Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 10:57 AM

Well at least they didn't add Jefferson and Franklin.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 17, 2009 11:02 AM

You must be rousing the rabble to get included. I was surprised Asimov didn't appear.

Posted by: TheLady | April 17, 2009 11:07 AM

Deary me, what about Spinoza? And Voltaire?!?

I think you sure do deserve to be on a ist of brilliant atheists, PZ - but I'd like the list itself to be a better one...

Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 17, 2009 11:09 AM

Yes, Warren Buffet [sic}. He, uh, let's see, made a lot of money. Wouldn't Bill Gates be better in that category, at least if it's true (as is said) that he's an atheist?

Nietzsche's not on the list of most brilliant atheists, but Jody Foster is?

Congrats PZ, but it's not much of a list.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | April 17, 2009 11:12 AM

Yeah... they missed a lot of much better choices on this on. You deserve to be on there, PZ, but you're right. It's not much of a list. You should be part of a better one.

Posted by: shonny | April 17, 2009 11:13 AM

Not much of a list, no disrespect to the majority of those on it, but how the hell can the listmaker have forgotten Robert G. Ingersoll?

No good saying that Ingersoll was an agnostic, because reading his speaches, he was a full-time, full-blodded atheist. Maybe his official stance was somewhat tempered because the GFs had still lots of power.

Two others missing are Jack London and Ernest Hemingway, both rather prominent, neither too much into godbothering.

Posted by: Porco Dio | April 17, 2009 11:17 AM

nothing like a good ol' fasioned sandwitch!!!

happy monkey!!!

Posted by: Objection! | April 17, 2009 11:20 AM

Thanks Rev! I hear that the throwing of footwear is a symbol of great respect in many cultures. In fact Bush was recently honored in this way as a show of appreciation from the liberated Iraqi people.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 17, 2009 11:22 AM

(I thought he was a "pantheist" or something like that.)

Panentheist.

Really, it's one of the most god-soaked metaphysical systems ever devised. It is true that one can easily dispense with his god, however, and end up atheist--since there's no real distinction between god and nature.

Possibly that's why Einstein ended up atheist, although it's not clear how true (or how knowledgeable of) he ever was to Spinoza's ideas.

Which I guess brings up the question of why Einstein's not on the list, either. While he was famously theistic, or probably more accurately, deistic, for much of his life, the fact that he ended up atheist matters to the history of science (probably matters little to the history of atheism, other than turning around the claim, "but Einstein believed in God," to our favor).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: TheNewAtheist | April 17, 2009 11:23 AM

What no Hitler or Stalin? (sarcasm, "cause they were atheists you know!")

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 11:25 AM

Thanks Rev! I hear that the throwing of footwear is a symbol of great respect in many cultures. In fact Bush was recently honored in this way as a show of appreciation from the liberated Iraqi people.

You said the dirty word, I had to do it.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | April 17, 2009 11:26 AM

I'm with #3 above. What!? No Christopher Hitchens? I think the Hitch might agree that Mick Jagger manifests some form of brilliance, but not necessarily intellectual. Mick is "brilliant" in the slang use of the term, but putting him on the list and not Christopher Hitchens...sheesh.

Posted by: tweetybirdie386sx | April 17, 2009 11:29 AM

Glen D: Which I guess brings up the question of why Einstein's not on the list, either. While he was famously theistic, or probably more accurately, deistic, for much of his life, the fact that he ended up atheist matters to the history of science (probably matters little to the history of atheism, other than turning around the claim, "but Einstein believed in God," to our favor).

Yeah really, a lot of people on that list probably were theists at one point or another.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 17, 2009 11:32 AM

Why not van Gogh, who at least made atheistic statements. And for Chrissake, why not Darwin, as long as agnostics who have little space for god (Sagan, etc.) are included?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Hyperon | April 17, 2009 11:42 AM

Many of the luminaries on that list don't identify as "atheists", but are just non-religious. And then of course you'd have to include Einstein, Darwin, and so many other famous people that it becomes ridiculous.

Posted by: Ian | April 17, 2009 11:43 AM

I agree with Glen Davidson, but with reservations. Spinoza is often called a pantheist, and he certainly used the word "God" a lot.

However, I agree with Glen Davidson that it would be more accurate in contemporary terminology to call him a "panentheist." That is, he believed that only one thing exists. It seems that he meant that the only thing that exists is the real-world material universe (disputed, but many scholars agree, see below).

At the very least give him credit for being excommunicated by the Sephardic community of Amsterdam, and also for this: for a century or two afterwards, if you wanted to accuse someone of being a dirty rotten atheist you might do so by calling them a "Spinozist."

"Spinoza (1631–1677) responded to the dualism of traditional theism by emphasizing the relationship between God and the world to the point that the nature of any ontological distinction between God and the world became problematic...[Theistic thinkers were disturbed by] Spinoza's close identification between God and the world."

Posted by: ddr | April 17, 2009 11:46 AM

And no Terry Pratchett.

Yeah, Jager and Lee should have given way to Twain and Pratchett.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | April 17, 2009 11:50 AM

I suspect Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson belong on the list. Both were likely agnostics at least, although they felt religion played a useful social role.

And re: Mick Jagger--hey, you wouldn't want to deprive him of his satisfaction, would you?

Posted by: Lord Zero | April 17, 2009 11:51 AM

Pz, i just wanna know... that picture is
the best one you have ?
Everytime i see you in any website i see
this same picture over and over again...

And as a regular on Pharyngula i seen
some other great pics as well, like the one
with the pirate hat.

Will we be ever be able to see another
despiction of our admired Prof. Myers ?

Regarding to the list, there are some
which are significative characters, but
overall is more about being known figures
rather than anything else.
Still i never thought than one day i would
find a list which Bruce Lee and PZ together.
Quite funny.

Posted by: Rieux | April 17, 2009 11:53 AM

It's also a strange list that mentions a few old Greeks at the beginning and then leaps right into the late 19th century and present. It's only nominally "all time", I'm afraid.

"Brief History," BTW, is a very nice BBC documentary presented by Jonathan Miller, including interviews with Steven Weinberg and Arthur Miller... and, of course, Dick to the Dawk and an un-pimped Dan Dennett. I recommend it to anyone; there's a Web video version available here.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 17, 2009 11:57 AM

Why isn't Baron Holbach on the list? Ingersoll certainly belongs there too.

Posted by: Richard Harris | April 17, 2009 12:00 PM

What the hell is Mick Jagger doing in there?

At least, he's not polluting it with his god-awful noise.

Posted by: Happy Tentacles | April 17, 2009 12:00 PM

What criteria did the compilers of the list use? A strange mixture of respected thinkers and random non-religious people. We could do better.

Voltaire may not have liked atheists, but that doesn't stop him being one! His writings are rich with vituperative anti-clericalism - check out the 'Philosophic Dictionary'!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 12:03 PM

At least, he's not polluting it with his god-awful noise.

You damn kids, get off Richard Harris' lawn!!

Posted by: Dr.Woody | April 17, 2009 12:06 PM

Voltaire may not have liked atheists, but that doesn't stop him being one! His writings are rich with vituperative anti-clericalism - check out the 'Philosophic Dictionary'!

Vituperative anti-clericism--e.g., Humans will never be free until the last priest is strangled by the intestines of the last noble--doth not an "atheist" make...

Posted by: Varlo | April 17, 2009 12:09 PM

Tat is too much sandwich for one man. You take Pinker. I will take Jodie.

Posted by: Stacy | April 17, 2009 12:09 PM

It's all still pretty cool. :-)

Congrats!

Posted by: Matt Heath | April 17, 2009 12:10 PM

Possibly a bit pedantic but didn't Epicurus believe that gods (somewhat like the Olympians) existed? I thought his big thing was that gods worthy of the name couldn't possibly need anything from us mere mortals, so we didn't have to worry about them.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 17, 2009 12:11 PM

This whole fixation on the label "atheist" is infantile and counter-productive. The above list emphasizes this point.

Does it really matter whether someone like Einstein or Chomsky call themselves "atheists"? These kind of people affected by superstition in any way, and cede no authority to religious claims. Who cares whether they identify as "atheists"?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 12:19 PM

@ Rev: Is there a more fitting euphemism than umm (to avoid any further boot throwing)that term that I used. I thought of assholes but while fitting it is not exclusive.

Not really but it's like saying Candyman in the mirror three times. When you say the word that shall not be named it tends to turn threads into a wankfest of those who subscribe to unsaid word.

Posted by: Scarybug | April 17, 2009 12:25 PM

As another blog just pointed out, top 10 lists are designed to generate traffic and discussion by manufacturing controversy.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/44630

Not that that doesn't make them interesting.

Posted by: Richard Harris | April 17, 2009 12:31 PM

Rev, okay, maybe that was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

A deist, believing that a god created the universe, setting up the fundamental constants, & providing matter & energy, then retiring, is no theist, who believes in a god that intercedes in the World & in human affairs. Some deists thought that the creator (God) should be worshipped, but, as with many things, there is a spectrum of belief, & modern deists may not feel a need for worship.

Voltaire, Franklin, & Jefferson, were Deists. Spinoza, known as "the god-intoxicated man", was a Pantheist.

Posted by: Holbach | April 17, 2009 12:38 PM

I like and admire Jodie Foster very much, but it hurts to have her admit that she has great respect for all religions. My like for her is not diminshed, but I would most assuredly argue with her on that point, and perhaps even convince her that this regard is unwarranted at best.
I would never consider Gould as a great atheist, maybe more of an agnostic, and this is determined from all his books I have, save a couple, in which he more than gives cursory admiration for religion. In fact several of his books have a biblical passage at the chapter heading. Maybe great in his discipline, but definitely not as an atheist.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 17, 2009 12:52 PM

I'll throw my hat in too: No Hitch? Surely he's at least worthy of right-honorable mention.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | April 17, 2009 12:58 PM

"Sandwiched between Jodie Foster and Steve Pinker"

The order of the list is by date of birth, farthest back first.

This is a surprising and impressive (for the most part) list.

Posted by: Matt Heath | April 17, 2009 1:06 PM

They left off Diederot? Baron D'Holbach? Man, what a slam to the French intellectuals of the 18th century...

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 1:07 PM

A deist, believing that a god created the universe, setting up the fundamental constants, & providing matter & energy, then retiring, is no theist

WTF? How can you believe in a god and not be a theist? Belief in god is the definition of theism!
"god" = "diety" = "theism"
"no god" = "no diety" = "atheism"

Or is this just woo-woos shifting the goalposts so they can say they're "atheists" but still believe in the great heavenly woo-woo for which there is no evidence but their earnest wishes?

mjr.

Posted by: CJO | April 17, 2009 1:10 PM

The Emperor Julian (the Apostate), about whom Gore Vidal wrote a terriffic novel, would be one, i'd think...

Haven't read the novel, so I don't know if he's portrayed as an atheist, but he was not one. He was a devoted pagan, with a fancy-pants neo-Platonic philosophy. Some historians have claimed he was initiated into Mithraism. He was the only emperor after Constantine to reverse the policy of Christianity as state religion and seems to have sincerely wanted to strengthen the pagan religions in the Empire to the point where Christianity was just one faith among many. But it was too little, too late. Paganism was crushed over the next century and the West fell into barbarism, illiteracy and superstition. And that's how we lost the incalculable treasures of pagan literature. Short-sighted, power grubbing Christian thugs, killing pagan priests, converting temples into churches and burning books.

Posted by: Holbach | April 17, 2009 1:22 PM

I am not miffed or disappointed that my namesake did not make the list. There are many names from every period who were atheists and have been overlooked or neglected. We can easily track them down and wonder how they managed to elude recognition. The important thing is that they existed and let it be known that insane religion has not infected everyone with idiocy and subservient grovelling. Regards to them all, known and unknown.

Posted by: Paul | April 17, 2009 1:23 PM

@mjr

Or is this just woo-woos shifting the goalposts so they can say they're "atheists" but still believe in the great heavenly woo-woo for which there is no evidence but their earnest wishes?

My impression was more that it was an atheist trying to conflate their numbers so more of the "cool kids" are on their team.

Posted by: natural cynic | April 17, 2009 1:24 PM

If Adams is the only sci-fi author in, then why not Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Ellison ...

Notice the lack of, uh, diversity: 3 female and one non-caucasian. For her courage, add Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Rand in, Marx out??? Puhleeeeze

Posted by: Hyperon | April 17, 2009 1:28 PM

"Deism" of some sort isn't an obviously absurd position. If it turns out there's fine-tuning, then as far as we know we need to turn to either multiverse or intelligent design. This is the province of physicists. The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 1:30 PM

The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

*headdesk

Posted by: sayhey | April 17, 2009 1:38 PM

Not a very complete list. How come no Arthur C Clarke?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | April 17, 2009 1:41 PM

Sandwiched between Jodie Foster and Steve Pinker

Must get image of weirdest threesome out of head.......

***Pictures the lushes locks on Pinker's head waving majestically in the air***

Snap out of it!

