Pharyngula

Posted by: KateJoy | August 1, 2009 4:58 PM

Terrifying.

Posted by: Chris Jemeyson | August 1, 2009 5:04 PM

Is this for real?

Posted by: kev_s | August 1, 2009 5:12 PM

Maybe starting lots of foreign wars is not such a silly idea if it gets the Xtian army crazies out of the US.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 1, 2009 5:24 PM

Lynnas Quote
*cue theme music from the Twilight Zone*

Posted by: Daniel Fincke | August 1, 2009 5:38 PM

The first time I heard about The Family was in connection to Hillary Clinton in this article from the Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

It's all seems too creepy, surreal and conspiratorial to believe. 76 years of these people pulling all these strings and we only learn of it now? It's baffling how something like that could go on that long and be that frighteningly powerful while remaining under the radar nearly all the time.

Posted by: Ben | August 1, 2009 5:42 PM

And the NPR:Fresh Air interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324

Posted by: Lynna | August 1, 2009 5:49 PM

Re #10 from Ryan: Rachel Maddow rocks. She her story about the Medal of Freedom announcements from Obama. I think it's called "Honor without irony." Rachel also does a better job of covering the protests in Iran.

I don't know if Ms. Maddow likes bacon or not.

Posted by: foxfire | August 1, 2009 5:54 PM

Order the Book PZ!

Posted by: Iris | August 1, 2009 5:57 PM

I'm about halfway through Sharet's book: I would suggest not reading it on a full stomach. It's truly sickening.

Posted by: AgnosticNews | August 1, 2009 6:00 PM

But I'm sure that the religion of The Family gives `hope and comfort,' and thus it would be rude to criticize.

Must we still hear this? Has it not become overly apparent that theological poetry is but a veneer for the core of the tyrannical death gods of the past? That the core of this Bible is as it always has been, little more than incitement to violence? No matter how much pretty veneer you gloss the scriptures with, the ugly core of messianism and violent triumphalism shines ever through, and the permanence of the text itself ensures the future of primitive fundamentalist violence, no matter how much sophisticated apologetic you provide.

Dulling the violent persona of the biblical God through modernist interpretation does nothing to erase the original language, and lest every Christian, present and future, goes through a `sophisticated' indoctrination, the plain meaning of the text will return to visit violence on the heads of humanity and reactionary ignorance on the minds of children until the revelatory status of the Bible is revoked.

And what shall we do now that we've elected true believers?

Posted by: Peter Beattie | August 1, 2009 6:03 PM

Maher definitely has his inconsistencies, but he can be a very good interviewer. And especially this (yesterday's) episode was very worthwhile. Michael Ware was on the program and was allowed to talk at length about AfPak without twice being interrupted. I doubt he regularly gets that much quality time on his own network.

Real Time is still on my regular watching list, because at times it rises to quite respectable heights in terms of the quality of the dialogue.

Posted by: maditude | August 1, 2009 6:09 PM

Yeah, was very interested in Michael Ware's comments, but that Queenan guy kept interrupting, and being an asshat.

Posted by: Keanus | August 1, 2009 6:12 PM

Among the many things that baffle me about this is how anyone can justify the tax exempt status of this organization or its property. It's clearly a lobbying organization, successfully pretending to be a "church" without tax obligations, and the operator of a boarding house for the well-to-do near the capitol. These people should pay the same taxes everyone else pays. Scumbags.

Posted by: Wayne Robinson | August 1, 2009 6:16 PM

Just bought it as a Kindle book, in less than a minute, so I think physical bookshops have every reason to be afraid of their future.

Posted by: laureney | August 1, 2009 6:19 PM

Did anyone else get the sudden urge to stockpile canned goods and firearms--just in case--after watching this?

Posted by: OregonMJW | August 1, 2009 6:26 PM

Astounding, frightening, apalling, scary, terrifying, wrong, evil, and in all likelihood, treasonous.

Everyoe associated with this cult should be exposed. Sharlet should receive the Pulitzer, at least.

Posted by: Nap | August 1, 2009 6:28 PM

Ridiculously OT but you must see this video; it's a religious ritual where they toss babies from a 50-foot tower...to make them healthy: http://current.com/items/88929480_baby-tossing.htm

Posted by: Rorschach | August 1, 2009 6:38 PM

Sharlet on Maddow :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfaiLki3WEg

Latest New Rules :

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

Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 1, 2009 6:54 PM

Mr T @12

This makes me feel sick.

What, if anything, can be done to limit their political influence?

I think you almost had the answer there... I was just watching Edge Master Class 2009 and stopped for a bit to see what was new here... Oh I don't know maybe some cool new artificial targeted pathogens that cause fatal diseases might be a start. How about a little preemptive biological self defense.

Too bad all fundamentalist don't take communion wafers, They would be a nice way to transmit the new bugs.

Ok I'm just kidding but I get the impression that these people wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond before they killed any of us.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 1, 2009 6:56 PM

So the next time the chronically religiously challenged bleat about respect and tolerance for their delusion...we all know that that is just the cannon fodder preparing the way...for the truly respectful and the truly tolerant and the incredibly barking insane...

Posted by: IST | August 1, 2009 7:03 PM

every bit as bad as their Muslim counterparts... lovely. Fits right in with that douchebag in Florida (Todd Bentley?)

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 1, 2009 7:10 PM

I see it as this: there is no level of repellent, epic scumbaggery to which they will not stoop as long as, in their minds, they can add ...for Jesus™.

Posted by: Last Hussar | August 1, 2009 7:14 PM

Just to armour plate us- are we sure these accusations are true- is there verifiable evidence? Pharangulites would demand it if similar was made against Obama.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 1, 2009 7:16 PM

Like many politicians, The Family think they're an untouchable elite. They don't have to follow the same rules as us hoi polloi. While they're nominally Christians, they don't have to follow the same rules as ordinary Christians. Morality is just for us common folk.

We see this all the time with congresscritters and other senior politicians. They get in the wrong bed, they take bribes from quite unsavory people, they do the "wide stance" in public toilets, and they're quite amazed when they get caught. They're even more amazed that the plebs get irate about the stuff the politicos do. They earned the right to do whatever they want because...well...just because. How dare some janitor in Hackensack or store manager in Oshkosh complain about taking bribes or being hypocritical about being gay!

Posted by: Canuck | August 1, 2009 7:19 PM

This is the guy who authored the article Jesus Plus Nothing in Harpers about 6 years back. It's here http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525?pg=1
(hope the URL comes through). That article was one scary bit of shit. These people are fucking crazy.

Posted by: Cimourdain | August 1, 2009 7:27 PM

Hussar, fair point. I haven't seen any rebuttals yet, though I haven't looked that much. How long since this book has been out?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 1, 2009 7:34 PM

Thanks for the clarification Cimourdain. The 'War on Terror' was a bad use of terminology from the off. You cannot fight an effective war against an ephemeral social concept or against a methododlgy of violence. It was inevitable that this semantic inconsistancy would be played upon.

The likes of Ken Livingston and George Galloway associating with Extremist Islamist Clerics is a disgrace but what can one expect from such men? Galloway encouraged British troops to desert in time of war, a hugely unpopular and all but unjustifiable war granted but a war none the less. Ken Livingston infamously compared a Jewish journalists to a concentration camp guard for asking poor Ken some tough questions, and in the process won the prize for most insensitive sod in the United Kingdom.

British politicians. Can't live with 'em, can't kill them.

Posted by: SC (of the Blogger SCs), OM | August 1, 2009 7:46 PM

Gosh, I really hope heddle the fearless exegete can explain to them that the OT genocides (which he and they can agree were not evil because they were part of God's redemptive plan), have long concluded, even though the Master Plan has not, so modern genocides are evil and not godly like the other ones.

That's a Christian exchange of ideas I'd love to hear.

Posted by: SC (of the Blogger SCs), OM | August 1, 2009 8:11 PM

I wonder if Rachel Maddow's covered this at all. Anyone know?

Posted by: eddie | August 1, 2009 8:21 PM

I'd like to second (or third) the calls for skepticism. Not to dismiss out of hand, but to examine the evidence of the words and actions. For instance, and for those upthread discussing uk affairs, I hear that many senior brit politicians, at least under bliar, were affiliated to opus dei. That crew are at least as disturbing as e.g. hizb ut-tahrir and have vastly more influence.
Whatever your take on such as galloway or livingstone, they are marginal. Don't be distracted and look at what's at the heart.
When doing this you see why uk has increasing state support for religious education and the same corporate dominionism as in usa.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 1, 2009 8:34 PM

Eddie @ 59:

Your absolutely right about the corruption of UK education and public policy along with the rise of corporate dominionism. I just wish I could say you were wrong. We may not be as far along this road as the USA, but we are fast approaching the same cliff our transatlantic cousins are about to hurtle over and other countries are practically lining up to follow suit. Who would have thought the humble lemming would be a good analagy for nation states?

Dear invisible sky faerie, I'm depressed.

Posted by: moonkitty | August 1, 2009 8:46 PM

Last Hussar: "Just to armour plate us- are we sure these accusations are true- is there verifiable evidence?"

I haven't read the book yet, but I have read an excerpt on NPR's website. Sharlet went and hung out with "the Family"--for quite a while ("A few weeks into my stay....") Judging by the excerpt, he's getting at least some of his information straight from the horse's asses themselves.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324

Posted by: george.w | August 1, 2009 8:46 PM

My skepticism is based on wishful thinking; I don't want this to be true. My cynicism tells me it probably is. My indigestion is based on thinking my cynicism is probably right. Independent confirmation one way or the other would be nice.

Anyone know Sharlot's record? What's he done in the past, and was it credible?

Posted by: bassmanpete | August 1, 2009 8:52 PM

Pierce @14: ABE's booksellers have 22 copies available in the US, UK, and Australia. ABE is a link in PZ's original post immediately after the book title (just in case anyone hadn't noticed.)

Posted by: Tom Estes | August 1, 2009 9:03 PM

Afterthought,

Was my comment hateful? And if He's "my God" don't I get every claim of authority I want? Your logic is faulty.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 1, 2009 9:06 PM

Was my comment hateful? And if He's "my God" don't I get every claim of authority I want? Your logic is faulty.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 1, 2009 9:17 PM

Was my comment hateful? And if He's "my God" don't I get every claim of authority I want? Your logic is faulty.

Anybody who offers nothing more in support of their argument than that they have the authority of "my God" can usually be ignored, were it not for the fact that so many such imbeciles wield subversive political power, which is rather the point about why stories about people in government who claim that their belief in God elevates them above the concern of mere morality is, to say the least, troubling.

The fact that you don't think these people speak for god only says something about you, not about whatever the FCC god is supposed to be. The fact that you think you believe in a really special and very nice god while theirs is very naughty, tells us that if you've thought about this even a little bit, you haven't thought about it very well at all.

Posted by: Sastra | August 1, 2009 9:22 PM

Tom Estes #62 wrote:

I don't think you would like that very much, and as a Christian, I can tell you, people like the ones referred to in this video have nothing to do with me or God, so please, don't lump all Christians in with these nutjobs.

We of course know that religious sects disagree with each other on all sorts of things: the problem lies in the fact that there is no way for anyone who sincerely believes they are following God to discover that they're mistaken. They are to hold to their 'faith' in something greater than themselves -- and therefore they no longer have to consider themselves responsible for what "God" wants done. The responsibility shifts to God, who is never wrong.

Nor is there any way for outsiders to arbitrate a dispute about "who really understands God." Your analogy to Ken Ham vs. PZ actually points out the significant difference between science and religion. There are objective ways to discover which side is likely to be correct on evolution: scientific disputes deal with evidence and reason in the natural world. There's a common ground to stand on, to resolve them.

Religion takes away that common ground, for God answers to no one.

Our real problem with religion is not that there are people who use it to justify doing bad things. It's that the method itself can just as easily justify (or inspire) things that make no sense to the secular conscience, as it can justify things those things that do make sense.

Posted by: Anri | August 1, 2009 9:29 PM

Tom Estes sez, in part:

"This just goes to show you there are evil people who claim to love God. But why is this so shocking?"

It's not shocking in and of itself - but behavior like this is shocking regardless of the source.

