor sperm. Then imagine it was successful. Finally, consider the possibility that she was a virgin.

Posted by: MartinH | February 4, 2009 3:08 PM

Heddle at #264

I surmise that for you at this time, it is reasonable to say that Christianity is externally a collection of documents and of cultural practices and internally of feelings and experiences (I assume you are Christian). These are your experimental data, as it were, although we are dealing with historical science, but I think that is only a detail.

This is what you are examining, and it has a perfectly reasonable explanation within the context of MN.
There is no need to invoke anything supernatural to explain what you find around you and within you in Christianity. By your own lights, to be true to science, you should not invoke the supernatural to explain what you are examining.

However, to be religious in this context, you need to invoke the supernatural. To do so, you must disavow the explanations arrived at by MN, and thus demonstrate the incompatibility of the two.

Posted by: JJR | February 4, 2009 3:09 PM

"There are cases of women who become pregnant without intercourse. Artificial insemination, medically provided or accidental. Is that making shit up?"

No, but this is...

(Mock surprise) So Mary was artificially inseminated by Space Aliens!! Finally it makes sense!

...and is way more "sciency" than the biblical account.

/smartass]

Posted by: Timcol | February 4, 2009 3:12 PM

I managed only to listen to 3 minutes of this.

I think what it illustrates more than anything is that any old body can stand up in a church and say complete rubbish, and nobody for a moment questions what they are saying. In this case she happens to be talking about evolution, but the principle goes for just about everything else (including theology).

How many people in the audience thought to themselves as they listend to her - well that's interesting about lack of transitional forms, but I'm not sure she's right so I'll go research this myself when I get home (because of course she's utterly and blatantly wrong). How many do you think? I would predict zero.

As an ex-Christian, I've seen it first-hand myself (and believe a ton of ridiculous nonsense as a result). This is the real danger of fundamentalism and how it effectively chocks off our critical thinking processes.

Posted by: Stewy.cvl | February 4, 2009 3:14 PM

OMG I could predict almost everything she was going to say! Nothing new here... there's bad creationism, and then there's this.... regurgitated creationist vomit

Posted by: Tulse | February 4, 2009 3:14 PM

heddle:

Christianity rejects methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, such as the resurrection.

and

Never invoke a miracle to explain anything you are examining. Christianity is compatible with that

Aren't these two passages essentially contradictory?

there is no incompatibility until such time that I invoke a miracle to explain the results of an experiment

Not just "experiment", but any phenomenon, such as the Resurrection or parting of the Red Sea. In other words, this position immediately rules large swathes of religious beliefs out of bounds to science. That's why religion is inimical to science.

There are cases of women who become pregnant without intercourse. Artificial insemination, medically provided or accidental. Is that making shit up?

Are you suggesting that there were techniques for doing artificial insemination 2000 years ago in the Middle East? And if Mary became pregnant through physical artificial insemination, why is his birth supposed to be miraculous?

Neil B:

There's variation and popular "vulgarization" contaminants but AFAIK neither Buddhism nor Taoism (harder to define) makes any such demands.

I would argue that to the extent one excludes the "vulgarizations" of superstitious practice, these belief systems aren't really religions -- certainly that is the view my Buddhist spouse would strongly defend. And frankly, the exclusion of "vulgarizations" seems to be a rather Western phenomenon, and results in something that looks very different from the historical and current practice of most adherents.

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 4, 2009 3:22 PM

...Finally, consider the possibility that she was a virgin.

Allow me to clarify. Are you positing an entirely natural explnation of "virgin" births? Then why invoke anythig non-natural in one case?

Posted by: Troy Britain | February 4, 2009 3:24 PM

How about this?

"Ignorrogance" - the espousal of ignorant nonsense combined with an arrogant air of authority.

Anyone doing this would be considered "Ignorrogant".

Posted by: One Eyed Jack | February 4, 2009 3:25 PM

#9 Sigmund - "Unfortunately the English language actually needs a new term to describe the attitude of complete ignorance combined with that arrogant air of authority on show here."

Religiot.

Posted by: CJO | February 4, 2009 3:27 PM

Heddle's working from a little-known alternative reading of Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman virgin shall conceive commit an unnatural act with a turkey baster, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el"

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 4, 2009 3:31 PM

It is certainly true if not “duh” quality obvious that, say, Christianity rejects methodological naturalism for some physical phenomena, such as the resurrection. Why is stating the obvious so important to you?

Um, because that's the ENTIRE FUCKING ISSUE AT HAND?

Posted by: BdN | February 4, 2009 3:33 PM

Sven, just out of curiosity (I don't have any reason to doubt what you're saying) but could you provide a ref for the Mesopotamian turkey juice holders ?

Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 4, 2009 3:39 PM

Tulse, I would say Buddhism even w/o supernaturalism is a "real religion", but does you spouse consider it so? Yes, the gradation of religions into circles of outer/inner "vulgar"/savvy insider etc. makes characterizing them difficult, but it is a real force (e.g. the realistic beliefs of many liberal "Christians" etc. including or especially their clergy, versus the official fundamentals.)

Again though, I find it sad that we again see "science" as the basic investigatory activity facing off against "religion" the passed-down superstition, with little regard for third-way, cutting edge philosophical musings about anthropic fine tuning etc. as from Paul Davies. I'll spare you repetitions of my own take which is similar to his (or was), just mentioning the principle of the thing. BTW note that there are already quasi-scientific realms of study like history, which involve e.g. making judgment calls about whether to believe what someone wrote in a diary (and often not provable/disprovable claims, either - but most of us feel OK deciding whether to be convinced it's likely true, etc.)

Also, it seems silly to me that it could be OK to find the "beauty" or symmetry of laws etc. something reverential; it can be reasonable (if superstitious and unprovable) to believe in detailed features of God/s and their interaction and purposes in the World, but something in between like believing in a primordial purpose or meaning is "empty Deism" and the like dismissal.

Posted by: AnthonyK | February 4, 2009 3:49 PM

Oh, I see. That's cleared that up then. But....oh never mind...

Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 4, 2009 3:51 PM

To clarify: Some think it is warranted and worthy to have reverential ideas towards the basic beauty and laws of the universe, others think it actually is reasonable/credible to believe in "detailed features of God/s and their interaction and purposes in the World." The former group doesn't agree that such is "reasonable", with good cause I accept; but both seem to gang up on the middle way and put it down as "empty Deism" etc.

IOW, the nonreligious mostly seem to accept the religious folks' framing of the issue of what should matter and have meaning or not. The nonreligious just don't believe in the being/realm that would have those implications. But I'm asking, don't assume that what religious people are most wrong about is whether or not God exists - maybe their idea of what matters about it is their biggest error.

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 3:53 PM

SC, FCTE, OM

And now I have to go teach Electricity and Magnetism. (You know, And God said: let there be light!) Feel free to interpret my absence as having run away.

Posted by: Garfunkel | February 4, 2009 3:54 PM

Janine: "Your ignoring of physical evidence in favor of your unhinged philosophical flights of fancy leaves you open to mocking. Deal with it."

Janine, you ignorant slut. Not being persuaded by the evidence is not the same as ignoring the evidence. You're apparently as stupid as you are ignorant (how am I doing?). I suspect that I'm as familiar with the evidence for evolutionary theory as you are. The difference is that you find it persuasive, and I don't. If you weren't such a fuckwit (I think I'm getting the hang of it), you'd know that, you moronic sack of shit (yeah, that's it - can I have a gold star, PZ?).

Posted by: SteveM | February 4, 2009 3:56 PM

So, in the meanwhile, where did they wait ?

Hell. That's what Jesus was doing between death and resurrection, scouring hell for all the souls who could now go to heaven.

Dante puts them in Limbo, but I hear that Limbo has been retconned.

Posted by: Janine, Queen of Assholes | February 4, 2009 3:58 PM

Patricia! SC! A fuckwit just called me an ignorant slut! I win the thread!

Posted by: BdN | February 4, 2009 4:04 PM

heddle

BdN

So you can have a kid while being sodomized and still be a virgin. That's kind of a twisted religion/worldview/pseudo-philisophical stance

I didn't see it at first but, yes, you are a moron. But congratulations, you are a fine representative of Pharyngula commenters.

Well thank you!

In case it wasn't clear, what I meant was not that anal intercourse and the virgin birth were in themselves related. My comment was about the fact that in both cases, anal intercourse and artificial insemination, it supposedly preserves the virginity of the participant. That was the idead behind my dumb comment. Sorry if it sounds that stupid. I should see how these are two inherently different ways of thinking.

I just still don't see how artificial insemination qualifies as "virgin birth". The only way it does is if the concept of virginity only applies to vaginal intercourse. That was my point.

Posted by: BdN | February 4, 2009 4:09 PM

Quand on fait son lit...

Et ça colle drolement au sujet!

Posted by: Steve_C | February 4, 2009 4:10 PM

HAHAHA. Gar-funkless has got to be a joke. No one is that stupid.

Posted by: MartinM | February 4, 2009 4:13 PM

I suspect that I'm as familiar with the evidence for evolutionary theory as you are.

If your grasp of cosmology is any indication, I highly doubt it.

Posted by: CrypticLife | February 4, 2009 4:17 PM

Are you suggesting that there were techniques for doing artificial insemination 2000 years ago in the Middle East?

I love coming up with completely bizarre explanations for supposed miracles that allegedly occurred, having theists complain, and then pointing out how much better it fits in with our knowledge of the world than a deity.

It annoys them and does little to convince them, I think, but it's so much fun.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | February 4, 2009 4:19 PM

It's always good for a laugh when Heddle stops by and tries to show that one can be a scientist and believe in god at the same time. Nobody says it's impossible, just not easy for most people. And his dodges and evasions show the cognative dissonance and compartmentalization required for this to happen. He fools nobody, and convinces nobody. He is just wasting both our times.

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 4, 2009 4:27 PM

Patricia! SC! A fuckwit just called me an ignorant slut! I win the thread!

OK, sure, based on tradition, but heddle called me a lying sack O' shit, and he's a bigtime physics professor (we are none of us Doctors).

Where's Brenda, anyway?

Posted by: tony | February 4, 2009 4:34 PM

Sorry all, but work still has to get done, so this is a little late:

Heddle. Way back around the 200's you made a statement during some conversation about the virgin birth...

But nobody makes the claim that the supernatural is compatible with science. That would be absurd. By its very definition it is not. The claim is about religion and science

What I need your help to understand, then, is this:

If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics.

In other words - what the fuck are you talking about?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | February 4, 2009 4:45 PM

Neil B, you are entitled to your opinion, which I do not share. But, given your track record, I'm not going to get into an argument with you on it.

Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | February 4, 2009 4:53 PM

Whew is that a tough roe to hoe for some people

Posted by: Sastra | February 4, 2009 5:01 PM

tony #321 wrote:

If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics.

I think this is a good question, and I also think it first requires a definition of "supernatural" with some weight to it.

By that I mean, saying the supernatural is "that which is outside of nature" or "that which is beyond science's ability to examine" is too simple, or easy, or empty.

I do not "believe in" methodological naturalism. I think the term is silly, because there's nothing in the methods of science which, up front, rule out supernatural explanations. Scientists look for the best explanations, and don't stipulate whether these explanations have to be natural, or supernatural, before they begin looking.

There are all sorts of fairy tales and science fiction stories which give us possible worlds where the supernatural is real, observable, and testable by science. And in this world, theologians, paranormalists, and religious scientists are always trying to come up with scientific support for the existence of God -- or "mind forces."

The existence of the supernatural is compatible with the methods of science. It just doesn't seem to fit in with any of the current working theories.

Posted by: Petursey | February 4, 2009 5:12 PM

But I'd love an

EX-Believer
EX-God Botherer
EX-Rug Butter
EX-Catholic
EX-Protestant/Muslim/Buddist/Jew/etc etc etc etc

T-shirt !!! Shall we start selling them somewhere ???

Posted by: roger scott | February 4, 2009 5:14 PM

She was wearing a shirt labelled 'EX-atheist'. Is this a case of devolution? Or was she really ever an atheist? She is so screwed up mentally that I really doubt it.

Posted by: Kevin Schreck | February 4, 2009 5:16 PM

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Posted by: CJO | February 4, 2009 5:28 PM

Don't criticize it unless you know what it's saying.

Fuck you, Neil. I know perfectly well what it (by which you mean Chalmers) is saying, and I disagree that property dualism rescues anything important or interesting or in need of explaining from the materialist defeat of substance dualism. It's just mysterianism, to wit:

To be the system itself is just not the same as looking at interactions with it.

No fucking duh, genius. Now apply the same reasoning to any other scientific explanation. When do we ever get to "be the system" that we are studying? You are the one who doesn't understand what he's criticizing, you fucking waste of glucose.

Posted by: b. j. edwards | February 4, 2009 5:54 PM

The Evolution Denial Movement is just as blinkered as the 9/11 Denial Movement.

PZ is right. It should be "open season on fresh meat." We should all handle them just as Christopher Hitchins handled this 9/11 Denier, starting at 1:50 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veekHo8krOM

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 4, 2009 6:03 PM

OK, in light of recent events, let me correct my #330:

(By the way, Bill Dauphin, you're making me consider not emailing anyone from here ever again. Harumph.)

:)

Posted by: Inky | February 4, 2009 6:14 PM

*sigh* Okay. I tried to have this in the background while proofing a paper (to submit to a scientific journal)--I could not even subconsciously listen for two minutes. To have a voice triumphantly declaring that evolution does nothing for science while I'm reading a paper about a protein in both humans and mice that contributes to skin tumorigenesis in both species--it was too much. The cognitive disjoint was so severe that my auditory networks have separated from the rest of my brain.

Thanks, PZ.

Posted by: aratina | February 4, 2009 6:21 PM

Like tony said,

supernatural is by definition incompatible with science

Posted by: CJO | February 4, 2009 6:29 PM

Demonstrably philosophically illiterate, because I can recognize that, in your mouth, the term "naive realist" is a straw man term of abuse reserved for materialists who aren't impressed by your douchebaggery? Tell another one, lackwit.

Stupid, just like windy, eh? You really know your put-downs. Hell, you should aspire to be twice as stupid as windy; it's hopeless, but even asshats need to dream. If I didn't answer all of your inanity on the other thread, it's because you're a complete waste of time. SIWOTI syndrome resisted, at least that once.

Posted by: Sastra | February 4, 2009 6:39 PM

Owlmirror #336 wrote:

"In other (shorter) words, if we can study it scientifically, it isn't supernatural."
I agree with this. It's the core of monism, I think: "supernatural" is meaningless. If some phenomenon can be empirically analyzed and systemically categorized, then knowledge of that phenomenon is science — even if all of the underlying mechanisms of the phenomenon are not known.

No, I think the core of (materialist) monism is that the supernatural doesn't exist (or, from the other end, that the material world is made out of consciousness, and thus only the "supernatural" exists.)

The reason supernatural causes are kept out of science isn't just because they're often too vague to mean anything other than "we don't know." It's also because those supernatural hypotheses which are not just garbled metaphors for ignorance are wrong.

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 4, 2009 6:43 PM

I believe that in the past couple of weeks Neil B. has called windy, CJO, truth machine, Ken Cope, thalarctos, and KnockGoats stupid and/or ignorant. That should tell anyone who reads this blog regularly all that they need to know about Neil B.

