Pharyngula

Posted by: Ordinary Man | September 2, 2009 12:29 PM

rlrr wins the thread before it even began.

Posted by: rlrr | September 2, 2009 12:30 PM

Spending an eternity with a god who would damn someone to hell for simply being wrong doesn't sound so great to me.

Posted by: Jim A. | September 2, 2009 12:31 PM

It always amuses me when people use Pascal's wager as if Christianity or Atheism were the only options, when the MAJORITY of people on the planet aren't Christian.

Posted by: Lilo | September 2, 2009 12:34 PM

Back when I was still teaching I was berated by a Christian parent for asking her child to think. She told me that she believed that thinking was how Satan got into peoples' minds and that we shouldn't encourage children to do it.

Posted by: sasqwatch | September 2, 2009 12:34 PM

#1: rlrr -- Homer J. Simpson

I promptly dashed onto this thread whilst scrambling for a Homer Simpson quote. Too late. Damn you.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 2, 2009 12:34 PM

The anti-intellectualism can also be tied to the idea that knowledge is fostered by Satan. So he can be smug in toeing the line of his theism by claiming a lack of knowledge and intelligence.

Posted by: alopiasmag | September 2, 2009 12:36 PM

What if we're wrong? Well... If it turns out there IS a "god", Shouldn't he be all forgiving? He's the one that "gave" us "free will"!

Now, a question for the Lt.Col.: What if you're wrong? Shouldn't you have spent more of your life enjoying it instead of feeling guilty for "sins" you did not commit?!?!?

Posted by: reverted | September 2, 2009 12:38 PM

I personally rather liked Dan Barker's counter-proposition of a god who will only reward (i.e. with heaven) those who have the courage and honesty to doubt his existence.

I especially like imagining everyone discovering this - LOL! Everyone in BOTH "places" (presuming a hell, as well) would be rather surprised. I can just see heaven, packed full of atheists, blinking in shock. :p

Posted by: Jeffrey E. | September 2, 2009 12:38 PM

You too, PZ, could be passive-aggressive to those you meet and hold self-contradiction to be your highest value! Don't you want to be a Christian?

The "What if you are wrong?" approach makes sense when you risk a huge harm on something relatively uncertain (it might have paid for Hitler to think "What if the jews aren't the source of Germany's problems?") which is better known as skepticism, not faith. The "What if you are wrong?" approach does not make sense when you are appealing to whatever anyone else thinks or what is even less likely, this is faith.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | September 2, 2009 12:39 PM

I'm still undecided as to whether the religiosity in this country is merely a symptom of the greater problem of anti-intellecualism, or if it's the other way around. Or perhaps the two form a positive feedback symbiosis that grows and grows and swallows everything in its path--like The Blob.

Posted by: Lykeros | September 2, 2009 12:39 PM

I read it pretty much the way you did, PZ.

I felt he was being honest in his belief that you are in fact intelligent and he may not be, but with the underlying message that intelligence is worthless.

I get this sort of thing all the time. Whether it is our local preachers who come to campus or the ones out harassing people who are trying to enjoy themselves on Mill Ave. (often some of the same). People attempt to tell me that I am the vain one, with all of my intellectualism and that I am making a false idol of my own intellect.

This is pretty much why I gave up attempting to argue with such people. You can't reason them out of their beliefs, because they didn't reason themselves into them. They just sit there while your words go in one ear and out the other, all the while having this holier-than-thou smirk on their faces.

Posted by: tinyfrog | September 2, 2009 12:39 PM

Dear Lt Col Jack Heidman,
I am God. Bow down and worship me, or burn in hell for eternity. Don't believe me? What if you're wrong? I guess you'd better play it safe. Now, start worshiping me or else I'll get angry.

Sincerely,
tinyfrog

Posted by: Eidolon | September 2, 2009 12:40 PM

"The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!"

This sod is clearly out of touch with reality. Each and every day, there is more and more evidence that supports Evil-lution. Quite apart from the silliness of Pascal's wager (An omniscient god would not know you are faking it or playing the odds?) he is a case study in willful ignorance. He admits he knows nothing about biology but he "knows" Evil-lution is wrong.

As Alyson @3 pointed out, he would have gotten some really good responses with a different tone. As it is, this is just another fuckwit who thinks atheists just have not thought the whole thing out.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 2, 2009 12:40 PM

Come on people this guy is an F15 pilot.

AN F15 PILOT

DID YOU HEAR ME???

F15 PILOT

Posted by: Beige | September 2, 2009 12:42 PM

Hmm, the wager amuses me. Uncertainty in all and Uncertainty in skepticism as put forward on the wonderful wikipedia make it all seem a bit circular and ridiculous.

Posted by: Gerry | September 2, 2009 12:43 PM

Free will??? Tell me that when you need a piss or a shit or are hungry or in pain.Can your free will overcome any of those?

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 2, 2009 12:45 PM

tinyfrog @24: "I am God. Bow down and worship me, or burn in hell for eternity."

Granted, the evidence for tinyfrog's or Jesus' divinity is rather thin, but can we afford to take that chance? To risk eternal tarnation at the hand of the Almighty Frog?

I think not.

Please address tithes and love offerings (following the standard 10% gross income guideline) to me, tinyfrog's appointed representative on earth.

Posted by: Holden Caulfield | September 2, 2009 12:46 PM

I am reminded of Bertrand Russels quote: "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | September 2, 2009 12:46 PM

That's what makes his email that much more incredibly stupid.

I prefer the word 'unwise' in this instance.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | September 2, 2009 12:46 PM

PZ, I often find myself in awe of your eloquence and writing skills. Though I'm certainly not disagreeing with the gist of your point, I have to disagree with your usage of the word "stupid", to characterize this particular individual. He seems highly intelligent, While at the same time he most certainly does not seem to have the capability to think rationally. Sad! Another wasted mind.

Posted by: DaveL | September 2, 2009 12:47 PM

My favourite thing about Pascal's Wager is that you can mathematically demonstrate that saying you'll believe when monkeys fly out of your arse has exactly the same expected return as believing outright. Running through that proof with an apologist is just good, clean, fun.

Posted by: dean | September 2, 2009 12:48 PM

No, see, Heidman and Pascal are right, they're just too limited in the application of its logical conclusion. Edward Current does it right: I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG

Posted by: Interrobang | September 2, 2009 12:49 PM

The only comeback I've ever found for the (implied) "I'm not smart like you are" that actually works is, "Maybe, but you're only going to get dumber if you don't try."

So, dear Lt. Col. Heideman, how does it feel to have actively made yourself dumber in public?

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | September 2, 2009 12:49 PM

Err, make that CSBBC.

Posted by: kiki | September 2, 2009 12:51 PM

My reply:

Dear Smug, Condescending Jackass,

Go fuck yourself.

Respectfully,

kiki

Posted by: Tuxedo Cartman | September 2, 2009 12:52 PM

Oh, I think I have a pretty good idea of how common that mentality is. I was born in Louisiana and lived in Missouri for a long time. Damn near drove me crazy, and certainly did a number on my humanist philosophies.

Posted by: HumanisticJones | September 2, 2009 12:52 PM

There is no better way of stating this... When I saw the name Pascal, I head-desked so hard I left a bruise.

What if you are wrong? In the vast expanses of time, you were granted one tiny infinitesimal sliver of it out of the billions of possible variant humans that could have been born instead of you. If you are wrong you don't loose nothing as he of the Wager claims. Instead you loose all of the enjoyment, love, and wonder you could have packed into your infinitely tiny improbable life to beseeching a non-existent god for an infinite extension that you will never get. Or worse, we could both be wrong and you spent all that time begging the wrong guy for eternal bliss and end up receiving infinite suffering along with us godless bastards.

Hell, maybe like Dresden Codak put it, the god is powered by irony and our staunch atheism is rewarded (http://dresdencodak.com/2005/11/29/secular-heaven/) while your pious faith is punished.

The wager is useless. Everyone's position could be wrong, but that doesn't mean you suddenly believe something else.

Posted by: co | September 2, 2009 12:53 PM

Ben, @ #49: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/tow.html

Posted by: Patrick | September 2, 2009 12:53 PM

Eh, I'm a little less critical of him.

1. He probably genuinely doesn't think of intelligence as a virtue.

2. What he probably thinks of intelligence is that its a quality that god gives to some of us which is great when we keep it under control, but which can lead to hubris and which can cause us to get so wrapped up in our own brainpower that we stop paying attention to fundamentals.

3. He probably doesn't actually think he's stupid, though he claims to. He probably just thinks that he's not as brainy as the quick wit academic types. He probably thinks of himself as more of a salt of the earth type, able to get there eventually if he thinks things through, and has chosen to use "stupidity" to appear humble.

4. He doesn't think stupidity is a virtue per se, he thinks that not getting overly wrapped up in the world of intellectualism is a virtue.

5. If you pressed him on it, he'd probably adopt a "different way of knowing" theory of faith. That is, he "knows" that god is real because he has faith, and faith literally provides him with this information. That means that if you flip Pascal's Wager on him and use it for Islam or whatever, he'll be bemused. "What if you're wrong?" you'll say, and he'll say, "I'm NOT wrong though."

6. He thinks his form of "knowing" is better than yours. Yours is human, his is divine. Humans make mistakes, god, and real faith, do not. Plus you scientists keep admitting that you sometimes get things right and sometimes get them wrong, essentially confessing fallibility.

7. I do think this counts as stupidity and hubris, I'm really just quibbling about details.

Posted by: woo Master | September 2, 2009 12:54 PM

Seems very similar to this classic video...

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

Posted by: The Helvetica Scenario | September 2, 2009 12:56 PM

Looks like his mouth is writing checks his faith can't cash.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | September 2, 2009 12:58 PM

But my point is that this pilot would not see it that way and would resent it if you tried to tell him that he actually has to be rather smart, because he is committed to his belief that talents are a gift from his god rather than the outcome of work by the individual.

You may have something there. The kind of Godly who professes YEC may be the sort who would regard himself as one of The Elect.

Posted by: E.V. | September 2, 2009 12:58 PM

He thinks his version of Pascal's Wager is profound. He doesn't want to learn about all the things that support evolution (or reality beyond his own compartmentalized fantasy), he thinks he has proposed a "gotcha". Now you're supposed to be awed by this Forrest Gump fueled moment of clarity. It's so sad.

Our pilot is oblivious to how little he really understands beyond the workings of just the few things that occupy his little environment - his church, friends, family, sex and his jet. He's hit the nail on the head: he's actually too stupid insulated to know he's stupid been indoctrinated into a culturally promoted delusion. He's proudly stupid.

Posted by: reverted | September 2, 2009 12:59 PM

ROFL @ #28! :D

BTW, here's Richard Dawkins' response to exactly the same question. Somehow, I suspect his answer sailed right over the heads of the fundies there. *sigh*

Posted by: Randomfactor | September 2, 2009 1:02 PM

Come on people this guy is an F15 pilot.

And I'm suitably impressed.

*MY* keyboard only goes up to F12.

Posted by: Alun | September 2, 2009 1:03 PM

YOUR NOT SMARTER THAN JESUS PZ!

Posted by: kiki | September 2, 2009 1:05 PM

Ah, the old schoolyard classic - there's nothing like a stupid person who tries to make you feel like it's your fault that they're stupid.

Guess what, Top Gun - if every person in the world with a higher IQ than you was raptured off to FSM heaven tomorrow, YOU WOULD STILL BE STUPID.

Posted by: Silva | September 2, 2009 1:06 PM

There was a time when it was perfectly reasonable to ask, "Is there or isn't there a God?" And then to conclude, "I have no way of finding any additional information, either way. It really is a 50/50 gamble and the best I can do is pick one. Choosing to believe in God is safer."

We are no longer in those times. Humanity has found ways of gathering additional information. We are well-equipped to make an educated guess. There's no excuse for taking the 50/50 approach.

And I totally respect people who want to have it both ways - who educate themselves on the centuries' worth of scientific evidence that's readily available to them, and who then say, "Okay, but I'm not giving up my god. He's just gratuitous now." I'm surrounded by people who have a gratuitous belief in God, here in lovely liberal New England. Okay, whatever, that's cool.

But to not educate yourself and then refuse to admit that there's any relevant information one way or another... too late for that, bud. Sorry.