"Afterall, claiming to know or love God doesn't in any way mean you actually do."

Ok, but be careful when you say that. That's a sword that might cut both ways.

"Ken Ham claims to be a scientist, and to me he is, but I know the you as well as most of your readers don't thinks so. With that said, would it be fair if people wanted to lump you in with Ham, whose science they believe is a farse, and say that all scientists must be that way?"

Fortunately, due to what science is, we can check to see if his science holds up against the real world. If it does, we can say he's an asshole, but we have to acknowledge that he's doing good science. If not, it doesn't matter if he's an asshole or not - he's not doing good science.
One of the differences between that and religion is that religion can't be tested in such a way.

"I don't think you would like that very much, and as a Christian, I can tell you, people like the ones referred to in this video have nothing to do with me or God, so please, don't lump all Christians in with these nutjobs."

I don't think that we are. We have Christian posters here who are not only tolerated, but welcome; who are known as good writers and even good logicians.
But when we see that the more literally a group of people tend to adhere to a religious creed the crazier their behavior becomes, we tend to doubt the worth of that religion in general.
To put it another way, if you follow the OT injunction with regards to a sassy child, are you a horrible person? And if so, what does that say about the bible?

Posted by: nigelTheBold | August 1, 2009 9:57 PM

Tom Estes,

Members of The Family don't call themselves Christians. They say they are "in Christ." They try to distance themselves from Christianity, as it is a meaningless term in the US, and a politicized term elsewhere.

However, that doesn't change the fact that they believe they are working with Jesus. They believe they are in places of power because god has placed them there. As such, they have different duties, and a different set of morals to carry out those duties. Their belief is quite likely just as earnest and honest as your own belief. Just as they are in no position to judge your relationship with god, you are in no position to judge their relationship with god.

Let me ask you a question: would god allow a person to both believe they are doing god's will, and behave in an immoral way? That is the conundrum you face right now.

For reference, review Kind David's taking of Bathsheba from Uriah. That is the model on which The Family and its members operate. It is a very biblical model indeed.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 1, 2009 10:10 PM

Their belief is quite likely just as earnest and honest as your own belief. Just as they are in no position to judge your relationship with god, you are in no position to judge their relationship with god.

Actually, I am in a position to judge anybody who believes they are in a relationship with god. In my judgment, they are indistinguishable from somebody who believes they are in a relationship with a fairy, or an all-powerful demon, djinn, or Pookah pal named Harvey. Is there anybody who can offer the rest of us an objective way for anybody to agree about the way to distinguish which, if any, such beliefs describe reality, while all the others are mere delusion?

Show your work.

Posted by: Sastra | August 1, 2009 10:16 PM

nigelthe Bold #79 wrote:

Let me ask you a question: would god allow a person to both believe they are doing god's will, and behave in an immoral way? That is the conundrum you face right now.

And this suggests another question: If, for the sake of argument, the people who are in this group, "The Family," really have been chosen by God as His special elect, and inspired through Him to understand their role properly -- then are they doing anything wrong?

If you are religious, then the answer is practically a tautology: God is always right. If God has indeed chosen these people to do His work, in this way, then of course they are doing nothing wrong.

From the point of view of the faith-filled members of the 'Christian Mafia,' then, it all hinges on whether they will choose to trust God, or doubt Him. Will they keep their faith strong, or lose it?

From the point of view of those without faith, on the outside, the choice is really between trusting oneself, and doubting. Faith as method allows people to skip that little step in there, where they recognize they are only interpreting. There is nothing so subjective and unreliable as what people know, really know, by faith.

Posted by: António Martins-Tuválkin | August 1, 2009 10:21 PM

Kev_s, #5, wrote:

Maybe starting lots of foreign wars is not such a silly idea if it gets the Xtian army crazies out of the US.

Her… “Good” to know that it doesnt’t take an American to be a «Xtian army crazy» to ignore the rest of the world in such a cold-blooded manner.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 1, 2009 10:25 PM

Posted by: Mr T | August 1, 2009 5:49 PM

This makes me feel sick.

What, if anything, can be done to limit their political influence?

Vote them out of office?
Place restrictions on the lobbyists?
Tax religion?
Demonstrate their particular god couldn't possibly exist?

How about exposure and ridicule accompanied by raucous laughter?

Posted by: Geoff | August 1, 2009 10:37 PM

A secret society of religious fundamentalists?

I blame the atheist scientists.

Posted by: aF Comm Guy | August 1, 2009 10:42 PM

GRRR.....That should say minor, not minot. Stupid fingers...

Posted by: C. M. Baxter | August 1, 2009 10:45 PM

Today the drip system in my garden failed so I went out and removed the lid to the valve box. Cock roaches ran everywhere and a black widow scurried down to the bottom corner. Immediately, I thought of the C Street cabal. Needless to say, it’s time to spray.

Posted by: Sastra | August 1, 2009 10:52 PM

Ken Cope #81 wrote:

In my judgment, they are indistinguishable from somebody who believes they are in a relationship with a fairy, or an all-powerful demon, djinn, or Pookah pal named Harvey. Is there anybody who can offer the rest of us an objective way for anybody to agree about the way to distinguish which, if any, such beliefs describe reality, while all the others are mere delusion?
Show your work.

Well, I think they are all delusions, so I guess I don't have to show my work. ;) But there's a spectrum of religious delusion which runs from outright schizophrenia (nigleThBold's sister-in-law, probably), schizotypal and temporal lobe personalities, and those who are deeply effected by mystical experience(s), and can carry the sensations over into normal experience.

Most people, though, seem to play mind games with themselves, and get into a state where they interpret their own inner impulses, emotions, and thoughts as somehow inspired or prompted from outside. I've asked people who believe that they are in a 'personal relationship' with Jesus -- or who believe they are sometimes 'lead by God' -- exactly, specifically, what it feels like, and they're usually very vague.

Do you hear a voice? No. Do you feel as if there is another mind inside your head? No. Do you think you're receiving telepathic thoughts, like a Vulcan mind-meld? Not really. Is it like an ordinary thought or memory or feeling? Oh, no. Can you describe it clearly? No. It's nice, though.

They don't really know -- or care -- what's going on. They're too interested in the story line to consider details.

Posted by: Mena | August 1, 2009 11:07 PM

What I'm wondering about is why there seem to be very few people, including Rachel Maddow, who are calling it a cult. Is there some sort of respect that must be paid to congress critters that makes them immune to such accusations? It's a damn cult, not a "secretive religious organization". C_U_L_T...

Posted by: Rick R | August 1, 2009 11:09 PM

Yes! Saturday night just got interesting!

*pops popcorn*

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 1, 2009 11:23 PM

"Well, how can you claim to have true science, when all these other scientists, who differ from you greatly, say they have true science." And not only would it not be fair, you all would laugh me out of here.

A scientist does not profess to have "true science", whatever TE may think that may be, because science is a method that invites dispute, tests, weighs evidence, makes predictions that can be empirically observed and measured. Authority does not reside in the scientist, but in the process of science. As flawed as the process is, there is no better method devised by which we can say we have done our best to avoid fooling ourselves.

Those who promote the methods of religion can make no such claim. By what method does religion contribute so much to our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the universe, as does science?

Posted by: Insighful Ape | August 1, 2009 11:26 PM

Hey Tom Ridiculous, how about those wonderful books you preach named Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus etc? There is no violence and gore in any of them, right? Gee, it's so shocking someone taking their morality from those books may turn out to be not such a nice guy. Speaking of nice guys, are you going to try to peel the Islamic terrorists off of their religion in the same vein, asserting there is nothing wrong with Islam itself?
PS: It's nice to know to you Ken Ham is a scientist. I wonder why the oil and gas industry are not hiring him to do their explorations for them, as opposed to those ungodly geologists who think the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It amazes me how hypocrites like you deny science but never hesitate to take advantage of it. Chew on that the next time you are filling the gas tank.

Posted by: sav | August 1, 2009 11:31 PM

As many have mentioned here, The Family is scary, and their organization is anything but a church. In fact, I can hardly see how the lawmakers who get paid by The Family for lobbying dictators in foreign lands are not, in some way, breaking the law.

What about lawmakers' connection and work on behalf of The Family isn't potentially treasonous? The Family does not represent our government's foreign policy. Our government is the ONLY body that should be doing foreign policy work with other governments in the name of the U.S. Period.

The Family, seemingly, would work to undo any kind of good our government has done in terms of foreign relations. If these lawmakers go to foreign lands to lobby governments, some of whom are hostile to the U.S., to buy into the wackadoodle notion that they are chosen by God to be leaders, and that Christianity is really not about helping the poor but about power and the powerful being benevolent father figures to the rest of us--oh, wait--that IS what Christianity is about. I guess they're not falsely representing the religion.

But still. The people of the U.S. are supposed to own the lawmakers, not private interests. I know politics doesn't operate that way, but it should. If we won't stand for lawmakers being owned by corporate lobbyists, then we shouldn't stand for lawmakers being owned by religious or so-called religious ones.

Also, as others have mentioned, I recommend Rachel Maddow's coverage. It's excellent and in-depth. She wouldn't let this stuff go. She had Jeff Sharlet on her show almost every day for about two weeks.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 1, 2009 11:41 PM

Isn't this what it always comes down to: Having to defend science against people like Tom Estes?

Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2009 11:42 PM

Tom Estes:

Now, do I know for an absolute fact that I'm right about every single thing pertaining to God? No, but I try to keep learning, and praying that God, yes God, will continue to teach me.

Very nice.

When you think about it, isn't that all how you wannabe scientists who comment on this blog believe that science works?

Except for the "praying that God, yes God, will continue to teach me", I suppose so.
Scientists indeed try to keep learning.

[1] That scientists don't know anything for a fact, but according to their data, it's the best explanation? You know what, it is! [2] So quit with the circular reasoning and logic that you try and trip Christians up with, it gets boring.

Sorry Tom, I don't quite follow the inferential chain that leads from the "argument" (1) to the conclusion (2).

You may need to include some more intermediate steps if you wish me to understand why it's not a non-sequitur.

PS there's never been any need to "try to trip Christians up".

Posted by: moonkitty | August 1, 2009 11:48 PM

Tom E. @ #96: "And it wouldn't be fair for me to say, 'Well, how can you claim to have true science, when all these other scientists, who differ from you greatly, say they have true science....'"

You're confusing method with interpretation. Science is in the method.

There aren't 40,000 different "Scientific Methods" out there, each claiming its adherents are the only ones who're interpreting data correctly.

"Fact is, there is a correct view point to have on the Bible, God, Jesus, and everything else pertaining to Christianity....

When you think about it, isn't that all how you wannabe scientists who comment on this blog believe that science works? That scientists don't know anything for a fact, but according to their data, it's the best explanation?"

The Christian "data" is (are?) a book (or, to be more accurate, a bunch of books lumped together): the Bible.

There are over 40,000 Christian denominations, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members) each claiming to interpret the data correctly.

When scientists disagree about how to interpret their data (which includes both the natural world and the results of experiment), they use agreed-upon methods in their efforts to convince one another, and to refine their knowledge. Nothing comparable exists in Christianity.

Nobody here really wants to know how you've determined which is the "correct" view point to have on the Bible, et al, but I doubt you'd get very far in convincing members of a rival Christian sect.

Posted by: Revyloution | August 1, 2009 11:56 PM

Sarah at 102,

Its a sad reality we live in, where the most serious of topics are handled in >10 minute video clips, or 140 character text messages.

Were finally starting to realize (as a society) how bad for our bodies fast food is. I hope we don't sink too far before we realize how bad fast news is for our brains.

There is a great movement called 'Slow Food', Perhaps we should start a 'Slow News' movement!

Posted by: John Morales | August 2, 2009 12:05 AM

[OOT, but can't resist]

Revyloution:

Were finally starting to realize (as a society) how bad for our bodies fast food is.

There's a difference between fast food and junk food, and you shouldn't conflate the two terms.

I hope we don't sink too far before we realize how bad fast news is for our brains.

Ditto.

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 2, 2009 12:07 AM

And it wouldn't be fair for me to say, "Well, how can you claim to have true science, when all these other scientists, who differ from you greatly, say they have true science."