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 1:59 PM

Check your dictionary: "theists" believe in the existence of a personal God

I understand that the popular practice is to adjust the dictionary (I notice even wikipedia gives a nod to this new and unusual usage). It's still postmodernist bullshit.

So, may I assume that since you don't believe in pink unicorns, you are a "unicornist"?

Posted by: Otto | April 17, 2009 2:01 PM

Interesting list, quite incomplete of course and very much open to argument.
One of my candidates would be Daniel L Everett, a missionary who wanted to convert the savages in the Amazon and lost his faith in the process:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1859528,00.html

Posted by: Chris Davis | April 17, 2009 2:03 PM

The list could be more accurately titled '50 Famous Atheists We Can Think Of'

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 2:09 PM

"Deism" of some sort isn't an obviously absurd position.

It's no more absurd than to assume that the universe was perhaps farted into existence by my horse, last wednesday. Which is to say it's pretty absurd. And it remains absurd until we see some evidence supporting it. (My horse actually appears to exist, so the horse-fart theory so far trumps deism in terms of objective evidence)

If it turns out there's fine-tuning, then as far as we know we need to turn to either multiverse or intelligent design. This is the province of physicists.

If it turns out that there's fine tuning, there will be theories made a-plenty. In the meantime, deism is nothing more than childish self-important fantasy.

What about a position for which there is no evidence is not "absurd"??

Cue "...but some really smart people were deists!" fallacy in 3... 2... 1...

Posted by: Paul | April 17, 2009 2:10 PM

So if I'm reading the atheism/theism subthread right:

Atheism used to mean "lacking belief in god".

Theism used to mean "belief in one or more gods".

But now Theism means "belief in a personal* god".

Therefore, religions that believe in an impersonal god are really atheism.

My head hurts. Someone make it stop.

Posted by: Matt Heath | April 17, 2009 2:12 PM

brainz.org seems to be a really poor website that thinks it's a lot more intellectual than it actual is.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 2:12 PM

Ramen to that! Can't count how many times I have had to correct my American acquaintances that I speak 'Hindi', not 'Hindu'!!

I'll admit ignorance on this. Where does the incorrect use of Hindu instead of Hindi come from?

Posted by: protocol | April 17, 2009 2:16 PM

You are right; the theistic version predominates, but the carvaka/lokayata school was constantly a thorn in the side of the theistic interpretations. Wikipedia has a decent summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 2:18 PM

Oh something that simple. I was envisioning much more nefarious reasons.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | April 17, 2009 2:19 PM

Did you like the 'heat'?

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 2:21 PM

So if I'm reading the atheism/theism subthread right:
Atheism used to mean "lacking belief in god".
Theism used to mean "belief in one or more gods".
But now Theism means "belief in a personal* god".
Therefore, religions that believe in an impersonal god are really atheism.

It's just language games. The soft-creos want to distance themselves from the hard-creos because they are tired of being laughed at. So they're redefining the language to make it seem like they're not creos. They're all on the slow bus and they're arguing who's in front.

The root word of "deism" is "deus" - god. The "-ism" part is normal English; there's no way to parse "deism" as anything other than belief in god(s). Someone who doesn't believe in god or god(s) who is searching for an explanation of the universe is a "scientist" or a "rationalist". Ultimately, "deism" comes back to "goddidit" -- and if that's not a statement of religious faith then I am a teapot orbiting Mars.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | April 17, 2009 2:22 PM

Sorry, my comment @110 was directed to the Rev @108. And now, the comment system won't even allow me to post this correction... Apparently it is too soon (Sigh!)

Am I addicted to Pharyngula, or what?

Posted by: E.V. | April 17, 2009 2:29 PM

Am I addicted to Pharyngula, or what?

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 2:34 PM

Marcus, it's not po-mo.

Sorry. It's one of the biggest insults I know, and it just slipped out...

The founder of Deism was Lord Edward Herbert of Cherbury (1583-1648). He believed in a creator god that was worthy of worship. That aspect of the deity has probably been diminished, even to the point of being totally rejected, for people who would call themselves Deists nowadays. Deists were, & are, freethinkers.

You can call them "freethinkers" or whatever you like, but it's still religious faith. Sounds like you're arguing a sort of faith-limit-approaching-zero position. But that's silly because it begs the question of having been faith-based at all. If the faithless are presented with evidence of something, they'll believe it or not based on the evidence. The "deists" may be whittling their imaginary playmate down to whatever wafer-thin minima they're comfortable with, but that doesn't make them rational.

The whole idea of this creator god could be diminished to the point where it is simply the 'whatever' that brought matter & energy into being

Reasoning: you're doing it backwards!

When there's an explanation (with evidence beyond mere speculation) of how the universe came into being, that "whatever" will be understood. Sitting back and assuming in the meantime that it's a whittled-down deus of the gaps is intellectual cowardice, dishonesty, or both.

This deistic god wouldn't warrant the title of 'god' compared to the petty-minded, jealous, sadistic, thoroughly vile god of the Abrahamic religions.

Yet it's a "god" and you're asked to take it just as much on faith as the abrahamic asshole god. It's just that the faith gets thinner and thinner and thinner. It's still faith. It's just a little, shitty faith that could be replaced with an intellectually honest statement, "I don't know."

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 2:41 PM

Lower cholesterol?

pfffft. Cholesterol is a myth drummed up by the anti-bacon PACs.

Posted by: Maldoror | April 17, 2009 2:43 PM

Needs more Luis Bunuel. Best critic of religion in the medium of film.

Nietzsche would have been nice but he's become a little cliched and wasn't the most rational thinker. Then again, Ayn Rand still made it.

In order to be a little less Western-centric (and to fill in the gap between classical Greece and the 19th century) they ought to have included Al Ma'arri or Ibn al-Rawandi, the two earliest critics of Islam in the Arab world.

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 2:47 PM

Sastra writes:
Heh. This morning I was reading Daniel Dennett's acceptance speech for the FFRF "Emperor Has No Clothes" Award, and read the part where he describes theists as coming in two different varieties: "supers" and "murkies."

Yeah! :) Those are great terms (adopted!)

Murky theists attempt to do the mysterious too hard to fathom shuffle, but it doesn't work -- because if it's all so mysterious and hard to fathom, their reasons for assuming a god is part of it is equally mysterious and unfathomable. So "what makes you know?" garners you a long spew that should be familiar: "science doesn't know everything, blah blah blah." Which is true. But scientists just say "I don't know" and the murkies say:
huge jumping back and forth quantum brane xtra dimensional mulder and scully dancing wu li masters higgs boson quantum superposition goddidit.
It almost makes you admire Ken Hamm for his honest stupidity, in comparison.

Posted by: Billy C | April 17, 2009 2:52 PM

For what it's worth, checking my dictionary (the OED):

theist
(1) One who holds the doctrine of theism.
(2) A person addicted to tea-drinking.

Assuming we're using definition 1 here [runs finger up the page] ....

theism
a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.
b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = MONOTHEISM.
c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = DEISM.
d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

Hm. Checked my dictionary, and deists are theists. Except when they're not.

BTW, if we're taking votes on an improved list, I'd like to nominate Christopher Marlowe.

Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez | April 17, 2009 3:00 PM

Though its shortcommings, it is an interesting list. Perhaps it is a bit "presentist" and "American-centered", but the Ultimate Battle for Reason will be fought in the States, anyway. (Or, properly speaking, the Penultimate Battle, being the Ultimate fought in the so-called Islamic world).

Posted by: s1mplex | April 17, 2009 3:09 PM

"My partner and I want a vial of sperm and an applicator that looks like Jodie Foster’s knuckles."

/Hoping this doesn't become a Family Guy bashing thread

Posted by: Richard Harris | April 17, 2009 3:13 PM

Marcus, ...if it's all so mysterious and hard to fathom, their reasons for assuming a god is part of it is equally mysterious and unfathomable.

Some of them declare a feeling of the immanence of their god. This state of mind does not depend so much upon reason, but rather, upon what may be almost a schizophrenic delusional state.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | April 17, 2009 3:29 PM

How could they leave out Hypatia of Alexandria? Wikipedia lists her as a pagan, but anybody who was hacked to death by a Christian mob gets my vote. She did math, logic, astronomy and philosophy, and could be considered the last of the great Greek thinkers of ancient times. She died for truth, much more painfully than Socrates did, but is seldom remembered.

And yay to whoever suggested Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Women were way short on that list, even counting Mick Jagger.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 17, 2009 3:34 PM

I don't quibble with Mick Jagger (didn't even know but I'd put John Lennon on

Except that Lennon claimed that he was not an atheist shortly before he was killed, implying that he never had been an atheist:

LENNON: But nobody's perfect, etc., etc. Whether it's Janov or Erhardt or Maharishi or a Beatle. That doesn't take away from their message. It's like learning how to swim. The swimming is fine. But forget about the teacher. If the Beatles had a message, it was that. With the Beatles, the records are the point, not the Beatles as individuals. You don't need the package, just as you don't need the Christian package or the Marxist package to get the message. People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or antireligion. I'm not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things that Christ was saying in those parables. Because people got hooked on the teacher and missed the message.

beatlesnumber9.com/lp2.html

He ends up being labeled an atheist because of his "imagine...no religion," but he wasn't. People need to take him off of their atheist lists.

To be sure, it's quite unclear (at least from that interview) how he was "a most religious fellow."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: blop | April 17, 2009 3:49 PM

By the way, crediting Stephen Jay Gould for "A scientific dissent from Darwinism" (the Discovery Institute's petition), as this list does, is an incredibly ugly mistake.

Posted by: Jack | April 17, 2009 4:14 PM

No Bradlaugh? No good.

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

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | April 17, 2009 4:15 PM

REVBDC quoted in #42

I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.

I have always thought that Ben was just having a little fun with with this quote.

While he probably didn't "dogmatise" or "study" the divinity of Christ, do you really think that he did not seriously ponder and consider the matter?

He probably just didn't want to piss off and offend the natives & yokels at that late state in his life. IIRC he was in his eighties when he gave tat interview, and died just a few months afterwards.

What do you think?

Posted by: Richard Harris | April 17, 2009 4:23 PM

Paul, it's pretty simple: more woo = more stupidity.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | April 17, 2009 4:35 PM

Sorry about the double post

First time posting in a while.

DAMN YOU type key registration process!

/Shaking fist

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 4:39 PM

Bacon is mainly protein,unless you fry it in heaps of fat or it has some huge rind on it its not actually bad for you.The classic "bacon and eggs" breakfast is a high-protein,low-fat,low-carb affair thats quite nutritionally valuable.

Are you from England by chance?

Posted by: Roger Scott | April 17, 2009 4:45 PM

Hmmn, an indifferent list. What about porn stars Asia Carrera and Brandy Alexandre? And Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Natalie Angier, Dave Barry, John Conway and Harry Kroto. Mick Jagger beats Christopher Hitchens? Why not squeeze another ten or so into the top 50?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 17, 2009 4:46 PM

theist
(1) One who holds the doctrine of theism.
(2) A person addicted to tea-drinking.

Sob! I shall have to give up atheism.

Hi, my name is 'Tis and I'm addicted to tea.

Posted by: Free Lunch | April 17, 2009 5:01 PM

I understand that General Robert E. Lee was also not a believer. It's enough to explode the heads of the Confederacy-worshippers.

Posted by: Richard Harris | April 17, 2009 5:07 PM

Marcus, the way I see it, driving 10 mph over the speed limit is stupid (most of the time), & driving 20 mph over the speed limit is even more stupid (most of the time). I hope that you agree that this analogy is appropriate.

Neil makes a good point. If all the theists became deists, there'd be a heck of a lot less nastiness, misogyny, idiocy, & violence in the world

Posted by: Postman | April 17, 2009 5:16 PM

I am chagrined, once again, not to find my name on the list. The whole thing is so political. Diagoras has been "working the refs" since 412 bce.

Posted by: Neil | April 17, 2009 5:40 PM

#121-Duh, I can't believe they (and I) forgot Zappa! Love him or hate him(and I love him)he's certainly helped our culture, at least by making sure it's easy to not take our culture too seriously.

And O'Hair. In spite of any personal problems, she woke up this country of god-soaked idiots up like a branding iron on their cattle asses. Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to write an entry in my personal blog about O'Hair and some christians I know, an old friend's family. I was at their house when they saw the newspaper article about the discovery of the O'Hairs' bound, murdered corpses. After reading the article, the mom and dad started chuckling, and they all, including my friend, had a good laugh about the grisly murder. "That's what they get," said the mother. No bullshit. I never looked at religion, conservative christians, or morality the same way again. I've never had a "supernatural" feeling or experience, but the dread and disgust I felt then made the hair on my neck stand on edge.
Sorry to drift so far, but I've been meaning to explore it a bit and the mention of Ms. O'hair brought it back to me.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 17, 2009 6:10 PM

Carnegie and Buffet warms that cockles of my old heart. It's good to see that there are true philanthropists out there.

Carnegie was not all that philanthropic towards his workers. His actions during the Homestead Steel strike cannot be considered philanthropic.