Posted by: Mark Johnson | September 2, 2009 1:07 PM

Let us rejoice in our rightness.

Let us sing praises to our intellectual superiority.

We are so much better than the rest, let us remember this and speak of it as often as we gather.

Let our quiet classroom snicker evolve into a crescendo of guffaws at the silliness of these little people who dare question us.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 2, 2009 1:08 PM

PixelFish @ 19;

You beat me to the punch on this point, but I'll say it again anyway. The Lt. Col. says;

"My stupid creationist question is simple: What if you're wrong? Pascal once said "Are you willing to wager eternity?" Is it possible that where you go when you die might be as important as where you came from (in your case - primordial soup)?"

Yet he does not consider the reversal:- what if he is wrong? What if he is prostituting his social morality and capacity for free thought in order to win brownie points with a deity who is no more than a Bronze Age fiction? Is he willing to wager his role in the quantifiable physical universe, the one life we know we have, on the existence of a laughably unlikely afterlife? Is he willing to allow his critical faculties to turn to goo on the off chance that he might appease the monstrously violent, callously sadistic, all powerful petulant child that is the Abrahamic concept of god?

Trouble is, he will never even ask these questions. As has been noted above such fundies are certified 100% Reasonproof(tm).

I particularly liked the following excerpt;

"I've seen your picture on the internet"

Ok, that is a bit creepy.

" . . .and I notice a few grey hairs in your beard."

Pz's age hardly seems relevant.

"Unfortunately I'm getting a few myself which reminds me every morning when I shave to consider my post-death living quarters"

Ah, now I see. The old 'your not getting any younger, repent now before its too late!' shtick. Isn't it just wonderful that a religion that professes to be about love feels it necessary to threaten its opponents with eternal hellfire. A double problem for me, as I do not tan well.

"(you might want to ask yourself…smoking or non?)"

So, is there one heaven for smokers and one for non-smokers? Do smokers just pop outside to Pergatory for a quick draw from time to time. That's going to be difficult since the Catholic Church abolished that idea. Is god setting up a smoking room with really good heavenly ventilation? Or do all smokers just go to hell? (At least they shouldn't have any trouble finding a light.)

I'm being sarcastic, I know, but these concerns are every bit as valid as the Lt. Col's obsession with afterlife quaters. I wonder, is there room service? How about spiritual rent? Do you get the exterminators in to handle troublesome cherub infestations?. (I'm sorry, I just can't help myself.)

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 2, 2009 1:09 PM

Science Pundit @20, I wonder that sometimes too; it's a real chicken-and-(chicken-)egg question.

I experience what people call my intelligence as appetite. I suspect I'm not alone in that. Puritanism isn't limited to religion but religion does enforce it, does tell people to be suspicious of "indulging" their appetites. The letter-writer likely has a brain but he's made a virtue of confining his brain's appetite to one direction, the tech of flying jets, and laughing off his losses in, say, biology. (The inference that one stops learning outside one's specialty after high school is a bit scary.)

It's possible to internalize Sit-Down-and-Shut-Up just partially, just in certain areas of thought. I think that's a start towards anti-intellectualism for lots of people. Combine that with a sort of class envy that arbitrarily assigns a class to people who use their brains in public and uses "intellectual" and "smart" the way others use "flashy bling" or "show-off" or "ostentation" and you get the equivalent of sitting in a hard pew for hours on Sundays and wearing only dark colors: voluntary privation in the service of virtue. Intellectual sumptuary laws, if you will.

Some of us old feminists might remember the "just a housewife" trope. Sounds like that, too.

Posted by: Eidolon | September 2, 2009 1:10 PM

It occurs to me that this sod is most likely a product of the Air Force Academy, here in CO. There has been a long history of proselytizing for Jeebus at the school. Being an atheist is not really much of an option. This is what you get when you mix willful ignorance with strong social pressure.

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 2, 2009 1:11 PM

...if every person in the world with a higher IQ than you was raptured off to FSM heaven tomorrow, YOU WOULD STILL BE STUPID...

True. But let's think about it statistically, with reference to a certain other religion's eschatology...

It's five minutes after the Christian 'rapture'. The average IQ of the world has suddenly doubled...

(/The 'tribulation'... See also: 'gene pool suddenly oddly less silty'...)

Posted by: rath | September 2, 2009 1:12 PM

I don't actually care in this instance, but... wasn't revealing the sender's name reserved for those emails which contain threats of violence?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 2, 2009 1:12 PM

Well, Jack's a good reason to avoid American Airlines.

Posted by: Scott Bryan | September 2, 2009 1:13 PM

In my opinion, Pascal's Wager is not as "free" as people seem to think. To accept the immoral, the absurd, or the simply repugnant demands compromising one's own intellectual integrity in very significant way. I would argue that is the one and only thing a human being is capable of actually owning in the true sense of the word. (Everything else we think we own actually seems to own us!) To give it up for any reason seems to create a conflict of interest in oneself--the need to justify the compromise is at odds with ones own knowledge and model of reality. I believe this explains why those people who find religion attractive do so primarily because they're simply not that aware or concerned with intellectual integrity to begin with.

Posted by: E.V. | September 2, 2009 1:13 PM

Let our quiet classroom snicker evolve into a crescendo of guffaws at the silliness of these little people who dare question us.

Posted by: Sky King | September 2, 2009 1:14 PM

Pascal's Wager has never made any sense to me, even on the face of it. He seemed to be assuming that belief is a matter of choice. So if I could have a chance at winning the lottery by believing the sky is green, I should go ahead and start believing the sky is green, as if this is an option available to me.

Or maybe Pascal was just recommending that one pretends that one believes. But of all his supposed attributes, isn't it at LEAST assumed that Yahweh is psychic and could see through such a charade?

The only possible conclusion is that Pascal was joking and was being intentionally playful. Yet somehow every goddamn rube seems to discover this "argument" and swings it around like a child waving a toy sword.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 2, 2009 1:16 PM

@rath: I think that has to do with posting the full email headers or stuff like addresses and phone numbers, not the name alone. Especially when it's included in the body of the text, twice.

Posted by: bbgunn | September 2, 2009 1:16 PM

Maybe this can help explain the LTC's ideological bent and service choice:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_363.shtml

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | September 2, 2009 1:17 PM

If you're going to believe in an "Abrahamic" religion because of Pascal's wager, the one to go for is Islam.

The Hell differs little from the Christian one, but the Heaven features sexual intercourse. Muhammad said so. :)

Posted by: daveau | September 2, 2009 1:17 PM

#93 should be Shift+F3 (stupid html)

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 2, 2009 1:17 PM

Of course this is all about revenge. "You think you're so smart PZ, but there's at least a good chance that you'll be burning in hell in the future, while I'm in heaven."

"Didn't think that through, did you smarty-pants Mr. Professor?"

It's what we often get from these vengeful people when they've lost every argument--God's going to burn you in hell, and he won't burn me.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 2, 2009 1:19 PM

Questions are fine and encouraged as long as they are honest questions. If you differ then back it up with something substantive, not just hand waving and attempts at gotchas.

... and, failing that, the 'crescendo of guffaws' is pretty much inevitable...

(/And also, of course, pretty much involuntary... But if you insist, I guess I can try stick my hand over my mouth, at least...)

Posted by: Jark Mohnson | September 2, 2009 1:19 PM

"Vanity of vanities – all is vanity."

But only I have realized the true meaning of this.

Posted by: 386sx | September 2, 2009 1:20 PM

You know it. You've known it for a long, long time.

Everyone behold the incredibly misinformed and/or stupid creationist projection psychology at work there right before your very eyes. Beeehhhooooolllldd....

/sarcasm

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 2, 2009 1:20 PM

Not surprising about the anti-knowledge, anti-intellectualism. After all, weren't Adam and Eve cast out of the garden for eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

yep

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions. -- Frank Zappa, interview, Playboy, May 2, 1993

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2009 1:21 PM

Now, a question for the Lt.Col.: What if you're wrong? Shouldn't you have spent more of your life enjoying it instead of feeling guilty for "sins" you did not commit?!?!?

My rejection of the various churches and their doctrines is less about a desire to be hedonistic as much as the fact that churches do demonstrable evil in this life based on their beliefs about the next. If they're right, then they're kowtowing to a god who is a major fucker. But if they're wrong then they're mass murderers (directly in the past, indirectly in the future). I'm looking at you, Pope Condoms-Spread-AIDS.

One of my favouritest Pharyngulites, Lee Brimmicombe-Wood, wrote:

Of course, that intelligence does not always make such men wise, and I agree that trotting out Pascal's Wager should be met with the response 'why don't you accept Vishnu as your Ishta devata; after all, what if you're wrong?' And then if he refuses to do so point out that if he is not even prepared to swallow his own bullshit then we are not inclined to do so either.

I prefer to toss about Triglav for the personal ethnic tie-in (the Lithuanian deities are too hard to write and pronounce), but the sentiment is the same. Don't you dare hold me to some argument standard that you daren't even apply to yourself.

A frequent variation on Lewis' Trilemma (notably, he leaves out "Semi-mythological figure whose real actions are impossible to separate from those others have wishfully attributed to him", probably because it would ruin the alliteration of "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord") is "But why would the writers of the Bible lie? For what reason would they put their life on the line?" It infuriates me when I hear it (especially from theology students who should know better) because it requires one to wilfully ignore the entirety of human history just to utter. When I calm down, my response is usually along the lines of "I don't know. But why don't you ask yourself the same question about the Bhagavad Gita, the Diamond Sutra, and the Popol Vuh and explain to me why you're not a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Mayan." But, that's the kind of jerk intellectual I am, I guess. Look at me, bein' an asshole and all by knowin' shit about the world around me and the people in it. Being a dumb, ignorant bigot would be so-o-o-o much godlier.

@Ben

It's towing the line! As in pulling it along. You don't put your toe on it!

Sorry, but you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

Reasoning the etymology of an idiom is as fruitful as theology.

Posted by: mattb | September 2, 2009 1:23 PM

You're right, America is crawling with these ignoramuses. And you are spot on about the God-given ability bullshit these dolts spew.

Posted by: Evil(tm) Evolutionist | September 2, 2009 1:25 PM

Lt. Heidman, please be aware that Pascal's Wager is no longer considered a valid philosophical theory because it's an inherently binary wager in a world that isn't constructed as such.

It's also a major reason why creationist leaders dancer around the issue of which Christians are considered worthy in the eyes of God.

Evil(tm) Evolutionist

Posted by: dinkum | September 2, 2009 1:27 PM

Holy shit. AA has Eagles? That's just fucken cool.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2009 1:29 PM

Pascal's Wager has never made any sense to me, even on the face of it. He seemed to be assuming that belief is a matter of choice. Or that this omnpotent/omniscient god of Abraham can be fooled by insincerity.

YHWH's the Quincy Magoo of deities.

Even if Pascal's Wager were reasonable, I wouldn't be too worried. If he can't tell Egyptians from Jews without a visual aid, what makes anybody think he's got a clue as to whether or not you believed in him while alive?

"State your name, please."

"Aminhotep."

"Oh, sorry. Not one of my Chosen People. You'll have to leave My Kingdom."

"Ahem, I meant Aminhotepstein."

"Oh, good. Come on in, then."

Posted by: RamblinDude | September 2, 2009 1:30 PM

The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!

They keep saying this. “Evolution is a failed theory,” “Scientists know what the truth is and are afraid to admit it.” They just repeat it over and over, working themselves up into a righteous, angry froth. It’s just so fucking weird. Investigation and evidence mean absolutely nothing to people like this. They live in a world where the important thing is to get together in a big circle-jerk-for-Jesus and simply believe whatever they’re told by the orgy master.

It’s no coincidence that Fox News has high ratings—they use exactly the same tactics. Just repeat untrue things over and over again, with lots of emotion, and then keep repeating them.

Posted by: 386sx | September 2, 2009 1:30 PM

Mr. Heidman is aware that part of Pascals' wager was that he has to sprinkle water and attend mass and be a Catholic and stuff, right? Mr.Heidman is aware of that part of the wager, right? Hey what have ya got to lose...

Posted by: Katrina | September 2, 2009 1:32 PM

Piling on Ben @ #49:

"Toe the line" is a very old nautical term. See:

http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/trivia03.htm

and scroll down.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | September 2, 2009 1:32 PM

Lt. Col. Heidman,

Thank you for serving.