Yes, it would be fair of you to ask this question. Scientists ask it among each other all the time. “Who’s right?” This is what you don’t understand. In science, this question can be answered. Your pet hypothesis, your experiment, your “true science” either gets results or it doesn’t. Those who didn’t have the “true science” couldn’t split the atom, couldn’t explain diseases, couldn’t make accurate predictions. And even then it’s no guarantee that you’ve got things “true.” It just means you’re right enough to get the job done. We may never know what is “true.”

If you want to talk about evil science vs. good science then you wander into the area of subjectivity, your forte, but if you want to talk about going to the moon then you can either do it or you can’t.

The reason it’s so hard to talk to people like you is that in order to understand science you have to actually investigate it, and that takes hard work and an open mind. If you’re not willing to do the hard work of genuine investigation then gosh, geewhiz, Ham and PZ both look like scientists, sure enough, ahyuk!

In the real world, Ken Ham's ideas fail miserably to explain things, but because it’s an area of science that isn’t immediately obvious—like aerodynamics or faster computers—it’s hard to convey the reasons. The commenters here can spend all night explaining why the creation museum isn’t science, but you wouldn’t understand it, because you don’t know what science is or how it works, as demonstrated by your comment.

Posted by: John Morales | August 2, 2009 12:08 AM

Tom @114, here you go: History of science.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 2, 2009 12:13 AM

A belated welcome to Tom Estes. Nice to meet you, Tom.

Now then, you asked, "who came up with the rules for scientific study?"

Well, nobody, Tom. That is, no one in particular. The "rules" were discovered through observation and experimentation by a very lengthy chain of humans. In fact, discovery and science has been going on for more than, say, six thousand years. It is ancient. It is what people do. (When they aren't distracted by premiums, coupons and other enticements to complacency.)

Still and all, I'm glad you stopped by. Don't let a dram of distress prevent you from returning for a hogshead of reason.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 2, 2009 12:20 AM

RamblinDude wrote:

The reason it’s so hard to talk to people like you is that in order to understand science you have to actually investigate it, and that takes hard work and an open mind.

I think it's the open mind - or lack thereof - that's the biggest barrier. I don't doubt Christian apologists work very hard - on obfuscation, rationalisation, sophistry and intellectual dishonesty. It takes a lot of effort to come up with ways to try and stop people from contemplating the questions that open-minded critical thinkers ask.

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 2, 2009 12:25 AM

It takes a lot of effort to come up with ways to try and stop people from contemplating the questions that open-minded critical thinkers ask.

Exactly. You either want the truth or you want to believe things, and I know of no quick fix for instilling a genuine love of investigation into people.

Posted by: Bad Albert | August 2, 2009 12:31 AM

Tom Estes said:

Fact is boys and girls, there are evil scientists, who do evil things...

Care to name one?

I think you are confusing scientific discovery with those who use scientific discoveries for evil purposes. For example, scientists didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima, politicians did.

Posted by: John Morales | August 2, 2009 12:37 AM

ObReference: Mad Scientist.

Posted by: John Morales | August 2, 2009 12:51 AM

Drosera,

In his first post, #62, he [Tom Estes] pretends to be a nice and reasonable guy.

[TE] I know that you are bringing a group with you to the Creation Museum next Friday, and I want you to know, I will be there too. And if it's okay, I would love to be able to meet you, and would even love to hear some of your thoughts.

Maybe he is a nice guy, in person.
He says he'll be there...

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 2, 2009 12:58 AM

Maybe he is a nice guy, in person.

Tom Estes reminds me of Tom Huckabee. Seems like a genuinely decent fellow, as do so many Christians, but with the fundamentalists, at least, there is always this appalling blind spot: they are convinced that they have the world figured out because they feel good in church. Feeling all warm and fuzzy when you get together in a big group hug does not mean you have a pipeline to the TRUTH. It means only that you are capable of feeling emotions. If history has taught us anything it is that you can focus your attention on anything and feel good about it. The refusal to admit this, to investigate and understand this, is the product of a lazy mind. Religion couldn’t thrive without this mental sluggishness.

Posted by: E.V. | August 2, 2009 1:03 AM

Fact is boys and girls, there are evil scientists, who do evil things, that doesn't mean science is evil, it means some scientists are.

Posted by: GMacs | August 2, 2009 1:10 AM

Oh, and Tom Estes sounds like he is close to realizing that faith may not be a proper way to view God. I remember that phase. I was secular soon afterward. Don't mean to frighten you Tommy boy, just a recognition of resemblance to personal history.

Posted by: sav | August 2, 2009 1:25 AM

I just wrote all my U.S. Congressmembers and CC'd President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden about the separation of church and state issue, in particular this case in which lawmakers appear to be [seriously] abusing the privilege of their office. I did it to go on the record as an atheist. If others here feel inclined to do the same, maybe we could cause a bit of a ripple.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 2, 2009 1:53 AM

Bad Albert posted (#127):
"For example, scientists didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima, politicians did."
And boy were FDR's arms tired [ba boom tish]
Politicians didn't drop bombs on Japanese cities. They decided (or delegated those decisions to subordinates, who decided} to allow bombing of Japanese cities.
[Sorry pet peeve].
The fact is, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki relied on many, many people to succeed. Were they all 'evil' or just those at the top (or bottom)? - DJ

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 2, 2009 2:05 AM

I'd like to second (or third) the calls for skepticism. Not to dismiss out of hand, but to examine the evidence of the words and actions.

I had this as a first thought, but it's already been confirmed by people who live there and not just Sharlet. You might want to look up the NPR and Rachel Maddow interviews with Sharlet if you remain skeptical about this, as they include the evidence you are looking for. The most likely reason you might have lingering doubts is that it's not quite in the "mainstream" yet.

Posted by: Malcolm | August 2, 2009 3:44 AM

tsig @94

If you're in an intimate relationship with jesus are you cheating on your spouse?

My sister reckons it depends on whether you're actually shagging the guy, or if you're just wacking off to his picture.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 2, 2009 5:21 AM

This seems like fun, so I think I'll chime in. :)

Tom Estes @ 96:

. . . several of you have made comments basically telling me I can't honestly claim my view of God is correct when there are so many other people who would make the same claim.

Not so much telling you that your claim is faulty because others make similar claims, but that you, like those you disavow, insist that you are right without evidence. Your version of Christianity is based on faith, as is the version adhered to by members of the Family. We can distinguish the respective characters of your claims, but there is no objective means of determining whether either of you is right or wrong. You just say you're right, and that's that.

To be sure, not all professed Christians adhere to the Family's dangerous doctrine, but all people of faith insist that they are right, and that's that. It's the kind of mentality that, when afforded the automatic respect it is in our culture, eventually gives rise to organizations like the Family -- those that insist that they are god's chosen, and that therefore, they may do whatever they want. They are right. That's that.

Fact is, there is a correct view point to have on the Bible, God, Jesus, and everything else pertaining to Christianity. And do I believe I have said viewpoint, of course I do, who believes their wrong?

Just as I said. There is a right religion, and a right version of that religion, and you have it, and that's that.

Who believes she is wrong? As phrased, the notion of believing one is wrong is nonsense. If I believe I am wrong about something, I don't really believe that something in the first place.

As a practical matter, however, scientists and skeptics make it a point always to believe that they could be wrong. About even our most firmly entrenched beliefs. Would you go as far for claims like "There is one god," and "Jesus resurrected after his crucifixion?" Would you entertain the possibility you could be wrong about that?

Now, do I know for an absolute fact that I'm right about every single thing pertaining to God? No, but I try to keep learning, and praying that God, yes God, will continue to teach me. [ ] When you think about it, isn't that all how you wannabe scientists who comment on this blog believe that science works? That scientists don't know anything for a fact, but according to their data, it's the best explanation? You know what, it is!

No, it isn't. Because science does not merely end with "But I could be wrong;" it also begins with "I don't know." You don't begin there. You begin with your premises about god and Jesus. You will not question them, and you cannot account for how you know them in the first place.

Consider evolution. You might think it has become a sacred cow, of sorts, to scientists. But scientists can show you how the theory was first conceived, how it went from hypothesis to theory, and all the evidence in its favor. And while scientists can say that they do not know absolutely everything about evolution, and that they learn new things about it all the time, they can also say that certain discoveries would shatter the theory altogether. And they'd abandon it in the face of those discoveries. There is simply no comparison with your contemplation of your faith.

Fact is boys and girls, there are evil scientists, who do evil things, that doesn't mean science is evil, it means some scientists are. [ ] And it wouldn't be fair for me to say, "Well, how can you claim to have true science, when all these other scientists, who differ from you greatly, say they have true science."

Yeah, some scientists are bad people, and other scientists are good people. And yeah, some Christians are bad people, and some Christians are good people. Those rather simple points in no way compel the conclusion that science and Christianity are comparable in any other way, much less the comparison you attempt to draw.

So quit with the circular reasoning and logic that you try and trip Christians up with, it gets boring.

Funny sentence. :)

Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 2, 2009 5:29 AM

But is Jeff Sharlett a reliable source of information? I'm not so sure...

Huh. Having read that review and Sharlet's responses to it there, I'd be more inclined to consider him a reliable source of information.

And boy were FDRTruman's arms tired [ba boom tish]

:)

Posted by: SEF | August 2, 2009 5:59 AM

@ GMacs #134:

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that they are doing exactly what many church leaders accuse the Masons of doing?

That's not irony. The (Free-)Masons are another religiously based power-seeking group, cultish and strong on favouring the in-group over the out-group. Unlike "The Family" they accept quite a diversity of religious belief but the one sort of person* who absolutely can't be a member is an atheist (despite religious nutters frequently and predictably claiming freemasons are an evil atheist thing!). Would-be theocrats are very intolerant of rival religionists in the same game.

* Oh and traditionally no wimmin at all, of course; and quite possibly (at various times and places) no members of "undesirable" races either.

Posted by: toomanytribbles | August 2, 2009 7:08 AM

lots of comments are responding to tom estes, as they should, because, try as he might to deny it, he and the c-street gang have almost identical wordviews.

i just spent a few hours watching clips and reading up on these clowns. i did the same thing when i first discovered the existence of scientology and opus dei... and a bunch of others.

i suspect there are zillions of these organizations -- and, when you finally smack one down, a few others pop up in its place. exposing, criticizing and ridiculing these delusions (it's become cliche to use the word -- but i must use it), specifically and collectively, is becoming all the more urgent, as the power some of these people wield becomes more dire to the entire world.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 2, 2009 7:38 AM

#152

It is not the physical number that is as important as the influence they wield...

They are the cockroaches that infest the legislature the political the judiciary the legal system the medical profession the ecclesiastical...etc etc...

Anyone feeling a need to be low profile and virtually unspoken emulate the secret services in intent..they are up to no particular good...simple like so!

One thing is for sure they are an ancient tradition and that tradition revolves around power influence and wealth...and the getting of it!

As for the baptist preacher of classic cognitive dissonance....a prime example of Christian values.

Tripping Christians up is quite easy and not really a challenge but it never gets boring only their atypical response in all its comic grandeur.

I 'believe' it is what god would have wanted even so.

Posted by: andyet | August 2, 2009 7:58 AM

"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication,"

- C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, ch. 3.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 2, 2009 8:31 AM

Re: Tom Estes's last post, I think he thought we'd all say, "Wow, Tom, those are deep questions. You're right, it is all arbitrary!"

Pure ignorance on his part, but he can't even see it.

Posted by: Insighful Ape | August 2, 2009 8:48 AM

Hey andyet. Did you learn to copy and paste just today?

Posted by: Canuck | August 2, 2009 9:11 AM

@ Tom #96
The thing you don't seem to get, which renders your comparison invalid, is that there is nothing testable to determine if your belief is right as compared to other "supposed" Xtians who believe something other than what you believe. It's all "faith". You have nothing concrete. It's all how you choose to interpret a book, and the bible can be used to support a huge matrix of beliefs, depending on how you choose to use/interpret/abuse it.

Science, on the other hand, formulates testable hypotheses. Things that fail are rejected, things that succeed in the empirical world become part of the edifice, and are eventually extended. It's a pattern recognition system, actually, where the practitioners are building a model of reality, and with each new bit of knowledge, the pattern sharpens.