Henry C. Frick, general manager of the Homestead plant that Carnegie largely owned, was determined to cut wages and break the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, one of the strongest craft unions in the country.

Behind the scenes, Carnegie supported Frick's plans. In the spring of 1892, Carnegie had Frick produce as much armor plate as possible before the union's contract expired at the end of June. If the union failed to accept Frick's terms, Carnegie instructed him to shut down the plant and wait until the workers buckled. "We... approve of anything you do," Carnegie wrote from England in words he would later come to regret. "We are with you to the end."

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 6:42 PM

Richard Harris writes:
Marcus, the way I see it, driving 10 mph over the speed limit is stupid (most of the time), & driving 20 mph over the speed limit is even more stupid (most of the time). I hope that you agree that this analogy is appropriate.

I don't like arguing by analogy. It generally introduces a lot of irrelevancies that distract more than they illuminate.

If you want to argue that more or less delusion is better, be my guest. I'm guessing you've got a dog in this fight, so to speak, since you seem to be so dead set on it.

Since all deists are theists, they're stupid. We could examine all the claims of the various deists and try to rank the stupid. At the bottom of the list, perhaps, would come the deists and their "I dunno. psst: goddidit" beliefs. Yay! They only have 10,000 stupidons while the hardcore fundamentalists weigh in at 5,000,000 stupidons. There, how's that?

Posted by: Joe Bob | April 17, 2009 6:56 PM

Ayn Rand in, Karl Marx out? Give me a break...

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 7:25 PM

Cafeeine writes:
Between 'theist' and 'deist' there exists the same type of definition vagueness that exists for atheists.

That's a general problem with language. It's why you've got some people who are "clue-challenged" while others are simply stupid. Sometimes terms are adopted in hopes of making things more or less palatable - but that's marketing and propaganda.

There's no definition vagueness for "atheist" - it means "someone who does not believe in god(s)." Very simple. Now, someone may not like that term, for whatever reason, and decide to use the word "atheist" to mean "someone who does not believe in PZ Myers" and, perhaps, it'll work. We'd then need a new term for people who don't believe in god(s) and we'd be right back where we started again. It's just vocabulary - and, if you want, you can have your own. But it's a social phenomenon, language. If you want to have your own language, expect a lot of puzzled stares. Unlike facts, you can have your own vocabulary, but nobody's required to adopt it. You could use the word "lampshade" to mean "person who does not believe in god(s)" and "atheist" to mean "thing that goes on top of lights to diffuse their brightness." It's asocial but be my guest.

I'd bet that "atheist" will continue to be used for "person who does not believe in god(s)" for a very long time.

Deists are theists in the same way that babies (and rocks) are atheists. Its true by definition, but also wrong, because in both cases a subset of the definition has appropriated the term in whole. (Is there a name for that?)

It's called "bullshit" I think.

Posted by: Cafeeine | April 17, 2009 8:06 PM

Paul,
I was not saying that you are wrong, but that it is an issue of people using different definitions.

Theism is belief in a god, and as such it encapsulates Deism, however their outlooks are completely different, so as to be different animals. The biggest difference between the god of the deist and the god of the other theists is that it doesn't interfere with the natural world. In a sense, post-creation, they are, in my experience, as naturalistic as any atheist. So in effect most (although not all) arguments one can use against a theist do not apply to deists. Frequent public use, especially online, has equated [theists] to [all theists minus deists (and pantheists)]. Therefore a Deist may be a theist or not, depending on the definition used.

The is why I used the atheist baby analogy. A baby obvious does not have any god belief, but this is not what we mean when we say "PZ Myers is a proclaimed atheist" nor is a baby or a child 'atheist' in the same way it can be called 'Christian' or 'Muslim.
That was all the point I was trying to make.

Posted by: Enkidu | April 17, 2009 8:24 PM

There was that long span where open atheists were dead atheists . . . in some places we are still in the dark ages.

Posted by: Cafeeine | April 17, 2009 8:31 PM

"There's no definition vagueness for "atheist" - it means "someone who does not believe in god(s)." Very simple."

If its that simple, why do words have multiple definitions? In effect what happens is words often get used to describe different meanings, and if these are adopted they become accepted. This happens, which is why there have been various propaganda movements to push this to particular ends (Homosexuality is a good example. One side of the debate promoted the connotation of immorality and the other of gaiety) I understand that language is a social construct, however it is hardly a uniform one. There are diverging branches shooting out at every point.

In our case, 'atheists' often is used specifically as [atheists who are also outspoken, active and opposing religion] and 'theists' means [theists who believe in some personal god who interferes in the natural world and/or performs miracles, distinct from deists and pantheists].

Posted by: Holbach | April 17, 2009 8:48 PM

John Morales @ 175

Their own best intentions to guide them? How can their best intentions guide them when those intentions are guided by belief in the non-existent? Our best intentions are superior, as we are guided by reason and can recognize other's intentions to convinve themselves of the irrational. No, the difference is significant, and has no significance on their side.

Posted by: Kevpod | April 17, 2009 9:13 PM

Just to be redundant redundant, I have to again register astonishment and dismay that one of atheism's most colorful proponents wasn't acknowledged in this list.

Dumb All Over

The Meek Shall Inherent Nothing

It Might Just Be A One-Shot Deal

Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk

...and more genius I'm not remembering off the top.

I don't wish to belittle the contributions of the 50 on the list. But the list should be 51 to accommodate Frank.

Posted by: Africangenesis | April 17, 2009 9:43 PM

Holbach,

"I like and admire Jodie Foster very much, but it hurts to have her admit that she has great respect for all religions. My like for her is not diminshed, but I would most assuredly argue with her on that point, and perhaps even convince her that this regard is unwarranted at best."

Religions are cultural artifacts, one can respect them just as one can respect the water works, pottery, literature, laws, myths, weapons, weaving, medicine, alchemy, tanning, painting, sculpture, dancing, etc.

I wonder how the the dichotomy between fundamentalist Atheist and the atheists for whom it is not central to their identity would correlate with Myers-Briggs personality attributes. I suspect it would be along the Judging-Perceiving axis. I usually ask for the particular inquirers definition of "god" before responding whether I am an atheist or beleiver or not, since I'm not attached to any particular definition of God.

Perhaps we should accumulate separate Atheist and atheist lists.

Posted by: Holbach | April 17, 2009 10:12 PM

Africangenesis @ 180

Religion is undoubtedly a cultural artifact, the cultural aspect of which I certainly question as an atheist. It would no doubt have no bearing on culture if it had not existed, and culture would still germinate and prosper. All the examples you noted are of visual and tactile reality, whereas religion is not, and those examples do very well without religious influence except perhaps myths which I lump with religion, even though not originating of religion, and alchemy which is also false. I enjoy many interesting pursuits, all without the influence or hint of religion.
I am an atheist, not fundamental or any other questionable tag one may wish to apply. Religion is simply a system of beliefs in gods that don't exist, and on this dictum it is absolutely false. Why is it so difficult to understand that without our brains there would be no idea of a god. Our brains gave birth to this imaginary thing and all the reasons to understand and prove it so, and yet that same brain also disproves with reason and fact the non-existence of such ideas.
I will make no attempt to identify the reasons for my unbelief as they are so logically obvious. I am an atheist, and no amount of irrational discourse will ever sway me from my rational stance.

Posted by: Ken_Cope | April 17, 2009 10:17 PM

Kevpod, just about everything goes better with more Frank Zappa.

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 10:23 PM

John Morales writes:
you both seem to disdain to nuance between religion and theism per se.

Well, you've done a rotten job of explaining how they're different, aside from their spelling.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 17, 2009 10:28 PM

I wonder how the the dichotomy between fundamentalist Atheist and the atheists for whom it is not central to their identity would correlate with Myers-Briggs personality attributes.

I wonder whether it's rank stupidity or intellectual dishonesty that makes people use the ridiculous expression 'fundamentalist atheist'.

Posted by: Holbach | April 17, 2009 10:37 PM

John Morales @ 187

No matter how you think about the distinction of religion, or what term you apply, it is still religion, a system of beliefs in an imaginary thing. Even semantics is useless in codifying distinctions when explaining the concepts and precepts of religions. Religions are a god belief, a god belief establishes religions. Simple as that.
I may have mentioned this before in an earlier post, but on close reading of your comments I suspect that you are not a true atheist, as tidbits of deism intrude in the ever so lightly reference. I may be wrong, but I can sense the smallest iota of deference to a god.

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 17, 2009 10:53 PM

John Morales writes:
Marcus, you're technically right, but I consider religion to be codified belief and the practice thereof, as opposed to the belief itself.

I read that as "you're right but I prefer my own reality in which I'm right so let's use that instead."

Why not use "codified belief" like you just did? It's descriptive, comprehensible (obviously) and appears to work quite well.

So if I understand you, you're saying that the difference between "religion" and "theism" is that you, John Morales, have your own personal language in which they're different. You have all the makings of a good theologian!

Africangenisis writes:
I wonder how the the dichotomy between fundamentalist Atheist and the atheists for whom it is not central to their identity would correlate with Myers-Briggs personality attributes.

Who gives a shit? Myers Briggs is pseudoscience that only an idiot would take seriously. I suppose it's more precise than astrology because it divides all the people on earth up into 16 basic types, instead of 12.

Posted by: bonze blayk | April 17, 2009 11:01 PM

Holbach #176

Our best intentions are superior, as we are guided by reason...

(Ducks)

There is nothing per se irrational about believing there was a First Cause. Likewise for believing in the alternative, Eternal Regress.

I don't think the question can be settled empirically.

Posted by: Kevpod | April 17, 2009 11:09 PM

There's always one Zappa freak around to bore everyone. That would be me.

My last point is that the Frank tunes that deal with the falsity of religimusness are as enjoyable on the musical level as they are for their message.

I'll just go away now.

Thanks, Frank.

And PZ.

Posted by: Holbach | April 17, 2009 11:19 PM

Wowbagger,Om @ 191

Substitute the word god for spirit, and what do you have? Buddhists have spiritual awakening which is akin to a belief in someting ethereal, which is not real. By not calling it a god does not erase the belief in something that transcends reality. Sure, it may not be a religion, but it is guided by a teacher who claims a spiritual affliation with something that does not exist.
And I disagree with your statement of having religion without gods and gods without religion. You cannot separate the meaning no matter how you couch it. You say that "a deist god, a god which by definition, cannot be worshipped or interacted with or venerated- that's not religion." For fuck's sake that's still a belief in a god whether you worship or interact with or venerate it This is my point. You may not pray to it or acknowledge its presence, but you still believe it exists. Whether you attach this god to a religion is immaterial; you still believe in its existence. Can't you get my meaning and interpretation? For fuck's sake I don't believe in it's existence, let alone assign it deference. If my reasoning is wrong in this meaning, then by all means enlighten me.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 17, 2009 11:38 PM

And I disagree with your statement of having religion without gods and gods without religion. You cannot separate the meaning no matter how you couch it. You say that "a deist god, a god which by definition, cannot be worshipped or interacted with or venerated- that's not religion." For fuck's sake that's still a belief in a god whether you worship or interact with or venerate it This is my point. You may not pray to it or acknowledge its presence, but you still believe it exists. Whether you attach this god to a religion is immaterial; you still believe in its existence.

Disagree all you like; you're still wrong. Words have meanings and the word 'belief' and the word 'religion' are not interchangeable no matter how angry you get about it, nor how foolishly you react to people who point that out to you.

Deism, AFAIK, doesn't imply that the god that created the universe is interacting with it in any way. It set things in motion and then left, never to return. That's it. How is believing that a fucking religion? They do not live any differently from an atheist apart from thinking that what we think happened without any input from a being happened with input from a being.

And before you accuse me of secretly loving Jesus or whatever the fuck else you imagine not agreeing with you 100% on everything implies, let me say that I think deism is a really fucking stupid concept. It makes no fucking sense to me whatsoever. But that doesn't mean that anyone who is stupid enough to subscribe to it is religious, because that's not what the word means.

Can't you get my meaning and interpretation? For fuck's sake I don't believe in it's existence, let alone assign it deference. If my reasoning is wrong in this meaning, then by all means enlighten me.

Are you drunk? I wrote what I wrote because you accused John Morales - a poster with a history of atheist posts - of being a closet theist because he dared disagree with you and implied that deism (which he doesn't subscribe to) isn't a religion!

Find some real godbots to argue with; don't try and fabricate them out of atheists who don't happen to share all your opinions or who won't submit to your obnoxious rigidity.

Posted by: Neil | April 17, 2009 11:47 PM

Kevpod #178-please keep banging away about Zappa. He's got to be one of the most under appreciated artists of the 20th century.
Especially those three songs from the album You Are What You Is:
The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing
Dumb All Over
Heavenly Bank Account
I refer to these as my "Holy Trinity" of Zappa music. Fuckin' genius-a fine mind, and balls of steel. Kind of the like Christopher Hitchens of music.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 12:30 AM

Wowbagger, OM - I was a fundamentalist christian, the Bible said it, I believed it, that settled it. But now I see the error in my ways, and I am, I suppose a fundamentalist Atheist.