Thoughts on his letter:

That's what makes his email that much more incredibly stupid.

I prefer the word 'unwise' in this instance.

I would further add, "highly compartmentalized." Like Lee Brimmicombe-Wood, I suspect that, as a fighter pilot, Lt. Col. Heidman's certainly intelligent, adept, and capable of rapid and advanced thought in the technical operation of his aircraft, as well as the larger context of flight maneuver and tactics.

Smart guy, I'm sure. I suspect he has partitioned his thinking in such a way (and we all compartmentalize, to an extent) that logic, evidence-based reasoning, and diligent inquiry don't intrude very much, or at least not to an extent that he's able to see the problems in Pascal's wager.

He's certainly trying to build a logical case using Pascal's wager, even though the logic behind Pascal's wager is flawed. It's interesting that the same intelligent processes that would be required, first to employ Pascal's wager, and then to learn and thus later reject Pascal's wager for its flawed premises, are the same intelligent processes often held in such contempt by the devout.

I agree with the reading that he wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I think he genuinely believes he has stumbled upon a watertight logical argument for believing in the supernatural, and that may be compounded by a genuine desire to do good coupled with an evangelical understanding to "spread the good news," while perhaps not recognizing that "saving souls" does not, for those of us at this forum, represent a particularly robust example of doing good. To add to Lee's assessment of "unwise," it may be that he does not realize we atheists have heard Pascal's wager before, and thought about it a great deal.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: formosus | September 2, 2009 1:33 PM

Hmm. F-15 pilot and commercial? He must be guard or reserve. I'm in the Air Force and I have to say not ALL fighter pilots are cocky arrogant dicks. But many of them are. This one sure seems to be.

Hopefully I never have to deal with him in my career.

Posted by: Carl Buell | September 2, 2009 1:34 PM

What if you're wrong? I think that before -I was born- is pretty much what -after I'm dead- is going to be like. I have no memories of my pre-life. I can't recall any joy or suffering or anything at all. And I haven't learned anything in 63 years that makes me feel that a book written 2500 to 2000 years ago by a superstitious people with no methodology for understanding the world around them offers me anything but a glimpse into the Iron Age mind.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 2, 2009 1:35 PM

If I ever get tired of being "Screechy Monkey," I think I'm going to adopt the username "Pascal's Bookie." Imagine how rich you'd be....

Posted by: Sherry | September 2, 2009 1:36 PM

As a veteran of the USAF, I am incredibly embarrassed by this letter. Please do not think everyone in the USAF is as stupid as this jerk-off.

He probably thinks that firing missiles into Muslim villages is God's will too.

I try to remember that my big brother as well as many ancestors fought and died for the USA and for this dim-wit to have the Freedom of Speech to show his own lack of any ability to face his own mortality. It certainly does not reflect well on the military as a whole when fighter pilots do not have the courage to face reality and instead insists on believing fairy tales.

Posted by: rlrr | September 2, 2009 1:36 PM

Pascal's Bookies - band name

Posted by: Damien Trotter | September 2, 2009 1:39 PM

I worked on an American air force base in the UK during the 1980's, and met an interminable stream of USAF officers of all flavours from lieutenant to general, including SR 71 pilots and such-like. I can affirm from my own experience they were, to a man, hardly what one would call particularly intelligent. Well-drilled and instructed yes, but knowledgeable outside of their particular sphere, not in the least. Many were loud-mouthed, drink-sodden, show-offs immune to anything of the foreign culture they found themselves in apart from mom, apple pie, jebus and the gun-totin' American-way-of-life.

Therefore, I would have to agree with Jack Heidman that he is in no way as intelligent as PZ.

Posted by: Hank Fox | September 2, 2009 1:40 PM

Based on the initial email PZ writes about, and the comment of blotsalot #121 that most American Airlines pilots are conservative Christians, and even young earth creationists ...

I'm considering never flying with American Airlines again.

I don't know about the religious conclusions of Captain Sully, but I did notice he didn't talk a lot about Jesus when he pulled off that magnificent river landing.

By contrast, someone who thinks his god is his copilot -- at least enough to write a long, snarky email like this -- and who might consider a Jesus Take the Wheel approach to an emergency landing ... well, if I could know that beforehand, I'd definitely book on some other airline.

Hmm.

Dear American Airlines ...

Posted by: Gadfly47 | September 2, 2009 1:42 PM

Let's turn Pascal on his head. What if he is right? What if creationists go to heaven and stand before God and then have to explain why they refused to use their "God-given" brain to understand the world around them? What if they have to explain to God why they lied, bore false witness, maybe even committed violent acts to promote a complete falsehood that doesn't even have anything to do with Christ's teachings to begin with? Is this pilot prepared to gamble that his God will forgive him for pissing in the pool of knowledge?

Posted by: Sir Craig | September 2, 2009 1:43 PM

Kudos to Randomfactor @ #70 - that got a laugh out of me...

Now, about this Lt Col... I have 25 years (and counting) of witnessing fighter pilot ignorance/arrogance dressed up as bravado. The first half of his email contains exactly zero sincerity: It is simply a set up for what he thinks is a clever question and is betrayed by the tone he uses at the end of his email ("Neo-Darwinian Jericho" and all that). He "knows" he is actually smarter than PZ; he is simply utilizing a counseling technique we are all taught in PME that is thought to relax the counselee.

LTC Heidman is not representative of all AF pilots: For the most part they are a decent group of men and women who have to deal with more crap than most people realize. However, Heidman and other like him are the inspiration behind the old joke, "What is the difference between an F-15 and a cactus?" (Answer: The pricks are on the outside of a cactus.)

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 2, 2009 1:43 PM

"The Hell differs little from the Christian one, but the Heaven features sexual intercourse. Muhammad said so. :)"

Ok, that officially makes it Islamic Heaven 1, Christian Heaven 0. Only problem is that if the 'virgins' promised to martyrs can actually be translated to mean 'dried white grapes', then I shudder to think what the sex might turn out to be.

So, Islam has the burden of false advertising.

So we are back to 0-0.

Posted by: The Moiety | September 2, 2009 1:47 PM

"My stupid creationist question is simple: What if you're wrong? Pascal once said "Are you willing to wager eternity?" ... Don't you think your eternity might be worth a little consideration?"

How would one lay a wager on the right God to hit the jackpot?

If there really is a God, why would he not reveal himself early on? Why would it not make sense to choose the first God worshipped by mankind, instead of number 10,003 out of 10,005? Or maybe one should put their trust in the last Abrahamic god - Allah? Why choose the one in the middle?

Or perhaps it would ultimately make more pragmatic sense to choose the God who has the absolute worst Hell? Tartarus was so horrible even the Greek Gods feared winding up there. Perhaps the wisest hedge bet would be to start believing in Zeus ASAP. (Hint - he is the King of Gods.)

Hmmm... if it's not the order of the gods, or the severity of their Hell, maybe it's the number of people who believe in a God would would be instructive. No, that doesn't seem to be helpful for our brave pilot in either a historical or modern context.

Historical proof of the God's existence?.... Nuts, no joy there for Jesus, I'm afraid. If only one of the contemporaneous historians had written about him.

Fervency of belief - that's got to be it! No, if that was the case, then it would make a lot more sense to belong to a religion that doesn't have a place of torment after death, wouldn't it?

Sadly, Lt Col Jack Heidman, I'm afraid I can't be of much help to you with advice on which God to lay it on the line for, except to say that it doesn't look like you are the right track.

Posted by: Hank Fox | September 2, 2009 1:48 PM

Ah, here it is:

American Airlines Customer Relations

U.S. Mail
American Airlines Customer Relations
P.O. Box 619612 MD 2400
DFW Airport, TX 75261-9612

Overnight Mail
American Airlines Customer Relations
4255 Amon Carter Blvd. MD 2400
Fort Worth, TX 76155-2603

Fax: (817) 967-4162

....................

Just FYI:

I don’t intend this to feed some kind of attack on his job just for relating his opinion, however dopey.

However, I DO think American Airlines might at least be interested to know that this guy is bringing them into a political/religious conversation they’d probably rather stay out of.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 2, 2009 1:51 PM

I wonder how all those engineers and mechanics that designed, built and maintained this thickie's F-15 would feel about his gleeful disrespect for their contributions to keeping his dumb ass alive?

Nah... I know waaaaayyyy too many creationist engineers. Seems to be an engineering thing to assume everything is designed. ;>

/tongue in cheek

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 2, 2009 1:54 PM

Posted by: Cephus | September 2, 2009 1:37 PM

Sorry, a flying version of a jarhead doesn't strike me as a particularly impressive brain trust.

Try flying a fighter jet sometime. It's not rocket science, but it's pretty darn close.

Posted by: BC | September 2, 2009 1:56 PM

Since I first discovered Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb, I was struck with one thing Jesus said: "You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." I admire PZ because he has shown an unwavering search for what is true - not what he wants to be true. What this fundamentalist is saying is that he really doesn't care about the truth at all, he just wants eternal life. He'll do whatever he thinks will get him a heavenly eternal life and he has been told a blind faith in the fundamental Christian religion is how to get it. But truth? Naw, can't be bothered even thinking about that - that's for them intellectual people who don't have the blind faith.

Posted by: R Hampton | September 2, 2009 1:57 PM

Lt Col Jack Heidman,

Pascal's wager is not coherent with Christian belief. As a Creationist, do you honestly believe God accepts soul whose belief is based on playing the odds? That's not faith.

Posted by: broxster | September 2, 2009 1:58 PM

Cephus: #143,

You can be a reservist and fly military jets and do commercial flying as your day job. Looks like the Air National Guard flies F-15s: http://www.ang.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5428&page=2

Posted by: Steven Mading | September 2, 2009 1:59 PM

I'd like to add my meager voice to the side of those saying I think PZ Meyers is reading this wrong. I think this pilot is well aware that he's smart. I think he knows perfectly well that his piloting job skills took a lot of hard work - time spent doing a lot of thinking. I believe he is being sarcastic and mocking those who would call him stupid. I think the two possible explanations for this pilot's e-mail are:

(1) The common very human trait of disassociation that allows one to contradict ones' self without consciously realizing it (Its the sort of trait that allows some people to use intelligence in some fields, and then turn around and claim intelligence is useless in other fields even though there's no reason to make that claim other than that it helps the emotional desire to hang onto an otherwise untenable belief.)

or

(2) He knows he's lying about something - either about being a pilot, or about believing himself to be stupid.

Basically, he's either lying to himself by pretending his intelligence can just be turned off at will and that there are fields where it isn't supposed to apply, or he's lying to us about his story.

But I do NOT believe he is being sincere. At all. I just don't buy into PZ's notion that despite this guy using his brain to learn piloting skills, this guy doesn't believe himself that he did so and instead believes that he picked up the skills through prayer.

Posted by: Sigmund | September 2, 2009 2:01 PM

If Pascal was correct then the only people who win the wager are those that accept a 17th century version of Catholicism.
At the present time I think that's just Mel Gibson and his mad Dad!

Posted by: J.D. | September 2, 2009 2:02 PM

Dub'ya was also an F-15 pilot. Nuff said...

blotsalot at #121 said:

In the past two months I have had several first officers that were young earth creationists, one of whom said to me "If it's in the bible, I don't have to think". I had another tell me that he believes in the existence of demons and angels, but not unicorns and leprechauns. I pointed out that the evidence for the existence of all of these entities was exactly the same and exactly zero, but my argument was lost on him.

If he said he did not believe in unicorns, you could then ask him why not since they are explicitly mentioned as being loaded aboard the ark in his infallible book of fairy tails.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 2, 2009 2:05 PM

The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!

And they're ignorant of science, almost to a person.

Gee, I wonder why it's almost always the stupid and ignorant (sometimes intelligent) who accept creationism?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: DominEditrix | September 2, 2009 2:06 PM

This whole "burn in Hell" thing never made much sense to me - if, as the myth goes, Satan rebelled against God and was kicked out of Heaven; if Satan was the serpent in Eden, giving knowledge to God's creations [after all, "Lucifer" means "Light Bringer"] and still seeks to tempt people into transgressing against God's commandments - why would Hell be anything other than a great party place with denizens going "neener neener" in God's face? Why would Satan torment those who joined his side? FTM, wouldn't Satan be particularly glad to meet those who didn't believe in his nemesis? After all, isn't it belief that brings gods into being?