Posted by: heddle | February 4, 2009 6:55 PM

SC, FCTE, OM,

Anyone can read that thread, in particular the comments I referenced, and understand what our conversation was about (including, but not limited to, that one issue). They can also read this one. You can pretend that people can't read, but that doesn't make it so.

Yes they can, and can see that there was no running away. And the last post you referenced from the previous thread is too long. It looks like a post from the GEM of TKI guy on UD. And please remember that I try to answer all substantive questions. Not all of your questions meet that threshold. Let's try something different, just give me one question that you claim I have avoided or Sir-Robbined. I'll answer that, then if you want to ask another you can.

Yes anyone can read that thread and see that I did not run away. Not that I would expect them to say so, because honesty is not exactly a hallmark of many of the commenters here. Instead what I would expect is mindless "Family Feud" style good answer SC, good answer! backslaps, such as from the drone known as...

Nerd of the Redhead,

And his dodges and evasions show the cognative dissonance and compartmentalization required for this to happen

And your stupidity speaks for itself. I don't believe you are, as you claim, a scientist. At least I hope not, for I never read one who is so incapable of constructing a self-consistent argument. Now please go look up the definition of cognitive dissonance. And please tell me how you test for compartmentalization.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 4, 2009 7:01 PM

No, I think the core of (materialist) monism is that the supernatural doesn't exist

Hm. That's not exactly how I'm using it though, so perhaps my usage is idiosyncratic.

If there is something, however ill-defined (and I think accurate definition is a crucial part of science in general, although not the entirety of science), that interacts with that which we can perceive, no matter how intermittently or weakly, that "something" is part of nature — and is part of the theoretically knowable. That is, it is natural, and accessible to science.

If some hypothetical something is defined as never ever interacting with that which we can perceive, that "something" might well be called "supernatural", but as such, it is utterly vacuous in meaning, and parsimony demands that we ignore it, if not reject it utterly. From (my) monistic point of view, if we absolutely cannot ever perceive it, or anything connected to it, it's not part of the natural universe, but it's also not anything that anyone can claim has anything to do with anything our universe, by their own definition. Or in other words, it might as well not exist.

I think that's how I would put it, for now. I may modify it if someone finds a problem with it.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 4, 2009 7:12 PM

That should tell anyone who reads this blog regularly all that they need to know about Neil B.

In the old thread from January of 2008, I thought he was thought-provoking, at least. But I am now convinced that the various philosophers invoked in that thread are more likely to argue their positions more clearly in their own words, so if I wish to go further, I will investigate them directly.

Neil B. hasn't become any more coherent since then, so I find no point in trying to hunt through his typical word salad for a crouton of intellectual worth.

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 4, 2009 7:26 PM

And the last post you referenced from the previous thread is too long.

WTF?

It looks like a post from the GEM of TKI guy on UD.

'Kaaaaay. And that relates to anything how?

And please remember that I try to answer all substantive questions. Not all of your questions meet that threshold.

Run, heddle, run!

Let's try something different, just give me one question that you claim I have avoided or Sir-Robbined. I'll answer that, then if you want to ask another you can.

Let's try this: You answer the questions or arguments that have been put to you in response to your accusations, or you go away and stop showing up here making the same stupid fucking arguments over and over again. You can begin with 1) the one I asked above on this thread about the balkanization of epistemology (when I asked if you would respond, your curt answer was "No," followed by a snide remark - of course no one could interpret that as evasion...); 2) since you acknowledge that fundamental principles can be in conflict even if individuals can in practice through various devices avoid the consequences of said conflict (as in my hypothetical example), why won't you acknowledge that this is possible in the case of religion and science?; and 3) since you've requested "experimental" proof of the conflict between religion and science while, albeit bizarrely, defining an "experiment" as any systematic empirical observation bearing upon hypotheses, why do you reject existing historical or sociological evidence of this conflict, insisting that only your "experiment"* qualifies?

*Which is ludicrous for a number of reasons. I've noted some but would be happy to describe them in more detail at your request.

Thank you in advance.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 4, 2009 7:31 PM

SC, FCTE, OM, to Heddle

"Anyone can read that thread, in particular the comments I referenced, and understand what our conversation was about (including, but not limited to, that one issue). They can also read this one. You can pretend that people can't read, but that doesn't make it so."

Heddle said "Yes they can, and can see that there was no running away...I try to answer all substantive questions. Not all of your questions meet that threshold. Let's try something different, just give me one question that you claim I have avoided or Sir-Robbined. I'll answer that, then if you want to ask another you can."

You're running away is obvious and your claim that you haven't answered questions becaus they aren't "substantive" is just a cheap excuse. To an objective observer its clear you avoid answering many questions and/or make fun of them because if you followed them one by one and answered them honestly and fully it would lead to a refutation of your non-sequitors and baseless assertions.

For example, on this thread you ran away from a blatant contradiction you made:

Tony said "Heddle. Way back around the 200's you made a statement during some conversation about the virgin birth...

You (Heddle) said "But nobody makes the claim that the supernatural is compatible with science. That would be absurd. By its very definition it is not. The claim is about religion and science."

What I need your help to understand, then, is this:

If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics?".

Posted by: Chris Tucker | February 4, 2009 7:38 PM

Thanks a lot, Myers!

Now I've got stupid ALL OVER me.

Posted by: Arikia Millikan | February 4, 2009 7:43 PM

PZ, I know we don't talk much, but I want to say that I really, really love your blog.

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 4, 2009 7:44 PM

I'm glad people here are willing to call Heddle on his shit. As a newcomer, I'd see him spouting off over at Ed's place and everyone handled him with kid gloves, as if he were some sort of revered Elder Statesman. I was forced to conclude that I must be missing something, but I guess I wasn't.

This whole "chanting like Hare Krishnas", though, that slays me! Chanting about Krishna (the anointed one) is just mindless repetition, because it's not, well...Greek. Khristos, now, chanting about him isn't mindless. (Same meaning, same root, but totally different.)

Moran.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 4, 2009 7:58 PM

Garfunkle asked "If human beings are simply the bundles of molecules in motion that Darwinism makes of them, how could they have free will?"

As Brian Coughlan suggested to you, yes we are simply bundles of molecules in motion and although we technically don't have free will the huge bundle of influences on our our decision making processes for all intents and purposes give us a damn good illusion of free will".

Garfunkel asked "As wholly material beings, what is the source of their rationality and their desire to know truth?"

Intelligence is the ability to store, retrieve, and manipulate information in order to achieve goals. Our brains have the ability to store a model of the world and to play out scenarios in 3-D space and time. This model is constructed out of our sensory inputs and ultimately comes down to neurochemical model of many of our experiences and how we've observed the world to work. Rationality is a function of the nature of the world and our ability to store a model of it in our brains allowing us to know how things interact in the world. The development of specific patterns of interconnections in our brains during fetal development force certain patterns of thoughts to occur at certain times in our minds to cause us to respond to things like hunger, pain, and pleasure signals with actions that cause us to reinforce or counter those signals such as the accumulation of knowledge used to create physical states that produce patterns in our brain the structure identifies as success. The desire to know truth beyond a meeting of our primal needs is a side effect of the survival necessity of knowing what is and what isn't an accurate representation of reality.

Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 4, 2009 8:11 PM

He/she is hardly worth the trouble, but CJO is a lying skunk trying to avoid admitting being a dumbfuck about "naive realist": It's an artless term of abuse that describes no one's actual views - that's nothing to support any pretense it was just about my use of it, and of course the term does describe very specific and long-windedly argued views as I noted. (And no one acknowledged, you can be dumb about X and not Y so their accomplishments in other fields proves nothing.)

Yes Owlmirror do read those original thinkers, but they have exactly the same thing to say about perception being qualitative and not describable by informational terms, etc. on down the line. Furthermore, they use many of the nearly word for word expressions and examples I use to make the point, I know because I have read them. And they are attacked with the very same types of arguments used against me here, and so on. Can you accept that much of the reason, at least, for someone like me thrashing around with "salads" is the obtuse hostility and misunderstanding of those who hate an idea for what it is driving at and are first to throw childish boogers? Consider the venue, OK? We're not even talking about disproven things like a young earth, but the nature of "experience" and e.g. known features of mathematics such as its deterministic nature. How can I sound anything close to like a decent professor with "students" or "colleagues" like that?

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 4, 2009 8:33 PM

If science finds God, I would rather say that this means that we metaphysical naturalists were wrong and the supernatural exists after all. I think it would be silly to say that no, we're right -- naturalism is still true. It's just that God is now natural.

Naw, that would be a word game.

But word games are the crux of the matter.

Science is about finding the best and most accurate definitions for words for things in the natural world through empirical verification — and acknowledging when the definition is necessarily fuzzy, but still within the boundaries of the more accurate definition.

Religion, and politics, and other fields, are all about using words in whatever manner is convenient for the speaker at the time. Consider how creationists mangle the concept of "evolution", for example. "God" is one of the most flexible words there is, and can mean almost anything and everything ("God is love", to offer an obvious example).

If science could and did find evidence for God, giving the word a definite and specific meaning, I bet one of the first things that the religious and political would do is say "That's not God! We mean something even more completely ineffable than that, when we say 'God'."

When the other side is playing word games to begin with, why not play right back, and play to win?

As I see it, metaphysical naturalism is a working theory -- it's not a prior commitment. Science supports it -- so far. But, like all theories, it can be overturned, given new evidence.

Hm. The Wikipedia article for metaphysical naturalism has an interesting codicil:

This particular definition rests in an ambiguity caused by the use of the term "supernatural" by Richard Carrier and other apologists for naturalism whereby this word indicates non-materially reducible entities (spiritual substances) rather than the traditional meaning (where a spiritual substance, if created, is encompassed within the natural world, though being a spiritual or immaterial substance).

Posted by: Facile Princeps | February 4, 2009 8:59 PM

Someone needs to send that girl a science textbook and a Greg Bahnsen lecture

Posted by: Sastra | February 4, 2009 9:05 PM

Owlmirror #371 wrote:

Science is about finding the best and most accurate definitions for words for things in the natural world through empirical verification — and acknowledging when the definition is necessarily fuzzy, but still within the boundaries of the more accurate definition.

Science is about finding the best explanations in reality, using methods that try to eliminate subjective error and bias as much as possible. If the supernatural exists -- or even exists as a working concept -- then it ought to be describable, and distinguishable from that which is not supernatural. That's what Richard Dawkins and PZ and other scientists are doing when they look at religion: they're trying to pin down a definition of the supernatural which is clear and reasonable enough to allow it to be examined in the light of modern science.

And that's why the religious are howling. When the definition of "God" or "supernatural" gets too specific and clear, it becomes falsifiable. Thus the need for word games, and the constant trips to the Land of the Bad Analogy, the Island of Category Error, and the Pit of Obfuscation and Handwaving.

the traditional meaning (of metaphysical naturalism)(where a spiritual substance, if created, is encompassed within the natural world, though being a spiritual or immaterial substance).

So the "traditional meaning" of metaphysical naturalism allows belief in spiritual substances? Huh?

That bothers me.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 4, 2009 9:07 PM

Heddle,

facilis and heddle in the same thread? This could get interesting.

Anyway, heddle, 'Moran' comes from what you'll see in this picture this picture - the irony is, as they say, delicious. I can't remember exactly who he was directing it towards, but it's from the US.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | February 4, 2009 9:09 PM

#35

"This is all October Mermaid's fault."

If I have to suffer, everyone will suffer!

But actually, I find it comforting knowing I'm not the only one gritting my teeth at this. Maybe our collective irritation can give her a migraine or something.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 4, 2009 9:12 PM

...and a Greg Bahnsen lecture

Bears, facilis! Big, hungry, child-eating bears are coming to eat you alive!

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 4, 2009 9:14 PM

facilis and heddle in the same thread? This could get interesting.

They've been in the same thread before. As I recall, they avoided each other.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 4, 2009 9:15 PM

Er, apologies for the link fail. Never underestimate the value of the preview option.

facilis wrote:

One question , if religon is bad for science ,how come the fairly religious United States produce so much more scientific output than any one of those godless European nations they love so much

A question, facilis. I doubt you'll stop at one.

Anyway, just think about how much more science the US would produce if science and scientists weren't badmouthed so often by idiots like the one in the video. There are probably people who would otherwise be great in science but don't go into certain fields because of their religion - e.g. if someone who could be a great doctor was born to Christian Scientist parents. And without religion scientists wouldn't be forbidden from doing stem-cell research because of retarded religious beliefs either.

Funding is also important, as was illustrated by anti-science idiot Sarah Palin and her contempt for research. There are plenty more people out there who are preventing science from getting the funding it needs.

Overall, I think US science could be doing better.

Posted by: heliobates | February 4, 2009 9:22 PM

@Facilis

Someone needs to send that girl a science textbook and a Greg Bahnsen lecture

Why not just point a gun at her head? Apparently, whatever she says, you'll still win the argument if you shoot her.

Posted by: tony | February 4, 2009 9:29 PM

Facilis asked (accidentally I think)

how come the fairly religious United States produce so much more scientific output than any one of those godless European nations they love so much

What are the stats 'per captita'? How much of the science in the US is driven by capitalism (such as 'big Pharma')? What is the source of funding? How much of the 'US' Science is actually 'GLOBAL' Science?

Like I've said many times - I'm NOT a scientist - so I'm not the person to ask for such information (other than anectodal that you can get from anywhere) - but I'm sure you'll find real answers among the folks on this blog - real scientists, doing real science.

The US is lucky to have some truly world class research centers - but they are becoming more 'results oriented' (if they were ever anything different). I've noticed a trend (certainly since I was in college) that researchers seems to be extremely closely tied to the grants process, and that grants too often come with stipulations (such as the Bush constrains on NIH funding for *anything* that might smack of stem cell therapies).

What seems to be missing is basic science for the sake of science. Business doesn't care about sciecne per se. It only cares about it's bottom line - the results. I wonder if this is truly making an impact of science - from the perspective of 'grassroots' scientists - of if this is only the incorrect perspective of an occasional observer.

Posted by: Sastra | February 4, 2009 9:36 PM

Facilis #376

One question , if religon is bad for science ,how come the fairly religious United States produce so much more scientific output than any one of those godless European nations they love so much

Assuming this is true (and it's not simply related to relative sizes or something), one possible explanation is the diversity and competition at the top levels. The US gets a lot of scientists from other countries coming in due to the reputation -- and the US has traditionally been known for its competitive nature.

Science is a social process, a competition among peers to see who can find something new that stands up to critical scrutiny, which oversets something revered and respected. That's one reason the religious mindset has trouble understanding it. They tend to frame it as a form of worship of the past -- look at how this girl in the video says that Darwin "founded evolution." They can believe in a vast conspiracy of close-minded scientists because they don't get that something new and different is gold to a scientist.

If there was anything to Intelligent Design, scientists would be crawling all over it like hungry jackals, trying to be the first to disprove key parts of the theory of evolution -- vying for funding for experiment and research. They wouldn't care if it "messes with their materialist world view." Discovery! Money! Fame! Sex! (well, eventually) Especially if you prove God! Forget the Templeton Foundation... you're going on Oprah! Where your mom sees you!

If a Christian demonstrates that Jesus Christ was wrong, and didn't know what he was talking about, he doesn't "advance" Christianity. He undermines it. If a scientist -- no, when scientists have shown that Charles Darwin got it wrong -- that advances science. It would be considered progress.