I'm very late to this discussion & will have to review it, but I usually wear the same size Bulldog collar as Holbach. Perhaps you might consider giving some of the walking wounded a break?

I'll leave off any further pithy remarks until I have a look at this. It was rather startling. Because I come from the snake kissing evangelicals I can clearly see the need for iron fist atheists like Holbach and myself. If I'm wrong, I'll cut my own bar tab and ban myself from the spanking couch for the weekend. ;)

Posted by: bluescat48 | April 18, 2009 12:38 AM

What interests me is that the majority of those on the list are either scientists, educators or entertainers.

Posted by: Enkidu | April 18, 2009 12:47 AM

To this day most religious people and persuasions still cannot accept homosexuality.

I'm a straight atheist, and I don't accept it . . . it's not my place to accept, reject, or even have an opinion on who adds meaning to your life or what his or her genitals should look like.

Gays should move past asking for tolerance, because tolerance implies a right to an opinion. Every human should be free to live his or her own life, choosing his or her own partners free from any fear or even a moment's consideration of what the rest of us think.

I didn't give a rat's ass what you thought of my wife when I proposed to her, and my gay brothers and sisters shouldn't care what I think. Equality is not enough . . . indifference and nothing less!

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 18, 2009 1:22 AM

Wowbagger writes:
But that doesn't mean that anyone who is stupid enough to subscribe to it is religious, because that's not what the word means.

Gosh, did you go switch ALL the dictionaries or something?
Or are you using your own like John Morales'?

I could probably pile on definitions from online dictionaries until our eyeballs explode but here's a few:
re⋅li⋅gion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural

religion
the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship

relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

What about 'god created the universe, then left' isn't a statement of faith about the behaviors of a supreme being? Or that it once existed? Ascribing universe-creating or fine-tuning powers to this "god" sounds a whole lot like worship. ("worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being")

Let me ask you flat out; what are you attempting to accomplish with your attempt to redefine 'religion'??

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 18, 2009 1:53 AM

Africangenesis writes:
A deist who believes "I believe a higher being must have created the universe, since it is so ordered...", simply doesn't not rise to the level of a religion.

OK, so you disagree with every definition of "religion" that I've managed to find so far.

So please share your definition. And, how do you compute this "religion level"? At what point does belief in a supreme being "rise to the level of religion"?

Posted by: Africangenesis | April 18, 2009 2:12 AM

Marcus,

I was agreeing with your definitions. I was just explaining them to you. The terseness of the dictionary was not writtent to be used for fundamentalist prooftexting. Go to a cultural anthropology text or an encyclopedia article for an explanation of the concepts that would be the starting point for an intelligent discussion, e.g,

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

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 3:01 AM

I was just explaining them to you.

the fucking arrogance is palpable.

god, I wanna kick you in the taint.

Posted by: anthonzi | April 18, 2009 3:41 AM

Quite the Euro centric list there. What about all of the atheistic philosophers in Asia, many of them coming before the Greeks?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 18, 2009 5:30 AM

Patricia wrote:

Wowbagger, OM - I was a fundamentalist christian, the Bible said it, I believed it, that settled it. But now I see the error in my ways, and I am, I suppose a fundamentalist Atheist.

I think you're confusing fundamentalism with strength, or ferocity or commitment - that's not what it means. A liberal (non-fundamentalist) Christian can be just as unwavering and ferocious about his/her beliefs as any YEC, snake-handling, gay- and woman- hating Phelps type - it's just that latter takes a more significant proportion of the bible literally.

There can't be fundamentalist atheists because, apart from lacking the belief in god, there's nothing else to it. We don't have a book which we believe to the letter - or if we do it's news to me...

Yes, there's the whole 'strong' vs. 'weak' atheist spectrum, but I still think it's totally inaccurate to use the term 'fundamentalist' to differentiate one atheist from another. It seems, for the most part, to be used by people trying to irritate atheists by comparing them to fundamentalist Christians.

Atheists who happen to be emotionally stunted assholes, on the other hand, do exist; we've just had the pleasure of seeing them in action. Fortunately, it makes no difference whatsoever to my lack of belief in god.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 18, 2009 6:13 AM

I don't work that way. I make a mistake, I claim it and move on. What kind of chickenshit would hide because of a blog posting? Is that what you'd do?

Hey, as long as you're okay with people reading your posts and going, 'hey, it's that Marcus guy - he thought John Morales was a creationist; can you believe that? What a fucking douche. He obviously doesn't spend a lot of time reading posts for comprehension so I'll just ignore him' you can do what you want. I'd be so embarrassed to have made such a fucking egregious error that I'd want to wait until people stopped associating my name with 'fucking clueless dumbass'.

You claim it? Funny, what I'd do - and what I suspect anyone else with an ounce of character and integrity would do - is apologise, admit I made a serious error and withdraw the accusation.

But that's why I'm not an arrogant asshole who can't admit when he fucked up royally - probably because my argument isn't so weak that I'm afraid it couldn't remain standing if I actually admitted I wasn't perfect.

That you consider genuinely apologising and acknowledging you misrepresented someone 'chickenshit' says a great deal about you.

And this:

Waaah waah waah. I misread the spew on your page. I'm sorry. Really.

That's what's called a notpology. You aren't even a big enough man to admit you made a mistake, are you? Fucking pathetic.

Posted by: scooter | April 18, 2009 6:38 AM

oooo
oooo

flame war

who are we gangbanging?

Posted by: scooter | April 18, 2009 6:57 AM

Wowbagger:

Patricia: I was a fundamentalist christian, the Bible said it, I believed it, that settled it. But now I see the error in my ways, and I am, I suppose a fundamentalist Atheist.

Patricia suggests that fundamentalist atheism is;

Nobody said it, I wouldn't believe it if they did, and that settles nothing

which is why she capitalizes atheism but not christianity

I think she said that,
anyway
Food for thought
now, where's my pie !!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 18, 2009 7:12 AM

Children, play nicely together. Or there'll be no ice cream after lunch today.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 18, 2009 9:15 AM

I like Frank Zappa but I wish he had catchier melodies for the vocals. I wish he would have spent more time on that. Oh well what can I say.

I think my sarcasm detector is broken

Posted by: Rorschach | April 18, 2009 9:27 AM

A week without trolls,and we're turning against each other already,out of boredom or something??
What on earth???

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 18, 2009 9:38 AM

A week without trolls,and we're turning against each other already,out of boredom or something??

It seems that way, and it's very depressing. And what's even more disturbing is that certain posters have become so desperate for something to attack that they've started strapping religious strawmen to well-known atheist regulars.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 9:48 AM

When we did the previous experiment with signing in, traffic was down considerably, and we were on the edge of sniping at each other. I've noticed a drop-off in the number of my posts since the latest signing in started, mostly due to the lack of trolls.

Posted by: tweetybirdie386sx | April 18, 2009 9:56 AM

Atheists are rediculous. They would even deny they're own existence if they knew they wouldn't run out of athiests. (Which ain't very many.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 18, 2009 10:12 AM

Wowbagger,

We could always make fun of libertarians. AG is still around and probably spouting silliness about von Mises was the greatest economist since Adam Smith and Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 18, 2009 10:18 AM

It's a gorgeous day. I'm going for a sail.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 10:25 AM

I've noticed a drop-off in the number of my posts since the latest signing in started, mostly due to the lack of trolls.

Sadly, this suggests* that perhaps we all have less to say to each other than we might otherwise think, and that the trolls, rather than being an annoying distraction, are in fact one of the major factors driving the conversation.

*Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, please note the word suggests. I'm just speculating, although I don't think that this idea completely lacks supporting evidence.

Posted by: scooter | April 18, 2009 10:42 AM

#229

Did you find the first tirade interesting, informative or challenging?

Apparently you are attempting to begin an inteeligent discussion about Ayn Rand.

It would be easier to have an intelligent discussion about shoving a banana up your ass, then compare and contrast to teabagging.

I read her crap, all four abominations when I was about thirteen, on advice from my dad, they did not compare favorably to Marvel comic books then, nor do they now, on any analysis of literature that I am aware of.

More along the lines of the really bad incomprehensible writing of the DC comics of the sixties..... totally flat, dull, with characters more stiff than drug store Indians.

This discussion of that moron is now closed, go troll the fucktards at John Galt dot duh, lightweight.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 18, 2009 10:45 AM

I dont think there can be any doubt about that trolls are a major driving force of conversations.

I think we're just used to high troll volumes and we need to adjust to a less antagonistic approach. It might take a while but i guess we're going to have acclimatise.

Posted by: Ranger_Rick | April 18, 2009 11:03 AM

PZ, I for one, feel your inclusion on the Top 50 influencial atheists is very cool. Keep up the great work you do so well...hearding cats is never easy!

And to those here who wish to argue over lexical definitions...please, try to keep it civil. Some of us are trying to get some rest and your noise is keeping us from that...I suggest you rest as well.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 18, 2009 11:07 AM

Atheists are rediculous. They would even deny they're own existence if they knew they wouldn't run out of athiests. (Which ain't very many.)

I have no clue what you are getting at there.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 18, 2009 11:17 AM

It makes no fucking sense to me whatsoever. But that doesn't mean that anyone who is stupid enough to subscribe to it is religious, because that's not what the word means.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 11:46 AM

What's the point of being Ilk if you don't insult creationists? It's more fun than jumping into a polar bear's swimming pool.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 18, 2009 12:07 PM

No, not really. We have the annoying to some but true tendency to point out that idiots are idiots.

Some may act the way you describe but not all of "this clique".

You however seem to have the annoying tendency to engage in reckless smug hyperbole.

Posted by: Rorschach | April 18, 2009 12:19 PM

Therion @ 257,

It is wrong to refer to "people stupid enough to subscribe to [deism]", because some deists are highly intelligent

And highly intelligent people do and believe irrational and stupid things all the time,what has the computing capability of anybody's brain got to do with its inherent tendency to subscribe to superstition and woo?
Again,your point?

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | April 18, 2009 12:23 PM

Therion, all you have shown is that even individudals who may be genius in some areas can be blind in others. Cognitive dissonance for a £1000 anyone.

Posted by: GILBERT GOSSEYN | April 18, 2009 12:31 PM

Hey, what about Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Nietzsche!

Posted by: Rorschach | April 18, 2009 12:37 PM

@ 263,

It's fashionable to say that Ken Ham and Michael Behe are morons etc., but I sincerely doubt they score below average in IQ or are unusually ignorant.

Its not fashionable,its true.And you are doing it again !

Their IQ has fuckall to do with their tendency to lie,misrepresent,distort facts or be willfully ignorant,and thats why we will call them out on it.

Noone here is feeling superior,you might be projecting there.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 12:41 PM

Hi SC!

Posted by: Rorschach | April 18, 2009 12:45 PM

Most of us have lives and things to do that don't involve orienting our lives around vague probability estimates based on dimly understood hypotheses and arguments.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

hello SC..:-)

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 12:53 PM

Doesn't matter. I'm not the one calling people idiots.

Not in so many words, perhaps, but you did, to use your phrasing, veer down that path a bit:

...who are massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than you and anyone else here.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 18, 2009 12:57 PM

Einstein and Dyson and many other great physicists, based on my readings, do seem to toy with deism, sometimes conflating it with pantheism. Whenever Dyson is questioned about this, his ultimate answer seems to be along the lines of "I don't know, but I won't rule it out". There are many quotes of Einstein that seem hard to explain if you identify God solely with "the laws of physics".

The best argument against deism, in my opinion, is Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747" idea. This seems a decent, handwaving sort of reasoning. The fact is, however, that the argument, as presented by Dawkins, fails to satisfy the theoretical standards required by physics and cosmology (and maybe even philosophy). Maybe someone will come along and develop it further and more solidly. Until that happens I'm not going to consider it a knockdown argument.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 1:04 PM

See y'll later, I've got to buzz off for some new knitting needles that are an hours drive away. :D

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 18, 2009 1:20 PM

Wowbagger writes:
(various personal crap)

Try keeping your wits about you. I don't understand why you're getting so upset. You can foam at the mouth all you like but it carries no weight with me. So, what's your agenda?

I've been quite clear about mine: I'm trying to understand why people are trying to reinvent perfectly good language - when I see that, I always suspect an attempt at spin or a hidden agenda. Something's going on. What is it?

Deism says 'a being created the universe' - that's it. It doesn't say anything about its purpose or its nature; it doesn't involve any devotional or ritual observances and it doesn't contain a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Yes, that's my understanding as well.

Now, be intellectually honest and re-parse:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Is deism a set of beliefs: Yes
Does it concern the cause of the universe: Yes
Does it concern the nature of the universe: Yes ("godprobablydidit" as an explanation for how physical law came into being is a pretty powerful statement regarding the nature of the universe!)
Does it concern the purpose: No (although it's pretty obvious that "god" had its purpose for creating the universe, deists simply say they don't know what it is - which is a far cry from saying that a supreme being went to all that trouble for no purpose)
"Often containing" doesn't mean "always containing" and "usually involving" doesn't mean "always involving"

I don't think it's a good idea to start dissecting each and every definition of "religion" that we find in dictionaries. That'd be pointless. I picked the first one (I think it's Merriam Webster's but I forget) because I thought it was pretty fairly worded.