Besides, "hell" can mean "luck" in Norwegian. My ancestors may have had the right idea.

Posted by: Mike | September 2, 2009 2:07 PM

It appears that this Lt Col is in the Louisiana ANG (159th FW). As far as fighter pilots being brilliant, in my experience they are more akin to Frat Boys with an inflated sense of entitlement (re: #115). They do have an excellent ability for situational awareness and multitasking, but not all have majored in physics or aeronautical engineering. Remember, G.W. Bush was a fighter pilot for the Guard (until he lost interest).

Finally, his profession has little to do with his "stupid, creationist question", and seems to try to turn this into an argument from authority.

Posted by: sevendy | September 2, 2009 2:10 PM

George W. Bush was a fighter pilot...

Posted by: JIm | September 2, 2009 2:13 PM

too lazy to read all of the above so i may be repeating what others have said.

"So what if you are wrong?" I reply: I give a shit? I will be dead either way so it will not be my problem.

Posted by: Sir Eccles | September 2, 2009 2:15 PM

Science relies on finding out it is wrong.

Religion insists it is always right no matter what.

Posted by: Laurie | September 2, 2009 2:17 PM

It never ceases to fascinate me how people who are extremely intelligent and competent in other areas of their lives are blind to the patent flaws in pro-religion arguments like Pascal's Wager. As some others have already noted on this thread, they must be compartmentalizing. These people do not hesitate to apply their intelligence fully to technical issues that have no bearing on their religion, but once religion is involved they seem to think it is wrong to apply their reasoning skills. I can't quite wrap my mind around it, but maybe there is some fear involved?

Posted by: Charles | September 2, 2009 2:18 PM

I have a tough time believing this guy, supposedly a fighter pilot (presumably intelligent) would trot out Pascals wager to this group...surely he could have gone with "dating techniques are unreliable" or "there are no transitional fossils" or teh flood was global" or something...

Posted by: moioci | September 2, 2009 2:19 PM

This guy really needs to see the clip of Dawkins answering the very same question near the campus of Liberty U. It's a, dare I say, righteous smackdown.

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | September 2, 2009 2:20 PM

Dear PZ,

I'm no Biologist but once in a 9th grade football game I got more tackles than anyone else. Anyway, I don't have all of those fancy answers you and your ilk seem to conjure but then again, I don't need'em! For you see gawd's holy babble tells me....

Posted by: Margaret | September 2, 2009 2:21 PM

A bit like being proud of refusing to use his other bits.... like his hands or legs, perhaps!

Posted by: Alverant | September 2, 2009 2:24 PM

The sheer number of religions is proof none of them are correct. Assuming all religions are equal then the probability of any one of them being right is 1/X where X is the number of religions that ever have been, are now, or might be in the future. (Remember, the "right" religion may not have been discovered yet.) So it's reasonable to say X is a huge number. Which means the probability of any one religion being wrong is 1-(1/X) which for a large X means the religion is very likely wrong. Now the subset of known religions is small in the complete set of all possible religions. So the odds of anyone worship the right god is too small to be considered.

Posted by: Sir Craig | September 2, 2009 2:25 PM

J.D. @ 172:

That would be impressive if Shrub had been an Eagle jockey.

1968-1974: Bush supposedly serves in the ANG, allegedly flying F-102 Delta Daggers
1976: F-15 introduced into AF inventory

Posted by: Joe S. | September 2, 2009 2:27 PM

What have you got to lose from Pascal's Wager? The only life you have, and the only chance you have to achieve happiness while living it.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | September 2, 2009 2:31 PM

Dub'ya was also an F-15 pilot.

He did fly fighters but not F-15s. And leaving aside his early retirement from service he did adequately at it.

Shrub is a dick for reasons other than being a former pilot.

Posted by: Hank Fox | September 2, 2009 2:32 PM

This guy may be older than we're picturing. I found a customer comment from a Jack Heidman on a B&B website:

"Nusalya Chalet is classy and the most beautiful B & B we have ever stayed at." - Jack & Joanne Heidman, Niceville, Florida (retired airline pilot)"

I've also located a couple of ham radio licenses for Jack (KA6MAB) and Joanne (KA0GVP) Heidman in Niceville.

The address given is right on the fairway of a golf course in the Florida panhandle, which fits in with retirement.

So this could be a much older man with a lot of time on his hands. And if it IS the same guy, he's not exactly either an F15 pilot or an American Airlines pilot, at present.

Posted by: John F | September 2, 2009 2:36 PM

This kind of willful ignorance from military officers always surprises me. I mean, I've seen it before, of course, but it never stops surprising me when I do. Officers are pretty much by definition very intelligent and very well-educated. You can't become an officer if you're not. The military academies are extremely selective, and their core curriculum is very heavy on math and science. So their graduates really have no excuse for this kind of silliness.

Posted by: robinsrule | September 2, 2009 2:37 PM

I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

- Martin Luther

Posted by: AwesomeRobot | September 2, 2009 2:37 PM

I think I posted a link to the secular heaven comic last time Pascal's False Dichotomy was brought up, but: http://dresdencodak.com/2005/11/29/secular-heaven/

Posted by: Alen W | September 2, 2009 2:39 PM

#3... Get in the fookin sack... Ahh, the new refrain for all kooks, made of win.

Posted by: Irene Delse | September 2, 2009 2:41 PM

It's sad, not to mention embarrassing, all those Christians who trot out the so-called Pascal's Wager as if it was an infallible argument, ignoring that Pascal himself never published a word of it while he was alive. In fact, the whole volume of his Pensées, which contain the "wager" bit, was collected after his death from disjointed notes on scraps of paper. Who can know what he would have chosen to publish, had he lived long enough to prepare the text for publication?

In all probability, Pascal, who was a devout Catholic in a time (the 17th Century) when the Church severely frowned upon wagers and games of probability, would have thought twice before seriously using such a disrespectful argument! Though he obviously saw in it a clever thought exercise. And for the period, it was clever. In terms of the philosophy of sciences and the history of Western thought, the Wager is remarkable for its groundbreaking use of probability theory, decision theory and the concepts of infinity and uncertainty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

So, in a way, Pascal's Wager is like Zeno's paradoxes (or Lewis Carroll's stories): a vivid embodiment of logical and mathematical theories. But it's naive to try to use it in real life. It's already been thoroughly taken apart, on those same logical grounds it meant to explore.

Alas, religious educators and apologists seem to have failed to take notice...

Posted by: Laurie | September 2, 2009 2:41 PM

Lewis's Trilemma -- the proposition that Jesus must have been either lying, deluded, or in fact the Messiah -- is something I hadn't heard of before this thread. According to Wikipedia, this is considered by some to be THE most powerful evidence for the truth of Christianity. It was the argument responsible for Chuck Colson's conversion!

In fairness to Lewis, it appears he wasn't relying on the supposed trilemma as an absolute proof of Christianity's claims. Rather, he was relying on it to counter those who believe that Jesus was "a great moral teacher" but not the Messiah. Lewis is arguing that, IF you believe that Jesus was "a great moral teacher," then you have to believe he was telling the truth about being the Son of God.

Of course, I don't see why someone couldn't have great facility at articulating moral truths AND also be deluded about other things. (Kind of like this crazy Lt. Col., who can fly fighter jets, yet promotes Pascal's Wager as if he is a 5-year old.) I also don't see why a bit of mythologizing either by Jesus himself or the Gospel writers is inconsistent with the moral teachings promoted in the Gospels. Strict journalistic accuracy was not a first century virtue.

Posted by: Sir Craig | September 2, 2009 2:42 PM

Hank Fox @ 204:

LTC Jack Heidman does exist - he is stationed in LA with the ANG (I know this from our global contacts). Odds are he is a unit commander who flies F-15s enough to stay current, but Guard types do tend to be older than AD types.

Posted by: Michael Eybye | September 2, 2009 2:43 PM

What other people, exactly, are starting to realize this wallcrumbling? Other idiots?

I know, I shouldn't call other people idiots, but come on, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

Really, I thought it took brains be a fighter pilot...

Posted by: not a gator | September 2, 2009 2:44 PM

apologies to everyone for OT post, but we don't have a general forum here...

Okay, to whoever it was who was grilling me when I asserted that Frank had some responsibility for the financial meltdown by not turning the screws on FNM and FMC (who have accounting irregularities--I smell FRAUD!--going back to the 1990's):

I backed off because I'm not an expert and didn't relish the idea of trolling google for two hours to turn up relevant info. Well, guess what, I stumbled across something today.

Anyway, there are some great comments on all sides in response to this blog post on Boston.com.

In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

Or back in 2003 when the Bush administration proposed some legislation to alter the regulation of Fannie and Freddie, Frank said, in his opening statement, things like, "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

etc.

(For those following at home, the US Gov DID bail them out, though the shareholders were wiped out.)

As for the Rush Limbaugh originated race-baiting re: the Community Lending Act or whatever it was called, that is a sideshow. Partisans on the right flog it because it confirms their twisted worldview, while partisans on the left flog it because it distracts from substantive criticism of Frank's record. IMO, that act--from the mid-1990's--had fuck all to do with the housing bubble. People of all races cheated (see Crisp & Cole). A lot of people were cheated through "affinity fraud" which could be racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, etc. Some of the worst cases were through church organizations. Also, of course I recognize that Alan Greenspan is public enemy #1 as far as the bubble blowing was concerned. FNM & FMC were simply part of the bad paper meltdown. In fact, they probably would have blown up earlier had it not been for the enormous bubble.

Posted by: chris | September 2, 2009 2:45 PM

Maybe Lt Col Heidman is really Rayford Steele?

Posted by: Michael Simpson | September 2, 2009 2:45 PM

The USAF has a high Christian fundamentalism. Even the Air Force Academy in Colorado is a hotbed of christianity, I'm not sure why. It could be that bombing non-combatants into dust in a highly impersonal way, from 10,000 m above the earth makes one assuage their guilt in any way. I have no clue. (BTW, the US Navy and Army, though filled with those types, have less christian infestation.) Military academies do not focus on basic science, but applied science like Engineering and Aerospace. Engineers are not scientists, they do not use the scientific method, they do not care if the earth is 4.5 billion years old. A petroleum engineer, for example, only cares in a static earth to find oil. A petroleum geologist cares about how tectonic plates move and fold, and how oil is produced. The military academies don't teach critical thinking in science.

I spend my time on Facebook posting anti-Creationism, anti-right wing stuff all the time. I will vote every poll like "America is a Christian Country" with rather pointed comments about the atheism of our founding fathers. Anyways, I'm starting to get the Pascal's Wager, which is based on the assumption that I'm not very confident in my ideas.

Oh well, now I will quote Pharyngula!

Posted by: Celeste | September 2, 2009 2:48 PM

@JosherK: You're right, it's scary how much they're multiplying. If it weren't so damn environmentally unsound, I'd be yelling "Breed you atheists! Breed!".

Posted by: Dark Matter | September 2, 2009 2:49 PM

Is mr.top gun willing to wager using prayer over his
IFR training should his hissy-fit god bawl up
a storm, and mr. top gun has no other choice but to
fly through it?

(mr top gun does a prayer over the cabin speaker, then
starts singing "highway to the danger zone" while the
plane tumbles through the air during a storm...can't be bothered
with reality...)

Instrument flight rules

Posted by: JBlilie | September 2, 2009 2:51 PM

How many fighter pilots does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one: She holds the lightbulb and the world revolves around her ...

Posted by: melior | September 2, 2009 2:51 PM

Speaking of that famously overinflated sense of entitlement that fundie Christians like to carry around with them, there's the Des Moines bus driver who got a 2nd chance after walking off the job because it hurt her feelings to drive a bus with an atheist ad on it.

Did she respond with humility, which they like to call "Christian", or with arrogance and piss, like we're used to seeing Christians do?

DART officials told Shiel last week that she could keep her job as long as she didn’t refuse to drive a bus again. They could not promise her that she wouldn’t be assigned a bus with the atheist ad, said General Manager Brad Miller.

“We’re giving her a second chance,” Miller said. “There’s no assurances that there might not be another ad she doesn’t agree with. There’s so many different things that go into that, there’s no way we can guarantee anything.”