Without placing any value judgments on the fruits of the effort, you can't deny that the scientific method has been supremely powerful in manipulating our world. Religion, on the other hand, is still the same wishy washy thing it has been for all of time. No faith community today can make any more certain statement about their mythical sky buddy than any other can, and they are no more able to prove anything than any faith community at any time in history. You can BELIEVE any old crap you want. But you can't PROVE anything. Scientists can, however, prove what happens when you break a bottle of nitroglycerine. If you doubt the provability of scientific propositions, we'll give you a bottle of nitro to smash. Let's see if you really doubt the strength of science. Or, on the other hand, let's see if you think your god can suspend the laws of physics and chemistry to keep you safe. Are you game? I didn't think so.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 9:22 AM

Nietzsche most certainly used provocative language, but this was merely in keeping with his emphasis on the importance of style and the value of making the acquisition of knowledge a difficult task - Julian

What an arsehole he must have been.

one should create without regard for the morays of the past - Julian

Well, one can only agree with Nietzsche that dead eels are not very important in relation to artistic endeavours - unless of course one is depicting dead eels.

Nietzsche was most certainly a controversial writer; indeed, he practically viewed writing in a puzzling and shocking manner to be required in a philosopher - Julian

What a poseur.

Posted by: Ignostic | August 2, 2009 9:47 AM

"In 2007, Members of Congress Emanuel Cleaver, II, (D. Missouri) and Jo Ann Davis (R. Virginia) co-chaired the National Prayer Breakfast. Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, gave the message."

Wow, this is from the Wikipedia article on "The Family(Christian Political Organization)", it talks about the "National Prayer Breakfast" - an annual event that they hold, inviting new members and speakers. Scary.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 9:51 AM

SEF @ 146:

"Of course, if you'd meant it instead as an analogy for how dishonest meejah and evil religious/political powers behave towards ordinary, largely innocent, citizens ..."

Yup, that would be the right interpretation. Its 'lemming-like behaviour' in the common usage of the phrase. Not scientific I know. I promise to be better next time.

Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 2, 2009 10:05 AM

And it wouldn't be fair for me to say, "Well, how can you claim to have true science, when all these other scientists, who differ from you greatly, say they have true science."

I couldn't help but be reminded of this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/coyne_and_wray_at_the_oregon_s.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/when_scientists_battle.php

Sure, just like religion.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 2, 2009 10:09 AM

#164

Knockgoats methinks the truly deluded in the elite are as far above mere politicians as politicians are above the common man in the social equilateral frame of reference...

Politicians are shallow and ambitious to the point of becoming the caricatures they all deny they actually are..

Show me a politician I will show you a liar a sycophant and a biased individual as is ever likely to be available!

Politicians...Blair...Dubya...Sarkozy...et al...I can handle on a level of total cynical rejection...they are just wannabee emperors...

The true elite bunnies are the ones you do not see...that you do not hear that you do not have the ability to challenge...those are the real bogey men...
Seems that Sharlet has turned a rock over and a few are visible scurrying for the shadows...but not denying.

The neo-conservatives the back room policy guru's the Institutes riddled with religious maniacs...
The education boards rotten with ignorance and rife with delusion.
But even those stalwart purveyors of fairy tales are but nowt compared to the board rooms of multinational even national bizzyness.

They might or might not have a straight forward religious spiritual agenda in these nests of respectable businessmen cannot say...but they have a religion none the less...simply called 'profit'...it is not souls...it is not environmental concerns...it certainly is not the common good...not salvation...just money...and shareholder acquiescence depends on that money.

The control of society is a delicate balance...it is possible not many are in a position to actually shape it...but there are a few...and they are the ones that 'advise' and 'conjole' and 'lobby'...best done through foolish ignorant and naive intermediaries...like 'tupenny 'apenny know nuthin egocentric intellectually shallow politicians.

The ones that are in a position to influence without revealing either name or agenda are the elite to whom I refer.

Politicians will eventually be voted out of office...they will be yesterdays fools...the ones you know not suffer no such embarrassment...meet the new boss same as the old boss with the same fleas to scratch...the story is never ending.
They have an agenda....this particular one on this thread is the right to rule through Jebus...there are others!

But none so fucking dangerous.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 10:27 AM

I notice that at no. 90 on the 'Suffer the Little Children' thread Tom Estes says;

"Keep the propaganda coming. This article is meager on substance. But I'm glad atheists have yet one more forum where they can spew their hatred."

And yet earlier on this thread at no. 62 he posted;

"And If I could go off topic for a second, and I hope this won't get me thrown into the dungeon, because I truly enjoy your blog and would like the freedom to continue to comment.

I know that you are bringing a group with you to the Creation Museum next Friday, and I want you to know, I will be there too. And if it's okay, I would love to be able to meet you, and would even love to hear some of your thoughts."

Not wishing to come across as pedantic or unwelcoming to other viewpoints, but this seems to be quite a profound change of heart in a very short space of time. Personally, I am willing to give Mr Estes the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps we are causing him to genuinely re-evaluate his outlook on atheists.

Posted by: RyogaM | August 2, 2009 10:47 AM

"Fact is, there is a correct view point to have on the Bible, God, Jesus, and everything else pertaining to Christianity." T.E.

This made me LOL. I'm morbidly curious to ask old T.E. just what is the "correct view to have" re: Bible, et al., but doubt anyone else wants to be exposed to his religious spew.

Christ on a Crutch, T.E., if you are so sure you have "the correct view," stop wasting your time here and go out and start educating the tens of thousands of other Christian sects. Getting all the Christards to agree on only ONE "correct view" would be a true miracle.

So, T.E., get hopping! We'll be right here waiting to see what you all come up with.

Then we'll use logic and circular arguments to destroy it.

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | August 2, 2009 10:54 AM

Tom@114
You're asking questions. Does your church know you're doing this?

Posted by: Lynna | August 2, 2009 11:15 AM

I would have liked to overhear The Family talking about President Obama not showing up for their National Prayer Breakfast.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 2, 2009 11:27 AM

moonkitty @ # 111 - clicking on the link you provide yields only this message:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. ...

Fr. Geoghan will help you work out your penance in the sacristy.

Posted by: SEF | August 2, 2009 12:02 PM

@ #183 re wikipedia link in #111:

It's only broken because of the closing bracket being stuck onto the end of it. Too many people don't know to leave a space after a link (and too much automatic link-generating software treats closing brackets, commas and other such stuff as part of the link - as indeed it sometimes is!). Copy the URL and delete the junk before using it and it will work.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 2, 2009 12:20 PM

Gregory Greenwood you may be reading too deeply into "brother" Tom's posts. He is mining the site for what evils those atheists say and can generate a number of sermons for his flock. It wouldn't surprise me if he thought he could convert them sinners with his own powerful believing presence at the creation museum. Check out his web page.

Posted by: SEF | August 2, 2009 12:40 PM

The bit which I found amusing in the video was the concern of the chat show host(?) in sympathy with many vocal Christians that they are being out-bred by Muslims. It's an inadvertent admission that they are aware their religion lacks merit, let alone any sort of rational evidence-based justification, with which to attract/convert new people - such that they are forced to rely almost exclusively on breeding and indoctrinating their own from birth and then trying to keep them closeted.

Whereas atheism, having reality on its side, can get its recruits from almost anywhere - provided: (a) they are intellectually honest and their education multiplied by their intelligence has reached the threshold level for finally coming to their senses; (b) religious people aren't simply allowed to kill and torture potential atheists for breaking out of the delusion - as used to happen even more than it still does.

Atheism merely has to get enough decent education into enough people to win over the few (NB I argue that it's never going to be as many as some of you expect / hope) who are capable of becoming intentional atheists. Atheists don't actually have to breed true and breed their own - although some undoubtedly do enjoy having that option!

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 12:52 PM

Pierce R. Butler @ 188:

Thanks for the info. One of the reasons I like coming here is that you lot keep me honest. I learn a new thing every time. If only we could get Pharyngula into schools . . .

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 1:03 PM

Dammit, Greenwood is a faster typist than me.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 1:09 PM

Patricia, OM @ 193;

I type faster when I am furious, and am I ever furious! *grumble, grumble, fundie git, grumble, grumble, feed him to Cthulhu, grumble grumble*

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 2, 2009 1:15 PM

The rich and powerful always attract wanna-be Renfields like these. Shine a bright light on them and they scurry to someplace else. When I read of these people, I can see any of them cast as the next Goebbels; they are empty-headed power-loving hands waiting to wield weapons for whoever shows enough dominance to be their master. Pink Floyd called them "The Worms." True words.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 2, 2009 1:29 PM

I've been to the Creation Museum, and it's all science.

LOL! You're awesome!

Posted by: Sastra | August 2, 2009 1:33 PM

PZ Myers #198 wrote:

However, when they've been here for a while, we typically discover they've got no depth, and they just keep saying the same thing over and over again, so we want them to go away.

Ah, but that way we learn patience!

Seriously, they may be saying the same thing over and over again -- but we're not. At least, I keep seeing new approaches, or rebuttals, or stories, or even interesting sentences, coming from people in comments.

If not, it's easy enough to skip over. It's not as if we're forced to read every thread. The people I really don't understand are the ones who keep on arguing with 'trolls,' while complaining the whole time that PZ needs to ban the trolls because they keep responding to their demands that they reply. The dastards.

Maybe it's like "dammit, get those big, delicious donuts our of here!" SIWOTI.

Posted by: Tom Estes | August 2, 2009 1:45 PM

Wow, I must say I'm shocked at some of the responses I've gotten.

1.) Just because I say that I'm getting off here doesn't mean I'm not coming back. I was going to bed. I had every intention of reading everyone's comments, which I did, so ease up people.

2.) What exactly did I say that was mean? Several posters said that I was being hateful, and that makes no sense to me. All I'm doing, and I think this is allowed, is challenging what you all think, just like you challenge what I think. Usually when someone says, "You're mean" it's because their arguments are weak.

3.)Gregory Greenwood, I personally don't appreciate having about 95% of one of my posts copy/pasted on here. If you want to take an excerpt, that's cool, but the entire thing? That's out of line. The whole point of having a blog is so people will visit the site. I'm asking nicely, please don't do that anymore. And when did I seem like someone who could be converted? That isn't why I come here.

4.)Sastra, I know this is probably the worst thing I could say on here, but I couldn't agree more with you. It seems like Christians get attacked just as viciously when they come on here as when they leave. Make up your mind people! Just so everyone knows why I come, I enjoy talking to atheists. I read several atheist blogs like Blaghag, Freethinker, Atheistpoint, and probably two-thirds of the visitors on my blog are atheists. And while there have been Christians on my blog who have lashed out at them, I don't do it because I enjoy civil debate. I know you may think it's weird that a baptist preacher would feel that way about atheists, but what can I say, I guess I'm a nerd.

5.) As to my last comment, are you telling me that some of you thought I was talking about science? Surely not. I was talking about the verification process. And what I want to know, is who decided how that works? Who got to be the one to say, "Ok, a scientific theory isn't valid until "x", "y", or "z" happen."? And that part of the equation appears to be arbitrary.

Let me put it another way; I believe God created the universe. (I know, big surprise) And I believe that God is the Lawgiver. He is the one who decides what the facts are.

I know that none of you agree with my logic, so don't waste my time asking me questions like, "Yea, but how can you test and prove what God's laws are?" Whatever, I've heard it all before, and you and I both know you won't like my answers. I want to know about you. Who decided that someone had to have peer reviewed studies before they were credible? Who decided how many times a theory had to be tested? That is the part that seems arbitrary, not science itself, and to be honest, I can't believe I had to clarify that.

I think I'm going to go put a football helmet on, because I'm expecting to get pounded.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | August 2, 2009 1:47 PM

The transcript of the NPR program is available at the site.

Quote therefrom:

GROSS: Is there anything you'd like to tell us about the Mark Sanford story or the John Ensign story that you feel like you understand because you've studied the Family?

Mr. SHARLET: I was especially fascinated when Governor Sanford explained his decision not to resign by referring to King David and saying, look, here's King David, this guy who fell mightily but he went on. And by fell mightily he means that King David had an adulterous affair and then had the husband of the woman murdered.