Are you kidding me? Belief in the existence of something = worship?

No, I said "sounds a whole lot like..."
Seriously, though, how can someone claim that the universe was created by a supreme being and not have a bit of respect for that supreme being's awesome universe-creating powers? I'm not trying to put the word "supreme" in anyone's mouth, but calling something all powerful is a statement that it's superior to oneself, is it not? It's not headbanging on the ground style worship.

Heck, I believe some guys built my house; I don't know for sure 'cause I wasn't there - does that mean I worship them? Am I engaged in some sort of builder-centric religion by acknowledging that?

What a silly argument. If you believed that some guy magiced your house into existence using mighty incomprehensible all-powerful magic that established the very fabric of the space-time in which your house was built - and you believed in the guy because, well, you wanted to. And that the purpose of this all-powerful house-builder was unknown to you and possibly un-knowable... Uh. I'd say you'd be pretty retarded not to show someone who does that kind of thing a certain amount of respect. And, if I believed in such a thing, I'd owe it at least the veneration and respect due to my creator. That sounds a whole lot like 'worship' to me. Your house-builder's motives were doubtless clearer than god's: you paid them. They are eminently comprehensible, while the god of the deists remains mysterious in motive, method, and power. You don't need to take your builders as an article of faith but a deist certainly makes a lot of assumptions about god (like: goddidit, godexists) ; your example and reasoning are very poor.

I'll try another way - though I'm not going to hold my breath. It's thoughts as opposed to actions. Deism is the thought there is a god; religion is acting upon that thought.

That's your definition. Why don't you go find a few dozen dictionaries that use it and then I'll be impressed.

Here's why your definition fails: thinking is a subset of action. If a deist sits there thinking "god created the universe" he is acting on those beliefs. Thinking is doing something.

Oh, now you're going to say "but he's not banging his head on the floor like a muslim!" - so what? He still thinks he knows something about the origin of the universe and even that tidbit of "knowledge" about something so big and important is going to have consequences throughout the rest of his belief system. What about thinking you know something about the origin of the universe based on know evidence isn't revealed truth?

Let's try this another way:
- Can we agree that Jefferson was a deist?
- Do you therefore argue that Jefferson was not religious?
- Can you please explain why he wrote a bible based on the principles of pure deism as taught by jesus?

Cue the "no true deist" response from Wowbagger... 5... 4... 3...

Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum | April 18, 2009 1:31 PM

Therion writes:
But deism isn't necessarily "irrational and stupid". If fine-tuning holds, and it might well do, there are two known hypotheses that can account for it.

It's still irrational and stupid because it got the reasoning backward. Deists start with the conclusion "goddidit" and go from there. It may turn out they're right. It may turn out they're not. But that will only turn out to be relevant if and when we ever know.

A rationalist would shrug and say "we don't know yet" and keep trying to find out. A deist says "I already know, I'm just trying to prove it."

Posted by: Hyperon | April 18, 2009 2:26 PM

A rationalist would shrug and say "we don't know yet" and keep trying to find out. A deist says "I already know, I'm just trying to prove it."

This has never made sense to me. Of course this universe is has the conditions for life, since life exists in at least one tiny part of it (I don't see this as something that needs to be accounted for an the way you're suggesting). But the contention that an intelligent designer created the cosmos planning for it to give rise, billions of years later, to carbon-based life forms on one dinky planet and then through a process that looks completely contingent, again over several billion years, produce one species of relatively intelligent primate strikes me as quite stupid.

And given what we know about the material basis and evolution of animal minds, including our own, this immaterial Mind business is also rather dumb.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 18, 2009 2:55 PM

Well, you could say the same about the two sequels to The Matrix. "This is shit. How could this be designed by a conscious agent?"

Your analogy is not apt. That is not what I'm arguing.

But the brute fact is, there's no other way we can account for its existence.

It seems as though the only aspect of the universe that people seem to believe needs to be "accounted for" is us, which is silly. The history of the cosmos, our late and apparently contingent emergence, and our miniscule place in it does not suggest that we are a part of some conscious master plan. Quite the contrary. Again, I'd like to see this evidence Dyson alluded to pointing toward a universe that anticipated us or had us in "mind." It's ridiculous.

You use words like "stupid" and "dumb" far too readily. The fact is, there lots of industrial-strength thinkers who've wrestled for years with the mind-body problem and still take this "immaterial Mind business" quite seriously. Like you I think they're wrong, but they are not necessarily stupid or intellectually dishonest. The philosophy of mind can be disturbingly, profoundly confusing.

I think the "philosophy of mind" has to be based on the science of brains. Otherwise, yes, it can be profoundly confusing, because people can come up with all sorts of notions that have no evidentiary basis or make little sense in light of what is known.

I never said anyone was stupid. I said certain ideas or contentions are stupid, particularly given what we now know (but even Lucretius saw the problems with arguments that are still being made a couple of millenia later). Intelligent people can harbor stupid beliefs about any number of subjects. And not once on this thread have I called anyone intellectually dishonest. I'll thank you not to misrepresent me.

Posted by: bastion of sass | April 18, 2009 3:06 PM

Geez, Pharyngulates, better start getting along better. Patricia, OM, has gone off to get knitting needles--and when she gets back...well, I hate to even think about what's she's gonna do with them!

Posted by: Hyperon | April 18, 2009 3:13 PM

Grand puzzles require grand explanations...

Whoops. I meant "require grand solutions".

Posted by: Rorschach | April 18, 2009 3:39 PM

Modern physics can be deeply spooky and unsettling.

Time for you to grow up then.
I found Starsky&Hutch deeply unsettling when I was 10,but Im better now.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | April 18, 2009 4:18 PM

It's partly that more recent figures are remembered.

Hypatia, Napoleon Bonaparte, Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman, Wafa Sultan, Margaret Mead, Eugenie Scott, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Jane Rule, David Hume, Voltaire, James Randi, Linus Torvalds, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, Studs Terkel, Theo Van Gogh.

Actors, actresses, musicians, athletes, politicians: Sir Ian McKellen, Griff Rhys-Jones, Trent Reznor, John Lennon, Ani DiFranco, Björk, Marlin Brando, Brian Eno, Margot Kidder, Diane Keaton, Sarah Polley.

From the Internet: Warren Buffet, Richard Branson, Michelle Bachelet (current president of Chile), Liv Arnesen (the first woman to ski solo to the South Pole), Nadine Gordimer( winner of the 1991 Nobel prize for literature), Baroness Susan Greenfield (a leading neuroscientist and the director of The Royal Institution), Wendy Kaminer (American author, journalist, lawyer), Julia Sweeney (American actor/commedian [or actress/commedienne, depending on how much information you want in your words ]), Dick Cavett, Barry Manilow, Sarah Vowel.

Possibilities: Carl Sandberg? Abraham Lincoln? Elizabeth Cady-Stanton? Susan B. Anthony?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 4:26 PM

Oh no, jet propelled needles. Duck pullets, duck. ;)

(Either those are very long or circular.)

Posted by: Aquaria | April 18, 2009 4:49 PM

Isaac Newton was smarter than most people even now, but he believed in some weapons-grade stupid shit, too.

Being smart about one or even many things does not exclude being a brain dead moron about something else.

Posted by: bastion of sass | April 18, 2009 5:05 PM

At #293, Patricia, OM announced:

Then I'm back just in time with my super sharp Addi TURBO 47" number ten knitting needles.

I tried to warn them, but nooooooo. Looks like they're just too stuck in their snarling and snarking to disengage.

So...whatca going to do with those needles?

Maybe you can just teach everyone to knit. At least for beginners, it's rather hard to knit and snarl.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 5:14 PM

Knitting needles must be scarier than I thought.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 5:36 PM

Nerd - You could always ask her to make one of these:

http://queerjoe.com/images/Willie_Warmer.jpg

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 6:02 PM

And the line between Ravalry and Pharyngula begins to blur.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 6:10 PM

And the line between Ravalry and Pharyngula begins to blur.

you mean Ravelry (especially LSG), and yes, especially when knitting and bacon and sex come together.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 6:16 PM

Oh no, Josh caught the Rev.'s cooties...

Welcome to our world. Typos are the norm. You are now a true Pharnagulite.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 6:22 PM

Owe. Fuck.

you mean "Oww. Fooke?"

;P

as to the willie warmer posted by Patricia...

I was "forced" to watch all 4 seasons of Outrageous Fortune by Kiwis who said it would edjumacate me wrt Kiwi linguistics. One thing I do recall, however, was the "cock sock".

I can't find the relevant clip, but for those unfamiliar with OF, it's like this:

http://www.bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=4402666193&

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 6:42 PM

Hehe...cock sock.

And Nerd, as you once advised me-a helmut might help with that. It was good advice on your part...

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 6:54 PM

Now maybe you'll appreciate silk yarn a little bit more Nerd. :D

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 7:00 PM

*throws his K-pot at SC*

Playfully, of course

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 7:09 PM

A little pun-o is better than were it was headed a minute ago...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 18, 2009 7:20 PM

I'm back. Yes, I had a nice sail after we rigged a new spinnaker halyard. That only took an hour and a broken fingernail. But the sailing was good.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 18, 2009 7:31 PM

Don't make me stop this thing and come down there.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 7:34 PM

Look out Chimpy, they've all been playing with "socks" while you weren't looking.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 18, 2009 7:36 PM

I saw that and while I don't know exactly what is going on, i have a good idea and I DON'T LIKE IT ONE BIT.

Settle down or I'm turning this thing around and EVERYONE is going home.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 7:39 PM

Okay, back from dinner*

Hey, I'm just needling you, but since I now know how you feel I'll save my purls of wisdom for those who'll appreciate them. I guess neither of us wants to be left in stitches.

*groan*

Oh, and SC, just FYI while I have you here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/ken_millers_talk.php#comment-1573628

*What do you mean "why the heck was I checking Pharyngula from the restaurant?" It's not nice to point at someone's addiction, you know.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 7:42 PM

Patricia, are you pulleting my leg?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 7:44 PM

Yes, and I'll egg you on too.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 18, 2009 7:46 PM

Maybe we should stop needling him about it.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 18, 2009 7:48 PM

We could just let him off the hook.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 7:50 PM

A corset could get ugly...

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 18, 2009 7:52 PM

But I still don't know why he wales so much about it… some kind of bias.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 18, 2009 7:56 PM

Aw c'mon Rev. — it's just a little ribbing.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 7:56 PM

UGH!
OK, I'll quit ribbing you now.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 7:58 PM

Jesus Christ, Rev. Watch the collateral damage. Wow.

Knit wit.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 18, 2009 8:03 PM

Knit wit.

I knew it! He's one, too!

(Everyone's a sampler, it seems.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 18, 2009 8:05 PM

Rev BDC #341

Oh, so you want to play rough, do you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCAjmuA1HDk

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 8:08 PM

lam-basting

don't you mean lamb-basting?

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 8:09 PM

Okay, enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 18, 2009 8:11 PM

How many are weft?

A few, but some of them are so bad, they could only be contem-plaited by selvages.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 8:12 PM

I'm sure we can make it work.

We can. We will. And there is absolutely no rush.

I'll just needle you about it periodically if you forget...

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 8:17 PM

Here's one for the rest of us: Robby O'Connell "Kilkelly, Ireland"

Holy shit. I had completely forgotten about this song. Wow. Old girlfriend. Back in the day. Maine. July. Wow. Just...wow.

I never knew who sang this and spent some time hunting around for it before the intertubes days, but had completely forgotten about it since.

Thank you for this...

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 18, 2009 8:18 PM

With tomorrow's work looming, twill be better for me to show some moral fiber, make this my dernier comment, perhaps ply myself with a little Bushmills (not gin), and go to bed, lest I be up-braided for my bad puns.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 18, 2009 8:28 PM

Yeah, I had a notion that the worsted was yet to come.

Yeah, better to bolt now.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 8:31 PM

Got the pork roast socked into the oven, but I still tweed to dill the carrots.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 18, 2009 8:35 PM

Here's one for the rest of us: Robby O'Connell "Kilkelly, Ireland"

On similar lines, here's my rendition of Spancil Hill, a classic Irish song loosely based on a poem by Michael Considine, who emigrated to the US around 1870.

And, with that, I'm off to the scratcher.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 18, 2009 8:40 PM

You mean just dart off?

Yup. I know I'll regret it if eyelet myself stay.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 8:45 PM

arrrrgggghhhh. it's a seventies war!