Miller said Shiel was told she would be subject to termination should she choose to walk away from the job again.

Shiel said today that her views on the ad haven’t changed and she still will not drive any bus with the ad.

“Hopefully I won’t get the sign anymore,” she said. “It’s a chance I have to take. …I like what I’m doing. I don’t want to start all over.”

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 2, 2009 2:53 PM

There is a God or there is no God. I believe there is. He gave me some pretty good rules to live by. There are those who believe there is no God. They by default are their own "god". The world is ruled by people who are their own god. Look at what they have done. They will admire Darwin. They will prove his theory by declaring they are the "fitist" to rule. Their problem solved. Ours is just beginning.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Harry Canary | September 2, 2009 2:54 PM

Every fighter pilot I've met is pretty damned arrogant. It is trained into them in the academy. Some are decent people at heart but with an awful strong belief in themselves. Cocky doesn't describe it by half.

Posted by: E.V. | September 2, 2009 2:56 PM

From Wiki:

The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7.

Posted by: not a gator | September 2, 2009 2:58 PM

When I said "worst affinity fraud was through churches" I meant not dollar amounts (I have no idea) but in terms of the stories. Grifters passed through SE churches targeting people with mental disabilities and seniors. Some promised to refinance but actually did a cash-out refi, or they got their mark to sign over the title for a pittance.

The "I know in my gut" feeling is how people are often fooled... such as the CIA and FBI promoting people they have a "good feeling" about (ie: people like myself, ito color, gender, espoused views, social class, manner of dress) rather than developing good procedures.

One more reason "I know in my gut that my god/afterlife is real" is stupid. Knowing happens when the hands work with the brain ... not in your intestines--unless you're talking about the proof of the pudding.

Posted by: Jerald Lyon | September 2, 2009 2:59 PM

As a retired Eastern Airlines pilot, I can only remark that this sounds typical of an American Airlines pilot- they gave up the Air Line Pilots Assoication union long ago in favor of an "in-house" "union", and have done what management told them to do ever since.
Too bad. Makes me glad I am retired and don't have to watch out for him in the skies. What a dolt.

Posted by: RA | September 2, 2009 3:01 PM

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Posted by: Josh | September 2, 2009 3:02 PM

I had one for my bathroom, but house guests kept getting really embarrassed.

coffee.across.monitor.screen.

Dawn@ #239, please disprove the following statement without referring to the Bible:

Odin is the creator of the universe.

Posted by: Chris | September 2, 2009 3:03 PM

What a tool. Arguments involving Pascal's Wager are areas I don't tread, not because they are difficult to so the areas of problems but because the argument itself is a blatant flag of ignorance. Its hard to combat such a thought process, and with that, I refuse to lower set standards to such a median. If one honestly thinks this is a great thing, it scares me and the scary fact is lots of people defend this line of "non-reasoning."

"Once you can convince someone to belief absurdities, you can convince them to commit atrocities."

Posted by: Sherry | September 2, 2009 3:04 PM

Please tell me Jack Heideman isn't part of the "coon-ass" militia. I have a patch one of them gave me on Bourbon
St a long time ago!

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | September 2, 2009 3:06 PM

I suggest that the best way to "debunk" Christianity is to take the time to actually study the subject. Learn the Bible.

A large number of us have studied the Bible. Closely. It is the reason why we are now atheists.

Posted by: Denis Loubet | September 2, 2009 3:08 PM

Since rational arguments can't gain traction with these mooks, how about hitting them with an emotional argument:

If we're wrong, we will be responsible for our sins and pay the price, you, on the other hand, will have dodged all responsibility for your sins. I guess it's all about what you can get away with, eh?

How's that?

Posted by: DazedNConfuzed | September 2, 2009 3:09 PM

@221:

Good points, all of them. However,

Point 1:
--------
The choice to have faith in this case isn't logical, simply because you're not making the choice to have faith, you're being coerced into it through faulty logic and fear of the unknown:

To quote Dogma:

Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions, by inhibiting our decisions, out of fear of some intangible parent figure, who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says "Do it, do it and I'll fucking spank you!"

Point #2:
---------
If one's to believe the bible bullshit pile, it's spelled out there in clear black and white that in order to enter the kingdom of heaven one must have faith that god gave his only son to atone for the sins of man.

"No one shall come to Father except through me."

So "fake it until you make it" just can't work.

Point #3:
---------
This point is entirely plausible. Keep the rational minds quiet so that the irrational minds can push their agenda. The issue I have with this is not that their faith is blind, but that it practically leads the lemmings to the cliff.

It seems Pascals Wager from a logical standpoint is pure idiocy.

For clarity, I'm by no means religious. I'm quite atheist. To have faith in something for fear of the unknown, isn't something in any way healthy. The unknown is a beautiful thing. Without the unknown we'd have no reason to explore, or learn. I don't need to have an explanation for everything to be comfortable with my world around me. If I don't have an explanation for why things work the way they work, and I want one, I'll get off my ass and search for the truth. I certainly won't attribute it to some vapid excuse that doesn't hold up logically.

Seeing this in myself, I have to ask, is it too much to ask for others to rationalize and perhaps apply logic?

Posted by: Amenhotepstein | September 2, 2009 3:11 PM

Brownian, OM @ #124

I've been wanting to post here for awhile, but I never felt I had a good enough handle.

I think Amenhotepstein is it.

I can haz it plz?

Posted by: JBlilie | September 2, 2009 3:11 PM

Laurie @216:

In fairness to Lewis, it appears he wasn't relying on the supposed trilemma as an absolute proof of Christianity's claims. Rather, he was relying on it to counter those who believe that Jesus was "a great moral teacher" but not the Messiah. Lewis is arguing that, IF you believe that Jesus was "a great moral teacher," then you have to believe he was telling the truth about being the Son of God.

Of course, I don't see why someone couldn't have great facility at articulating moral truths AND also be deluded about other things. (Kind of like this crazy Lt. Col., who can fly fighter jets, yet promotes Pascal's Wager as if he is a 5-year old.) I also don't see why a bit of mythologizing either by Jesus himself or the Gospel writers is inconsistent with the moral teachings promoted in the Gospels. Strict journalistic accuracy was not a first century virtue.

Bullseye.

You know those Romans who were in charge in Palestine at AD 0? They were good record keepers. Not perfect, but good record keepers. All this stuff that supposedly happened to Roman soldiers associated with Jesus's actions around the supposed crucifiction and its aftermath: Cutting off of ears, healing of said ears, rolling away of heavy stones, empty tombs, thunder and lightning, etc., etc.. You just might think that these sorts of events just might get the attention of the Romans and induce them to write something about it -- maybe even a report to Rome. But there's nothing.

The Xian apologists will say they have this corroborating evidence for the supernatural features of Jesus. Turns out Xian (and other) scholars have shown that these sources were altered to add the Super-Jesus stuff (by Xian scribes). All they have is the gospels: (Lee Strobel calls them "indirect eyewitness testimony"!*) hearsay written down two or more generations after the supposed facts. Nothing else with this kind of provenance would be taken seriously.

(* Sort of like: lying is indirect honesty.)

Posted by: E.V. | September 2, 2009 3:13 PM

Dawn,

you gave away yourself as a liar right off the bat - you never were an atheist (not a rational one at least) and you're sure as hell not an intellectual (as if a degree in math somehow supports your claim).

Posted by: Sherry | September 2, 2009 3:13 PM

Well - the acclaimed "Coon-Ass" militia is no more. Since 1992 when they had to drop the name.

Any bids for my patch?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 2, 2009 3:15 PM

Like many of the comments here, I, too, was a smug intellectual atheist.

Unlikely. Unless you've suffered head trauma. It just doesn't work in that direction otherwise. Nice try though.

Posted by: sasqwatch | September 2, 2009 3:16 PM

re: #181 sasqwatch (continuing my previous post)

I've decided to become an apostate from (of) Islam. It hadn't occurred to me that I could go to hell AND get rewarded for it at the same time. Hail Satan!

You can all go to hell, too.

Posted by: Magnifico | September 2, 2009 3:17 PM

These people are so bizarre to me. Their conception of what they are potentially to gain is that it is SO HUGE that it warrants not even considering all of the other elements and levels of their favorite wager. What reason(s) does one have for finding it likely that death is not the end of us? I have looked with only the desire to know what is, as opposed to trying to prove what I already believed (I didn't know what to believe - that's why I was looking!), and there is no reason to think it likely AT ALL that we, whatever "we" are, survives this common experience. What a gamble they are making! Sacrificing a significant portion of that which is in your hand for that which not only might not ever be in your hand but that which probably is not anything more real than an idea. I probably haven't expressed this very clearly as I might but I'd wager it is easy enough to see why I find it so utterly bizarre.

Posted by: Blackbart | September 2, 2009 3:18 PM

Dear Jack,

I can Learn how to fly a plane.

Can you learn how to Think?

Posted by: robinsrule | September 2, 2009 3:21 PM

post-death living quarters

Not bad!

Posted by: Sherry | September 2, 2009 3:22 PM

Having been an Air Force officer myself, my experience with Fighter Pilots is that they also think themselves to be prolific drinkers and lovers.

I used to love to see them at the Officers Club (Hill AFB) on Friday night and the next day on a ski slope. Never met one who could out-ski me. It was sweet.

Also, they would go put on their bags before they went to the club, even when they didn't fly that day...

Posted by: Irene Delse | September 2, 2009 3:25 PM

@ Stephen Wells #223:

Oooh, nice!

Even though Tolkien would have readily answered that all our fairy tales and stirring stories are only imperfect (but sincere) human imitations in celebration of the Greatest Fairy Tale of All, the Gospel. God not only made the world and sent his Son to earth, He also told us the Story, and that's why we create art and tell stories to ourselves.

Yes, that was an argument Tolkien actually used in his 1947 essay On Fairy-Stories. It's also one he tried on C. S. Lewis during the period he tried to convert Lewis (who was born in an Anglican family but had lost faith by the time he was 15) to Catholicism. It's the idea developed in the poem Mythopoeia, dedicated To one [C.S. Lewis] who said that myths were lies and therefore worthless, even though 'breathed through silver':

http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/mythopoeia.html

Man, Sub-creator, the refracted light
through whom is splintered from a single White
to many hues, and endlessly combined
in living shapes that move from mind to mind.
Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build
Gods and their houses out of dark and light,
and sowed the seed of dragons, 'twas our right
(used or misused). The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we're made.

Alas, Tolkien was pretty miffed when Lewis, instead of joining him in his faith, reverted to a brand of Christianism closer to his Anglican roots!

Posted by: Randomfactor | September 2, 2009 3:28 PM

Jack Heidman really got me thinking. What if God is wrong?

Huh-uh. God is like string theory: "not even wrong."

Posted by: Margaret (not same Margaret as above) | September 2, 2009 3:30 PM

Laurie:

Strict journalistic accuracy was not a first century virtue.

With most of the media, strict journalistic accuracy is not a twenty-first century virtue either.

Posted by: sasqwatch | September 2, 2009 3:31 PM

Dave X @ 233: re: sasqwatch @ 181.
"You've obviously not heard of Flying Spaghetti Satanism"

Shit. This has gotten way too tricky. I guess it's back to atheism, since it ain't gonna matter what I "believe". Just gotta keep from dying for as long as possible to stay outta hell, in the slim event it does exist. How banal.

Posted by: E.V. | September 2, 2009 3:32 PM

There are those who believe there is no God. They by default are their own "god".

Posted by: Shadow | September 2, 2009 3:34 PM

So, the fighter jock is a virgin Jewish male?

Posted by: JBlilie | September 2, 2009 3:36 PM

As has been pointed out elsewhere here, two major fallacies in "Pascal's Wager" are:

1. It's a (very poor) argument for feigning belief, which doesn't conform to the dogma of Xianity.

2. The same "logic" can be used equally well to argue for any (other) made-up nonsense one chooses.

Anyone advancing Pascal's Wager clearly hasn't thought about it much at all.

JB's wager:

The troll that lives under my house will torment you eternally if you don't believe in him. Doesn't it make sense to just believe in the troll, so you don't have to worry about your afterlife? If you're wrong, there's no loss, right?? (Oh, other than indulging in reason-destroying delusions ... wasting your precious moments in the light supplicating imaginary beings ...)