You can't have a hegemonic conspiracy of old fogies in that kind of group. They feed on blood and controversy. If they're ignoring Intelligent Design -- or ESP research -- or homeopathy -- or some other "groundbreaking" theory that's "too far out there" -- then there's something wrong. It's not "too far out there." There's no there, there.

Posted by: antaresrichard | February 4, 2009 9:38 PM

"the" framing of the brick wall...

Posted by: Kristine | February 4, 2009 9:57 PM

She lost me at "no evidence, no science, no methodology or anything..."

I turned this off. Life is too short.

P.S. If people want to "teach the controversy," there is a HUGE, REAL controversy, with real consequences (think of the Cheney e-mails) going on in archival science right now. Have you heard of it? No. Neither did I until recently.

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 4, 2009 10:14 PM

Hey lady,

We got us many a fossil, and we're not about to be docile!

Posted by: SmartLX | February 4, 2009 10:20 PM

On www.p4cm.com, the DEBATE COACH link at the top left leads to the DVD extra on debating skills from the Denzel Washington film The Great Debaters. I commented there to say this was likely breaching copyright as well as breaking a commandment, but I doubt it'll be published.

Anyone feel like letting MGM or Weinstein know where a cease-and-desist letter is needed?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 4, 2009 10:23 PM

Facilis the Fallacious Fool is still missing the point. Scientists are very intelligent. They also do not use god in their work. There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and belief in god. So it is not surprising that top scientists have little belief in god. Comparing other minority groups to scientists is like comparing apples and oranges.

Posted by: Nathan Jacobs | February 4, 2009 10:52 PM

You ruined my night. But I'm still an atheist so all is well.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 4, 2009 11:00 PM

what is that bonehead facilis still doing around?

It appears he's given up on the presup über-failure and is back to making silly claims based on dubiously obtained and misinterpreted statistics sans context.

Posted by: Kel | February 4, 2009 11:03 PM

It appears he's given up on the presup über-failure

Posted by: Craig | February 4, 2009 11:15 PM

"Nice Tee Shirt."

Nice bod, actually. Let's just put a bag over her brain.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | February 4, 2009 11:27 PM

@Kel
I haven't given up. I still am here unrefuted.
I think I should write some kind of book with a script because atheist responses here are getting too predictable it would go like

Chap 2
FACILIS' TRANSCENDENTAL PROOF
1) God is the necessary precondition for logic and reason. the existence of logic and reason proves God.
2)If the atheist calls your argument a fallacy (argument from ignorance, circular logic....etc) ask, "By what standard of logic and reason do you call it a fallacy?'
2)If atheist asks you to support premise 1 say "By the impossibility of the contrary".
3)If atheist accuses you of being dishonest say "Account for standard of morality by which you accuse me of immorality".Also Refer to argument from morality in Chap 4.
4)If atheist says anything else ask "Are you CERTAIN?" and "How do you KNOW this?". Then refer to argument from certainty in chapter 5.
5)Repeat steps 1-4 until atheist confesses God or concedes defeat or leaves.

Posted by: Kel | February 4, 2009 11:35 PM

I haven't given up. I still am here unrefuted.

2)If the atheist calls your argument a fallacy (argument from ignorance, circular logic....etc) ask, "By what standard of logic and reason do you call it a fallacy?'

Posted by: Satan | February 4, 2009 11:38 PM

SATAN'S TRANSCENDENTAL PROOF
1) Satan is the necessary precondition for logic and reason. the existence of logic and reason proves Satan.
2)If the Christian calls your argument a fallacy (argument from ignorance, circular logic....etc) ask, "By what standard of logic and reason do you call it a fallacy?'
2)If Christian asks you to support premise 1 say "By the impossibility of the contrary".
3)If Christian accuses you of being dishonest say "Account for standard of morality by which you accuse me of immorality".Also Refer to argument from morality in Chap 4.
4)If Christian says anything else ask "Are you CERTAIN?" and "How do you KNOW this?". Then refer to argument from certainty in chapter 5.
5)Repeat steps 1-4 until Christian confesses Satan or concedes defeat or leaves.

Posted by: God | February 4, 2009 11:41 PM

SATAN'S TRANSCENDENTAL PROOF

Well, I am convinced.

Hail Satan!

Posted by: Stanton | February 4, 2009 11:45 PM

The Christian godbot concedes that his argument rests on inane repetition, not logic or reason.

It was a joke man. Atheists are unable to account so you have to keep repeating until they do and realize that they should not deny that God is the source of all logic and reason. Then you've won the debate.

Is this because you can not demonstrate how God is the source of all logic and reason?

Posted by: Steve_C | February 4, 2009 11:46 PM

Someone please explain to me how facilis can't see that his circular arguments and assertions are completely devoid of reason.

It's like he's saying "the bible exist. The bible is the word of god therefor god exists."

And he thinks he's won. Pathetic.

Posted by: Stanton | February 4, 2009 11:52 PM

Christians are unable to account so you have to keep repeating until they do and realize that they should not deny that Satan is the source of all logic and reason.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 4, 2009 11:56 PM

I can't speak for anyone else, but I swear (by Bob) that I will accept facilis' argument - if and when he can justify why his proof cannot be used to prove any god - past, present or future - other than his own. Or, of course, why it can't be used to prove my own candidate: Sideshow Bob.

He hasn't managed so far. He just makes up rules about revelations that he can't justify. But every other time I've brought it up he's run away, which is almost as much fun.

Posted by: Sideshow Bob | February 5, 2009 12:07 AM

Actually, I am afraid that Satan has rather convinced me as well. Impeccable logic, don't you know.

Hail Satan!

Satan, I humbly beseech your aid in killing one naughty little brat, named Bartholomew Simpson.

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 5, 2009 12:14 AM

Facilis:

1) God is the necessary precondition for logic and reason. the existence of logic and reason proves God.

Millennia of experience in counting objects and measuring land led, through a process of abstraction, to the invention of mathematics. Centuries of experience doing mathematics led, through a similar process of abstraction, to the invention of logic.

This is what made Russell and Whitehead's effort to derive mathematics from logic such a back-asswards enterprise. Logic is not the ground of all being, it's the codified observation of how mathematics works, and mathematics is just the codified observation of how quantity works. So you're several layers of abstraction off from logic being the ground of everything and "God" being responsible for logic. Aristotle is responsible for (one form) of logic.

Thanks for playing though, your arguments are good for a laugh.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 12:21 AM

Oh, great. Sideshow Bob's come to life and joined up with Satan. This is what happens when you don't keep your deity on a short leash.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 5, 2009 12:37 AM

Yeah, I'm going to jump straight to 2). I'm a layman when it comes to logic, but it looks like you're begging the question this time.

Kahegi, I'm sorry, but that's been already pointed out to him.

Look at step 2 in his script @#411. That's what he does every fucking time any logical fallacy is pointed to him. It doesn't matter what the fallacy is! He doesn't give a shit! He doesn't care that his argument for the source of logic and reason is logically fallacious! All he does is just babble babble babble! It's pathetic! We all realize it's pathetic! He doesn't care that it's pathetic! He doesn't care that he looks like a moron!

Gaaaaaah!

Really, we're all far beyond *facepalm* at this point.

PS: Hail Satan!

Posted by: Kel | February 5, 2009 12:46 AM

Just look in the "I'm in good company" thread, there facilis continually did exactly the same thing. Pointed out that without a means to describe logical fallacies that a logically fallacious position is still more sound than one that can't account for the fallacy in the first place. It's a mental mind-fuck, and I don't know how someone arguing that logic makes God a necessity would have a position so full of logical fallaciousness, but that's facilis for you. He's pretty ignorant when it comes to the matter of morality too, but when your answer to everything is Goddidit, it's at least understandable why he keeps himself in a state of perpetual ignorance.

Posted by: Sideshow Bob | February 5, 2009 12:50 AM

Sideshow Bob's come to life and joined up with Satan.

Oh, please. I transcend time and space, don't I?

But alas, I fail at omnipotence. That Bart keeps slipping through my fingers — but not, I hope, through the teeth of bears!

Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 12:58 AM

In another thread - or possibly earlier in this one; it's hard to remember - facilis expressed his admiration for the arguments of one SyeTenB and linked to his blog; I believe it's he who facilis is plagiarising the arguments of. They're pretty much word for word on the 'but how can you know that unless there are laws of logic and reason and they must come from somewhere, therefore my god exists' tripe.

Posters there presented all manner of refutations; he either ignored them and/or simply repeated himself in the same way facilis does.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | February 5, 2009 1:01 AM

I went to their P4CM site and they're selling "ex-masturbator" t-shirts. Seriously. So the people who thought THAT was a good idea also think they have a handle on science and logic? Awesome.

I tried to leave a few comments there, but, naturally, they are moderated. I wasn't even mean about it. I just warned them that some poor dyslexic person might mistakenly believe they're promoting the dreaded Masturbator Ex, first and most powerful of all masturbators, he who sits atop a sticky throne and holds the fate of many in his iron, Freudian grip.

Posted by: Pyre | February 5, 2009 1:44 AM

It is, sadly, the West -- with a schismatic Pope who fled the Orthodox Church centuries ago, and has in turn suffered schismatic departures since then -- that has had the worst schisms of faith and reason, of religion and science.

In Eastern Orthodoxy the traditions are less confounded, and the identity of God is still declared to be Truth. So how could anyone accuse scientists -- the devoted servants and seekers of truth -- of being enemies of God?

Posted by: Pyre | February 5, 2009 1:53 AM

Oh, Patricia, show at least some credible semblance of self-interest!

Require that Gawd show up with a sign written in mile-high letters of flame, containing the winning numbers for the next lottery, with time for you to buy tickets.

Or sumpthin' like that.

Posted by: John Morales | February 5, 2009 2:30 AM

Kagato,

(A is a necessary precondition for B, the existence of B proves A -- but you don't demonstrate A is a necessary precondition for B!)
[... later]
Also a bit of logic practice for me. How'd I do?

Posted by: Richie P | February 5, 2009 3:04 AM

Okay my day's already been ruined by all the damn snow we have been getting here in the UK. This ignorant cow just rubs salt into the wounds. The arrogance with which these ridiculous arguments are espoused always amazes me. As does the hatred of Atheists, the wooing and cheering in the background was almost as disturbing as the actual talk itself.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 3:17 AM

take that as proof.... damn germy Chimp!

Posted by: AnthonyK | February 5, 2009 4:47 AM

Nemo - there's a discussion about the shirts, and where to find them, and the possibility of similar but...uh..differernt shirts upthread.
I think that you haven't missed too much here - tedious, sanctimonious crap from heddle, facilis, and some twerp called "garfunkel". Apparently god exists. Who'dve thought it?

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 5, 2009 5:20 AM

Given the materialistic conception of the mind offered by Darwinism, if we "adopt procedures" to check our thoughts against reality, the procedures themselves would be nothing more than products of electro/chemical activity in our brains - activity resulting from irrational material causes beyond our control. You are assuming that we have the ability to control our mental processes, an ability we can't have if mind is a material phenomenon (as it must be if Darwinism - a wholly materialistic account of human existence - is true). Indeed, if you accept the Darwinian account of the human mind, you have no warrant for using the word "we," which implies free will (i.e., the ability to think and act with at least some freedom from materialistic determinism). But free will is something that can't exist if the materialistic account of our existence offered by Darwinism is true. - Garfunkel

You are quite wrong. Free will can indeed exist in a purely material and determined world. Read Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" if you want to understand fully, but briefly, you are confusing "determined with "unavoidable". A determinist account of free will says we have free will because we can anticipate the possible outcomes of our actions, and decide whether or not to perform them. Sometimes, of course, this is not so: you cannot avoid making a reflex movement in certain circumstances, so with regard to such movements, you do not have free will. Again, if you are in the grip of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or severe depression, your free will is impaired: you are physically capable of performing or not performing certain actions - you have the necessary anatomy, strength and dexterity - but your psychological state makes action (or inaction) unavoidable. It is no good telling me that this account is still compatible with everything being determined at the level of elementary particles, because I already know that; instead, you have to show that this account is incoherent. (A side issue: materialism does not imply determinism, but this is irrelevant to the question of free will because it does not make any relevant difference whether decisions are determined or the result of chance processes.)
Before I converse with you any further, I require a brief account of what you understand by "free will" - just repeating the words like a mantra will not do. I suppose you think there is a non-material "soul", but then the same range of possibilities arises as in a wholly material universe: either the decisions taken by this "soul" are determined, or they are the result of chance. If you insist that neither of these possibilities is compatible with free will, you have to give a coherent explanation of a third possibility.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 5, 2009 5:31 AM

As I've already said: "Truth be told, no one knows 'how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be.'" That's why it was so silly for Knockgoats to say that Dawkins's book ("The God Delusion") has the advantage of being true. - Garfunkel

I said most of it is true. Dawkins makes no claim to absolute certainty that there is no god, and most of his book is about either the flaws in arguments for the existence of god, or about religion and its effects on individuals and the world. That we do not know "how the universe came to be, and how living things came to be" (science is of course making progress on both these questions while religion never makes any progress past "Goddidit"), is irrelevant to the truth of my claim.

Posted by: GBG | February 5, 2009 5:51 AM

I couldn't get to the end of that video, it made me want to scream.

isn't there something in her primitive little death cult about not being a liar? I'm sure i read that somewhere.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 5:52 AM

John Morales ,

You've just stated that, outside the lab, you'd believe that which you've scientifically demonstrated is impossible inside the lab, in a post where you defend your view that there is no effect on your science.

Maybe--but I would say it doesn't quite fit that description. For example, the cold fusion guys continued to insist that cold fusion was scientifically demonstrable in spite of what was happening in labs outside of Utah. They claimed others were doing the experiments wrong. At some point you can argue their beliefs affected their science.

With walking on water I do not dispute that science demonstrates it impossible. I concur. If a trial needed an expert witness to demonstrate the scientific impossibility, I'd be happy to take the job.

Your point is, I think: how can I still believe it, even in the one isolated case of Jesus? My answer would be that you are putting a demand on me that the scientific method does not place on me--namely that I only believe what science tells me. The method does not require that. It says: if you do science, this is the way you do it. These are the steps. Now I practice the scientific method and I believe science, but in principle even believing in science is not a requirement. Only the method is a requirement. A scientist could wake up one day and say: hell, I don't believe any of this science stuff, but life is good and I want tenure and I know how to do it even if I don't believe it. And that person could contribute mightily to the field because science is a methodology and while it is not advisable one could do the work and make contributions without believing any of it. In the same way that a pastor could wake up one day and realize he is an unbeliever but nevertheless say: what the hell this is a comfy gig, I can do this.

So I think you are confusing my failure to live up to an ideal: I can only believe something if science tells me it is possible, with what science really is: a motive-agnostic time-tested methodology for studying the natural world.

Posted by: SC, FCTE, OM | February 5, 2009 6:03 AM

Part the red sea? The scientific method says it cannot be done.

Infuckingdeed. *headdesk*

If it one that he is studying, definitely. Suppose you and I wrote separate papers on the possibility of walking on water. We publish simultaneously. It turns out we did the same analysis, ran the same experiments, and reached the same conclusion: it is impossible. Outside the lab, you might state: therefore Jesus didn’t walk on water. I might state: no he did, that’s why it’s called a miracle. In either case our science would be indistinguishable. If it is indistinguishable, it means my faith has no ill-effect on the science, nor did your atheism.