Oh, yeah. Well, if you're going to be like that, take this!

parry.

thrust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mflw8-BZdV0&feature=related

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 8:51 PM

*sigh*

Fine. You made me do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auYCXBzep9o

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 18, 2009 9:01 PM

You're cruel, Josh. Now I'll have to do something probably illegal under the Geneva Conventions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHS8hj4TdT8

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 9:04 PM

Ono, is he killing Beatles?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 18, 2009 9:08 PM

Peace, guys. I surrender.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 18, 2009 9:17 PM

Sorry to interrupt the knitting puns but I've got to respond to what was put to me while it's fresh in my mind.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

And, if I believed in such a thing, I'd owe it at least the veneration and respect due to my creator. That sounds a whole lot like 'worship' to me.

Therein lies the problem, Marcus. We're not talking about what you would do if you believed, we're talking about what other people do do when they do believe.

And you don't get to tell them (or us, for that matter) what they do and don't do if they believe. Christians like to tell us what atheism is in such a way that it suits their arguments; we don't accept it. It's the same case here.

Plus, if you want to argue it that way then we really are at an impasse because I'd say that if I believed in a deist god (which I don't) it wouldn't make a lick of difference to how I lived my life. None whatsoever. So, something created the universe and then left. Big, fat, hairy deal. Where's my burrito?

What you wrote about Jefferson is valid, though, and I take that on board - what I think it means is that there are religious deists and non-religious deists. I'm prepared to accept the label of hair-splitter for the sake of defusing an unneccessary argument.

Put it this way - I feel that if someone meets the description of what I've been saying a deist is then they aren't religious. When (if) they start behaving in any of the ways you've outlined as being indicative of a religion - adherence, reverence, veneration, respect, worship and so forth - then yes, they are religious and the way they are practicing it is a religion.

Neither of us are deists, though, and I believe we're both wasting our time trying to quantify at what they do and don't believe and how they act on those beliefs.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 9:24 PM

BRUTAL!

*spits blood*

from hell's heart, I stab at ye...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxo0lsJnx-U

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 9:30 PM

from hell's heart, I stab at ye...

For hate's sake, I spit my last breath...at thee...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHfaSKbn6vM

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 9:36 PM

For hate's sake, I spit my last breath...at thee...

*head pops from having hot poker thrust unexpected through helmet visor*

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 9:39 PM

@bastion:

appropriate, as I think you're the last man standing.

Posted by: bastion of sass | April 18, 2009 9:42 PM

Ono, is he killing Beatles?

Why don't we just let it be?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2009 9:45 PM

Why don't we just let it be?

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 9:51 PM

They. Just. Won't. Die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81fwLNklSM

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy4HPA06xzw

Posted by: bastion of sass | April 18, 2009 10:04 PM

*looks around at the carnage*
*only bastion remains*

*locks and loads*

[gasp!]

There will be blood tonight!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn4Kfvxczs0

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 10:09 PM

*spits blood*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc5d01_riBo

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 18, 2009 10:14 PM

There will be blood tonight!

already posted that one at #384. While I can understand picking up a fallen soldier's weapon, I think that means Josh has a large advantage now.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2009 10:19 PM

*moves to overwatch position*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeW4dbuyscQ

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 10:30 PM

*Looks up at the ring-o-stars. Time for bed*

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 18, 2009 10:42 PM

Time for you to cast off Nerd. ;)

Posted by: bastion of sass | April 18, 2009 10:52 PM

already posted that one at #384. While I can understand picking up a fallen soldier's weapon, I think that means Josh has a large advantage now.

Damn it! Obviously shell shocked from Josh's last barrage.

Forced...to retreat...try to recover...check to see what remains in my arsenal.

Yes! Still have some firepower remaining.

Now, should I use it all at once, or hold out against a counter attack?

Oh well, let's see what happens...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fgGNZYR5QM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSqo17o2a1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKw8j7GLSdw

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 18, 2009 11:00 PM

Time for you to cast off Nerd. ;)

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 12:32 AM

SC,

I pointed out your earlier misrepresentations and asked you to stop. Now you can just fuck off.

Contentions about what needs to be explained based on the anthropic principle are indeed ridiculous.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, nor do I care particularly, especially since you've simply avoided addressing the points I've made. This modern deism is but a desperate attempt to salvage some essential core of the Judeo-Christian god, not any sort of scientific conclusion arrived at through analysis of the evidence (the cosmos and its history).

Many deists don't even talk about "god", but instead a Turing machine. Modern deism is a fairly respectable attempt to reduce one mystery (the origin of the Universe) to a mystery which seems smaller and easier to digest (a Turing machine on which this Universe is "running"). Many physicists believe there's fine-tuning, and they have some good points. There are only two known hypotheses that can immediately account for fine-tuning, one of which is some sort of deism. The other (the multiverse) some would say is just as extravagant.

The argument that the Universe seems to anticipate "us" also can't be dismissed out of hand. If you understood quantum mechanics, you would be able to see this better, or at least debate the subject without hysterics.

My money is on the multiverse, which anyway suggests itself in different forms through string theory and foundations of quantum mechanics. Even still, I think this hypothesis has its own problems. It's not even plain to me how the multiverse is better than deism in terms of postulatory parsimony.

Posted by: John Morales | April 19, 2009 4:19 AM

My money is on the multiverse, which anyway suggests itself in different forms through string theory and foundations of quantum mechanics. Even still, I think this hypothesis has its own problems. It's not even plain to me how the multiverse is better than deism in terms of postulatory parsimony.

---(snippet from Accelerando, Charles Stross, 2005)

Manfred's mood of dynamic optimism is gone, broken by the knowledge that his vivisectionist stalker has followed him to Amsterdam - to say nothing of Pamela, his dominatrix, source of so much yearning and so many morning-after weals. He slips his glasses on, takes the universe off hold, and tells it to take him for a long walk while he catches up on the latest on the tensor-mode gravitational waves in the cosmic background radiation (which, it is theorized, may be waste heat generated by irreversible computational processes back during the inflationary epoch; the present-day universe being merely the data left behind by a really huge calculation). And then there's the weirdness beyond M31: According to the more conservative cosmologists, an alien superpower - maybe a collective of Kardashev Type Three galaxy-spanning civilizations - is running a timing channel attack on the computational ultrastructure of space-time itself, trying to break through to whatever's underneath. The tofu-Alzheimer's link can wait.

---

I guess it's all storytelling, but some of it is acknowledged to be so.
Anyway, the advantage of multiverse hypotheses over deism is that at least some such may be in principle testable.
Greater parsimony is not the only criterion; possible testability is another.

Posted by: Zarquon | April 19, 2009 5:26 AM

The amateurs have been out tonight, huh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HejVjzhKTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vY5mDmGQIs

Posted by: Africangenesis | April 19, 2009 5:46 AM

Therion,

"There are only two known hypotheses that can immediately account for fine-tuning, one of which is some sort of deism. The other (the multiverse) some would say is just as extravagant."

And deism may actually be subsumed within the multiverse hypothesis. The "creator" of the current fine tuned universe may actually be a being as finite, albeit probably more experienced than ourselves. Hopefully the deists won't be so pigheaded as to reject him, just because he is physically unimpressive and probably unattractive to any of our sexes. Who is to say we might not be able to create new verses with some modicum of control (or destruction?) within a few centuries or millenia. It probably won't be quite as easy as the capability to intelligently design new life, but time is on our side, as a species, if not as individuals. Where there is an absence of evidence, the possibilities are less circumscribed.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 5:58 AM

without testability, it's all mental masturbation, and there are many who find that deists like to plant their "god" into that gap.

If you're skeptical, consider that some string theorists believe they have evidence of the existence of other universes (among other things), even though their subject hasn't made any testable predictions. But maybe you write write off string theory too as abject "mental masturbation".

Posted by: John Morales | April 19, 2009 6:06 AM

Interesting link Therion, but it seems a little idiosyncratic - and self-admittedly unofficial.

The list also seems self-contradictory, but hey, it's a whole lot better than the 10 Commandments as a basis.

I note in passing that it also contradicts parts of my literal #177, but it nonetheless supports the sentiments I expressed therein, especially in regards to morality.

Posted by: Africangenesis | April 19, 2009 6:08 AM

Therion#421,

Let's not grant that moderndeism site with much authority. It doesn't have many references, and only the Thomas Paine document dates to the time of the founders. Adorning deism with all those tenets would seem to edge it towards a religion, rather than just a belief about what might fill the gaps in our knowledge. The site doesn't provide documentary evidence about who among those that self identify or give credence to deism, actually subscribe to which tenets.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2009 6:12 AM

Read some books on modern physics, because you don't have a clue.

why do i feel like saying something really childish right now, like:

he who smelt it, dealt it.

Frankly, you haven't a clue how much physics I have studied or read, and I suspect that based on your repetition of this phrase, and the defensive usage of it, you yourself are not actually well studied in the field; as much as you would like us to think you are.

What's important is whether or not a theory works.

and how would you know if a "theory" (you mean hypothesis, right?) "works" or not, bright boy?

Go on, tell me.

On second thought, don't. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but fuck me, I'm sick of you armchair physicists.

The reason physicists do it is that there are very serious and confusing, fundamental problems in science, which cry out for grand solutions.

what a wanker.

guess what, genius?

problems to be solved of a "fundamental" nature exist in all branches of science. For example, in my own field, while I personally consider the matter resolved to satisfaction, there are a number of biologists who still consider the level of selection issue in evolutionary theory to be one of monumental significance.

It's really not, though.

you can wax philosophical all you like, and so will Dawkins, and so has Gould...

In the end, though, the only real way to determine what hypothesis is supported is to test it, directly or indirectly.

the concept of fine tuning is no more "deep" than punctuated equilibrium was in Gould's day, regardless of whether philosophy students wish to make it so.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 6:15 AM

...and therefore don't no fine-tuning.

Posted by: Africangenesis | April 19, 2009 6:20 AM

Therion,

"Yes, I agree with that characterization. We are, after all, talking about the Spider-faced Turd People from Planet X."

Yes, the feelings of unattractiveness will most likely be mutual, so there should be no rush to offer it our neighbor's virgin daughters. (in lieu of our own)

Posted by: John Morales | April 19, 2009 6:28 AM

Therion:

... But maybe you write write off string theory too as abject "mental masturbation".

Deism is just intuitive supposition - tarted-up animism; an not comparable to theoretical physics.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2009 6:32 AM

If you don't get the point that evidence can be theoretical as well as experimental

if you don't get what "theoretical" actually means...

oh wait, you don't.

nuff said.

Posted by: RobertDW | April 19, 2009 6:43 AM

Mental masturbation analogy for Therion and John Morales:

Deism is to String Theory what using your right hand (dry) is to using the Orgasmatron3000 chair with all the bells and whistles (not to mention whips, feathers, and fireworks).

Both gets you where you're going, but the second way takes longer, is more satisfying, and requires specialised training...

Posted by: John Morales | April 19, 2009 6:47 AM

Heh, anyone who doesn't concede that breakthroughs in the fundamentals of any scientific discipline are of monumental significance is either extremely jaded or in denial.

Therion, remember the edifice stands on the fundament - when the fundament shifts, it shakes the entire structure.

Posted by: John Morales | April 19, 2009 7:06 AM

Therion:

Therefore I reject the assertion that any theorizing that's not "testable" is "mental masturbation".

Regarding any putatively explanatory claim:
If it's not testable, it's not a theory but a conjecture.
If it's testable in principle or yet to be tested, it's a hypothesis.
If it's been tested and is yet to be falsified, it's a theory.

My point was that in principle, deism could be shown plausible without any direct empirical data, purely based on deductions from present theories (which themselves are based on empirical data).

Posted by: John Morales | April 19, 2009 7:16 AM

RobertDW @443, you've covered points I thought about including but was too lazy to do so; good to see, though, because your independent concurrence is a vindication to my ego.

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 7:21 AM

Therefore I reject the assertion that any theorizing that's not "testable" is "mental masturbation".

Please show me where the technical literature supports your claim of a theory that isn't testable.

John wrote:

Terminology is important.

Regarding any putatively explanatory claim: If it's not testable, it's not a theory but a conjecture. If it's testable in principle or yet to be tested, it's a hypothesis. If it's been tested and is yet to be falsified, it's a theory.

Terminology is important. Heck, if we're talking about science, then terminology is critical. Please pay careful attention to John's word usage here. Note his choice of explanatory claim. Not all hypotheses are explanatory claims. They don't have to be; they can simply be descriptive. John is only talking about those that are explanatory. Those that are not explanatory do not become infant theories upon failing to be falsified. They are, for the time being, supported hypotheses.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 7:27 AM

If it's not testable, it's not a theory but a conjecture.

Not quite. String theorists are developing theories which correctly describe known facts, and which are testable but which are not practical to test at this time. The first part works because string theory tends to be mathematically equivalent, in simpler cases, to modern theories - in much the same way that Newton's Theory of Gravity can be shown to be a special case of Eintsein's version.

Deism doesn't provide any way to disprove itself, practical or otherwise. This means it doesn't get the same level of respect as string theory.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 7:29 AM

unlike yourself, I actually AM a practicing scientist, and DO care when wankers like yourself pretend to be.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2009 7:43 AM

it might raise instructive theoretical points.