Posted by: --PatF in Madison | September 2, 2009 3:37 PM

Andrew Tobias is (a) the treasurer of the Democratic Party, (b) openly gay, (c) a graduate of Harvard and (d) a non-believer. (How's about that for four aces, folks?)

He writes a blog I read faithfully. Here is a recent quote:
------------------------------------
Abe: “Someone once said that he would rather spend all of his life believing in God and then die and discover there was no one, than spend all of his life believing there was no God and then die and find out that there was one. Think on that. The bet is pretty easy to make if you do the thinking.”

Andy: If there is a god, let alone one who keeps track of your good deeds and bad deeds, I have a feeling that nonbelievers who voted to help the less fortunate will make out even better than believers who did not.
-------------------------------------
http://andrewtobias.com/

Posted by: ATC Zero | September 2, 2009 3:40 PM

Do you know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?

Pilots think they are god.

I am ashamed for the aviation profession that these loons exist and have your family's one life in their hands. Sully flew and landed the plane in the Hudson. He didn't pray his way in. This idiot (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510460,00.html) got everything he deserved.

Fly Atheist Air, because Invisible Sky Daddy never showed up for his check ride.

Posted by: tytalus | September 2, 2009 3:42 PM

I wonder if it's all right to read the pilot's letter and merely find the argument insufficient, with a side of baseless delusions of grandeur. I save my armchair psychology for persistent knuckleheads, not drive-bys.

Posted by: Laurie | September 2, 2009 3:43 PM

This thread is terrific, by the way.

Best phrases: " . . . Jewish zombie on a stick . . . " and ". . . I am my own leprechaun . . . "

And thank you to Irene Delse for the fascinating information on Tolkein and Lewis.

Posted by: Roger | September 2, 2009 3:47 PM

Mr. Heidman, Total Top Gun Fighter Pilot and Uber Lover but yet ever so humble Christian is merely illustrating the Nietzschean concept of "transvaluation of value"--in this case, the Christian godbot takes a value that most people hold as honorable and desirable and, in typical godbot false-modesty, dashes it against the rocks in favor of ignorance.

Oh, and Dawn? Reading the Wholly Babble and taking a Jimmy Swaggart Correspondence Course isn't the same as studying the languages in which the texts were originally written, understanding the socio-political contexts in which they arose, and understanding that much of what appears in the New Testament was a) never uttered by Jesus and b) written decades after his death. You may have been a smug atheist--you certainly are a smug Christian--but you certainly weren't a smart one. And my Ph.D. in Religion pretty much trumps your degrees in mathematics in this regard.

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 2, 2009 3:51 PM

Posted by: robertsgt40 | September 2, 2009 2:35 PM

There is a God or there is no God. I believe there is. He gave me some pretty good rules to live by.

How do you know it was God who came up with those rules? What if you're wrong? If you're wrong, you submitted to rules given to you by another human.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 2, 2009 3:52 PM

If you want to express your irritation with Col Heidman to his boss, Col Roy Qualls of the 159th Fighter Wing, Air National Guard email addresses are formatted firstname.lastname@ang.af.mil. I'm sure the Col would love to find out that one of his command level officers is abusing his rank to proselytize his religion in violation of the UCMJ. I also recommend letting his congressmen know. It’s Louisiana though so I’m not hopeful on that avenue.

I linked the 159th Fighter Squadron public web page. You’ll find the phone number to the Wing Commander’s office there if you want it to express yourself in that fashion. Remember, be polite. They only hang up if you’re rude.

Um. Whoops Lt. Col. Uh oh.

Posted by: Lynna | September 2, 2009 3:53 PM

@296

Fly Atheist Air, because Invisible Sky Daddy never showed up for his check ride

LOL. Excellent. I'm going to steal that.

I have a single-engine-land pilot's license. It does require a brain that works fairly well to fly a plane. I had a retired Air Force pilot as an instructor and he insisted that I practice stalls and other emergency procedures over and over because "nobody, no power, will be there to help you but you."

Posted by: PixelFish | September 2, 2009 3:55 PM

As an aside concerning Dawn, may I say that I find it annoying when people who likely converted to their religion from a place of apathy or merely not attending church say they used to be atheist. Usually what they mean is they didn't think about it much, didn't apply intellectual rigor, and on the basis of some coincidence, a fuzzy feeling, or the first compelling believer to cross their path, converted with the same lack of intellectual rigor to their chosen faith.

Not going to church = / = atheist.

Sloppy apathy = / = atheist.

Also, given the history of this country and religion, unless somebody says to me that their parents were atheists (lucky bastards) they very likely had a childhood religion. Merely not attending your childhood religion doesn't make you an atheist either.

We haven't seen much evidence that Dawn was atheist or intellectual, but as others have noted, she is still smug.

And as others have noted, hey, most of us have read the Bible already. My least favourite book is Leviticus, which I can't think Dawn has yet got to, or she wouldn't be advocating Bible reading. The only thing Leviticus has going for it is that its whacky rage inducing rules make it more interesting than Numbers, which is mostly a shit-tonne of begats and oddly enough, numbers regarding the begats.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 2, 2009 3:56 PM

I suggest that the best way to "debunk" Christianity is to take the time to actually study the subject. Learn the Bible.

Amen! Preach it!

Listen: Do you want to know what the best book is to knock all of these atheists back in their seats is? It's Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman.

You'll be able to teach the truth from the source! Go for it!

Posted by: Dave X | September 2, 2009 3:58 PM

sasqwatch @286 re "Shit. This has gotten way too tricky. I guess it's back to atheism, since it ain't gonna matter what I "believe". Just gotta keep from dying for as long as possible to stay outta hell, in the slim event it does exist. How banal."

Keep from dying as long as possible?

Don't forget about Who Will Be Eaten First

Posted by: speedwell | September 2, 2009 3:59 PM

Another great book, though dated, is Forgery in Christianity by Wheless. Not the latest or most exacting scholarship, but the arguments are mostly sound and the author sure does get the point across. Plus it's now available as a free online read. I forget the exact URL and I can't get to it from work (but I have a nice first edition at home).

Posted by: Teliria | September 2, 2009 4:01 PM

It is a good thing for all these 'creationists' that evolution does not care if you 'believe' in it or not.

On the other hand, Shiva can be pretty vindictive... the christians might want to consider her anger before they go blithely along denying her existence.

At least I do not deny the existence of their god... I simply do not see any evidence that would lead me to believe in it.

Posted by: robinsrule | September 2, 2009 4:05 PM

The Christian god and Muslim Allah are one and the same

You sure about that?

...take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Quran Surah 5:51 The Table Spread

And what do you do about JC and the other guy?

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three
Quran Surah 5:73 The Table Spread

Posted by: Quinton | September 2, 2009 4:11 PM

It's kinda funny. This F-15 pilot has spent billions of dollars a year burning fossil fuels that fuel the jets he flies but thinks that the world is 6,000 years old.

I wonder where he thinks the fossils for the fossil fuels for his jets came from.

Posted by: Zetetic | September 2, 2009 4:12 PM

Our fundie fighter flying friend fumed:

The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abdul Alhazred @ #102 said:

The Hell differs little from the Christian one, but the Heaven features sexual intercourse. Muhammad said so. :)

;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn @ #239 bleated:

Like many of the comments here, I, too, was a smug intellectual atheist.
I notice that many of you use the exact same reasoning, wording and thought processes that I once employed.

OK then...let's say you're telling the truth, what exactly is this awesome evidence that convinced you that not only does god exist, but that it's your specific god? Please don't just say "read the bible"... been there, done that, not convinced, don't care.

Posted by: Trug | September 2, 2009 4:13 PM

#319:

It really is a big deal for anyone in the military to give their endorsement to any issue outside of their official purview. On the extreme side, it's supposed to prevent military members from marching at a Neo-Nazi rally while in uniform, but the principle is the same when it comes to preaching about creationist dogma. That topic is none of the federal governments business, and to sign off on an email with your official title implies that you, as a member of whatever federal organization, approve of whatever it is you are talking about. By extension, that could be construed as your organization giving that approval.

And yes, the officers at Atheists in Foxholes should not be signing off as "Lieutenant Whatever". If they are just saying, "I work in the military and I'm an atheist" but sign it as Joe Blow or whatever, that's fine. I'm in the military, but I don't sign off on these posts with my name and rank. We're all allowed our own opinions, but we need to express them as private citizens. Not officers/enlisted/etc.

Posted by: Teliria | September 2, 2009 4:14 PM

Dawn provides a perfect example of why I say that the best argument against christianity is the christians themselves.

Although, it really is a close race between the christians and the bible. The christians win out simply because more people are likely to listen to the christians than to actually make it through reading the books of the bible.

I was raised not only without a belief in a god, but without the concept of a god. I was in my late teens before the concept of a god was explained to me and it was a christian god that I was introduced to. I was excited... it seemed like a cool idea, until I started actually looking into it... reading the bible, asking questions. Most of the conversations consisted of:

"You believe in what?!?!? Really? And that makes SENSE to you?"

and

"Ok... but... no... I do not want you to explain the feel good stuff again... I really would like you to answer my question... no... that is not answering my question...that is just telling me why I should have faith... please answer my quesion... NO... telling me I will go to hell if I do not just have faith is NOT answering my question... never mind... "

Basically, the only conclusion I could draw was that, since the Brothers Grim fairytails actually were more believable, the only reason anyone could have for actually believing in the weirdness that is christianity was early childhood brainwashing or being in SUCH a nasty spot in ones life that believing in the unbelievable is preferable to actually living in reality.

From the outside looking in, it makes absolutely no sense...

Posted by: sunsetbeachguy | September 2, 2009 4:17 PM

I don't see anyone considering the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Any thoughts on the Unskilled and Unaware analysis fits into the smart/dumb tactics of creationists?

Posted by: MattB | September 2, 2009 4:19 PM

This guy is flying aircraft? Shit. Not good.

Hopefully he was drunk when he emailed this.

Posted by: sasqwatch | September 2, 2009 4:23 PM

Dave X @ 314 -- "Keep from dying as long as possible? Don't forget about 'Who Will Be Eaten First'."

Fuck. You just can't win. I... I... I don't think I can stand it anymore.

Posted by: gnoerpf | September 2, 2009 4:26 PM

Gerry@32:

Free will??? Tell me that when you need a piss or a shit or are hungry or in pain.Can your free will overcome any of those?

Posted by: MikeM | September 2, 2009 4:28 PM

Does anyone else out there remember "Ask Doctor Science"?

In case you don't, the format went:

1) Listener sends Dr Science a letter, usually asking a silly question about "Science."

2) Dr Science would then answer the question "seriously."

3) Dr Science would then sign off with, "*I* know more than *you* do. *I* have a *Master's* Degree... In Science."

All done in a very amusing way. I usually laughed.

Well, this F15 pilot is doing the same thing, only without humor.

"*I* know more than *you* do; *I* can fly an F15."

Gawd, arguing about unicorns on PZ's blog... Don't I have some code to write or something?

*I* know more than *you* do. *I* went to UCSC.

Posted by: Laurie | September 2, 2009 4:31 PM

Trug,

That's a good point. There is a distinction between speaking as a government official and speaking as a private citizen. By signing the letter with his military rank, this guy is blurring that important distinction.

On the other hand, he is speaking to a private citizen over whom he has no authority or control, so it is hard for me to get too worked up about. Complaining to his superiors seems too similar to the tactics of those who would suppress atheism. So I prefer that we simply mock his argument relentlessly (and chortle merrily while doing so).

Posted by: freya.o | September 2, 2009 4:33 PM

yawn on the pascal's wager.
it sounds like people who managed to get to heaven can be all happy and singing for all eternity while others they know are tortured endlessly in hell. I'm not sure if I want to spend eternity with those kind of people. Especially if heaven is full of xians, eternity with them would be hell.

Posted by: Maezeppa | September 2, 2009 4:35 PM

When a Creationist does begin to think, and they do, it's a terrifying experience for them. When you appeal to their reasoning ability and doubt creeps in, they identify that as Satan and redouble their effort to close their ears and minds.