FFS! You'd really have to do research to find this? And Coyne and everyone else has included "outside the lab" in our discussions of incompatibility. It was one of the major points made by Coyne, as shown in the passages I quoted above. Your "science" isn't at all indistinguishable. Belief in miracles and other supernatural interventions in the physical world is fundamentally incompatible with secular, scientific reason, as Coyne argues. If you're not going to address his arguments, which was what the earlier post was about, then piss off. The point is that the existing evidence concerning what's possible in the natural world, as well as any research you perform yourself, if they show no support for something you believe, or indeed that it is physically impossible without supernatural intervention, should have an effect on your beliefs. What the hell is the point of an empirical approach if you've no intention of adjusting your beliefs in accordance with what you or others find?

When you say you hold other beliefs without evidence (in the social and political arenas), you're also admitting to an approach that is not only antiscientific but also immoral. We have a moral responsibility to base our beliefs, which are the basis of our actions, upon real evidence.

I did several times. The possibilities include

1) It really is true that smart people are less likely to be believers.

2) Christian schools and colleges do an abysmal job of teaching science and encouraging its study, reducing supply. Sort of the same reason why there are fewer women.

3) Really smart people are more confident and so are less likely to buckle to the familial, peer, and cultural pressure of declaring as a believer. That is, they are more willing to come out and admit they are atheists. Thus the low percentage of professed believers among scientists might be far more accurate than the high percentages claimed in the general public.

In any case none of those imply say anything about incompatibility.

First, the one about science education in religious schools certainly implies something about it, particularly in historical context. (It's not like the case with women - it's specific to religious schools.) Second, your references to intelligence are mistaken and misleading - "smart people" are not what's at issue. Scientists, specifically, are. No evidence has been presented that these percentages hold across academic disciplines, which surely are also made of of smart people. The evidence is suggestive that this pattern is true of scientists, and that the number of theists decreases as the levels increase. Your list of proposed explanations (the first one of which you may wnat to think about a bit more - where does it lead you?) fails to include the one that seems to square with the evidence provided by scientists themselves about the reason: an honestly- and consistently-applied scientific approach has led them to conclude that religious beliefs or explanations for natural phenomena are useless, wrong, and/or unsupported by any evidence and therefore not reasonable to maintain. This hypothesis has the strongest support going in; it could be tested further through more in-depth surveys or interviews with scientists (and this kind of thing is what I do).

Liar—I never said anything remotely analogous to “where are all the fossils”

You've been saying something entirely analogous all along. "I don't think they're incompatible, and will reject all real-world evidence of incompatibility in any form other than my silly challenge. So where's the evidence?" The evidence is not only in the fact of a large percentage of scientists becoming non-theists, but in things like this video, in religious persecution of scientists and rejection of scientific findings and interference with science education over several centuries, and so on. The evidence is in a fundamental conflict of epistemological principles between the two, which you simply refuse to acknowledge. The evidence is in your own sad balkanization. As I said, more research can be done, and I'm confident that my hypothesis will be supported by that as well. Why do you not accept any of the above as "measurable effects"? How do you justify this?

You are a liar many times over.

Sure. I'm the liar.

I came on this thread with a legitimate debatable point—that theists/scientists are more effective (though by no means certain) of reaching kids like the girl in the video than are antagonistic atheist scientists.

And PZ responded to you. (Did you respond to him?) You have your own definition of "reaching" which does not really mean reaching them in an honest or meaningful way when it comes to science, which is unsurprising as you yourself are deluded.

Your first response included a whine about running away on a previous thread,

I pointed out that this is a pattern with you, and that it's obnoxious and dishonest behavior on your part. I also asked you a question related to something else on this thread.

which is demonstrably false.

Right. That's why I linked to the previous thread, then listed the relevant posts, then again asked you the questions I had earlier. You ran away again.

The real point is you should have done one of two things: ignored me altogether or addressed my post.

This isn't your blog, dear, but take your own advice. What you should have done is address my posts on the earlier thread before starting with a new stupid argument on another. You've had several weeks now.

Several people on this thread (Windy, OwlMirror, Sastra come to mind. in this recent go-around) ask legitimate questions. Hundreds or thousands of others just ignore me. Instead you chose to be a confrontational liar.

All you've said is that my questions are "illegitimate." You've given no explanation as to why, or to why, even if you feel this way, you can't simply answer them to end the whole thing. It's pathetic evasion.

Now I have to get ready for work.

Posted by: Kel | February 5, 2009 6:41 AM

I can see what heddle is trying to get at, though really it's nothing more than compartmentalisation that at one point is going to hit together eventually. Walking on water is unfalsifiable, but that wasn't the only miracle in the bible; and there certainly were passages where the events described would have left evidence in one form or another. At some point there has to be a compromise of evidence or an elimination of biblical inerracy.

Posted by: Kagato | February 5, 2009 7:27 AM

Heddle:

Suppose you and I wrote separate papers on the possibility of walking on water. We publish simultaneously. It turns out we did the same analysis, ran the same experiments, and reached the same conclusion: it is impossible. Outside the lab, you might state: therefore Jesus didn’t walk on water. I might state: no he did, that’s why it’s called a miracle.

The mind boggles.

You're seriously -- seriously -- arguing that there is no incompatibility between science; but if the results you reach don't match your preconceived ideas, you're willing to completely ignore the results??

Oh sure, you might be capable of performing the mental gymnastics needed to actually complete a scientific study that runs contrary to your beliefs. you might even be able to isolate those beliefs enough that you don't let them bias your research.

But if, in the end, you look at your work and say:
"There is no reliable data that this event took place. This event was not even scientifically possible. All evidence says this could not and did not happen. But you know what, I say that it did anyway!"
...that right there is your fundamental incompatibility between science and religion!

No one has said it's not possible to go through the motions of following the scientific method. But science is used to guide us to the truth; and if you can say that the scientific results for any specific topic (even if you're willing to reach them yourself) are irrelevant to the truth of that subject, then you are declaring that the scientific method does not apply there.

How is that anything other than incompatible?

All the talk of compartmentalisation is not about proof of incompatibility; it just explains how, in the face of that incompatibility, some people manage to work around the problem. Your quote above could be used as a textbook example of the concept! (While I've got my science hat on, proposition A is true. But when I take it off, proposition A is false!)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 5, 2009 7:38 AM

Good way to start off the morning. Laughing at Heddle's tap dancing logic. Hahaahahahahhaa

Posted by: Faciliheddle | February 5, 2009 8:33 AM

A. Noyd @468

If you had the right presuppositions you wouldn't have said any of that. I'm a Calvinist because in a miracle God told me I'm going to heaven and you're not, and he also told me there is no conflict between science and religion because without God, there can be no science and religion.

And then God stepped on a rake, you ignorant slut. Did I tell you I'm a physicist and the Bible is inerrant? Besides, the burden of proof is never on me, thou bald pate. Wait, what? She-bears? GAH

Posted by: Facile Princeps | February 5, 2009 8:59 AM

You guys don't get it. Without God as the necessary precondition for the laws of logic there is no standard of logic and reason, so all our objections that I am using "circular reasoning" are meaningless.
Account for the laws of logic and reasoning before you accuse me of fallacies.

Posted by: MartinM | February 5, 2009 9:05 AM

Account for the laws of logic and reasoning

You first.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | February 5, 2009 9:25 AM

@A. Noyd

Furthermore, if not science, what do you use to determine the validity of your beliefs? If they are immune to falsification, how do you demonstrate and distinguish false beliefs?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 5, 2009 9:32 AM

It's a common enough degree course in various parts of Europe. Its basically human biology taught for those who are interested in working in healthcare or going on to do a PhD.

Biomedical science is common enough, but "Bio-medical science"? It is usual to be able spell your own degree subject. (Maybe English is their second language? Maybe...)

Posted by: heliobates | February 5, 2009 9:42 AM

@Facilis

That's a remarkably accurate description of Sye's argumentation. But you left out two additional steps:

7) If the atheist grants, for the sake of argument, that universal, invariant laws of logic exist, and are a necessary scaffold for the presuppositionalist, and then asks to see these laws (e.g. full, formal proof of the Law of The Impossibility of the Contrary), with all axioms and rules for inference, toss a coin. Heads: start at #1 in another thread. Tails: argue with someone else.

8) Assert that the existence of God is a necessary presupposition because of "modal logic and all possible worlds". Insist that the atheist doesn't understand modal logic. Refuse to provide the modal logical proof for this assertion. When asked, toss a coin. Heads: introduce an anecdote about how it's okay to point a gun or shoot someone in order to win an argument. Tails: start at #1 in another thread.

That should cover it.

Posted by: charley | February 5, 2009 9:45 AM

As an engineer, I lean toward a physical analogy. Science, reason and research are like a sewage treatment plant, accepting a flow of ideas and filtering out the shit. Religion is a bypass pipe which allows ideas to pass through unfiltered by testing or dispute. Heddle is plant manager who insists that the effluent from the northeast part of town be permanently connected to the bypass pipe because their shit doesn't stink.

Posted by: Flonkbob | February 5, 2009 10:06 AM

Today is one of those days I'm so very glad that I have blocked access to YouTube on my corporate network. It didn't have a business purpose and was eating up lots of time, and now it would actually be damaging the brains of my poor innocent users if they could see this thing.

So you didn't ruin my morning, you made me feel good about my job. Thanks PZ!

Posted by: Tulse | February 5, 2009 11:17 AM

heddle, as I understand it, you're saying that while science would generally influence your opinion of the likelihood that some event happened, it would not affect your opinion on what your religion believes to be historical miracles. Is that correct?

If so, doesn't that completely vitiate the notion that religion does not affect science? By what scientific principle do you distinguish between possible miracles and physical events? Do you think that historians should also adopt such an approach, with the religious among them saying "Well, such an event is physically impossible, but my religion tells me it happened, so I'm sure it actually did"? Do you want your CSIs to testify in court "The DNA evidence came back negative, but God told me this man is the killer, so in my opinion he did it"?

To be clear, no one is saying that religious scientists can't do good work in domains unrelated to their irrational, contrary-to-scientific-understanding, empirically unsupported beliefs. Coynes' point, which others have explained and which you still haven't really addressed, is that such scientists cannot do good work in science in general -- their worldview is ultimately not scientific. And once you open that hole, once you abandon scientific reasoning for certain physical events, all bets are off -- any belief about any physical event can be justified via the supernatural, and no one can object.

For example, if you think that, despite scientific understanding, virgins can literally bear male children via divine insemination, then why can't other scientists believe that Mohammed literally flew on a winged horse, or that two beings literally created the islands of Japan, or that there was literally a sunken continent called Lemuria that was once home to a seven foot tall, sexually hermaphroditic, egg-laying race who were precursors of humanity? If you abandon science for determining the probability that some event actually occurred, why should your specific Christian beliefs be privileged over those of Madame Blavatsky's? You are stuck accepting that literally anything can happen, because anyone can now say "Regardless of the science, this actually happened."

How does that make for good science?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 5, 2009 11:41 AM

Facilis the Fallacious @ #473:

You guys don't get it. Without God as the necessary precondition for the laws of logic there is no standard of logic and reason, so all our objections that I am using "circular reasoning" are meaningless.
Account for the laws of logic and reasoning before you accuse me of fallacies.

No, YOU'RE the one who doesn't get it.

WHAT "laws of logic", Facilis? What are these "laws" you keep babbling about? List them. Name them. Tell us what the fuck you mean!

I know you won't, you've been hiding from this question for almost a month. But you claim that there's some set of "absolute, invariant, immutable, universal laws of logic and reason" which somehow can't have arisen form any other source but your imaginary friend. You have fled in abject terror from every opportunity to support this claim. In order to support your claim you would need to first show that such laws actually exist, which would require listing them. You refuse to do so, you refuse to even acknowledge that the question has been asked. And that's just the minimal first step!

There is no magical infallible cosmic logic source. Your own statements prove this, you babble about logic but are obviously operating from a position that assuming your own conclusion, hiding from questions, making shit up, repeating yourself, and murder are valid forms of "logic". Your version of "logic" is utterly insane, much like yourself. Logic, as practiced by sane people, is a product of understanding the world, not a mystical energy field that comes from some invisible being from beyond the universe. But you can't understand this, because you are not a sane person and you understand nothing about the world you live in. Your entire life is based on a delusion.

Nor will you give any sort of definition to the supposed "god" that you claim created these "laws". And of course you hide from all questions of why it has to be YOUR personal imaginary friend. You can't even bring yourself to explain what the fuck you're talking about!

I wonder if someone put a gun to your head and demanded you list these "laws" of yours or die, how would you react? Probably shit your pants and scream for your imaginary god to save you from your own total failure. And since you're the one who decided that murder was an acceptable way to win an argument, you've just lost by your own standards. So go fuck yourself.

Posted by: heliobates | February 5, 2009 11:57 AM

And since you're the one who decided that murder was an acceptable way to win an argument, you've just lost by your own standards. So go fuck yourself.

I like the cut of your jib!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 12:05 PM

Exactly the same way you would.I would have no intention of proving it was a miracle. If it turned out it was a miracle, I’d simply die without having found an answer.

Sorry if I missed you explaining this, but how would you determine that it was a miracle and not that you just have not the tools or time invested to determine a natural explanation for it?

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 5, 2009 12:11 PM

What practicing theistic scientists are going about invoking miracles?

Han and Warda, Proteomics (which was what I was referencing in #374: "More logically, the points that show proteomics overlapping between different forms of life are more likely to be interpreted as a reflection of a single common fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator than relying on a single cell that is, in a doubtful way, surprisingly originating all other kinds of life.")

Closer to your own field, I understand that Frank Tipler has made some rather radical claims about physics and cosmology — albeit not in an actual peer-reviewed paper.

There are probably others, but those are the ones that leapt to mind just now.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 12:18 PM

I would never investigate something and determine it was a miracle. I have no way of determining what is miraculous. I wouldn't know how to try. I can only assume, as every other scientists secular or theistic assumes, that everything we collect experimental data on has a natural explanation.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood this to mean you would determine it was a miracle

If it turned out it was a miracle, I’d simply die without having found an answer.

instead of you never knowing it was one.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 5, 2009 12:30 PM

Our plastic pal who's fun to play with, theist/scientist poster child heddle, has invoked Francis Collins. I've just read atheist author Sam Harris's review of Collin's execrable book, The Language of God, which starts with this paragraph:

Francis Collins-physical chemist, medical geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project-has written a book entitled "The Language of God." In it, he attempts to demonstrate that there is "a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony" between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity. To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts. He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes. His failure is predictable, spectacular and vile. "The Language of God" reads like a hoax text, and the knowledge that it is not a hoax should be disturbing to anyone who cares about the future of intellectual and political discourse in the United States.