...and we see through your wishful thinking.

thanks for playing, though.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 7:55 AM

oh, now you've gone and dun vexed me.

put up or shut up.

No you aren't. You are an avatar. You are only able to use argument from your own authority, if you use your real identity, or if, overtime, you have established a reputation for being a reliable source of information and being able to back up your claims.

Posted by: RobertDW | April 19, 2009 8:07 AM

Therion@453:

Haven't published anything yet and am working on my PhD

Not to diss you or anything (this time) Therion, but out of genuine curiosity:

What in, and why haven't you published?

I'm not an academic, nor am I likely to go back to study for my doctorate - in my field (computer programming) there is a sufficient disconnect between the academic world and industry that there wouldn't be much benefit for me (and there's a lot of learning I can do without it). OTH, I've known 4 people go for their doctorates - 2 in comp. sci, 1 in physics, and 1 in history. All of them were submitting papers for publication in the first year of their doctoral program, and all of them had been published by midway through the second.

I don't know - maybe this is because post grad students in Australia are all subsidised by the Government, and are expected to publish before they get their thesis. I don't know the culture in the US in this regards.

So: what are you studying that doesn't expect publication before your doctorate?

Posted by: Africangenesis | April 19, 2009 8:08 AM

Therion#453,

He has sustantiated his basis to argue from authority in a certain area, by revealing his identity. Although, since what is at issue is pedantic usage of certain terminology related to science, perhaps the appropriate authority should be in the area of philosophy of science, and even then, those of us on this forum, would have to decide whether we want to argue adopt the pedantic definitions or argue about them or just use the vernacular. I would argue for using the pedantic definitions where they help clarify the issues.

However, in this case, they appear to be being used as part of a "you are stupid for not using the pedantic definitions" ad hominem attack.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2009 8:21 AM

You are only able to use argument from your own authority,

you mean, the authority that comes with actually doing science, instead of being a wanker, like you?

hey this is fun.

Do you rely on your own authority when making your arguments? do you actually have qualification to do so? If you don't rely on your own authority on a subject, then that would imply you haven't really learned anything about it, right?

overtime, you have established a reputation for being a reliable source of information and being able to back up your claims.

I'll quotemine that as being more accurate in that form. Just because I constantly attack your limited knowledge of your preferred subject, hardly reflects on what I have contributed here over the last several years. You tend to ignore things that don't have to do with you personally, which of course is why you haven't the slightest clue what ANYONE here contributes, or even can contribute, and is one of the reasons you were nominated for the "survivor" game.

bottom line, you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about most of the time you go off, and it never seems to be the case that you even notice, despite MANY repeated corrections to much of your misinformed libertarian screeds.

Haven't published anything yet and am working on my PhD.

good.

what does your major prof suggest about the fudamental nature of deism?

assuming you're studying physics and not philosophy, of course.

here's the bottom line, it doesn't matter what you do, or who you are, you're still arguing a position that is untenable, and frankly naive given you are a grad student, and while you pretend to have the support of physics "luminaries" you yourself have done little more than use them as an authority figures (suggesting we can't simply "handwaive" them away), which is why I'm having so much fun playing this little game with you.

You haven't established the veracity of your primary premise whatsoever.

as to dismissing the opinions of others in the field, it's really a common thing in science.

nothing and no-one is sacred. I'm more than happy to praise Francis Collins work on the human genome project, and thumb my nose at his attempts to explain humans as special creations because of his concept of "Moral Law".

The first lesson to learn when and if you do publish is that even your own work will be subject to attack, regardless of what school you graduated from, or what grants you received, or what journal you published in.

Just because deGrasse Tyson has an opinion, doesn't mean it is sacrosanct.

Now then, you wankers can play tag-team if you like.

more fun for me.

However, it's quite late here on the bottom side of the world (12:30). I'll have to catch up with your wonderful insights tomorrow afternoon (my time).

@Therion:

seriously, though, ask your major prof what he would think of you exploring the "hypothesis" (and I do use the term loosely) of deism wrt to any specific observation within cosmology.

I'm sure he/she will get a kick out of that one.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 19, 2009 8:28 AM

My point was that IN PRINCIPLE there could be a case for some kind of watered-down deism. A theorist somewhere might have a good case for some version of deism. Even if it is wrong, it might raise instructive theoretical points.

Well, there's some weak tea for ya.

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 19, 2009 8:35 AM

damn, this has been a fucking great roller coaster of a thread!

while the flame wars got it going, the comic interludes of puns and 70's music wars really made it for me.

and now being tag-teamed?

*sigh*

only wish I didn't have to sleep.

'nite

Posted by: SAWells | April 19, 2009 8:36 AM

Hang on, can't _everyone_ agree that it is in principle possible for an undetectable entity with no influence on the universe to exist? I mean, by definition? I don't see how that makes it reasonable to posit one and claim it ever did anything that affects us, e.g. set universal constants.

Someday, somebody needs to explain the link between "if the universal constants were slightly different we wouldn't exist" and "the universal constants were fine tuned to allow us to exist". Try as I may I can't actually see the logic there; it's an emotional demand to be the centre of the universe. What are we, toddlers?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2009 8:45 AM

Coherent theory, god doesn't exist. And attempting to create one is not science, and is bad philosophy.

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 8:51 AM

Personally, I dislike this whole "paper count" dick-measuring obsession. It forces people to churn out "safe" papers of only superficial value.

I agree with Therion 100% on this opinion. Whereas I'd be disinclined to hire someone who hadn't published anything*, it's definitely accurate that by itself, a long CV does not a spectacular scientist make.

*Because you don't really begin to understand science until you do it, and in the modern world, a big piece of doing it is the communication of the results.

Posted by: RobertDW | April 19, 2009 9:01 AM

SAWells @465:

"if the universal constants were slightly different we wouldn't exist" and "the universal constants were fine tuned to allow us to exist"

The problem is that the universal constants seem to be almost (but not quite) perfect for the sort of universe that allows humans in it. And they could be any value - nobody* can explain why, for example, the speed of light in a vacuum isn't 56 miles/hour (which would be a lot safer for highway driving and make cross-continental roadtrips go a lot faster).

It could just be chance. Chance is even the correct "null hypothesis". But scientists don't like "random chance" as an explanation, and if they're going to accept it, they're going to push it really hard first.

As I mentioned earlier, there's actually a lot of theories going around which explain why fine-tuning would result. None of the scientific theories, however, are based on the cosmic equivalent of a hand tuning a dial.

* Well, when I say nobody - I'm just making this up. But if someone does now why the speed of light is what it is, please let me know. :)

Posted by: SC, OM | April 19, 2009 9:17 AM

What? Lots of eminent physicists take this very seriously. Surprisingly seriously.

I'm not really all that surprised by this. Many if not all come from cultural contexts in which the idea of a deity is pervasive. And it's psychologically difficult to let go of many of these ideas. The point is that this, not the scientific evidence, is the source of the persistence of these ideas.

The problem is that the universal constants seem to be almost (but not quite) perfect for the sort of universe that allows humans in it.

And allows everything else in it, in it. But don't let the facts that we didn't appear* for billions of years, on one tiny planet, through what appears to be a contingent set of events, or that most of even our own planet is uninhabitable by us and the vast majority of the universe is completely hostile to life, stop you from asserting a "problem" of fine tuning. Way to miss the point.

*And are doing much to make this appearance a brief one.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 9:30 AM

Someday, somebody needs to explain the link between "if the universal constants were slightly different we wouldn't exist" and "the universal constants were fine tuned to allow us to exist".

Right now, the universe is in a "golden age" for life. There is a sufficiency of Population I* stars and associated planets with a high enough level of metallicity** to support life. If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity, especially carbon. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white and red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end.

Because of this and the specific makeup of the universe, the infamous Anthropic Principle was formulated. This principle comes in two flavors:

The Weak Anthropic Principle: "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where ... life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p 16.

The Strong Anthropic Principle: "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." (Op cit, p 21.) [Emphasis added]

Essentially, the difference between the two principles is that the Weak Principle says that life can exist and the Strong Principle says that life must exist. The Weak Principle is based on the tautology "if things were different then things would be different." The Strong Principle is based on "I exist, the universe revolves around me, therefore I am the purpose of the universe."

*For purely historical reasons, older stars are Population II and younger stars are Population I. For theoretical reasons, some cosmologists think there may have been even older Population III stars.

**The metallicity of an astronomical object is the proportion of its matter made up of elements other than hydrogen and helium.

Posted by: RobertDW | April 19, 2009 9:40 AM

SC, first: I don't believe in fine-tuning.

Second:

But don't let the facts that we didn't appear* for billions of years, on one tiny planet,

Well, any universe with humans in it, created from a Big Bang, is going to be pretty old. We need Generation I and II stars to go through their lifecycle to produce the heavier elements. Then once the elements are in place, the world has to be made, life has to emerge, and then it has to evolve to us. That takes time. :)

Of course it's going to be on one tiny planet... the chance of humans evolving separately on multiple planets would be insane. OTH, if we wanted to, humans could easily spread out through this galaxy in the next 100 million years. In a couple of billion years, we could easily spread out through most of the neighbouring galaxies. Give us 20 billion, and who knows? Remember: if there was a cosmic plan to create a universe for a single species to own, it would go through a point where that species is confined to one planet, trying to figure out where they are going as a species.

(We can do this and I think we will do it - consider that healthy & active lifespans pushing 200+ seem to likely within the next couple of centuries; space journeys of 40-50 years or more won't be that unimaginable)

Not that I believe this at all; I don't. But frankly any universe with something like humans in it isn't going to be much younger than the really old universe we are already in, unless it has radically different physics to what we have.

(Also, why do you assume that the purpose of a universe that is almost, but not quite, perfect for humans is to have humans in it? Maybe there is another intelligent species 20 galaxies over and the fine-tuning of the universe is exactly perfect for them; we could just be an unfortunate side-effect in the system)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 9:41 AM

You're incapable of having a conversation with me without swearing at me repeatedly,

I'm perfectly capable of doing so. I choose not to, asshole.

SC for the win.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 9:50 AM

What a fool. I've said very clearly that I was angered by your repeated implication that I had called Dyson or others idiots, which you refused to correct and for which you failed to apologize.

Now enough of this bullshit. It should be apparent that you're kicking up a fuss over trifles, probably because you're bored as a result of the shortage of trolls.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 19, 2009 10:12 AM

SC, first: I don't believe in fine-tuning.

Then your response to SAWells @ #471 is just bizarre. With whom are you arguing? I think you're confused.

Of course it's going to be on one tiny planet... the chance of humans evolving separately on multiple planets would be insane.

Not if the universe were really finely-tuned for them. A lot of things are not confined to one small part of the universe.

...In a couple of billion years, we could easily spread out through most of the neighbouring galaxies. Give us 20 billion, and who knows? Remember: if there was a cosmic plan to create a universe for a single species to own, it would go through a point where that species is confined to one planet, trying to figure out where they are going as a species.

Remember? Something you're just making up?

Creepy and ridiculous. This is just what I'm talking about - religious beliefs repackaged for the cosmic scale. These sci-fi suppositions have nothing to do with fine-tuning arguments.

(We can do this and I think we will do it - consider that healthy & active lifespans pushing 200+ seem to likely within the next couple of centuries; space journeys of 40-50 years or more won't be that unimaginable)

Oh, really? We're rapidly destroying the planet that is the sole source of our life for the moment. We'll be firtunate if we don't kill ourselves and virtually every other species on earth off within this time frame. But this is all irrelevant.

Not that I believe this at all; I don't.

I'm glad of that.

But frankly any universe with something like humans in it isn't going to be much younger than the really old universe we are already in, unless it has radically different physics to what we have.

So?

(Also, why do you assume that the purpose of a universe that is almost, but not quite, perfect for humans is to have humans in it?

I'm not assuming that. The fine-tuning arguments based on one version of the SAP assume that. That's the problem. Sheesh.

Maybe there is another intelligent species 20 galaxies over and the fine-tuning of the universe is exactly perfect for them; we could just be an unfortunate side-effect in the system)

Of course this is possible. You're misunderstanding what I'm arguing.

thanks, 'Tis Himself, for posting a good explanation of the idea I was trying to put across as well

WTF? How were you saying the same thing? If you were simply trying to point out that there exists a WAP, we know that. It's, as 'Tis Himself notes, a tautology, and doesn't require any elaborate wanky explanatory frameworks of the sort that we're discussing.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 19, 2009 10:53 AM

a universe that is almost, but not quite, perfect for humans

Yes, except that conditions in the vast majority of it would kill us instantly, it's just perfect for us.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 11:18 AM

Yes, except that conditions in the vast majority of it would kill us instantly, it's just perfect for us.

Without technological support conditions on most of the Earth would kill us in a few days. If you were dropped in the ocean a few km from the nearest land then you would be dead within a day. Even sooner if you were dropped in a cold current.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 19, 2009 12:09 PM

Nice to see you're all still being knotty.