Posted by: sophie | September 2, 2009 4:38 PM

What if "God" sent you to hell and you decided to love "him" and all beings regardless of where you were. Could that possibly be hell, then? Wouldn't that be more like "heaven"? Does any of that even make sense then? An open heart is DIY heaven. That soft spot, that open heart IS god in us, if there is a god. (And I can pretty well guarantee you that anything your mind can cook up is not god.)

-Sophie, a former Christian minister

Posted by: Ephemeriis | September 2, 2009 4:40 PM

I see folks bring up Pascal's Wager all the time... But I'm just not swayed.

Ok, so what if I am wrong? I guess I'm going to suffer for all eternity or something...

But what if they're wrong? It isn't like Christianity is the only thing going. Shouldn't you, just to be on the safe side, practice Islam? And Judaism? And Buddhism? And... Oh, wait, you can't. Because they are, to a very large part, mutually exclusive.

So, "what if you're wrong" really doesn't mean much... Because no matter how you look at it, most of the people on this planet are wrong, regardless of who/how/whether they worship.

Posted by: DaveL | September 2, 2009 4:40 PM

Like many of the comments here, I, too, was a smug intellectual atheist. I notice that many of you use the exact same reasoning, wording and thought processes that I once employed. I have to laugh now when I recognize the ignorance and fallacy in these words.

To put it succinctly, I think you're lying. Why? Because I've known hundreds of atheists, on the internet and in real life, and I can count the number of times I've seen one turn back to some sort of god-belief on one hand, and most of those involved deism or some form of pantheism.

Conversely, I've also known a great many apologists, and a solid majority of them claim (like you) to have once been atheists. Strangely, almost all of them use the same tired arguments most atheists I know have swatted down again and again. Like you, not one has had any sort of decent rebuttal to offer. Very often, when pressed, they admit that there never actually was a point in their lives that they did not believe in God- but they're quick to disclaim that they lived sinfully, or didn't attend church, or hadn't said the Sinner's Prayer, or believed in salvation through works, or some other theological drivel.

So maybe you're the exception to the rule, but until I have reason to believe otherwise I will have to consider you a liar.

Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | September 2, 2009 4:49 PM

The problem with Pascal's wager is that there is no way to know what I'm wagering. What if there is a God but he doesn't like mindless faith? I love the agnostics prayer written by Roger Zelazny. (Where are all the great science fiction writers these days?)

Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.

Posted by: not a gator | September 2, 2009 4:50 PM

I just have to share my aunt's (USN, retired) opinion on USAF pilots.

"Sure, they're hotshots. But can they land a plane on a postage stamp (USN carrier) in the middle of the ocean in one pass?"

USN pilots: humble heroes.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | September 2, 2009 4:52 PM

Cephus @143,

I have checked the Air Force Global Address list here at work. The good Lt Col is indeed a member of the Air National Guard and an F15 Pilot. I cannot attest to his position at AA but he really does have his finger on the trigger of some very scary ordinance and very likely does fly commercial airliners. It's a pretty common practice for Pilots to leave active duty and take a job with the airline companies then keep flying as a reservist. It’s also scary as all fuck that somebody this wacked out has access to heavy ordinance.

Posted by: Tom | September 2, 2009 4:54 PM

Q: How do you know you're in the same room as a pilot?
A: He'll tell you.

Perhaps I'm overly dismissive and cynical, but on those occasions when I've seen or heard the rebuttal "What if you're wrong?", I've always got the sense that it's an implicit statement to the effect of "I didn't pay attention to or comprehend anything you just said, I've just been waiting all this time to ask my killer question." There are a lot of such shorthands in common usage - another one I can't stand is the good old deep and knowing koan "Life's hard," or one of its many variants, which are generally only spoken in lieu of the somewhat less spiritually satisfying "I don't feel like helping you."

As for America's anti-intellectualism, here's an observation that worries me - what can you say about a culture that quite commonly uses words like "smart" as a derogative, as in "smart-mouth," and so on? (Perhaps I've got the etymology wrong and it comes from the sense of "smart" that refers to pain, but that doesn't really seem to fit)

Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | September 2, 2009 4:56 PM

"Excellent point! If convert now, can I get my virgins in advance?"

Virgins are highly overrated. Experienced women are much better in bed. ;-)

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 2, 2009 4:58 PM

I wonder where he thinks the fossils for the fossil fuels for his jets came from.

Surely you jest, Quinton. God made them. Or did he?

He did. The question the theologians need to answer is why did he put our oil under the Muslims' land?

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 2, 2009 5:02 PM

Lt. Col Jack Heidman wrote:

The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!

Evolution is doomed! Dooooooooomed!

Posted by: Not that Louis | September 2, 2009 5:07 PM

There are two ways to win a hand of poker. One is to actually have the cards. The other is to raise the stakes to the point where your opponent folds. M. Pascal, I call.

Posted by: Mike Daniels | September 2, 2009 5:09 PM

@#15:

People with this attitude are multiplying like rabbits in the USA.

If they have their way, they'll turn our great secular superpower into nothing more than a belligerent dying empire, one more nation "under God".

But enough on that.

PZ's assessment seems dead on . . . except he misses one possibility. It could be that our author is genuinely concerned about PZ's eternal soul.

There are a handful of "real Christians" who complain that our elected officials don't behave like Christians at all. They toss out a few religious references to get votes, and maybe focus on a couple of hot-button issues like abortion or homosexuality; but not one spends his or her time figuring out how to get the most people to Heaven.

This author might be one of those "real Christians".

Or he might just be a conceited jerk. Whichever.

My response to Pascal's Wager is always pretty much the same as Homer's. "What are YOU going to do when you die if you find out you just spent your whole life pissing off Vishnu?"

Posted by: TheVirginian | September 2, 2009 5:11 PM

A historical footnote on Pascal's Wager. Although it's credited to Pascal, he did not originate it. It was found in his notes after his death and included in his note collection, "Pensees," when it was published.

I have at least 2 earlier uses of it: Thomas More made a similar argument in his 1533 book "The Answer to a Poisoned Book." Arnobius of Sicca used it in "The Case Against the Pagans" in the 3rd century. And a comment in the pagan Roman-era work "On Superstition, attributed to Plutarch, seems to be a reply to a similar (presumably pagan) argument. It criticizes the "superstitious man" who is "afraid not to believe" in gods, which is what Pascal's Wager boils down to.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 2, 2009 5:13 PM

I am an F15 pilot and commercial airline pilot for American Airlines.

American Airlines has its own F15s?

When I'm arguing about economics I trot out my education and experience as an economist. If I'm discussing Pascal's Wager or whether or not the walls of Jerico are undermining evolution (or whatever the Light Colonel's point was), then I don't mention my economics background because it isn't germane to the discussion. "Colossally Stupid Bible Believing Creationist" Heidman might want to consider this the next time he mentions he's a pilot in a discussion of something other than pilotage.

Posted by: LCforevah | September 2, 2009 5:14 PM

Hank @ 146, Sully was within days, already on record expressing exasperation at those who were calling what he did a "miracle." He kept calling it competent piloting and other phrases for the same, all the while NOT making an issue of his own beliefs.

Posted by: Ray C. | September 2, 2009 5:17 PM

This peculiar little email is nothing special, but is actually rather representative.

I call shenanigans. This isn't representative; every single word, or almost every, is spelled correctly.

Posted by: Carlie | September 2, 2009 5:21 PM

Nice link, truebutnotuseful! I've been thinking I need a web page that collates all of those useful type of linky rebuttals for easy reference. I should make one of those one of these days. Not something that's a complete compendium like talkorigins, but a reference point where I can look up "when someone says evolution is doomed" and find a summary or succinct takedown page like that.

As for our pilot, I bet he devoured the Left Behind books, fancying himself as Rayford Steele the entire time.

Posted by: andrew-the anarchist | September 2, 2009 5:28 PM

Is this the most comments PZ has had to a post?
Pascals Wager remind me of Voltaire who said"IF God does not exist it would be necessary yo invent him", Bakunin said " If God exists it would be necessary to abolish him". It is my view that if God exists it is necessary to Prosecute It for Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Genocide.( And wrt the Christian God, Rape, as I belive Mary was told to expect Jesus but not asked first if she wanted Gods Child)

Posted by: bobxxxx | September 2, 2009 5:33 PM

I also know that you know us creationists (especially young earth creationists) are incredibly misinformed and/or stupid.

"creationists (especially young earth creationists) are incredibly misinformed and/or stupid" should be changed to "creationists (especially young earth creationists) are incredibly misinformed AND stupid."

Creationists have been lied to and they have been brainwashed, but we shouldn't forget that every single one of them is as bloody stupid as a person can be. They might be good enough at something to make a good living from it, but anyone who prefers magical creation instead of science is a fucking idiot.

Posted by: Carlie | September 2, 2009 5:38 PM

andrew - getting a thousand or more comments is not uncommon, but this is one of the fast-moving ones.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | September 2, 2009 5:42 PM

What if there's a god and he REALLY REALLY wants everyone to masturbate?

And he hates marriage?

And the only people he'll let in to heaven are people who love sardines?

Posted by: Ken | September 2, 2009 5:48 PM

This is very common in our military's officer corps. Extreme religious fundamentalism is rampant. There are some frightening people at the controls of our military.

Posted by: Mr DArcy | September 2, 2009 5:49 PM

Dawn the once "smug intellectual atheist", will no doubt tell us how many witches she did "not suffer to live" today.(Exodus 22.18) How did you do them in Dawn? With a knife? By Burning? Or just with a missile from an F15? Dawn is quite right. The best way to debunk Christianity is by studying the Bible.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 2, 2009 5:50 PM

What happened to the Paleo-Darwinian Jericho?

Tilting At Windmills, Is Zelazny still writing?
The Killer B's, Card, Niven are still up and about.

Posted by: CJO | September 2, 2009 5:51 PM

I myself am convinced that the peron behind the handle 'Axiom' will be one of the great jokes in the next few posts on this thread. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an argument from authority, presented as it was, without either, could be accepted at all, ever, by anybody.

Posted by: TalkingSnakeBite | September 2, 2009 5:54 PM

There is just no way someone would throw out Pascal's Wager as a viable argument unless they had only recently stumbled across it - and in an all too brief moment of epiphany thought "wow, that is so true".

Which makes me really, really scared to fly on American Airlines now.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 2, 2009 5:57 PM

Is this the most comments PZ has had to a post?

That honor goes to the thread that will not die. Here's a graph showing the history of said thread. It's currently at ~7,500. The thread was originally a video of the upcoming film Watchmen (just to give you an idea of how old it is), descended into a debate between the Pharyngulites and two dimwitted creationists (whose arguments included citing a paranormal journal and claiming some rocks were giant clams), then had some woo heads with bad weed arguing for pansomethingism, and finally has now become an after-hour thread for the regulars.

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 2, 2009 6:00 PM

He also used to ask, "if you don't believe in the BIble what keeps you from stealing or killing people?" To which I would always answer, "I don't need to be afraid of punishment to do the right thing. It's a shame that YOU need to fear punishment to do the right thing."

"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -- Aristotle (writing before Jesus was born)

Posted by: Eidolon | September 2, 2009 6:05 PM

Axiom @387:

Since we're quote mining, I like Michael Palin's take on ol' MM:

"He was just being Muggeridge, preferring to have a very strong contrary opinion as opposed to none at all." This in reference to MM's condemnation of the blasphemy in "Life of Brian".

Hey - quote mining can be sorta fun!!

Posted by: Axiom | September 2, 2009 6:07 PM

Yep, it is friend ;)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 2, 2009 6:11 PM

MAJeff

One of the interesting things to me about this comment thread are the folks in the USAF (in particular) who note what a foothold the fundies have in that branch. Probably not much of a coincidence that the Air Force Academy and the headquarters for Focus on the Family are both in Colorado Springs.

You do know about this, right?

If someone already pointed this out, sorry.

Posted by: MLowe | September 2, 2009 6:21 PM

I'm a 'devout' atheist and proponent of scientific inquiry, but I think you all may be acting a little too dismissively.

Now that I've turned off most of the audience reading this, I'll go on to say that I don't think this guy is trying to brag about being a pilot, or trying put down intelligence. He is probably not well cultured in the god debate (and therefore probably not worthy of your criticism) and when he came across Pascal's Wager, he probably just wanted to hear an atheist's response.