If one wonders how beguiled, self-deceived and carefree in the service of fallacy a scientist can be in the United States in the 21st century, "The Language of God" provides the answer. The only thing that mitigates the harm this book will do to the stature of science in the United States is that it will be mostly read by people for whom science has little stature already. Viewed from abroad, "The Language of God" will be seen as another reason to wonder about the fate of American society. Indeed, it is rare that one sees the thumbprint of historical contingency so visible on the lens of intellectual discourse. This is an American book, attesting to American ignorance, written for Americans who believe that ignorance is stronger than death. Reading it should provoke feelings of collective guilt in any sensitive secularist. We should be ashamed that this book was written in our own time.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 12:44 PM

OwlMirror,

Ouch. Fair enough. Unless they were using, quite poorly, irony or sarcasm, which doesn’t seem to be the case, I accept the presentation of the Han and Warda paper, assuming they are in fact scientists which appears to be the case, as an example where beliefs adversely affect the science. Tipler is another matter. People can publish whatever they like in the non peer-reviewed literature. We judge their science by their research publications, not their philosophical publications.

(Aside: Do you accept Hoyle’s and Eddington’s reactions to the Big Bang as evidence where atheists let their beliefs adversely affect their science?)

Sastra,

The scientific test for God is this: does it follow from the science? If not, it fails the test. Your solution for covering this failure is to reject the result and place it in another compartment. The Not-science compartment. This is what we mean by compartmentalization and inconsistency. You are not arguing against compartmentalization, but for it.

What test is that again? I’d like to be part of the collaboration. What equipment will we use? What measurements will we take? Count me in. But provide some details. But for heaven’s sake under no circumstances allow anyone to “compartmentalize” this experiment. It must be done at all costs. Again, please send the research proposal.

The practice of science requires that one first hold the ethical value of truth-seeking and humility, of following the evidence only where it leads, and being as objective as possible.

No, yes, and yes. If science requires humility—oh boy we are in deep kimchee. Nor does it require any ethical values. The worst scoundrel on the planet can do science—as we have seen in the past, some great science has resulted from evil motives. I agree with the other points.

But, for the larger perspective which values science and the scientific mindset itself, we need arguments for consistency, science all the way down, cranes vs. skyhooks, and atheism.

I accept you believe that. I don’t see why. A secular, church and state separated society with religious freedom seems optimal to me. I think science all-the-way-down would be boring. Having a Moslem neighbor is more interesting than having a scientist as a neighbor. I see enough scientists at work.

Posted by: CreateThis | February 5, 2009 12:46 PM

Please stop calling evolution a religion. Intelligent people refuse to be a part of cults, no matter how large.

This video perfectly shows the ignorant, uneducated, brainwashed minds of the creationists. Please site your references!!! The ancient scribblings of your book will not suffice. Scientific books that are updated with new information seems a little more accurate. Is this girl a scientist? (All this talk about the cell, most of it wrong)

Wow

She is brainwashed idiot #87686655

Posted by: Sastra | February 5, 2009 1:01 PM

heddle wrote:

What test is that again? I’d like to be part of the collaboration.

Literalist ;)

Is the existence of God a hypothesis?

If not, what is it?

I think science all-the-way-down would be boring. Having a Moslem neighbor is more interesting than having a scientist as a neighbor.

Some of my best friends are New Agers ;)

I think you're answering a different question: are people with irrational or false beliefs sometimes very interesting and nice? Or, perhaps, can an individual decide that, for the sake of harmony and a little free time, they're not going to fight every damn battle all the time?

It's probably similar to deciding that one isn't going to try to convert the Damned at every opportunity, nor will one avoid them as friends.

But at some point, truth (or Truth) matters. And whether Islam is true, homeopathy works, God exists, or Jesus Saves needs to be taken seriously, and -- in some sense and way that keeps one from being a total and complete dick -- applied to life all the way down.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 1:15 PM

Sastra,

I understand, I think, what you are saying and I agree with science all-the-way-down if by that you mean that we only teach accepted scientific theories in public schools and that we base our scientific and technological goals and policy on accepted science and we do not allow church interference in the state. I disagree that it should include any attempt to eradicate religion. If education accomplishes that, so be it. (Of course, as a Calvinist I am not worried.) I’d like to think that I’d even think that if I were an atheist, but who knows? It’s a spice of life thing—I’m not a scientist 24/7 (in fact I am now much more a science teacher than a scientist) and I’d rather, at least for good fractions of time, be among people very different from me rather than people just like me.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 5, 2009 1:30 PM

I'm somewhat puzzled Knockgoats: do you really think you have brought out anything that those here have not heard a thousand times before? That's what's so boring about atheists - they so seldom have anything new to say. - heddle the hypocrite

Feeble, heddle, very feeble. If you think atheists are boring, what are you doing here? Show me where someone had previously objected to your demand that those convinced science and religion are incompatible shut up about it until they have proved it, on the grounds that you feel at liberty to indoctrinate children with your Calvinist crap even though you have not proved that. If you can't, then all you have proved, yet again, is that you are a liar.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 5, 2009 1:44 PM

I’d rather, at least for good fractions of time, be among people very different from me rather than people just like me. - heddle the hypocrite

Well, something we can agree on - only I'd express it more strongly! I'd much rather, all the time, be among people very different from you rather than people just like you.

Posted by: SC, OM | February 5, 2009 1:48 PM

I think science all-the-way-down would be boring. Having a Moslem neighbor is more interesting than having a scientist as a neighbor. I see enough scientists at work.

It’s a spice of life thing—I’m not a scientist 24/7 (in fact I am now much more a science teacher than a scientist) and I’d rather, at least for good fractions of time, be among people very different from me rather than people just like me.

Yeah, 'cause that's exactly what Sastra meant by science all the way down. heddle apparently sees enough evidential bases for fact claims at work as well, and hopes to avoid all such boring evidency stuff in the rest of his life (when forming an opinion on the war in Iraq, the economic stimulus plan, etc.).

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 1:49 PM

Tony,

As an atheist who sees the 'fruits of science' continually quotemined by the religious to provide support (however fragile) to their creaking bronze-age philosophies - I undertand exactly why any scientist would fear the irrational use of their findings by unscrupulous 'shepherds'. Especially such a finding, which could be twisted to support claims of biblical genesis and creation, regardless of truth or how much it had to be stretched to fit the narrow prejudice of pastors and their flocks.

So what? And the quote-mining charge can be a cheap blunt instrument best used when presented with unfortunate facts. Neither Eddington nor Hoyle only went as far as taking the position: “Shit. Crap. Damn. The data point to a universe with a beginning. The friggin’ whackos are going to have a field day with this.” If they said that, and then added: “But what can we do? That is where the data take us.” Then you’d have a point. I would be quote-mining. But both went the extra mile, both sought to dismiss the big-bang scientifically. Any atheist that doesn’t follow the data because it might be exploited by creationists is making a grievous mistake. You can argue that they didn’t do that, though I think the case is pretty strong, but you cannot claim this is a simple quote-mining.

those scientists still published!

They did, and that’s the point, just like OwlMirror’s example. If they didn’t publish, who cares what they believed? And so the question stands: Did Hoyle’s persistence of a (let’s face it, bizarre) modified steady-state model, adapted to accommodate expansion, and publishing on it, long after there was near unanimous acceptance of the big-bang, indicate that he was letting his beliefs adversely affect his science? I think it is possible. Or maybe you believe atheist scientists are always 100% pure?

SC, OM,

I probably won't have a chance to fillet him until tomorrow.

Ooh, that sounds so scary!

Posted by: Sastra | February 5, 2009 1:58 PM

heddle #507 wrote:

I understand, I think, what you are saying and I agree with science all-the-way-down if by that you mean that we only teach accepted scientific theories in public schools and that we base our scientific and technological goals and policy on accepted science and we do not allow church interference in the state.

Yes, we agree on all this -- but it's not exactly what I meant by science-all-the-way-down.

I disagree that it should include any attempt to eradicate religion.

Depends on what you mean by the word "eradicate." If you mean through force of law or government, I agree.

But I don't agree that religion and its claims for the supernatural should be out of bounds for science to have any say on -- and that this issue shouldn't be dealt with in public forums, lest it scare the public. As I was arguing rather longwindedly upthread, I don't accept the use of the term "methodological naturalism" (depending on what is meant by it.) I don't think that the supernatural, by definition, is beyond science's scope.

Yes, religious belief can be reconciled with science -- but not in the sense that loving country music can be reconciled with accepting evolution. More in the sense that believing that water has a memory of healing chemicals diluted out of it when intention is imparted into it through shaking and motions made with a stick can be reconciled with being an excellent plastics chemist, top in their industry.

Perhaps, on the personal level, the chemist is a better plastics chemist because he's also a homeopath. He feels better, and gets to the lab more often. But fight, fight, fight against homeopathy nonetheless, because, if true, it ought to make a difference in Chemistry.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 1:59 PM

Knockgoats,

Well, something we can agree on - only I'd express it more strongly! I'd much rather, all the time, be among people very different from you rather than people just like you.

That’s because, I would speculate, you are supremely insecure and require frequent if not constant validation.

Hold on, don't despair,--maybe Nerd Of Redhead will come by and say"

Go get'm Knockgoats; you sure showed him! Haha, hahaha!

Posted by: Stu | February 5, 2009 2:09 PM

That’s because, I would speculate, you are supremely insecure and require frequent if not constant validation.

What the hell is it with Christians and projection?

Posted by: CJO | February 5, 2009 2:16 PM

Garfunkel:
If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the quality of my thinking if they agreed with me.

Making it perfectly clear that you are utterly incompetent when it comes to assessing propositions on their own merits. What I've quoted here is the same as admitting that you actually prefer the ad hominem approach as opposed to actual independent thinking: Members of group X, whom I dislike, disagree with me, therefore I must be right. So when I read any more of your inane screeds, I'll be sure to keep in mind that you have no basis other than your ideological associations on which to make judgements.

Posted by: tony | February 5, 2009 2:20 PM

Heddle: I'm shocked! Are you suggesting in your response that Scientists are never in disagreement about the meaning of their science?

You may choose to ascribe Hoyle's reluctance to recognize the "Big Bang" immediately however you prefer - but simply saying that he waited until "the consensus" was "overwhelmingly in favor of a Big Bang" is disingeneous at least.

The big bang was a major "discontinuity event" in cosmological science. As such it had it's adherents and it's detractors. Scientists are people too! You bleat as if Hoyle is the only scientist EVER to face disquiet at what their data suggests is the truth. (Einstein's disquiet with Quantum Theory comes to mind)

Yes - the evidence, viewed dispassionately and objectively TODAY, points at an event we dub "Big Bang". Other current (and more recent) cosmological theories also account for that 'discontinuity' (various oscilatory brane models, other recent models suggesting no 'bang' but more of a 'bounce', etc). You seem to be pissed because (a) Hoyle was an avowed atheist, and (b) felt that his 'results' were too strange to be reasonable, therefore was (c) reluctant to publish, and when he did publish (d) his paper proposed an extension of steady state.

Hoyle - for the most part - did not like the big bang (nor do I for that matter) because it is so loose. It has zero explanatory power. WHY? What came BEFORE? Why is the universe thus & so, and not other?

As someone who values science, I understand that reluctance to 'throw in my hat' with the 'easy and obvious' answer, and also because it does 'play into the hands' of creationists.

So tell me. What is YOUR position on the 'big bang'? What cosmological model do you find to be most accurate & provides the most explanatory power? WHY do you subscribe to that model versus another?

But if you need to use 'god' in your answer, then by your own admission - that is not science.

If, indeed, we discover that the steady state is indeed truer - through a 'bounce' model, instead of a 'bang' model -- what effect would that have on the religious 'creation as an event' myth? Especially since 'progressive' faiths have climbed onto the big bang bandwagon in a major way.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 2:31 PM

When I say they are outside of science’s scope, what I mean is that if they are actual miracles, then by definition science ultimately will fail in explaining them

Forgive me if I missed these points somewhere above but I've been busy being snarky elsewhere.

If these miracles interact with the "natural" world, the force interacting on the physical should be measurable. And being physically measurable it's no longer supernatural.

Once you cross that threshold of detection it enters into the realm of science being able to quantify and qualify it and eventually explain it. We may not have the tools at this point but that doesn't mean we will not.

If this is true shouldn't this lead to the ability to "prove" miracles and therefor god(s) or just "prove" the opposite?

If god interacts with the physical world via miracles, angels and / or divine intervention would it be or would not be detectable?

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 2:42 PM

Tony,

but simply saying that he waited until "the consensus" was "overwhelmingly in favor of a Big Bang" is disingenuous at least

No, I stated it stronger than that, or at least I intended to. He didn’t wait until there was a consensus, he waited beyond that point.

Hoyle is the only scientist EVER to face disquiet at what their data suggests is the truth. (Einstein's disquiet with Quantum Theory comes to mind)

That would be fair if Hoyle was a blank slate. But he wasn’t. He made a lot of statements regarding religion and the big bang. (And even coined the term derisively, as I’m sure you know.) Given that we know that he was not just atheist but anti-theist, then the question is of interest. Did he hold on to a steady state model for so long because the creationists were gloating? You cannot pretend (well you can) that it is not a fair question for historians of science. I admit there is no way to prove it, should of it appearing as an admission in his journals—but there is circumstantial evidence. And I don’t think you believe that all atheist scientists are incapable of bad judgment.

Hoyle - for the most part - did not like the big bang (nor do I for that matter) because it is so loose. It has zero explanatory power. WHY? What came BEFORE? Why is the universe thus & so, and not other?

Zero explanatory power? Are you insane? It is one of the best tested models in all science. It friggin’ predicts the cosmic background radiation. Modified, it predicts the slight non-uniformities in the background. It predicts the abundance of light elements. It makes all sort of predictions. It is one of the greatest scientific achievements ever, and you call it loose?

So tell me. What is YOUR position on the 'big bang'? What cosmological model do you find to be most accurate & provides the most explanatory power? WHY do you subscribe to that model versus another?

I prefer the inflationary big bang models. They (in spite of your weird claims) are very predictive and well tested. No other speculative cosmology comes close. I don’t invoke God.

If, indeed, we discover that the steady state is indeed truer - through a 'bounce' model, instead of a 'bang' model -- what effect would that have on the religious 'creation as an event' myth?

It would disprove Genesis, completely, with no chance of reconciliation. I strongly support research in this area.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 5, 2009 2:46 PM

Replying to SC, FCTE, OM, Heddle said "You are mistaking “running away” with not being interested. I’m obligated to answer questions regarding things that I claim, and may choose to answer questions that I find interesting, but I’m not obligated to answer questions that do not relate to any claim that I have made".

LOL, you suddenly become "not interested" when its clear the questions asked of you, if answered honestly and fully will lead to a clear refutation of your arguments. You're claim that they "don't relate to any claim" you've made is just a laughable excuse to hide.

Tony said "If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics?".

Heddle said "I didn’t run away from that question, I answered it in #237. You apparently ran away from my answer.".

No you didn't answer it in #237, you put down some empty words that explained nothing but aparently serve as a suitable hiding place from reality for you. You did the same thing in the "I'm in good company" thread where someone pointed out that your chicago statement showed science was incompatible with religion because it said scripture always trumps science. You replied to that with an absurd statement to the effect that "Scripture doesn't always trump science, but science never trumps scripture". That was just another way of saying the same thing, but that non-answer was a good enough excuse for you to hide from reality.

Heddle said "The supernatural by definition, if it exists, cannot be explained by science. Otherwise it would be natural, not supernatural. It is indeed incompatible—although orthogonal is a better word. But belief in the supernatural is not incompatible with science, because nothing compels me only to believe things that science addresses.".