And that's actually one of the sort of core parables of the Family that I encountered and describe this experience with David Coe, the son of Doug Coe, the leader, came around and gave us this long lesson. He says, What made King David great? And the men I was with, they're all trying to say, well, he loves God, he - all this. He says no, no, that's not it. He says King David was a terrible man. You know, he was an adulterer and a murderer. So why is he a hero of the Bible?

And the answer is because God chose him. King David is beyond morality in their limited understanding of Scripture, and that's a central parable in the Family's thinking, and I could almost hear Doug Coe's voice when Governor Sanford is saying I need to keep governing because I'm like King David.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 2:05 PM

Baptists. Haw! Them's kindygarten christians.

I wave my twinkies at baptists aunties.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 2, 2009 2:12 PM

"Who decided how many times a theory had to be tested?"

Guy named Ernie. Lives in a duplex out by the airport.

Posted by: Sastra | August 2, 2009 2:17 PM

Tom Estes #203 wrote:

Who decided that someone had to have peer reviewed studies before they were credible? Who decided how many times a theory had to be tested? That is the part that seems arbitrary, not science itself, and to be honest, I can't believe I had to clarify that.

The scientific method wasn't set and decided by an authority, or a group of authorities. Like many valuable human accomplishments, it grew slowly, from small beginnings and trial and error.

If you read a history of how science evolved (yes!), you can see where specific errors of the past were caught, and how they were caught, and how the methods of catching them were then incorporated into the growing body of research. How did we figure out that bloodletting didn't work? It wasn't by "personal experience." The clinical experience of the physicians was that, when it wasn't too late, it always worked.

Physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that "science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about how the world is." There's no one method -- it's a serious of methods which try to eliminate human errors and biases through a rigorous search for consensus.

What sorts of criteria are we talking about? Ontological conservatism, mechanistic transparency, experimental replicability, observational support, predictive success, connections between classes of phenomenon, and theoretical productivity (from Tom Clark).

You yourself could probably examine every one of those guidelines and make a case for its value -- in areas of science where your religion is not involved. We are not accusing you of being 'anti-science' in principle. We think you are special pleading in those scientific areas where you think the scientific method should not be applied.

And, in those areas where you are just wrong, we think you are just wrong.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 2, 2009 2:24 PM

Hey Tom the Ridiculous,
I am positive you are not interested in learning something, because this wouldn't be the place. On the off chance that you may be (concerning natural sciences), you can start by looking at statistics; power of study, sample size, types of errors, etc. You can find all the answers there.
Not that any of that matters to you. You "know" that god is the lawgiver (the suicide pilots of 9/11 couldn't agree more, by the way, the just thought he had said different things that you do), and as such, if the evidence can't be shoehorned to fit your scripture, then something is wrong with the evidence. None of which, of course, stops you from enjoying the benefits that are driven from collecting the evidence and going with it (a.k.a, "science"), from cars, to cellphones, to the internet.
Here is a suggestion. Why don't you thumb through your Good Book and read what it says about the Pharisees. Then take a good look in the mirror-you are looking at one.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 2:31 PM

Q. Who decided how many times a theory had to be tested?

A. Dr. Floyd Rubber, Alcatraz, USA.

Posted by: Afterthought | August 2, 2009 2:35 PM

@Ben in Texas

Guy named Ernie. Lives in a duplex out by the airport.

Posted by: SEF | August 2, 2009 2:38 PM

@ Tom Estes #203:

I was talking about the verification process. And what I want to know, is who decided how that works? Who got to be the one to say, "Ok, a scientific theory isn't valid until "x", "y", or "z" happen."? ... Who decided that someone had to have peer reviewed studies before they were credible?

But that isn't some separate entity. That's part of the scientific method too - and also a scientific result! People progressively discovered what sort of things they needed to do in order to avoid fooling themselves or being scammed by others.

Science evolved by acting on itself (as well as continually testing its ideas against the ultimate arbiter - reality). That's a key factor in its exceptional success. No-one was going to invent a perfect system in one go from nothing. That's the sort of thing only crackpot religionists believe in (despite generally contradicting themselves on the point!), not sensible and well-educated scientists.

Who decided how many times a theory had to be tested?

There's no such specific number of times. Every time new evidence arises it inherently tests all relevant theories. Every time a new possibility is considered (eg for how something might be flawed or subtly different than supposed), it prompts a new round of testing aimed specifically at eliminating the potential flaw (hence double-blind studies and control groups) or discriminating between rival views and exposing which of them (despite perhaps only differing very subtly from each other) is the more correct. This can result in finding out the truth is a strange combination of both, as with wave-particle duality.

The details of each test necessarily have to vary according to what one is trying to find out. Your rhetorical x, y and z are never arbitrary. Though I can see how they would seem so to someone too stupid and ignorant to understand why each of them was a necessary and valid step/test in its context.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 2, 2009 2:49 PM

Who decided that someone had to have peer reviewed studies before they were credible? Who decided how many times a theory had to be tested? That is the part that seems arbitrary, not science itself, and to be honest, I can't believe I had to clarify that.

Any scientific information about black holes, gravity, special relativity, brain surgery, paleontology, plate tectonics, mathematics, airplanes, astronautics and computer programming that can't be readily divined from a careful reading of the Bible is obtained by scientists by a time-consuming process of ritual infanticide, blood sacrifice at the crossroads, and making Faustian bargains until Satan tells a lucky scientist it's time to take dictation. Don't they teach you clowns anything about the way the real world works in Sunday School?

Posted by: John Atkeson | August 2, 2009 2:54 PM

Re: Video pulled by HBO, alternate link.

Is this it? I didn't see the original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3npWdChcGo

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 2, 2009 3:00 PM

Yes, that's the video.

Which brings up an interesting legal question...

Posted by: Tom Estes | August 2, 2009 3:03 PM

@Gregory Greenwood

Yes, I do object to almost an entire post being reproduced on here. Like all bloggers, I want people to go to my site to read my work, not have it posted in a comment thread in it's entirety. And if you take something out of context, I can tell people to go to my blog and read the whole thing, now they have no reason to, at least concerning the post you copied.

@Sastra

Good work, I knew you would immediately spring into action when I agreed with something you said. You wouldn't want to be branded as one who is "Tolerant of Christians." Anyway, you say this happened slowly, over time. Well how can I argue that solid piece of evidence? And as far as the processes you mention, which I'm sure all very important, who decided how important?

Here is my point; if a man/woman decided which processes mattered, who is he/she to say that? Why does he/she get to be right? When I was in college, I wrote a paper outlining the arrogance of Samuel Johnson, who is believed to write the first dictionary. I believed him to be arrogant because I thought, "Who does this one man think he is to tell us what our words mean?" I tell you this only to give you some insight into how my mind works. So again, who made the decision? And why is it impossible they aren't wrong?

@Afterthought

I wasn't being condescending at all, I just wanted someone to at least attempt to answer me instead of asking me the same questions I've heard many times over.

@Insightful Ape

I'm not looking to learn anything, it's more like trying to understand the way the atheist thinks. (I know, it's crazy for me to think a simple mind like mine could understand an atheist's deep, broad understanding of the world.) I'm intrigued by atheists, just like many atheists are intrigued by Christians. And way to lump me in with murderers, I guess all scientists are like the unibomber, right? Yawn.

@Nerd of Redhead, OM

I'm a delusional fool, so bear with me, but which scientists get to decide what science is? How ridiculous would I sound if, when someone questioned Christianity if I said, "Christians get to decide what Christianity is."

@PZ

You honestly don't think many atheists are also shallow and repetative?

Posted by: JackC | August 2, 2009 3:12 PM

Oh - and Tom? You betray a bit of common ignorance. No one - ever - has produced a dictionary and pretended they "define" words. Dictionaries are created to develop a reference of how words are used. Check the Dictionary for the word dictionary. You may be enlightened. Feel free to use this one.

Note that though even that definition includes the word "meaning" - it is plural and "does not mean what you think it means".

JC

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 3:16 PM

Tom Estes @ 227:

So you object to your blog being reproduced. Alright, next time I'll just link to your site.

You want to know what I object to? How about the characterisation of the people who post on this site as members of a 'cult', almost comedicaly hypocritical coming as it does from a creationist. Or the belittling of the hardworking and conscientous scientific community as 'lemmings'. Or, and this is my favourite, the ludicrous oxymoron that is 'Sacred Science'.

At least now we understand one another.

If you are still upset about my earlier post just think of it as free advertising.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 2, 2009 3:19 PM

Don't worry Tom Estes, we can't take you seriously because you are delusional fool who hasn't shown any physical evidence for his imaginary deity. To be taken serious, you must put up or shut. If you can't show physical evidence for your deity, shut up about him. Those are the honest and honorable positions. But, since you will do neither, like most delusional fools, we will have your measure as a liar and bullshitter.

Posted by: Numad | August 2, 2009 3:30 PM

I don't quite get some of the reaction here. I hope some don't think I'm wandering into concern troll territory here, but when hearing something terrifying like this, what's the insentive in trying to create a total equivalency between these frankly abominable sounding people and every other person who self-identifies as Christian?

Personally I agree that all religious belief shares the same basic rational errors, but for the rest there's a question of degree. An interpretation of religious texts can still apply reason and internal coherency to itself. It doesn't make it true, not in the least, but to me it's a non-negligible diffence for some considerations. Including considerations that come up when I hear about things like this.

I mean, if one calls out people like this who use the banner of religion as the slimmest of pretexts ever seen, it actually doesn't hurt to my sense to point out the sleigh of hand, and that include maybe pointing out that this Jesus fellow actually said some stuff.

Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2009 3:32 PM

"That's right, sacred science."

This made me spew my scrambled eggs out of my nose.

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 2, 2009 3:41 PM

Tom says:

@Sastra

Good work, I knew you would immediately spring into action when I agreed with something you said. You wouldn't want to be branded as one who is "Tolerant of Christians."

Wow, for you to say this to Sastra, who gave you several intelligent, well-reasoned and very civil replies, is simply astonishing.

You’re coming across as evermore clueless with every post.

Posted by: E.V. | August 2, 2009 3:55 PM

Tom confesses:

"I'm not looking to learn anything,..."

How ridiculous would I sound if, when someone questioned Christianity if I said, "Christians get to decide what Christianity is."

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 2, 2009 3:57 PM

Tom Estes said,

I'm not looking to learn anything, it's more like trying to understand the way the atheist thinks.

Note the logical contradiction: Tom is not trying to learn anything, but he's trying to learn the way atheists think.

(I know, it's crazy for me to think a simple mind like mine could understand an atheist's deep, broad understanding of the world.)

This is called sarcastic condescension. By engaging in this kind of cheap rhetorical device, you've diminished any chance that you will actually achieve the goal you've claimed in your first paragraph.

I will offer the suggestion that you learn about politeness, if you expect people to engage you in discussion.

I'm intrigued by atheists, just like many atheists are intrigued by Christians.

Yes, some of us are intrigued by Christians.

And way to lump me in with murderers, I guess all scientists are like the unibomber, right? Yawn.

If you wish to engage the folks on this board in discussion, demonstrating your ignorance is not the way to go about it. The Unabomber (not unIbomber) was not a scientist, and in fact opposed scientific work.

So, actually we are quite willing to engage in fruitful and interesting intellectual discussion. However, it takes two parties (at least) to do so. Being civil and not displaying your ignorance will help you a great deal IF you actually want to learn how atheists think.

So far, you're not doing a very good job of discussion.

Posted by: Sastra | August 2, 2009 4:10 PM

Tom Estes #227 wrote:

Here is my point; if a man/woman decided which processes mattered, who is he/she to say that? Why does he/she get to be right? ... I tell you this only to give you some insight into how my mind works. So again, who made the decision? And why is it impossible they aren't wrong?

From what you've written, I can't tell whether you think the methods of science ought to be different than they are -- or whether you think that people ought to be able to choose to use science, or some other method, in deciding what's true and what isn't. Or, perhaps, you're hinting that people ought to be able to make decisions about their own way of doing science. Every rugged individual has their own methods, and no method is better than any other. Who are you to tell me?

But that way, as you know, lies postmodern relativism and its flabby version of "everybody has their own truths." Nobody is ever wrong, because everyone is right. I don't think you want to go there. Not a Baptist preacher. There's no respect there for truth.