Posted by: Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren | April 19, 2009 12:46 PM

No Mill nor any of his contemporary rationalists, no Huxley, and B.F. Skinner only in a misinformed, derogatory footnote?

Better luck next time, kids.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 12:47 PM

I estimate that about 10 to the -11 of a percent of the observable universe is life-friendly.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 19, 2009 12:54 PM

Some physicists who have conclude that our universe is surprisingly well-suited to life.

I guess if you bend the definition of well-suited far enough, sure.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2009 1:00 PM

Therion, correcting your math doesn't change the fact that your real mistake is in presuming god exists. There is no need for a deity anywhere, except between your ears, because of your desire to manufacture one.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 19, 2009 1:07 PM

Why Nerd, that looks like an invitation to be gruesome.
*smiles sweetly*

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2009 1:23 PM

Oh, piss off. I said I'm an atheist. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand any argument that's more subtle than vilifying anyone who doesn't share your position.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 1:39 PM

But you can pick anything that exists or has existed in the universe and view it in these terms. It's completely arbitrary, and you haven't justified your selection on any scientific basis (nor could you, because it comes straight from religion).

Yes, if things were different, they would be different. The fct that te more we understand about our universe the less significant and the more incidental we appear to it doesn't stop people from insisting that we're central.

"Surprisingly well-suited"? Idiotic. We know that adequate conditions exist for carbon-based life somewhere in the universe because it exists, just as adequate conditions exist for any number of things, because they also exist. To go from this to fine tuning for one phenomenon requires an arrogant leap of faith.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2009 2:00 PM

Well Therion just proved himself to be liar, since he continued his flawed godbot argument. He is no atheist. We don't give a shit what other people think. Argument from authority is irrelevant, as we think for ourselves. Try another forum. You have used up your goodwill here.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 2:08 PM

Well Therion just proved himself to be liar, since he continued his flawed godbot argument. He is no atheist.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 2:25 PM

Any chosen focus is arbitrary, and can only be justified in terms of the larger question(s) you're trying to answer. You have to be blind not to recognize the religious origins and continuing relationship; Freeman certainly makes these very clear.

All this stuff about how focusing on human life is "arbitrary" seems to miss the point of the anthropic principle altogether.

Your entire argument appears to lack substance and to rest on your awe of smart dudes. You're one of these people who, if someone's not following your script and arguing in precisely the terms you've come to expect, throws a little "respect their autoritah" tantrum.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2009 2:31 PM

Therion, all your arguments are mental masturbation. There is no connection until the physical evidence is available to scientifically show the connection. I know that, since I have been a working scientist for 30+ years. Your speculation until then is bullshit. We have told you that, and your inability to understand us says something about your lack of intellect. We are bored with your inane speculation. Take it elsewhere.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 19, 2009 2:49 PM

Second vote for bored.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 19, 2009 2:54 PM

Not only wrong and ignorant, but hilariously wrong and ignorant. What a schoolboy howler.

How so? And what is your response to Caroline Miller?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 19, 2009 3:02 PM

*UGGGH*

How dare you fire that at us?!
I can ban you from the spanking couch Bastion.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 19, 2009 3:16 PM

Hummm. Very well, but I am going to keep my eye on his paddle for the rest of the day.

THAT sort of kack plays hell on my ruby slippers.

Posted by: Hyperon | April 19, 2009 3:19 PM

As has been pointed out to you above, scientists, including brilliant ones, can think dumb things that are not really supported by the evidence. It happens all the time. They can also waste a great deal of time on trivialities and dead ends. So the fact that some people who hold an idea are smart, "first-rate," or whatever fawning adjectives you want to cling to has no bearing on the value of the ideas. You really need to try to separate ideas and arguments from people.

Might respond to the rest of your post later.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2009 3:20 PM

I can ban you from the spanking couch Bastion.

*gasp*

Oh, please, please, please...anything but that!

What can I possibly do to make this up to you?!!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 19, 2009 3:26 PM

Therion, we defer to nobody (except for PZ, as this is his blog). What part of that don't you understand?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2009 3:34 PM

Hey, if you can pick up unspent ammo off the ground, so can I!

Bah! I laugh at your impotent recycled weaponry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-L0NpaErkk

Posted by: AdamK | April 19, 2009 4:02 PM

Apparently Therion is putting forth the proposition that (s)he, Therion, is incompetent to judge the usefulness of the anthropic principle, since Therion in not a physicist.

In this, Therion is entirely correct. Therion is not a physicist. Neither is Therion competent, in any respect so far demonstrated.

Posted by: Compositionalist | April 19, 2009 4:30 PM

I want to hear more about Jodie Foster sandwiches, because this deism subthread has started to get a little boring for me too.... Alas, and I hate terrible music.

Therion @ #508:
"(a) quantum mechanics has given us reason to consider whether human consciousness has special priority in the universe, and (b) the notion of fine-tuning mightn't in fact be dismissible bullshit."

Let's get this straight: I'm only a lowly musician, but I can understand why your (a) argument is either stated very poorly or is utterly garbage. Let me try to explain it simply: photons bouncing off particles into our eyes doesn't give humans or our consciousness "special priority in the universe". Every animal species (or almost every one, I assume) can observe with one sense or another, and I'd argue that entails at least a basic form of consciousness. There goes human priority. Your (b) argument seems to have been well-demolished already, and you haven't been pushing respect for fine-tuning quite so much as deism anyway.

To reiterate:
Me: an unemployed agnostic-atheist musician who loves learning about science, bacon, and atheist babies wielding bacon-torches.
Heisenberg: found some BS compelling.
Dyson: found some BS compelling.
Einstein: found some BS compelling.
Me: still not caring.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 4:55 PM

A highly debatable point. As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, some first-rate physicists believe the very existence of the universe hinges on human consciousness.

This has always struck me as the height of hubris. For centuries science kept showing us that we are not the center of the universe. Now some egotistical people are claiming "oh no, humanity is the center."

I have no problem with the Weak Anthropic Principle. It's obvious that the universe is capable of supporting sentient life because we're here. If the universe was incapable of such support, we wouldn't be here. It's like the old joke "If your parents didn't have any children, chances are good you won't either."

However the Strong Anthropic Principle insists that we must be here. As I said previously, it's based on the idea that "I'm the most important thing in the universe, the universe revolves around ME, therefore I am the sole reason for the existence of the universe." Which is so much narcissistic bullshit.

Posted by: RobertDW | April 19, 2009 5:13 PM

Then your response to SAWells @ #471 is just bizarre. With whom are you arguing? I think you're confused.

I was playing devil's advocate; it's something I do a lot. Trying to understand the other person's point of view.

SC posted an objection to fine tuning. I pointed out that his objection is irrelevant - a fine tuned universe would look like the one we are in.

The argument I gave (that a fine tuned universe which allows humans to evolve in it is necessarily going to be old, and will go through a phase with humans on one planet) has been presented by numerous writers as an example of the Anthropic Principle. I may be doing a shitty job of putting it forward.

In other words: SC put forward a bad argument against Therion's deism. Without being on Therion's side, I was trying to point out that his argument was flawed.

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 5:28 PM

And one to keep Josh's head down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG1SVKipKZE

Oh you did not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3SfcANH-9A

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 5:45 PM

*pops up*

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

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 5:57 PM

Now I'm forced to use a couple of bombs that I'd hoped would remain stored in the bunker:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9K4BKkLaCI

Posted by: bastion of sass | April 19, 2009 6:08 PM

'Tis. I sneer at your http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZuVHQcZlNA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9K4BKkLaCI.

Now, go ahead, punk, peek. I dare you. [Warning to Patricia. Put on your crocs!!!]

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

Posted by: SC, OM | April 19, 2009 6:14 PM

You keep going on about this. You're missing the boat. My point isn't merely that they're "brilliant". I don't think you understand that by pooh-poohing the anthropic principle you stand against the vast majority of physicists. (And not only physicists, but also, for instance, Richard Dawkins, who has mused about the anthropic principle in at least two of his books.)

I think we need to establish clearly which variant of the AP we're talking about and what you mean specifically when you use terms like "flirted" or "mused about."

This doesn't prove you're wrong, but it does suggest that you should adopt a more deferential and less cocksure tone.

Nah.

It seems unlikely that all these people have been for years falling foul of some elementary blunder that you can expose in a few haughty sentences.

Highly unlikely, but it would be totally friggin' cool.

Now you are mis-representing the fine-tuning argument; it's based on the laws of physics we understand now, and saying that a handful of important constants were adjusted to be "just right".

This means that evolution would still be the only way for a species to come about, and evolution will not produce the same species on multiple planets. No matter what level of fine-tuning you imagine. Analogous species, yes. The same, no.

In fact, I think most have retreated from the idea that it's about humans, and suggested that it's about "sentient life."

Your other recent post hurts my head. I can't figure out what you're saying or to whom you're saying it, to be honest.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | April 19, 2009 6:45 PM

OK Just to muddle the waters amongst combatants.

Mathematics is a language that helps us see sub-atomic particles.
When in fact the community treats the results as a wave of matter/energy.
To postulate:If all matter/energy was in harmony you would not be able to percieve.It is only due to dis-harmony that we exist at all.
And if everything was in harmony in the begining,well...inconclusive.
This view is no more relevant or no less than CMB.

However, it does lend a tone to religion or this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHNfRV0OtPo

*pops*...out

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 7:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4UgcOPx2o0

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 19, 2009 7:17 PM

And not only physicists, but also, for instance, Richard Dawkins, who has mused about the anthropic principle in at least two of his books.

I think we need to establish clearly which variant of the AP we're talking about…

Absolutely. This version is not the one that I've heard Dawkins espouse. Dawkins's version of the anthropic principle is essentially the tautology that the universe that we're in must be the kind of universe that supports human life because we're in it and able to talk about it; had it been otherwise, we wouldn't be here to perceive it, so discussion of its likelihood is a bit daft. IIRC, he and Steven Weinberg discuss this, and agree, in the Voices of Science interview.

The version being discussed here seems to be that “the universe is how it is because of our presence” — a very different notion that reverses cause and effect, and reeks of religious anthropocentrism, mysticism and teleology — a perversion of the anthropic principle as I understand it.

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 7:33 PM

*sees the blood everywhere*

*shakes head*

You all can run if you like--you're just gonna die tired.

*puts team ball cap on*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-eVa4eweA&feature=related

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 7:45 PM

Sorry, Nanu--that round has already been put down range.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/sandwiched_between_jodie_foste.php#comment-1574292

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | April 19, 2009 7:52 PM

*slowly bleeding to death from the Travolta tactics*
*realizing kindness doesn't kill*
*finds ammo under the entrails the 60's*
*loads sticky ammo in weapon*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGL4btEIoTo

*dies singing*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 8:12 PM

*looks down at smoking holes in body armor from Sphere's final onslaught*

*raises weapon toward 'Tis*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCnYTl-5avw

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 19, 2009 8:29 PM

I know nothing of the rules of this game, but would it be safe to guess that the first person that uses "The Bird" is the looser?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 19, 2009 8:43 PM

This bird?

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | April 19, 2009 8:47 PM

*As I had already succombed to death, I was drawn back to this world by a convoy from yesteryear*.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PciMH7nO5wY&feature=related

aaaaand cut, really gottago

*parting shot*

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 8:56 PM

Die, geologist pig!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3YqaIxDp_0

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 19, 2009 9:01 PM

Nice. Morris Day and the Time.

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 9:03 PM

Bring it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XucbKof0HcU

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 9:12 PM

Wow, SC...just wow. That's some obscure shit.

*reels slightly*

*looks over at bastion and what's left of Sphere*

Hmmmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv-Yx-vZCGE

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 9:19 PM

As rifle volleys are fired over Sphere's grave, the band plays

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50b-Q-Z1bF0&feature=related

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 19, 2009 9:32 PM

How much strength will you have after this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1PLT0GljPA

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 19, 2009 9:44 PM

Yes, Rev. that's the correct damned bird, may shit be upon it. The Pullet Patrol has standing orders to peck the eyes out of any such offender or risk martyrdom pot piedom.

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 9:51 PM

That's rock studier, dickhead*. Stones are building materials.

Take this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVf940pO5ME

That's right. That's right.

With fuckin' lyrics.

*yeah, I know it sounded much better the other way...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2009 9:56 PM

Josh | April 19, 2009 9:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_l0as6tCcs

*Im layin here,taps has been played...sorta.I'm just blowin in the wind if you will and then this?

Josh you are pure evil, evil I say. I hope 'Tis Himself and bastion of sass and others can make it, quick hold your hands over your ears...

oh and did I say PURE fuckinevil. the horror...the horror...

Posted by: bastion of sass | April 19, 2009 10:00 PM

Here's what I propose: You'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16kh-AP4OCU

Posted by: Josh | April 19, 2009 10:05 PM

@584:

Nous Défions

Posted by: SC, OM | April 19, 2009 10:06 PM

Josh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_l0as6tCcs

Holy shit.

Posted by: tresmal | April 19, 2009 10:06 PM

Ya gotta know when your band's days are long over.