False. Honesty and rationality compel reasonable people to reject things for which there is no evidence and for which science has repeatedly failed to show possible like supernatural impregnation, or supernatural events of any sort.

Heddle said "There are plenty of things in my life (that are not religion) that I believe and yet science has nothing to say about them.".

False. There is nothing that is off limits to science.

Heddle said The only way my belief in the miracles of old affects my science is if I invoke supernatural explanations to explain experimental data. I don’t, so it doesn’t.".

No, your religion can also affect your science in that you may accept conclusions asserted by the bible and ignore evidence to the contrary to push those conclusions.

Heddle said "I bet you will run away from this question: How can you detect the way in which a theist-scientist’s belief in the supernatural affects his science?".

You've lost that bet. As an LGBT I see theist-"scientist"'s beliefs in the supernatural affecting their science profoundly and repeatedly. Over and over I come up against theists doing "science" starting with the conclusion that its immoral to be LGBT and filtering evidence in their research to only accept that which portrays LGBTs in a bad light. Paul Cameron is the worst example and filters evidence to produce "research" that says gays typically die at 42, are disproportionately more likely to be child molesters, eat feces and so on. An objective view of his "research" always shows he's filtering the evidence, prejudging, and often outright falsifying data in order to reach the conclusions he set out to reach. He doesn't go where the evidence takes him, he reaches the conclusion first and then tries to make the data fit that conclusion.

Now spare me your "no true scotsman" falicy that he's not a scientist. He's the epitome of what religious beliefs typically do to people trying to do science. He's the classic example of religion being incompatible with science.

Its no coincidence that one of the most common ploys of religionists to demean gays is to take a study that looks at AIDS patients, or attendees at an STD clinic and to claim that what is true for people in the study is true for all gays in general. Religion leads to people deciding on conclusions first and then filtering evidence to support those conclusions. Religion makes people dishonest. You may claim that this isn't true for you, but you'd be far from typical if that wasn't the case.

Sastra said "By their failure to apply the scientific method on any belief they consider "supernatural.""

Heddle said "Not true. Bring me the resurrected Jesus, and I’ll apply the scientific method to his claim. I apply the scientific method to the origins of the cosmos all the time. Part the red sea? The scientific method says it cannot be done. God exists? If you tell me the test, I’ll apply it. There is not one belief that I have that I have put off limits for the scientific method.".

Liar. The bible says if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Go ahead attempt it, this is your experiment. You'll fail and prove the bible is a lie but you'll still claim god and Jesus exist.

Heddle said "Running away does not mean getting bored with your repetitive questions.".

How convenient. You "get bored" whenever you come across a question which answered honestly and fully would demonstrate you're wrong.

Heddle said "Running away is when someone posts a really good showstopper question and the person to whom it was addressed declines to answer and just goes away. I challenge you to reproduce from your list of posts on the previous thread one question that a reasonable person would say: yes, that or something close wasn’t already asked and answered, and it is a substantive question, and it is on topic, and heddle simply refused to answer. C’mon, do it.".

Its been done repeatedly and you've run away by either failing to answer or giving nonsensical non-answers such as "Scripture doesn't always trump science, but science never trumps scripture" when it was pointed out to you that the chicago statement demonstrated that religion and science are incompatible. Or for example when Tony said "If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics?" you respond with some nebulous hair splitting that says nothing to any rational person.

Heddle said "If science requires humility—oh boy we are in deep kimchee. Nor does it require any ethical values. The worst scoundrel on the planet can do science—".

Its a rare exception to find an unethical person who can do good science. Case in point the aforementioned Paul Cameron. He was ejected from the mental health associations he belongs to for unethical behavior including the falsification of data in pursuit of his vendetta against gays - a motivation that comes directly from his religion. In my life I see religion dirtying science again and again. A few exceptions to this rule doesn't deny the fact that science and religion are incompatible.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 2:53 PM

Lurkbot #528,

As for Eddington, now you're just making shit up.

No I am not making shit up. I don’t care what his religion was, but I know he was against the big bang, which he termed “repugnant” and “preposterous” and demanded that a loophole be discovered, because he worried that it (a universe with a beginning) didn’t leave enough time for evolution to get started. Those at least hint at non-scientific reasons why he was opposed. Rarely is “that's repugnant” a valid scientific response to a sensible scientific proposal.

Posted by: MartinH | February 5, 2009 3:02 PM

Heddle

At #270, I presented an argument for the incompatibility of science and religion at least as presuambly manifested in you. I was hoping for a response.

It seems that you infer that incompatibility of science and religion must imply that a religious person cannot write a scientifically sound paper.

This is clearly not true, and any number of papers and pieces of scientific work could be cited as examples. I am not aware of anyone who makes the claim that you appear to deduce. I infer that you are invoking a straw man.

Thus trivially it seems that science and religion are not incompatible in the way you choose to define this term.

However, it is still possible that the rest of us have something different in mind when asserting this incompatibility, something that doesn't have your implication. For me, that incompatibility consists simply in the fact that scientific (more generally, evidence-based) thinking and religious thinking lead to inconsistent conclusions when faced with the same set of data. My post in #270 is an example of this.

If you prefer to think religiously, let's try a parable, the parable of the 3 vessels.

Three men set out across a hot desert, a day apart from each other. Before he left, each man was given the choice of one of three vessels, each with a spigot at the bottom and all corked so that he could not see the contents.

Only one man made it across the desert, the one who had chosen the vessel filled with water. One made very little distance before he died of thirst when he discovered that he had chosen a vessel filled only with oil. The other man had chosen a vessel half-filled with water and half with oil. He made good progress until he discovered that he had finished all the water and the rest of the liquid was oil, not compatible with life and oddly immiscible with water.

Garfunkel

I'm still waiting eagerly - after more than a day - for your reference on the required precision of the initial universal expansion. All I need is a reference - I have access to a pretty good library.

Posted by: Tulse | February 5, 2009 3:14 PM

[Eddington] worried that it (a universe with a beginning) didn’t leave enough time for evolution to get started

Given that evolution was a popular scientific hypothesis at the time, it is not at all unreasonable to demand that cosmological age conform to what else is known about the universe (i.e., that evolution occurs). Evolution was originally questioned because the methods for determining the age of the earth suggested that the planet was not old enough for evolutionary processes to have taken place. I don't see how this criticism of Eddington's is somehow non-scientific, or the result of bias.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 3:49 PM

MartinH, 535

Oh Noes, I Sir Robbined another challenge!

I didn’t answer your post in #270 because I had trouble understanding it.

You said:

Christianity is externally a collection of documents and of cultural practices and internally of feelings and experiences (I assume you are Christian). These are your experimental data, as it were, although we are dealing with historical science, but I think that is only a detail.

There is a bible, is that what you mean? I agree there is a bible and it is fair to put anything it says to the test. Now when it describes something as a miracle, it is more or less telling you: you'll never be able to explain this. Of course you can try--and of course there is plenty in the bible that is not describing a miracle but history and a wee bit of science. That can be tested in the normal sense.

By your own lights, to be true to science, you should not invoke the supernatural to explain what you are examining.

That is true.

However, to be religious in this context, you need to invoke the supernatural. To do so, you must disavow the explanations arrived at by MN, and thus demonstrate the incompatibility of the two.

That is not invoking the supernatural, that is accepting the biblical accounts as true.

If accepting the biblical accounts as true is in and of itself sufficient to prove incompatibility, then you have a tidy tautology. If you are religious, you accept the supernatural, and if you accept the supernatural, you are incompatible with science. Like all question begging, such an argument cannot be refuted, excpt by pointing out it’s circularity. That is why I continue to ask for a demonstration, an experiement. Not words. Show me the affect of the incompatibility, don't keep trying to prove it with words, which is impossible.

Invoking the supernatural is this: 1) Do an experiment. 2) Collect the data. 3) Analyze the data. 4) Fail to explain the data. 5) Declare that as proof that God did it!

Step 5 is invoking the supernatural, and step five is where you’d have me—it would be proof positive that my religion is incompatible with my science.

Tulse,

OK, fair enough. I stand by the claim that Eddington went beyond routine scientific concern over the problems he thought it would cause for evolution and stepped over the line to where the tail was wagging the dog--but I have no interest in fighting the fight. I was just curious whether people would even concede the possibility that Eddington or Hoyle might allowed their believes to adversely affect their science. If you say no, no way, then I'll take that as a no, you don't concede the possibility.

CJO,

OK I'll modify it. It would disprove Genesis to me. I can interpret Genesis so as to be compatible with an old earth. I see no way to have an interpretation that is reconcilable to an infinitely old cosmos. So for me, Genesis would crumble, and the rest of the bible along with it. You are right, it doesn't rule out some other deity--but it rules out the one I believe inspired Genesis.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 5, 2009 4:07 PM

heddle @#501:

Tipler is another matter. People can publish whatever they like in the non peer-reviewed literature. We judge their science by their research publications, not their philosophical publications.

And Isaac Newton famously did write bunches of stuff about angels and alchemy and his own take on theology, in addition to the Principia and works on optics, et cetera. OK, point granted.

(although I note that you appear to be using "philosophical" to mean abstract non-empirical philosophy; science is an outgrowth of earlier empirical natural philosophy)

(Aside: Do you accept Hoyle’s and Eddington’s reactions to the Big Bang as evidence where atheists let their beliefs adversely affect their science?)

Yet as noted below, Eddington was not an atheist.

I think it is possible that a scientist may let some (prior) ideological commitment(s) adversely affect science; colloquially called "crankiness". There are plenty of examples of scientists who become slightly or extremely cranky for one reason or another. An example with no connection to religion that comes to mind is Lynn Margulis' rejection of HIV being the cause of AIDS, and her description of horizontal gene flow as "Lamarckism", and her castigation of "Darwinism", which looks almost creationist-like until one reads her rather narrow definition of what that is, and her further qualifications and clarifications of terms.

Getting back to Hoyle: ¹ I would agree that his ideological commitment to steady-state looks at least partly motivated by anti-religion, yet I think it could be argued that his motivation was also based on the common reaction to to cosmological argument: If God caused the universe, what caused God? If God does not need a cause, why does the universe need a cause?

But I think it's worth noting that non-religious crankiness in general tends to be from a minority of scientists, who are for the most part cranky about different things or in different ways; a small amount of noise in the much stronger "signal" that is the scientific consensus.

The problem with religion is that it is prior ideological commitment with a much larger social backing and reinforcement, which leads to boosting the "noise" over the "signal" in such debacles as "creation science", and scientists supporting creationism in areas outside their fields of expertise.

______________________________

1: I note, from Wikipedia: "Ironically, he is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on a BBC radio program, The Nature of Things broadcast at 1830 GMT on 28 March 1949. It is popularly reported that Hoyle intended this to be pejorative, but the script from which he read aloud clearly shows that he intended the expression to help his listeners.[5] In addition, Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for radio listeners.[6]"

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 4:22 PM

Windy,

As for explanation 1 under Calvinism, I'm curious, why do you think God would be more likely to bestow belief upon non-smart people and/or non-scientists?

I don’t know that he does (see number 3) but maybe he does. I do often worry about God’s sense of humor. The bible does talk about the foolish things shaming the wise, and the weak shaming the strong. I don’t that’s what it means, but maybe it is. There is also Jesus’ statement that he came for the sick and the unrighteous, not the healthy and the (self) righteous. Are these consistent with fewer highly intelligent people being saved? I don’t know. A bit of a stretch, but maybe.

Christian schools teach science abysmally because as we see in the video there is a fair amount of anti-science sentiment among Christians. Usually not as bad as that girl, but often a general distrust of science. That is exactly the kind of thing I like to fight. But the bottom line is—take a look sometime at the catalogues for many Christian colleges. With few exceptions (Wheaton, Grove City, a few others) the science offerings are pitiful.

Nonsense. Can I point to Kurt Wise and say that young earth creationism is compatible with paleontology, since he did not let creationism interfere with his work under SJ Gould?

I would say yes, though I have never seen his thesis—I assume it passes scientific muster. Either you would have to do the science in spite of what you believe—which as I have pointed out is always possible. There is no requirement that a String Theorist actually believes String Theory. Or you would have to choose problems that minimized your conflict. But as long as you could find them, you could do it. People choose what problems they want to work on all the time. Now if Wise, a la the Creation Scientists, began explicitly to insert YECism in some detectable way into his science, that would be a problem.

Re: Sam Harris, assuming he really is deeply in to eastern mysticism. No, in the same sense I have been arguing about theists, his scientific production must be evaluated and praised or criticized as appropriate solely on the basis of its merit. To bring up his eastern mysticism when evaluating his science is an ad hominem.

Posted by: Owlmirror | February 5, 2009 4:31 PM

Getting back to Hoyle: ¹ I would agree that his ideological commitment to steady-state looks at least partly motivated by anti-religion, yet I think it could be argued that his motivation was also based on the common reaction to to cosmological argument: If God caused the universe, what caused God? If God does not need a cause, why does the universe need a cause?

And it looks like however anti-religious he may have been, he was not atheistic:

Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence.

Really, Wikipedia outlines his descent into exceedingly cranky anti-evolutionist steady-state deism.

I infer that Charlie Wagner picked up his own cranky ideas from Hoyle.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | February 5, 2009 4:43 PM

You guys have to stop equivocating with regard to the question of miracles and science. Science often deals with mechanistic processes (gravity, erosion...etc). A miracle is claimed to be the act of a transcendent personal agent. A personal agent is different from a mechanistic process.
Claiming that God could not resurrect Jesus because of something in biology is like claiming I cannot pick up my laptop because of the law of gravity. The theist never claimed Jesus was restored to life my mechanistic processes, just as I never claimed my laptop got up on my desk by mechanistic processes. A personal agent changes things.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | February 5, 2009 4:47 PM

It seems quite ironic that Harris is calling Collin's book ignorant given the sheer amount of factual and logical errors present in his books.
(His red-state/blue-state argument is a good source of laughter)

Posted by: Tulse | February 5, 2009 4:56 PM

A personal agent is different from a mechanistic process.[...] A personal agent changes things.

How? If Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes, how did that happen? Did he create them ex nihilo, and thus added actual mass to the universe? Or did he convert some existing mass? If the latter, where did that mass come from? Were the atoms used actually transmuted into the appropriate elements, or did he pull the appropriate elements from other locations? How long did the process take? Was it temporally measurable, or did it take place literally instantaneously (which, if the matter were drawn from elsewhere, would imply either teleportation or faster-than-light travel)?

Even if the process were not "mechanistic", it was a process, and one that impacted on the physical world and thus could be characterized in physical terms.

(And why is it "fishes"? Were there several species of fish involved?)

Posted by: MartinH | February 5, 2009 5:01 PM

Heddle at #539

Feel free to ask for clarification if you don't understand something I write, and I will happily attempt it.

Now please clarify something for me. Please define the word "incompatible" in the context of the present discussion.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 5:04 PM

Tulse,

I stand utterly corrected regarding my contention that Eddington was an atheist.

Religious commitments work against that trust, because they can involve an undeclared "conflict of interest".

Interesting theory. Give me a plausible example. In the case of the drug researcher with a financial conflict of interest, the potential for mischief is clear.