Science is a good tool to use, then, to avoid going in that direction. It seeks universality and objectivity by trying to gain a consensus through the sorts of evidence and argument that stand the same for everyone. A Hindu, a Christian, a socialist, and a libertarian will, if they undertake the methods of science, eventually come to the same conclusions -- because they all stand on the same ground. The scientific method isn't partial to who is performing the experiments. It only matters how.

And it gives up the certainty of Truth for the uncertainty of the Working Theory, and the need to not only consider, but take into account, the critical opinions of those who disagree -- and persuade them otherwise by the strength, not of your convictions, but of your evidence.

Science "gets to be right" because you, yourself, can test its conclusions if you know how, and can do the hard work. So, in theory, can anyone: there is no occult elect, no enlightened beings, no chosen few who are elevated above human error, and the need to reason their way up from the bottom. It's a systematic attempt to be objective. As a method, you will value it to the extend that you value a rigorous honesty over convenience, or personal validation, or the quick, easy, and satisfying answer.

As, I am assuming, you do.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 2, 2009 4:13 PM

it's more like trying to understand the way the atheist thinks.

We all think differently.

I'm sure you already know how an atheist thinks, because you are one. Just reflect for a second about how you think about Vishnu, Poseidon, and Odin: do you think they're myths? Nonsense? Silly? Mistaken? So you know how an "atheist thinks" about those gods. You ARE an "atheist" - about every god but your own.

About everything else, we have different opinions and thoughts. Some of us care deeply about some things and others of us don't, etc, etc. We disagree about everything. Just like everyone else.

The only "difference" between you, your flock, and an "atheist" is that you and your flock think you agree about some god or other. Why do I say you "think you agree"? Because I bet if you did the experiment and tried to actually completely understand your common shared beliefs about your "god" you'd discover a lot of minor and maybe a few major disagreements and contradictions. What you might discover is that you're the only person on earth who actually believes in the "god" you think you believe in, because you're each making slightly subjective interpretations of this or that or the other thing. For example, one of your flock almost certainly thinks that screwing around with someone else's wife or husband is a matter that "god" disapproves of. But there's equally, almost certainly, someone in your flock who is doing exactly that - so, do they believe in the same "god"? Obviously, they cannot - because either they disagree about what "god" thinks is OK or they disagree about whether or not to obey "god." So - if they don't all believe the same way, about this "god" you all think you believe in, maybe they are all "atheists" compared to you.

Did you ever think about that?

Posted by: E.V. | August 2, 2009 4:22 PM

Did you ever think about that?

Posted by: Tom Estes | August 2, 2009 4:38 PM

What is going on people? Now you all are mind-readers? I'm not looking for ammo, I'm looking for civil discourse and a greater understanding of why someone would not believe in God. I'm fascinated by the latter, because it doesn't seem possible to me, just like you all would say the same thing about the way I view the world.

@Rilke's Granddaughter

You know nothing about my personality, and therefore have no idea if I'm being condescending or not, which I wasn't. I was beating someone to the punch, and letting people know that I don't take myself that seriously. If I were to meet many of you, you would like me, and I would like you, as long as you can handle being disagreed with. I've worked with many people who were gay, and they were some of my favorites to talk to, and I was for them, even though they knew how I felt about homosexuality. I went to college with atheists who all liked me, and I them.

@Afterthought

I'm not militant on my blog, and I'm not "oh poor me" on here. I'm direct in both places, I don't really know what else to say about that.

@Kseniya

I'm sorry to tell you this, but I am civil. And wouldn't a true lover of science need more evidence before they jumped to a conclusion like that? And before you start waxing eloquent about how you've seen my kind, so therefore no more evidence is needed, let me ask; doesn't science say all people are different?

I do think it's clear though that you all need to get together on what science is. And the debate between MarcusRanum and JackC is hard evidence of that.

And whether PZ decides to talk to me or not, I can tell you with no uncertainty, I WANT all of the atheists to be able to walk through the museum. Truly, if I believe it is all true, which I do, wouldn't it be perfectly logical to want them to be educated? Of course it would. (I know you all don't believe they will be educated, so spare me.)

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 2, 2009 4:41 PM

Sastra writes:
But that way, as you know, lies postmodern relativism and its flabby version of "everybody has their own truths." Nobody is ever wrong, because everyone is right. I don't think you want to go there. Not a Baptist preacher. There's no respect there for truth.

Indeed!

But what's amazing to me is that most of the "faithful" don't acknowledge that they're more deeply mired in "everyone has their own truths" than the most deranged post-modernist. Christians pick and choose with reckless abandon: they read the bible and decide what bits are from the jewish books that don't matter, and which are relevant "today" (i.e.: which are convenient and which aren't) Every single aspect of christianity that has survive to this day is a result of this process of choosing, editing, adopting, personalizing, and customizing. Without even getting into the details, we can consider the 'minor disagreement' about christianity between the catholics and the now umpty-zillion flavors of protestants - as one huge exercise in "have it your way!" faith. The baptists, for example, don't agree with the lutherans and the lutherans with the - whatever - and (as I mentioned in an earlier comment) you won't find a single congregation in which there is a 100% shared view of "god" and what "god" wants, expects, or demands and in what proportion.

Taken as a whole, you could collapse christianity into a vast menu of details:
Are there angels? (Y/N)
If so, do they dance on the heads of pins?(Y/N)
If not, what about the one in the bible who announced..?
Does god dislike masturbation? (Y/N)
If so, ..
Was Hong Xiuquan Jesus' younger brother? (Y/N)
Was there a Noah?
If so, was there a flood?
If so, did he try to save dinosaurs?
If so...
If not...
If not ...
etc.

Take that gigantic menu, every single detail of which can be found in the canon of christianity, and give it as a test to 1,000 christians. Would there be 1,000 different results? Does the term "true believer" actually mean anything?

It gets even more fun when you start adding some of the other goofy parts of christianity to the mix. What christian can say that Hong Xiuquan was wrong about being Jesus' younger sibling and upon what can they refute his claim?*

Are the people in the Discovery Institute, who lie for jesus, christians? They are contradicting their own religion's teachings - either they're wrong or Moses was lying about the stone tablets. Etc. Etc. Forget whether the faithful agree with atheists they don't come close to agreeing with eachother, even in the same congregation. They're worse than a bitch of postmodernists** when it comes to actually sharing a belief about anything.

(*I asked a christian about this once and he said "there is no evidence that Hong Xiuquan was Jesus' younger brother." You know, as if evidence was the requirement for christians?!? The LOLs were good.)
(** Collective noun for postmodernists)

Posted by: Sastra | August 2, 2009 4:46 PM

Marcus Ranum #247 wrote:

We disagree about everything.

No we don't!!!

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 2, 2009 4:48 PM

Tom E you make claims of higher education, which college or university did you attend?

Which branch of Baptists are you part of?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 4:48 PM

I'm fascinated by the latter, because it doesn't seem possible to me, just like you all would say the same thing about the way I view the world. Tom Estes

Idiot. Most of the atheist commenters here are ex-believers.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 2, 2009 4:51 PM

I will not respond to any more comments like this one.

Posted by: Afterthought | August 2, 2009 4:53 PM

So out of all of the responses preacher Tom gets, he decides to harp on the two people who disagree not on scientific method, but on how important the intent of the scientist is.
I expect cherry picking and straw man building to commence forthwith.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 2, 2009 4:55 PM

I want to know why someone would keep believing in a god when there is never any evidence. I used to believe. But my questions of its existence never had a sufficient answer. And people from authority claiming to know of god.s thoughts and intentions never seemed believable. In fact what they were claiming was so implausible that it made me doubt god's existence and religion even more.

All I can say is that once you develop critical thinking and use logic every day... god becomes superfluous. It's unnecessary. It's silly. I fear death as much as anyone. Sure it would be lovely if I could go on for eternity, but I know it's denying the reality of what death is.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 2, 2009 4:59 PM

Tsk. is should be is @264.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | August 2, 2009 5:01 PM

What a shock! A passive-aggressive baptist preacher who resents being called out for acting condescendingly while putting on a display of ignorance. Be careful Tom, if you look carefully and honestly at our responses, your current world view will be shattered. Honestly.

The authority of Science is not based on Revelation. Neither Newton, Einstein or Darwin are prophets. They would have been thrilled to see how much of their work has stood up so far and even more excited to learn what they missed.

Much of the power of the Scientific Method is based on the self interest of scientists. The path to success is often to disprove or improve someone else's work. This means there is a substantial tension between publishing first and not catching an error that others will surely find. There is a certain kind of bravery involved in delving for the best answer, knowing all this.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 2, 2009 5:08 PM

I try to promote discussion and you walk away.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 2, 2009 5:15 PM

Tom Estes writes:
Very few here seem to be interested in an actual discussion, just misrepresenting what I say, which is a waste of my time.

Awwww, rats. I was hoping you'd explain a bit about your experience of being an atheist regarding Vishnu and Mithras. If that's not "an actual discussion" I don't know what is.

Or, did you mean, "an actual discussion that doesn't make me look foolish?" No, there's none of that here - but you'll find that you're the common denominator; leaving and going someplace else is only going to result in actual discussions someplace else that still make you look foolish.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 2, 2009 5:16 PM

Tom Estes
Somewhere you stated that you came to understand Atheist, just so you are not deceived I am neither a theist, nor am I an Atheist.
And having been born in a religious environment I can say with some authority that there is a significant portion of church goers that fit into this category.
It simply doesn't matter.
Tho this will be denied for obvious reasons.
In each persons life the *church* may fulfill some lacking necessary mental construct that may or may not be harmful to himself and those in close proximity.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 5:19 PM

Bye Tom, go tell god what meanies we are. Better pray for us too, cause we're gonna commit some serious sins, and enjoy it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 2, 2009 5:20 PM

Very few here seem to be interested in an actual discussion,

Posted by: Afterthought | August 2, 2009 5:21 PM

Sorry it did't work out for you Tom, whatever it was you were trolling for. Next time try a Red Devil brand Dardevle spoon. I think it would be a good choice for these waters.
There are some really good outlines of the scientific method up thread if you ever make the leap to rational thinking. Best of luck in your study of ants atheists in their natural environment.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 2, 2009 5:26 PM

It's interesting how little tolerance for disagreement Tom Estes showed, despite professing his ability to tolerate it. And how little discussion he actually proved interested in.

Theists have no courage.

Posted by: JackC | August 2, 2009 5:27 PM

And the debate between MarcusRanum and JackC is hard evidence of that.

I am sorry Marcus. Were we having a debate? I stepped outside to take advantage of a break in the weather to work on my siding, and I am afraid I missed it.

Yes, I DID see your reply to my paraphrased quotes from "Undergrowth" - did someone mistake that for a debate???

Just checking....

JC

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 5:32 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble @ 278;

I laughed so hard at your inspired post that I almost fell of my chair. Do you think that was God admonishing me for being mean to Tom?

Nah, me neither.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 2, 2009 5:38 PM

Okay everybody, go ahead and claim victory, I'm done.

Really and permanently? Or just for now?

Very few here seem to be interested in an actual discussion,

You could always try having an actual discussion with the very few who are interested in an actual discussion, and ignore the rest.

just misrepresenting what I say, which is a waste of my time.

It may be that what you say is easily misrepresented because you aren't writing clearly. It's a bit hostile of them to jump on every mistake, but it's also a bit dishonest of you to deny that they are (or were) mistakes.

I never said I controlled anything, I simply said what I was going to do, and now I'm saying I'm out. Later.

"Later" sounds like you'll be back -- and if you honestly mean that you won't return, then you should have been more clear in that respect. Again, this is a problem with your communication.

In case you do come back, I'll respond to one of your earlier paragraphs.

I'm not looking for ammo, I'm looking for civil discourse and a greater understanding of why someone would not believe in God. I'm fascinated by the latter, because it doesn't seem possible to me, just like you all would say the same thing about the way I view the world.

What do you think God is, that people everywhere should believe in whatever it is?

I certainly "believe" that reality is real, and that reality follows internally consistent and objective rules. Given that, it seems clear that the scientific method is the best -- and only -- possible way to find out what those rules are.