Now take the religious nuclear physicist, working on an experiment on, say the pion form factor. If he wanted to, even subconsciously, have his theism influence his science, how would he? I wouldn’t know where to go in the bible to figure out what Q² behavior God prefers for the pion form factor, or which theoretical model he would prefer to see validated.

And how would that be different from common “conflicts of interest” such as an experimenter trying to confirm an earlier result—most scientists are in this position at one time or another, and nobody relishes the thought of refuting a result from an earlier experiment they did—or an experimenter who has a vested interest in one theoretical model—maybe it is associated with his university—over a competitor. Aren't those conflicts of interest that we assume 1) the experimenter will operate in good faith and 2) if he doesn't the hope is the checks and balances of the peer review system will catch him. Wouldn't the same applie to any conflicts of interest from the theist scientist?

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 5, 2009 5:06 PM

Heddle @ 501:

(Aside: Do you accept Hoyle’s and Eddington’s reactions to the Big Bang as evidence where atheists let their beliefs adversely affect their science?)

As for Eddington, now you're just making shit up. Eddington was quite devout...[snip]...but he was a convinced Christian and a conscientious objector in WWI. Or don't Quakers count?

No I am not making shit up. I don’t care what his religion was...[snip]

Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 5, 2009 5:11 PM

And once again Facilis The Fallacious Fool flees in abject terror from the questions he's been hiding from for a month. No surprise, of course.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 5, 2009 5:20 PM

Heddle said to me "I bet you will run away from this question: How can you detect the way in which a theist-scientist’s belief in the supernatural affects his science?".

LOL, I didn't run away but you sure did! You're weak Heddle.

Once again the answer is that you can see the evidence they select is filtered to reach a pre-chosen conclusion. They ignore all evidence that contradicts what they want to conclude and focus on, doctor up, and even fabricate evidence that supports the conclusion they want to achieve. Case in point is the religious people doing "reseach" on gays such as Paul Cameron. It is notoriously flawed and dishonest. Case in point is the intelligent design scientists like Behe et al. Case in point is the pushing of intelligent design and the denial of evolution in schools pushed by religionists. Case in point is the video itelf at the start of this thread - you can see when religious people attempt to be scientific the vast majority of them bastardize science in order to kow tow to their religion. That there are a few exceptions to this rule does not counter the fact that in case after case after case religion is shown to be antagonistic to science.

You ran away from this one again "If the supernatural is not compatible with science, how can religion be compatible, since without the supernatural foundation, religion is nothing more than philosophy and apologetics?".

You didn't answer it in #237, you put down some empty words that explained nothing but aparently serve as a suitable hiding place from reality for you. You did the same thing in the "I'm in good company" thread where someone pointed out that your chicago statement showed science was incompatible with religion because it said scripture always trumps science. You replied to that with an absurd statement to the effect that "Scripture doesn't always trump science, but science never trumps scripture" - another way of saying the same thing and pretending that was an excuse to hide from the implication that your chicago statment said where there's a conflict scripture always trumps science which proves they are incompatible.

And you hid from this:

"God exists? If you tell me the test, I’ll apply it. There is not one belief that I have that I have put off limits for the scientific method.".

The bible says if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Go ahead attempt it, this is your experiment. Try it, fail, and then acknowledge that your religion is wrong and not compatible with science.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 5:35 PM

Priya Lynn

The bible says if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Go ahead attempt it, this is your experiment. Try it, fail, and then acknowledge that your religion is wrong and not compatible with science.

Let’s grant an absurdity—that Jesus meant this literally. Because we know that figures of speech are prohibited under the first, second, and possibly the ninth commandments. Metaphors are bad, and hyperbole is downright blasphemous. So let’s assume the Jesus meant this literally. Let’s test it, as you suggest: Now I am doing the experiment. There is a mound of dirt outside my office window. I’ll take that as my mountain. Now I’m concentrating, trying to move it, concentrating,…damn, nothing! But of course that doesn’t prove, as you contend, that my religion is wrong, it only proves that my faith is smaller than a mustard seed. Bummer!

You can pull the SC, OM trick of repeatedly claiming I didn’t answer regarding reconciling the existence of the supernatural with my claim, in spite of the fact that I must have by now written 5000 words on the subject. That’s OK, I’ll agree that I ran away from the argument with my tail between my legs. I realized I couldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. I was secretly hoping that when I argued they were compatible that nobody would bring up the supernatural or miracles. But damn, nothing gets by this bunch! Busted! Mea Culpa, you win.

Posted by: MartinH | February 5, 2009 5:41 PM

Heddle at #562

Sure, I always use incompatible this way: If incompatible is to mean something more than mumbo-jumbo, it must have a detectable effect. That is, if religion is incompatible with science then (to me) that means that a theist’s science is adversely effected by his theism in a way that can be demonstrated by examining his science.

If that is not what incompatible means, I don’t really care whether someone claims science and religion are incompatible, for in that case it doesn’t really mean anything.

This does seem a rather idiosyncratic definition, and as I said in an earlier post it seems to be a "straw man" definition. Does anyone espouse the view that science and religion are incompatible in this sense?

Hoever, I need further clarification of your definition. Are you saying that it must be true for all theists who have produced examinable scientific work? Is one instance sufficient to prove incompatibility? Or is the existence of one theist who has produced only solid scientific work a disproof of incompatibility?

I accept that you don't care if people mean something different, but you haven't demonstrated that if they don't espouse your definition their term cannot have any meaning. In post #535 I proposed a definition which seems to me to have meaning, which is testable and yet is not the definition you have sketched.

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 5, 2009 5:58 PM

Facilis:

Still no answer to my #429 and Priya Lynn's similar argument at # 516.

Why is that? Can't think of one? Here's a hint: repeating the same crap you've said over and over again before about "God" being a prerequisite for logic and reason doesn't constitute an argument. Deal with ours or give up!

Posted by: Sastra | February 5, 2009 6:06 PM

heddle #562 wrote:

Yes the existence of God is a hypothesis.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins set forth the God hypothesis as

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it."

I realize that your version of God may include additional properties, but, as a simple form of the hypothesis, can you go along with this?

If not, how would you rephrase it?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 6:20 PM

The specific combination of stupidity and arrogance so often embodied by creationists.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (as Charles Darwin put it).[3] They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

Though i doubt many creationist can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level to a point where they can acknowledge their previous lack of skill.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 6:31 PM

Priya Lynn

Pretty convenient to claim anything you don't like in the bible wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I know. I have a problem. Like when Jesus said: “I am the vine” I know that has to mean that grapes can be plucked right off of him, at least during harvest. But I keep reading it as a metaphor. God help me. I am a bad person.

Some Christian somewhere must have faith greater than a mustard seed.

You would hope so, but maybe not. Or maybe they do move mountains and cause stuff like the explosion of Mt. St. Helens to kill any homosexuals camping nearby. Which would of course be their righteous duty.

You can demonstrate that religion has affected theist's science by looking at theists' "research" on gays, particularly Paul Cameron.

Yes, indeed, because one discredited lunatic proves your case. Now fair is fair: if I find one atheist who engages in pseudo science, say a vaccine (as in efficacy of) denier does that prove atheism is incompatible with science?

You can demonstrate it by looking at the science of the Intelligent design crowd such as Behe et al.

Yes, their almost uncontainable corpus of peer-reviewed publications demonstrates conclusively how they have been able to sneak their ideas into mainstream science.

Sastra,

"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it."

Nope, Professor Dawkins nailed it. That definition works for me. As long as we allow for the possibility (certainty) of secondary causes. For example, such a definition does not rule out theistic evolution.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 6:37 PM

Yes, indeed, because one discredited lunatic proves your case. Now fair is fair: if I find one atheist who engages in pseudo science, say a vaccine (as in efficacy of) denier does that prove atheism is incompatible with science?

To be fair heddle, the atheist would have to deny vaccines because he was motivated by his non-belief for that analogy to be worth anything.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 6:43 PM

Thank You Knockgoats. PZ has the ban button warmed up, perhaps your post will catch his eye and he'll be bored almost into a coma by Heddle's bullshit ice skating maneuvers.

Posted by: heddle | February 5, 2009 6:45 PM

Windy,

As I have argued people can believe anything and do good science. There is no demand on science that you like it, value it, trust it, believe it, admire it, want to use for the common good, etc. Every piece of work is judged on its own merits.

For the NAS or any other statistical evidence you must realize, in addition to the other reasons I suggested, that quite simply there are additional career options available for theists, in the ministry, the mission fields, the seminaries etc. So if the best and brightest opt out of science, that does not necessarily mean there is an incompatibility, it means there is something else they prefer to do. Who knows what the effect of that really is--I sure don't, I'm just making a point.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 6:57 PM

People choose what problems they want to work on all the time. Now if Wise, a la the Creation Scientists, began explicitly to insert YECism in some detectable way into his science, that would be a problem.

Sorry, a bit late to this particular party. But it seems to be some serious micron-level hair-splitting on heddle's part regarding the definition of conflict.

It appears that, in his mind, conflict is limited to someone doing science a particular way under then influence of religion - and not when someone choosing to avoid doing the science in the first place because of the conflict between the science and the religion - as was the case with Wise.

Just because the conflict is passive rather than active doesn't stop it being conflict. How much difference is there between a racist doctor deliberately killing a black patient and the same racist doctor letting the same patient die by refusing to treat him or her?

The lawyers, of course, will tell you there's a vast difference. The dead black kid, on the other hand? Well, he or she is dead either way no matter what happens to Dr Racist. But using heddle's logic Dr. Racist has done nothing wrong in the second example, because the conflict was passive, not active.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 7:07 PM

facilis wrote (emphasis mine):

It is odd that Coyne seeks to call people irrational without even interacting with their epistemology?

Good grief. Who the hell writes like this? Gah! It makes me want to take a fork to him, even without all the other rubbish he spouts.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 5, 2009 7:13 PM

Wowbagger, no wonder FFF copies and pastes. He couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag with a hole in it.

Posted by: Knockgoats | February 5, 2009 7:25 PM

Now, let's try some heddle-ical exegesis.

In his first intervention in this thread, heddle complains that PZ "teams up" with creationists, and that atheists send him emails and blog comments claiming the "incompatibility of science and religion". Now, heddle must know that PZ has explicitly stated that theists can do good science. So clearly he can't be complaining that PZ is claiming they cannot (let's call this incompatibility-1), yet the implication seems to be that PZ is claiming that science and religion are incompatible - which, indeed, he does, in the sense (incompatibility-2) that (PZ claims), science mandates you to adjust your beliefs in conformity with the evidence, while religion (and specifically theism) tells you to believe what your religious authority (whether a person, committee, book or whatever) tell you to believe. These would both seem to be quite reasonable interpretations of "science and religion are incompatible", but heddle insists that only incompatibility-1 is an acceptable meaning of the phrase, because (he says), science is simply a method, following which does not require you to believe anything; and he demands evidence that the alleged incompatibility be shown to have effects. Heddle also claims, repeatedly, that the term "compartmentalization" is just a "mantra" or "chant", having no useful meaning. There are at least two other possible meanings for "science and religion are incompatible", which might be regarded as weaker versions of the two already outlined. The first is that in practice, science and religion do not in general get on well together, either in society or in individuals (incompatibility-1a). The second (incompatibility-1b) is that religion marks out certain phenomena where the conclusions of science are to be rejected.

Now, no-one hear, and no-one heddle has cited (AFAIK - I haven't read Coyne) holds incompatibility-1. Evidence has been presented for incompatibility-1a - some of it by heddle himself (anti-science sentiment among Christians and the perhaps consequent poor science teaching of Christian "colleges"), most of it by others (the strong negative correlation between religious belief and scientific eminence, the paper of Han and Warda, research on gays by Paul Cameron, the history of religious attempts to suppress specific types of scientific research and conclusions, and to insinuate religious beliefs into science classrooms). Moreover, heddle's counterclaim that the only examples he knows of beliefs concerning religion affecting scientific outcomes concerned the atheists Eddington and Hoyle collapsed in farce when it turned out they were a Quaker and a deist respectively. So evidence for effects has indeed been presented, heddle has failed to refute it, and incompatibility-1a is at least a hypothesis with more support than its negation. Heddle himself appears to accept incompatibility-2a, since he (a) accepts that science would conclude that miracles (specifically, walking on water) are impossible, but (b) believes it anyway, because his holy book tells him it happened. This seems, incidentally, as good an example of the compartmentalization whose existence he denies as one could possibly hope to find.

So in sum:
incompatibility-1: no-one, here at least, claims this is true.
incompatibility-2: heddle can maintain his denial of this only by holding that it is possible to be a scientist and do good science while not believing any of your conclusions. To say the least, this is arguable. Perhaps the odd individual (and I do mean odd) can do this - one would think at considerable psychological cost - but could science continue if all scientists took this attitude, or even a significant proportion of them? Why would they continue to do so, and why would anyone pay them to?
In pursuit of this claim, heddle has asserted that young Earth creationism is compatible with science - given the example of Kurt Wise. This raises a difficulty however: if young Earth creationism is compatible with science, why does he oppose it, and moreover, get on his high horse and insist atheists STFU so he can do so more effectively?
incompatibility-2a: everyone here seems to accept this, at least with regard to theism.

This came in after my "Thoughts of Chairman Heddle" above:
If incompatibility means reaching different conclusions when faced with the same data (is that your definition?) then I can confidently assert, from years of attending seminars, colloquia, theses defenses, workshops, conferences, and not to mention reading peer-reviewed literature, the following: science is incompatible with science. For I have witnessed and participated in countless arguments over different conclusions reached by scientists of good faith presented with a common set of data. - hedlle@566

What was meant, of course, was that a single person - to whit, heddle - comes to two different conclusions given the same data, depending on whether he's currently using the scientific or the religious compartment of his belief-system. This is pretty close to incompatibility-2a.

Now heddle can speak for himself (and he will, he will), but my conclusion from all this is that he's full of shit. The only one of the four meanings I have distinguished where he has a strong case is incompatibility-1, which no-one here is maintaining, and PX has explicitly denied holding on numerous occasions. On any other interpretation, he has failed to make a good, let alone a conclusive case, so his whining about PZ and other atheists asserting incompatibility is unjustified. Moreover, he is himself the clearest possible example of the compartmentalization whose existence he denies.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 7:43 PM

Sastra,

Maybe you'll answer what facilis dodges - is there any way of taking his argument (if we were to accept as valid that there are 'universal laws' and his claim that a being is responsible for creating them) to the point where it is applicable to only one of the many gods that humanity has produced?

As I've mentioned before I don't know enough logic/philosophy to argue whether that claim is valid (and, unlike facilis, I don't just cut-and-paste arguments; I need to actually understand what I'm saying) but I can't see that there's any way it can be shown to apply to only the Christian god and not anyone else's.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 5, 2009 7:50 PM

Facilis the Fallicious Fool.
First you only have alleged. We have been awaiting your full "proof", which you have be studiously avoiding giving us. What an ignorant ape.
Second, you keep asking questions when you need to be supplying answers. Which you studiously avoid doing. What an ignorant ape.
Third, you have no logic since you mangle it so badly. What an ignorant ape.
Big rant, no substance, just more ignorance and fallacies. Just another ignorant ape. With my apologies to real apes.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | February 5, 2009 7:56 PM

lack of actual evidence of there even being a resurrection beyond a book that is not in any way established as reliable evidence is nothing like the above.