The scientific method is honest about its limitations, and is self-correcting. It can't help but be self-correcting. Your complaints and questions about "who decided the rules were the right ones?" make no sense -- because if any rule was found to give the wrong answers, it would be discarded.

Peer-review isn't like religious cronyism, where someone is excommunicated or shunned for not adhering to dogma. Peer-review is done so as to make sure that what the authors of a paper have written is consistent with what is known, and that their methods are consistent with what works. If the authors come up with a new method, they had better be willing to make it clear what it is and why it works, and why it is consistent with what is already known. Scientists who do come up with a new method that is consistent with what is already known are revolutionaries. Scientists who come up with methods that are inconsistent with or directly contradict what is known... are kooks and crackpots. And that goes regardless of whether or not they are religious.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 2, 2009 5:46 PM

Hey Tom Ridiculous, nice of you to tell us to "declare victory". I have to say, I am always puzzled by internet trolls like you, and the victimhood complex that goes with that. It is not like you troll PZ's blog at any risk to yourself, right?
Either way if you remember, I did start off by telling you that I didn't believe you were interested in learning anything. Even though, you made it sound like that when you were asking about how science works.
Either way, since you were pointing out so categorically that according to you, god is the creator and law giver, that idea is shared by some not so savory characters, and can be the basis of very evil things. But boy, am I shocked that you just yawn at that?

Posted by: Josh | August 2, 2009 5:47 PM

Theists have no courage.

Nope, and we can usually predict the behavior of most of those who pop in here pretty accurately.

Posted by: SEF | August 2, 2009 5:52 PM

Re Sastra #252:

the out-of-control method of religion, which can only be mitigated if the religion isn't too religious in its methods.

Yes, and @ Afterthought #244:

I obviously can't ascertain Tom's motive, other than to strongly suspect his presentation is dishonest

Of course.

Religion and the religious are fundamentally dishonest. They have to be dishonest because the whole of reality is in disagreement with them - and that's quite apart from them disagreeing rabidly with each other and even frequently with themselves! The more religious they are, the more dishonest they are required by it to be (at all levels - from the mere sheeple who pretend to know what they don't really know to the deliberate con-men running things).

Religion doesn't have a total monopoly on dishonesty but its market share of the commodity is overly large.

Religion relies on other vices too, such as faith. The more faith a religion or religious person has, the worse they are - because the less they are prepared to stop and check what's actually true and/or right. Eg when it comes to censoring the voices/impulses in their heads which they like to pretend are from an external god rather than from themselves.

Religion and the religious rely on, thrive on and even explicitly laud: stupidity, ignorance and laziness as well as dishonesty. All of which, along with basic gullibility, tend to add up to faith. Religion exploits / feeds on fear and greed - other of the worst and most primitive attributes driving people.

And then there's the insanity component to religion. Even if there is still a tendency (mostly because of the religious connection) to avoid diagnosing the relevant mental dysfunctions as insanity (of greater or lesser degree).

In short, the religionist is only as good as the extent of their lack of religion. Once they get to the barely-religious-at-all level of modern Unitarians, they're almost presentable in rational discourse.

Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2009 5:52 PM

#294- "You never have to fear a visit from a really anorexic bloke with terrible fashion sense and a scythe fetish ever again!"

Unless you serve the salmon mousse.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 2, 2009 5:55 PM

I am surprised that it took so long to flounce off in injured pride and warped dignity and mewling about how the big boys and gals make fun of you.

No intentions to hold a debate just do a bit of surreptitious quote mining for your tawdry blog...and spouting constructed lies and disinformation about how scientist... or rather how atheist... minds work.

What are you hoping for?,how science is a conspiracy? ,how scientists actually 'believe' in science?,how science is actually nothing more then a faith?,or how science is just a religion but the wrong one cos it is not yours?

What corrupted scrap of twisted meaning do you want to reinforce for your flock..that atheists are rude...or scientists crude or that secular thinking is cold and meaningless...what meme do you want to peddle this week in your house of falsehood preacher? What are you after?

We know it is not learning true science...you seem happy and contented that snake oil science is your limit even worship it...even claim it is actually 'science',but you despise science that does not fit your cosy world view do you not,you prefer the kindergarten lies and the outright ridiculous...cos that fits...you are sham and a conceited fool...be content!

Worship the snake soil salesman in chief in his own tawdry fake world... a snake oil salesman that suddenly had another appointment on the other side of beyond when it became apparent that his little shed of lies might be well and truly exposed for the bucket of nonsense it is by the light of reason,he obviously does not want to confront the truth so he is leaving that to the likes of deluded little gnomes like you to fight his shabby corner...actions of another true christian!

What happened to Dr Dino by the way...now there was a christian that displayed true Christianity...one of your ilk was he not..a Baptist apparently?

Is religion in so desperate a state that you have to resort to the tactics of the playground.
A little pathetic, but it is what you get for believing in fairy tales as a grown up I suppose!

Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2009 5:56 PM

Sastra #252- "the out-of-control method of religion, which can only be mitigated if the religion isn't too religious in its methods."

Reason 6,497 why Sastra is awesome.

Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2009 6:02 PM

Kseniya, yeah, that comment was so over the top stupid I nearly suspected a poe.

Alas, no. Just a REALLY dumb christian.

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 2, 2009 6:07 PM

Wait a minute! It turns out that Tom Estes is just a lazy, smug little dick whose only interest in coming here is to prod unbelievers with a stick (or whatever) and then whine about being mistreated? Oh, say it ain’t so!

Well, thanks for the chuckles, Tom. There’s nothing like having a person who knows nothing about science—and who asks repeatedly to have science explained to him, and when it is explained to him by smart people, is too stupid to comprehend the explanation—come on a science blog and assure us, with absolute certainty, that Ken Ham’s creation museum is pure science. Man, that never gets old, does it?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 2, 2009 6:10 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble @ 296;

So you assert, with absolutely zero proof, that my chair does not simply have a damaged wheel, or has been distorted by egregious over use, but is in fact possessed by the sponge demon?

But, but you sound kinda, sorta like a religous person . . .

Dear invisible sky fairy, it must be true!

Oh, Brother (or Sister) Batzrubble, I do need your Bible(tm) so! I will pay you anything you want, just make the scary demon go away. A month without a bath (and the ensuing B.O issues) is but a small price to pay for the salvation of my chair's soul! Even if my chair goes to the great office in the sky as a result!

Posted by: Sastra | August 2, 2009 6:22 PM

How ridiculous would I sound if, when someone questioned Christianity if I said, "Christians get to decide what Christianity is."

Instead, you say "( I ) God gets to decide what Christianity is."

Do you really think anyone -- even you -- should ignore that little move where you put God in your place?

The alternative to Christians deciding what Christianity is, is Non-christians deciding what Christianity is. I don't think that's what you want.

(By the way, we are frequently told here that creationists in no way represent true Christianity, because they clearly and obviously have no understanding of the Bible. It's a one-size-fits-all viewpoints argument.)

Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 2, 2009 6:28 PM

Well, unless you go for the Islamist brochure . . . they promise 72 virgins all for the low, low price of a little indiscriminate murder/suicide . . . unfortunately, at no point does it expressly state that these virgins will be women. ;P

Raisins! They're raisins!

(Seriously, anyone know if Luxenberg was right?)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 2, 2009 6:35 PM

Nerd - Sadly, the chickens aren't surviving the days old heat wave well. We are loosing from one to four a day. It's been over 105 degrees for a week.

Posted by: Kseniya | August 2, 2009 6:48 PM

Tom:

I'm sorry to tell you this, but I am civil.

You're sorry? Really?

From where I sit, you're not as civil as you think. You maintain a reasonable tone, yes, but that's little more than a thin veil from behind which you post responses that suggest that you hold your respondents in some contempt.

If I have misread your tone, I apologize. I admit to being a little cranky today.

And wouldn't a true lover of science need more evidence before they jumped to a conclusion like that?

Oh, wow, you really got me there! How exactly were you able to determine that I'm unable to read?

And before you start waxing eloquent about how you've seen my kind, so therefore no more evidence is needed, let me ask; doesn't science say all people are different?

Oooh! Got me again! O_o

Don't be ridiculous. I was talking about what you've already said, your words and your positions, not about what you are. Perhaps you should read my comments a little more carefully, rather than jump to conclusions based on what you think I must have said. Surely you don't think that my responses and thoughts are predictable simply because you assume I am a regular commenter here? Does your flavor of Christianity predict that all atheists and agnostics are exactly the same?

You further exhibit your hypocrisy (or, perhaps more benignly, your inability to think critically about your own statements) thus:

I'm fascinated by the latter, because it doesn't seem possible to me, just like you all would say the same thing about the way I view the world.

I, for one, would not claim that god belief "doesn't seem possible".

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 2, 2009 7:35 PM

Tom from somewhere up there ↑

I'm not looking for ammo, I'm looking for civil discourse and a greater understanding of why someone would not believe in God. I'm fascinated by the latter, because it doesn't seem possible to me, just like you all would say the same thing about the way I view the world.

Atheists do not believe there is a god or gods. I know you've heard and read this before, but apparently you don't realize the concept. When you witness to an Atheist, the person whom you are addressing does not believe in gods, therefore any information about God, Jesus, the holy trinity, the parting of oceans, great floods, and the creation of man falls on deaf ears.

To put this in more universal terms, you're attempting to sell a concept for which there is no proof other than the beliefs of men who have spread the word before it.

Whether you like it or not; whether you accept it or not, the fact remains - you're attempting to convince someone that something they cannot see, feel, hear, or otherwise partake of any empirical evidence of its existence, exists. Regardless of how much you believe in the story and how much it has affected your life and the lives of those around you, they do not.

There's one other point you need to consider. Atheists do not need to believe in gods. There is no god-shaped hole in our personalities that cries out to be filled. We feel we have everything necessary to to live a healthy, rewarding life without gods. You may need Jesus to give your life meaning. We don't.

Posted by: JackC | August 2, 2009 8:12 PM

Marcus

Whew. For a minute there, I thought the oppressive nearly 70 degree heat coupled with the oppressive nearly 100 percent humidity (I only say that to make all you in the southern climes jealous) had driven all sensabilities from my head.

BTW: If you should choose, your comments that sparked that other guys comment about this are actually referenced in the book I was trying to get him to read. You might want to take a look yourself - particularly about the N-rays. It is actually the very first chapter.

Oh - and your other quibbles weren't with me anyway - they were with Jacob Brownowski, Charles Babbage, and the author, Walter Gratzer.

That's some pretty decent company, I think.

JC

Posted by: Sastra | August 2, 2009 8:38 PM

Marcus Ranum #320 wrote:

My favorite book to give to non-scientists about scientific thinking is Alan Cromer's "Uncommon Sense" He manages to be interesting and thought-provoking although he's obviously deeply enamoured of the ancient greeks (with good reason)

Ooh, that's one of my favorite books, too. I tried to give a copy to my dad once, but he didn't want it (he figured out that the writer wasn't going to endorse parapsychology, despite the "The Heretical Nature of Science" subtitle.) I sent it instead as a present to a friend of mine with a strong background in Greek and Roman history, and asked him to doublecheck physics professor Cromer's facts. Response was that he pretty much got everything right.

Posted by: Kseniya | August 2, 2009 8:56 PM

Jack and Marcus,

Tom was clearly going for one of those "See? It's a theory in crisis" arguments. Really lame. It was amusing to see you two at each other's throats like that, though. ;-)

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 2, 2009 9:24 PM

Very late to the party, the guest of honour has left, but this really bugged me...

When you think about it, isn't that all how you wannabe scientists who comment on this blog believe that science works? That scientists don't know anything for a fact, but according to their data, it's the best explanation? You know what, it is!

See the device in front of you? This device does billion of calculations per second. It's built on the scientific understanding of conductivity, using semi-conducting material in order to translate energy into the interface you are seeing now. Best explanation? Well when we are talking about quantum electrodynamics it comes down to best explanation, but on this macroscopic world where we reside we have mastered the laws of nature sufficiently in order to build devices like computers.

And that's only the beginning. Each person can see a TV work, yet it's the same theory behind the technology you know and love that tells us the universe is somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years old. The same science that allowed for nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants tells us the earth is ~4.55 billion years old. One not need simply to believe that science works, we live our lives with the benefits of science working.

I'd worry about being a hypocrite if I were you, by attacking the scientific method, you are attacking the foundation of all your modern conveniences. Your house has electricity, you have cooking utilities, hot water on demand, ability to store foods for long periods of time, have access to information networks, etc. The list could go on. But the point is this - you say that scientists can't know yet you use technology that demonstrates that they do.

It seems that you're mistaking the capacity for certainty with the capacity for knowing, and thus relegating any knowledge to mere opinion. The fact is when it comes down to it, all evidence points to the fact that the universe is somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years old, that the earth was formed between 4.58 and 4.52 billion years ago, and that life has evolved on this planet - all stemming from a single (or a few) source.

Science is about explaining reality, theories are constructs to explain collections of facts. Why do things fall to the earth? Einstein's theory of general relativity is the best explanation we currently have. But that doesn't mean that gravity is merely opinion, gravitational bodies will still attract regardless of us knowing absolutely how it works. You're mistaking theories and facts, science deals with both. You're using one to dismiss the other based on equivocation.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 2, 2009 10:10 PM

I'm looking for civil discourse and a greater understanding of why someone would not believe in God.

See, there are two ways I could interpret your point. Why would atheists dismiss the notions of gods altogether, and why do atheists dismiss your God? Which question do you actually want answered? If you want an answer to the latter, a safe bet would be to ask yourself why you don't believe in Zeus or Thor or Baal or the Giant Rainbow Serpent. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you'll understand why we dismiss yours.

But for the former question, why all gods? The "one god further" line of thinking doesn't really cut it. So how is it we can go "one god further"? To me there are two reasons: the nature of gods as an explanation and the ability to measure reality to a frightening degree of accuracy.

The first part of that is to look at what role gods have played historically - that different cultures have different gods, incarnations of gods, and attributions of the gods. Different cultures had their own explanations for how the universe works, you don't see people worshipping Christ as lord except where Christianity has spread. Gods were an explanation for the unknown, tying what we know now as natural causes to the moral actions of individuals. It's also important to remember that magic thinking prevailed in that time, even in the story of moses there were staves turning into snakes by Egyptian mystics ;)

Which brings me to my second point. We are able to see that forces act without conscious will, that the stars and planets are fixed in orbits according to the force of gravity as opposed to there being any will behind it. That life changes itself - through many generations where heritable modifications that are advantageous accumulate and lead to morphological forms that are adapted to the environment. Science over the last 400 years has been able to work out how nature works to such a degree that we are able to do things like check our genetic code or send probes beyond the planets and towards the stars.

Quite simply, the ability to explain without the need for a conscious entity has worked amazingly. Given what we know now about the universe and our place in it, to posit an interventionist deity is quite simply absurd. Though all one has to do to demonstrate we are wrong is show evidence of the interventionist deity. By claiming it a matter of faith and beyond the scope of empirical inquiry, it concedes that gods are intellectually bankrupt concept. After all, without a reason to believe why would one believe?

Posted by: Numad | August 2, 2009 11:12 PM

Sastra,

"But, in the final analysis, only God's opinion counts."

I don't think you've given this quite enough thought. My perception is that to most religious people, that's what the texts represent. That doesn't make them theologians or negate an emotional component to their religious experience. Neither do I want to generalize. It's just that thinking that the mythological Jesus is/was real and that his words were transmitted accurately, which involves a belief into the objective reality of it, and this esoteric Family aberration are two very different sort of animals. It seems to be, at least.

The fact that a point isn't taken doesn't mean that it's not valid. People from "The Family" or the like could never be swayed by anything, to my thinking. So that's not really much of a standard at all.

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 3, 2009 1:22 AM

Aw, man! I have to spend a day moving and cleaning and I miss the perfect opportunity to sate my electronic bloodlust by eviscerating a troll? Damnit!

Ah, well - there will be other times. At least I had the opportunity to experience some satisfaction vicariously through the very good trashings I see here now. Thanks for the entertainment, guys.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 3, 2009 4:56 AM

#330

Yep seems the preacher did not get what he wanted ...which was an exposé of secular and atheist thinking being nothing but adherence to a religion of science...

You see it seems... to me...and I could well be off beam... but that the religiously inflicted can only deal with a contra position to the christian delusion by branding the contra view as a religion that just worships the wrong deity...

That they can understand...they can get their heads around that concept...cos other religions they have dealt with since the state nailed some terrorist chappy to a wooden plank...were just someones elses 'belief' they could replace with their own 'belief'.
They understand how religion works...they have a context they can view from all angles because deep down they know they are just another religion themselves.
They have the ground rules for that game...and know perfectly well how to cheat in the game...that is what it is about.

So when you have an enemy that challenges your 'belief' it makes so much sense to them to class it as another religion with different principles but still a religion...and they think they know how to subvert it...change it...destroy it...just like they have done for the last 2000 years whenever they meet a another culture that worship a different aspect of the supernatural.

These folk are intellectually incapable and characteristically too ingrained in the sludge of churchy community that they lose the ability to question properly and in an insightful manner...this is replaced by asking questions that sound to others of their merry band as deep and meaningful...but in reality is just a place holder...giving the impression to the hard of thinking that it is a devastatingly deep and powerful point that the opposition can not answer.
That the opposition can answer any such meaningless drivel is not doubted...but because the ears that receive are not tuned and what sad excuse for brain they have is certainly not capable of analysis of said answer...the default position is win win...nobody understands it it must be wrong...simple like so.

Preacher boy was after a meme so often trotted out in religious circles...something he could proudly display on his blog or something he could rant about on a Sunday...

He was after gold dust in quote terms...he did not get it.

As reported he went back to his blog and lamented that the atheists here are crazy and rude and not nice people...that was the best he could conjure up...and that was a result that was always going to be the main conclusion anyway.

He did not get the crowbar to pries secular science apart with...nobody played ball...that pissed him off and one reason his tone changed after the first droppings were deposited on the thread.

I do not know...but suspect that the 'atheists' that visit his blog are in the main obsequious...mild... respectful...and possibly extremely fawning...mainly because he would obviously not allow any other approach on his blog...

He is used to getting respect and his own way...or is that gods way?...

He is a creationist and a charlatan...and he can only claim that most here are crazy...well actually INSANE...seems it was an unwritten warning to his readers not to come to this blog...lest the atheists get them.
He of course is protected by god and is immune to the siren song of atheist central.

And what is the veiled threat at the end...

"If the Pharyngulites come with PZ to the Creation Museum, that trip will be D.O.A."

That is more a desperate hope then a iron clad certainty...

He came here with an agenda...he lied about that agenda...he left with his ego in disarray...he was just another in a long line of fools...he will not be the last.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 3, 2009 6:07 AM

KG @ 259,

Most of the atheist commenters here are ex-believers.

I'm not, actually.
As to the passive-aggressive baptist, I really thought from his first post that he was somewhat genuine( the whole going with you atheists to the museum thing), but then in the end it was just the same ol' close-minded religionist poking stick at atheists to stir the nest thing, how boring.And how disappointing that he had no answer to the intelligent responses he got at all, and just retired offended.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 3, 2009 7:01 AM

Cosmic Teapot, you can leave comments at Tom Estes' blog. He hasn't deleted any yet... In fact, he has even declined to submit to the demands of a faitheist who asked him to delete another atheist's comment:

Well [faitheist], I appreciate your sentiment, but as long as the posts are free of foul language, I generally leave them alone.

Surely you imagine the venom that would come my way if I were to remove a comment made by someone who disagreed with me.

But again, I appreciate your attitude. -Tom Estes

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 3, 2009 11:24 AM

Ha, found the comments at the top of the blog entry. Blue on grey and a small font.

Left a comment for him.

Posted by: abb3w | August 3, 2009 12:10 PM

Tom Estes: Fact is, there is a correct view point to have on the Bible, God, Jesus, and everything else pertaining to Christianity

This presupposes criteria for measuring "correct".

Tom Estes: That scientists don't know anything for a fact, but according to their data, it's the best explanation?

Which presupposes criteria for measuring "best". (Also, the data themselves are facts. That you experienced something is a fact; a claim of what produced the experience is not. But that's incidental.)

Under the assumptions that Wolfram's Axiom is valid for inference between compound propositions; that the joint affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of Extensionality, the Unordered Pair, Subsets, the Sum Set, Infinity, Replacement, and Foundation (no position required on Power Set and Choice) is self-consistent; and that Reality (aka, "the universe") produces Experience (aka, "data") with a formal complexity recognizable via some ordinal degree of hypercomputation; it follows that the criterion for each is Minimum Description Length. This is a formalization of the idea of Occam's Razor that "the simplest explanation is most probably correct." See (doi:10.1109/18.825807).

Note that Description Length counts the length of conjecture and length of the condensed data under the conjecture, but does not count the number of steps to re-create the data. In lay terms: "Hard to understand" is not a valid criterion.

Tom Estes: But I'll just close with a question; who came up with the rules for scientific study? Who decided how theories were tested and verified? Seriously, who got to decide how scientists have to arrive at their conclusions?

To oversimplify: they evolved.

As a matter of anthropological practice, Science uses a search algorithm which has evolved to approximate this philosophical discipline. (Science as anthropological practice includes anything scientists do, including "drink lots of caffeinated beverages" and "apply for research grants"; the philosophical discipline is more limited, and more strict.) The search algorithm that evolved approximates the mathematically derived philosophical algorithm.

Traditionally, science is referred to as working in two Contexts (Discovery versus Justification), but this algorithm is better considered as having four contexts.
1) Context of Experience: gathering data by experiencing the universe.
2) Context of Inspiration: the "Aha" of coming up with a conjecture of pattern which may be used to describe the experience.
3) Context of Formalization: forming a hypothesis, which indicates how the conjecture can be used to specify what has been experienced.
4) Context of Testing: where all existing hypotheses are tested under the MDL criterion; the best is referred to as "Theory", while the others (being provably not the hypothesis most probably correct) are provisionally eliminated.

As anthropological practice, Science also crosses over into a context of Design, where goals are selected, choices enumerated, and then Choices evaluated for probability of achieving of those goals. Experiments usually begin in the context of Design before moving "back" to the context of Experience. Philosophically, rather than part of Science I would consider Design part of Engineering: trying to use the results of Science to do stuff better.

Since better science usually gives better engineering, and better engineering usually gives better survival, societies using better algorithms for science have had an edge; ergo, the current rules of science have been an evolutionary outgrowth.

Tom Estes: I'm looking for civil discourse and a greater understanding of why someone would not believe in God.

While descriptions with God take fewer steps to describe experience, they have higher description length induction than those without. Since they have a higher description length, they are provably not the hypothesis most likely correct.

Posted by: Lee Picton | August 3, 2009 3:35 PM

On reading Tom Estes' first post, I though to myself that maybe, just maybe, here is a christian who really wants to know something, in which case the minions would happily educate him. However, he showed his true colors in the second post when he referred to some of you as wannabe scientists. That, of course, lit up my bullshit detector in vivid neon. Does not this ignorant little man realize that many of you are indeed real, working scientists, educators, researchers, and all around smart people, some of whom have lots of fancy letters after their names that they have earned the hard way, with lots and lots of work? Sheesh, even Richard Dawkins himself checks in from time to time. Estes' lack of self-awareness is stunning, but not surprising, given that he is........ Baptist.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 3, 2009 4:40 PM

I suspect Estes came here looking for a fight. He was hoping that someone (or several someones) would be outrageously rude to him, sneer at him for being a goddist, and otherwise castigate him for his beliefs. Instead, his questions were answered in a polite, thorough fashion.

Us atheists are no fun, so he took his ball and went home.

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 3, 2009 5:24 PM

This bloke is really called T.Estes ? Really, really ?

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 3, 2009 6:29 PM

Most of the atheist commenters here are ex-believers.

I'm not, actually.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 4, 2009 12:18 AM

Hey Kel, me too...even as a child I suspected that the whole concept of a Deity was total and utter BULLSHIT!
But I, a small child had to keep my mouth shut for fear of retribution, and still today "they look at me with" what wonder?, fear?, envy?, confusion?