Posted by: Satan | February 5, 2009 7:59 PM

I showed exactly how their reasoning was circular and false.

By invoking Me! Hee hee hee.

But I am the source of logic and reason. I say so, so it must be true, because, as the source of logic and reason, I cannot possibly lie.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 8:02 PM

facilis lied:

I showed exactly how their reasoning was circular and false.

No, you asserted that their reasoning was circular and false. You've got a very poor memory, haven't you? Just to remind you: ASSERTION ≠ EVIDENCE!

That aside; how can you afford to be wasting this time writing lies on a blog? You should be busy examining, remember?

In order to support your claim to need to be examining the revelations of every religion in the world, past and present, and showing us how you reach your conclusion that it is less able to make the claim of its deity (or deities) being responsible for the universal laws than your sect of Christianity.

Until then you can't question anyone about anything, because you can't account for the logic you use.

Posted by: Satan | February 5, 2009 8:06 PM

This is one of the silliest arguments for the existence of God out there.

Quite true. It's a silly argument for the existence of God, since it is in actuality a perfect and excellent argument for the existence of Me.

Posted by: Theo | February 5, 2009 8:13 PM

Insipidity is grounds for junking. I checked, although I'm not sure it is possible to KNOW if it is though.

Posted by: heliobates | February 5, 2009 8:20 PM

I've named some. Law of identity, law of non-contradiction.

Where is the full formal treatment that you use to reason correctly from these laws? Where is the complete set of axioms, their proofs and rules of inference? How does your axiomatic system avoid Goedel incompleteness? If they are truly universal, invariant, absolute and KNOWN, how hard is it to support even one of your assertions by providing a link or reference to this formal presentation. Your continued refusal to do so completely undermines your entire argument. When I asked Sye the same question he, also couldn't answer me. So are both of you being coy on purpose or did you really bring a logical spoon to a philosophical gunfight? I'm not sure which possibility is more disturbing.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

I PROVED it by the impossibility of the contrary

Let me see if your veil of stupidity really is impenetrable.

You say "...because of the law of The Impossibility of the Contrary..."

So I say: "Ah, but TIOTC doesn't apply to God because of Helio's Fourth Axiom."

And you say: "That's not one of UULL!"

And I say: "Sure it is."

How do you prove me wrong?

You still have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

You say: "How does an atheist account for certainty in knowledge?"

I say: "How do you account for certainty in knowledge?"

You say: "Goddidit! Take that atheist blackguard!"

And I say: "How does 'Goddidit!' answer the Gettier problem? In other words, how does assuming God give you certainty, given Gettier's demonstration that beliefs can be true, and justified and still not be knowledge?"

You STILL have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Posted by: God | February 5, 2009 8:22 PM

It's a silly argument for the existence of God, since it is in actuality a perfect and excellent argument for the existence of Me.

It's a silly argument for the existence of anyone!

And quit giving Yourself airs. When I said "Hail Satan!" before, I was being sarcastic.

I was first, no two ways about it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 5, 2009 8:26 PM

answer my questions minus the not-so-clever dodge.

Posted by: God | February 5, 2009 8:32 PM

I mean, really, why would an omnipotent entity create another entity and make that entity think that the first entity wasn't the first, and was less omnipotent than the second?

It's insane, and a complete violation of parsimony!

Posted by: God | February 5, 2009 8:41 PM

Like sacrificing part of Yourself to Yourself so as to save Your creation from being punished by Yourself as the result of one of Your creatures being tempted by another of Your creatures?

[...]

Well, yes... But I didn't do that! The whole thing was a hoax! You know this!

Posted by: God | February 5, 2009 8:47 PM

Ah, but you wanted the humans to think it was true.

I rest my case.

Ah. So in other words, a bored omnipotent entity is liable to do insane things for no particular reason other than that it seems funny at the time.

Point taken.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 8:50 PM

I am disappointed about the pineapples Satan. Your bears, I'm sure, are terrifying, but compared to god you really are 2nd rate.

To paraphrase - God, "I'm gonna kill everyone." Ezekiel 6:12

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 5, 2009 8:58 PM

Wowbagger @ 614:

Where the bible says something about reality and science and gets it correct then that part is meant to be taken literally.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | February 5, 2009 9:05 PM

Where is our old friend Teno Groppi when we ned him?

Posted by: Lurkbot | February 5, 2009 9:15 PM

Wowbagger:

The very same. He made just as much sense as Heddle, Facilis, and Garfunkel put together and was much more entertaining.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 9:23 PM

Lurkbot,

Yeah, I just did a search and found him on a thread from last year on Entropy and Evolution. I should have remembered the name; the thread shows that I joined in with a few of the others for a good, clean, old-fashioned, fun-filled troll stomp.

My contributions included dubbing him 'Tenuous Teno' and mocked him for seeing doctors when sick rather than follow the bible's medical advice of a) anointing with oil, and b) praying.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 9:42 PM

Nerd,

Yeah, it was quite bizarre; the crazy-woo certainly was strong in him. At one point his argument for the bible predicting antiobiotics and vaccinations was that the phrase 'bitter water' appears.

In his mind? Unequivocal.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 5, 2009 9:55 PM

My favourite Tenocious G quote:

Aren't you at least curious as to whats in the Bible pertaining to future technology?

Second favourite :

You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control. You know, I veagly remember one of Hitlers tactics of control....

Once you invoke Satan Goodwin's law seems like a step back.

That guy made Facilis look like a Rhodes scholar.

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 10:09 PM

That guy made Facilis look like a Rhodes scholar.

A chimp writing with a crayon clenched between its butt cheeks makes facilis look like a Rhodes scholar.

At least we can give Tenuous Teno some points for at least trying to come up with some ideas rather than having been stupid enough to steal flaccid arguments from another idiot without either stopping to think them through or bothering to check if they'd been debunked.

Posted by: Feshy | February 5, 2009 10:33 PM

It's too bad I'm 600 comments in, because this actually gets even funnier / sadder. Someone sent me a link to a "funny" shirt, and I recognized the font from this video. Check out this photo bucket profile that is possibly the source of the Ex-Atheist shirt:

http://s132.photobucket.com/albums/q8/acureton/

It has several funny and disturbing things. The first is that there are several other "Ex" shirts -- fornicator, hustler, diva... masturbator.

Disturbingly, it has a folder for Ex Homosexual as well -- not just the shirt, but articles. So the stupid is also bigoted (big surprise.)

The last funny thing is there's also a folder with Beyonce pictures in provocative poses. Meaning that the poster is lying about one or more of those Ex's -- either masturbator or homosexual, depending on their gender ;) You can tell they feel guilty about it, because they left a bloody picture of Jesus in that folder too for guilt!

The photography is actually decent though, in my unprofessional (even un-amateur in that field) opinion.

Again, it's a shame I'm so far down that most people will miss this new and interesting addition to the story.

Posted by: Sastra | February 5, 2009 10:41 PM

Lee Picton #626 wrote:

... in spite of all your endless patience, you have failed to get through to either FFF or Heddle.

Thanks ... I am patient because I am cynical. I do not expect positive results, and would be astonished to see any theist admit any major reversal in blog comments. Both Facilius and heddle have thought through their positions a great deal. I am probably unlikely to come up with anything completely unanticipated (though I can hope.)

They probably know the weaknesses in their arguments better than I do. Sometimes you only notice problems when you're making your best case. That's true for me, at any rate. So I'm more focused on trying to improve myself, than them. And understand the argument better.

There's also smaller victories. Hey -- if Facilius, at any point, thinks to himself "this is more complicated than it looks when I watch the professionals" -- then win! None of us is likely to have any real idea of what "gets through" or works -- and in what area. When I used to go into debate rooms, my goal was just to get them to eventually say "Well, I still think you're wrong -- but I can see now why you might think you're right." To some people, that is cataclysmic.

It's tough on our side, too. Unless we can figure out how they can reasonably come to the conclusions they've come to, nobody is going anywhere, and nothing will be effective. The worst position is "they're nuts." No they're not. That girl in the video could have been me. My job is to figure out how.

Posted by: Sastra | February 5, 2009 10:50 PM

Feshy #631 wrote:

It's too bad I'm 600 comments in, because this actually gets even funnier / sadder. Someone sent me a link to a "funny" shirt, and I recognized the font from this video.

I'm not going to scroll back and look, but people on the thread were laughing about the t-shirts earlier -- particularly "EX-masturbator" -- so I think they either found your link, or one like it.

Posted by: MartinH | February 5, 2009 11:09 PM

Heddle at #566

In my absence, Knockgoats at #587 covered what would have been my response to you, and much, much more, in his excellent synthesis. I think he's done a pretty good job of demonstrating that as far as your definition of incompatibility goes, there seems to be agreement with you on this thread. However, he has also shown a strong case that other assertions of incompatibility adopting more natural definitions are well supported, and unsurprisingly, are actually espoused by people on this thread.

In my view, you are less of a scientist than you might be for believing in christianity, since you have adopted that belief in the teeth of strong evidence that Jesus is a mythical figure. I would be extremely interested in the case you could make to persuade someone of the truth of your beliefs.

I speculate that your obsession with incompatibility_1 (to use Knockgoats' terminology) is that you want people to somehow buy into the view that you are a solidly rational being. Holding two incompatible thought schemes would threaten that. Only if you can force the discussion to remain focussed on incompatibility_1 can you win the argument, which combined with your presumably impeccable and religion-free scientific opus lets you off the hook. Well, people here clearly think that you are holding two incompatible thought schemes in that one head, and are less sound rationally for it.

Posted by: Tulse | February 5, 2009 11:17 PM

The Transcendental Argument for God -- and all the presuppositional arguments -- only get you to a vague "transcendental source" -- even if they worked.

Do they necessarily even get you to monotheism? Could multiple "sources" be responsible for the multiple necessary features that presuppositionalists, um, presuppose?

Posted by: Kel | February 5, 2009 11:38 PM

It's easy to respect heddle's way of thinking, even if I personally disagree with it. Facilis on the other hand, he's just the king of fallacies which he's been able to mask himself from with his absurd position that one needs to account for logic in order to be able to use it. Maybe it's well thought out in the respect that it's a hard nut to crack (any attempt to use logic is just dismissed off-hand), but it's not well thought out in the sense of a valid worldview. It's childish really, it's like a YEC saying Goddidit is a more valid answer than we don't know.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 6, 2009 12:50 AM

Back from a very productive day. The thing that I find so sad about heddle (forget about facilis and Garfunkle, and ignore the fact that we have yet to see heddle lift a finger to actually model for the rest of us why and how he is the man to dissuade theists who reject science from the error of their ways--it's always a united front among the theists; heddle has yet to confront them here on their science-denial and don't hold your breath)is heddle's inability or unwillingness to look at the basic Christian Gospels and see them as a collection of stories that seek to imagine and establish a flavor of mythological hero/god that is the greatest and most badass of all time, during an era in which there was much competition and source material to emulate/plagiarize. Due diligence is going to show anybody where the serial numbers got filed off earlier accounts. Once you see stories from the Far East that predate The Naz that had been around for centuries, and most certainly passed through the Middle East on their way to eventual Hellenization, it's just bizarre to try and figure out how anybody could look at the form of such tales, their tropes and style, and go to all the trouble of treating genre fiction as historical documents.

Treating fairy tales as true, requiring so much transparent tap-dancing and compartmentalization for somebody who claims to understand and value science, especially in the course of the sort of civil discourse that Sastra has shamed heddle into participating in, is a really bizarre mental feat for somebody waving the banner of science so unconvincingly, as if heddle has to convince himself he really is a scientist. The behavior is quite a bit more pathetic than that of the aliens from the film Galaxy Quest who regarded a cheap SF TV show (modeled on TOS/Now Generation) that they intercepted as "the historical documents."

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 1:08 AM

I don't respect heddle's point of view for one instant.

Kel have you checked out Calvinism? It's as foul as the Catholics. The concept of total depravity is something no one should be burdened with. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is chump change compared to TULIP.

Perhaps you don't have any of this sick sect in your country.

Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 1:21 AM

Perhaps you don't have any of this sick sect in your country.

Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 1:31 AM

I examine my opponent's worldview to see which can provide the necessary preconditions of the intelligibility of human experience. IF he fails I will show my worldview is superior

Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 6, 2009 1:33 AM

Facilis,

I KNOW this because God has revealed it to me with certainty

You keep saying that, but I have yet to read the details. Did he appear to you in a piece of toast and start talking about the laws of logic? Or did a giant cheese burger become animate and start telling you vague prophecies? Or was there some masculine, deep voice in your head telling you it's God and that you should kill, kill?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 6, 2009 1:35 AM

What is it Patricia, about the Calvinist Elect? Lo, before the foundations of time, they, and only they, got their celestial pre-boarding pass, as if they were the current Battlestar Galactica's Final 144K, predestined to be struck by the realization that they would experience the joy of filling their nostrils with the scent of the damned, flambé, from the battlements of heaven for all eternity. All those other Christians who aren't Calvinists? They're just as extra crispy as me and Patricia.

Paul Schrader's film starring George C. Scott, Hardcore, portraying a Calvinist looking for his runaway daughter in LA's 70s porn scene, contains pretty much everything we pre-damned un-elect need to know about Calvinism. The more you learn, the sooner you'll be yelling, "Turn it off!"

Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 1:39 AM

I KNOW this because God has revealed it to me with certainty.

Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 1:44 AM

I don't think heddle will worry about you guys' feeling about Calvinism. As James White always says, it is not surprising that depraved sinners who spend their lives in rebellion against God should be offended when presented with God's true teaching.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 1:48 AM

Well Ken, I was damned to begin with. Being female I am guilty of the original sin. That's extra crispy!

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 6, 2009 1:57 AM

That's extra crispy!

As well as delicious and habit-forming, leading to activities that paradoxically yield serendipitous weight-loss for all participants (with certain notable exceptions).

Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 2:02 AM

facilis, the question was what qualifies you to make this judgement? this:

I examine my opponent's worldview to see which can provide the necessary preconditions of the intelligibility of human experience. IF he fails I will show my worldview is superior

...is not an answer to that question. You see, when you say you are going to examine something to see if it provides an answer, you have to explain what that answer is, and how you're going to go about looking for it.

You have not done that. Just saying-so does not count.

Next mistake:

I KNOW this because God has revealed it to me with certainty. I demonstrate it by critiquing other worldview, as I have done here with atheism

So, you're trying to tell us that your ability to judge, objectively, whether any of the gods of other religions' revelations has the capacity to be more valid than your own is dependant on knowledge given by your god?

I can't even begin to explain exactly how idiotic an argument that is. I don't think that I can make my mind function in the limited ways yours does with doing it some kind of traumatic injury - and I don't want to wake up Christian, so I'm not going to risk it.

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 2:03 AM

Patricia, can you say "Devil's Gateway"?

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 6, 2009 2:06 AM

Where did heddle say this?

Don't worry about it facilis. You're not a Calvinist, so you're gonna burn forever and ever, pain without end, amen. But if you let Jello Biafra skin you alive, I'm sure you'll make a fine condom, so you're not a complete loss. And now, kids, here's a cut from Frankenchrist that I think you'll really dig.

Posted by: Ken Cope | February 6, 2009 2:12 AM

Janine, I worked so hard to get Post of the Beast. What's your secret?

Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 2:17 AM