This guy may not be a genius but he's probably not the stubborn Creationist dumbass you all are pinning him as. He was probably brought up to believe in bullshit and didn't care very much for his high school bio class. He's only human. We ought not dismiss him simply for living in an environment that does not foster the more enlightened perspective.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 2, 2009 6:21 PM

Besides, "hell" can mean "luck" in Norwegian.

My ancestors came from the vicinity of Hell. Hmmm. Maybe that explains a few things.

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 2, 2009 6:25 PM

What if there's a god and he REALLY REALLY wants everyone to masturbate? ... And he hates marriage? ... And the only people he'll let in to heaven are people who love sardines?

... Hrm....

Well, I guess I could get divorced. But the sardines... I don't think I can do anything about the sardines...

(/One ticket, please. On the whole, I figure it's the better deal anyway...)

This guy is flying aircraft? Shit. Not good... Hopefully he was drunk when he emailed this...

... and not also flying the aircraft...

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2009 6:27 PM

MLowe, #408: He is probably not well cultured in the god debate (and therefore probably not worthy of your criticism) and when he came across Pascal's Wager, he probably just wanted to hear an atheist's response.

Are we discussing the same opening post? Because the email that I am reading on my browser is as arrogant and snarky as all hell.

But maybe I'm being too unkind. Maybe he is not well cultured in discussing things with adults.

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 2, 2009 6:30 PM

This guy may not be a genius but he's probably not the stubborn Creationist dumbass you all are pinning him as. He was probably brought up to believe in bullshit and didn't care very much for his high school bio class. He's only human. We ought not dismiss him simply for living in an environment that does not foster the more enlightened perspective.

This kind of thinking sounds really condescending.

Posted by: CJO | September 2, 2009 6:31 PM

I just had a vision of the truth machine.

Put me off tortillas for a week, it did.

Posted by: secularskeptic | September 2, 2009 6:32 PM

@Randall #321

Let's try not to be so sensitive. He had a ~98% chance of being right even if we didn't know anything about this guy, but given his profile, I doubt he'd be bragging about flirting with his "cute" lab partner if it was another guy.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2009 6:36 PM

I'm a 'devout' atheist and proponent of scientific inquiry, but I think you all may be acting a little too dismissively.

Now that I've turned off most of the audience reading this, I'll go on to say that I don't think this guy is trying to brag about being a pilot, or trying put down intelligence. He is probably not well cultured in the god debate (and therefore probably not worthy of your criticism) and when he came across Pascal's Wager, he probably just wanted to hear an atheist's response.

This guy may not be a genius but he's probably not the stubborn Creationist dumbass you all are pinning him as. He was probably brought up to believe in bullshit and didn't care very much for his high school bio class. He's only human. We ought not dismiss him simply for living in an environment that does not foster the more enlightened perspective.

We ought not dismiss him simply for living in an environment that does not foster the more enlightened perspective.

All probably true, MLowe, but couldn't that be said for the majority of creationists who post here (or actively work to fuck up education)? I mean, there's a limit to how long you can nod your head and smile at the inanity pitying the poor, home-schooled fool before you want to grab them by the shoulders and scream, "If you hate education so fucking much, then get the hell off the fucking school board, asshole!

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 6:39 PM

I'm glad I just scrolled down to the bottom and saw MLowes post after trying to tread the whole thing and only getting about a quarter of the way through the comments.

You hit the nail on the head MLowe.

The comments on this blog have become a mockery of it. Do you all really think you are so damned smart because you've figured out that Pascal's Wager is a poor argument? Please, do us all a favor and if you don't have an original thought in your head, keep it to your self.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2009 6:43 PM

CatBallou, #369: Pascal argued that acting as if you believe, by developing the virtues associated with faith (humility, charity, etc.), you would eventually develop genuine belief and faith.

That is true. But I would be surprised if any of the evangelists who try this "argument" are aware of this. I bet the vast majority of them think that this argument is purty durn good just as it is.

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 2, 2009 6:47 PM

Is noting that you misspelt "yourself" an unoriginal thought?

Dunno. But I'm thinking either way, he prolly shoulda kept that to hisself...*

(/*Or 'his self'. Whatever...)

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 6:51 PM

Being a pedant is admirable Brownian. Keep at it, it will get you places in life.

The commenters on PZ's blog have ruined it for me. I'll keep reading PZ, because he's a smart guy and an eloquent writer. The rest of you, with a few exceptions, I could do without.

Maybe it's time for some moderation PZ, lest the reputation Pharyngula has for being the epicenter of vitriolic atheist flame wars becomes cemented and this blog spins off in to irrelevance.

Posted by: Atheistic.ca | September 2, 2009 6:52 PM

Man alive, what a puzzling man. I wonder if while this guy is flying his plane, if he chooses to ignore all of the science that has given his plane the ability to leave the ground and perhaps he assumes it is God willing his plane into the air.

Yeah, I'm sure he credits God for flight.

Posted by: Eidolon | September 2, 2009 6:53 PM

Noatheist:
I can only speak for myself but...

Be sure to not let the electrons hit you in the butt on the way out.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 2, 2009 6:55 PM

Notatheist: Go concern troll elsewhere. Thanks.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2009 6:59 PM

Being a pedant is admirable Brownian. Keep at it, it will get you places in life.

The commenters on PZ's blog have ruined it for me. I'll keep reading PZ, because he's a smart guy and an eloquent writer. The rest of you, with a few exceptions, I could do without.

Maybe it's time for some moderation PZ, lest the reputation Pharyngula has for being the epicenter of vitriolic atheist flame wars becomes cemented and this blog spins off in to irrelevance.

Fuck you, you condescending asshole. What the fuck do you think this blog has been? Everybody knows this blog is a barroom, and has been for awhile. If you don't like it, then fuck off. The internet is a big place, and there are a lot of places out there that are a little more to your liking.

Better a pedant than a humorless dick any day of the week.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 2, 2009 7:01 PM

Yes, it takes INTELLECT to fly an F-15. INTELLECT is the whore of INTELLIGENCE. I would also ask this person if he can present either empirical or better yet FIRST HAND knowledge of which he speaks. People like this are so consumed by ego there is no getting through. I formerly worked for a person like this and he almost prided himself on NOT being a critical thinker. Oh and by the way the jews WERE the cause of Hitler's problem. Do your research to find this tidbit out for yourself. HINT: he was the illegitimate son of the House of Rothschild (Bauer) german-jews. It is an interesting story and worth investigation. Might also want to consider exactly WHO wrote the bible on which they stake their alleged spirituality. Google yourself up "Matrix 5" and explore the concept that this ALL might just be a vehicle for experience to achieve spiritual Advancement. You are only judging YOURSELF.

I believe the name of the website you are looking for is called Stormfront or possibly David Icke

or better yet this one.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 2, 2009 7:04 PM

I'm a 'devout' atheist and proponent of scientific inquiry, but I think you all may be acting a little too dismissively.

Now that I've turned off most of the audience reading this, I'll go on to say that I don't think this guy is trying to brag about being a pilot, or trying put down intelligence. He is probably not well cultured in the god debate (and therefore probably not worthy of your criticism) and when he came across Pascal's Wager, he probably just wanted to hear an atheist's response.

This guy may not be a genius but he's probably not the stubborn Creationist dumbass you all are pinning him as. He was probably brought up to believe in bullshit and didn't care very much for his high school bio class. He's only human. We ought not dismiss him simply for living in an environment that does not foster the more enlightened perspective.

MLowe, count yourself lucky that you haven't spent enough time around people like this to understand them.

It is plausible that he is not bragging about being a pilot. However, he is blatantly bragging about not being intellectual. This kind of line is always bragging: "I was too busy flirting with my cute lab partner to pay attention in high school biology class." He thinks he's got a way with women, and you don't, so he's trying to show dominance.

Also he is not genuinely interested in knowing what PZ thinks. You see, there is a part of the Bible that teaches these people to ensure that non-believers are going to hell and cannot be excused for not knowing better. John 15:22.

He did not just learn about Pascal. He is not asking tentative questions. He already knows for certain that he is right and PZ is wrong: "The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!"

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 2, 2009 7:04 PM

Chiroptera, Pascal's Wager is worth nothing more then a multiple choice question on a philosophy 101 exam. You know it, we all know it. Pointing it out over and over again ad nauseum makes this community look, well, stupid.

Well the title to this post is "I get email" and it includes the very email that PZ received. And contained in that email is the smug sarcastic ranting of a person who actually used Pascal's Wager as part of his argument.

So You're right. It shouldn't have been brought up at all.

Good catch mate.

Posted by: Pixelfish | September 2, 2009 7:06 PM

Truthmachine@407: Thanks for responding to my post at 19. I believe I ended with pointing out that it was a false dichotomy.

I don't believe my turning Pascal's Wager back on them was necessarily a bad idea. Rather it was reframing the wager to show how the original works off the false dichotomy, that the choices they assume to be the default aren't the choices at all.

My reframing of the wager comes from experiences I had on one of the ex-Mormon boards. A number of people when confronted with the wager actually did think, "What if I'm wrong, and God doesn't exist?" and found that they didn't really like the answer. The idea that they would spend their life supporting a soul-sucking institution and having a shitty life because they got married at 21 and popped out six kids and spent their life trying to stay ahead of debt while giving ten percent of their income and wearing itchy church-required underwear with no coffee in the mornings. Woot! Do you want to do that on the off-chance that this one religion is the one true religion?

If their God doesn't exist but they believe in it anyway, they aren't clearly harmed -- in fact, the benefits of such beliefs are well known and documented.

Except that they spent the single life they had doing meaningless shit and being somebody's puppet. Sometimes that idea DOES penetrate even the most religious skull.

(Digression: I'm convinced that's why religious folk like to tear down atheists as living meaningless lives, because they recognise on some level, that if they were wrong, everything they are currently doing to appease the invisible sky daddy would be meaningless. But that can't be! So quick, transfer that feeling to the atheists.)

Posted by: John Morales | September 2, 2009 7:12 PM

Notatheist @430, your concern is noted. As is your egoism.

Posted by: sunsetbeachguy | September 2, 2009 7:17 PM

Brownian:

Thanks for the response. Tanta over at Calculated Risk used Unskilled and Unaware to great effect and was just wondering if it had been tried here.

I got my answer, yes and it can't help creationists.

Posted by: John Morales | September 2, 2009 7:20 PM

Jack Heidman:

[1] My stupid creationist question is simple: What if you're wrong? [2] Pascal once said "Are you willing to wager eternity?"

1. Then I'm wrong, but honest — and I stand by the courage of my conviction.

2. I am.

Posted by: raven | September 2, 2009 7:22 PM

notabrain:

The commenters on PZ's blog have ruined it for me. I'll keep reading PZ, because he's a smart guy and an eloquent writer. The rest of you, with a few exceptions, I could do without.

Oh gee. If you are here because someone has a gun pointed at your head, just say so. We will notify Homeland Security and they will be on their way to rescue you.

Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | September 2, 2009 7:30 PM

MAJeff #362

I have no evidence or historical basis for the claim but intuitively it seems obvious why the fundies are enthusiastic about the AF... Nukes.

The navy has its share too of course but very different command and control situation. In the AF you have a couple of people in a silo complex with their finger on the trigger of a hand full of MIRVs.

Now is it getting scarey?

PZ's comment at #61 struck a chord with me. I have often resented people with great accomplishment in any field being referred to as "talented". Worse still are terms like gifted. It seems more like an insult than a compliment. In many cases I think it is intended so. I hope I am correct in inferring that Dr. Myers tends to look up his students' accomplishments as a function of their own effort and dedication rather than assume that some are gifted and some are not.

Too many other comments to comment on...

Posted by: mb | September 2, 2009 7:32 PM

If you look at the article which the Lt. Col. plagiarized the bit near the end of his e-mail from, you can see that it takes its name from and emphasizes this Richard Dawkins quote: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Posted by: Sherry | September 2, 2009 7:37 PM

BACK TO COL JACK:

AngryAirFoceRetiree @301
I see that his CO is a graduate of Baylor?
So -- he is unlikely to take any action whatsoever.

No counseling, no bad mark in Jack's OPR.
No reason to expend any energy on this unless it's addressed further up the chain of command. Just saying...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 2, 2009 7:39 PM

I think it's a tad unfair to criticize a discussion of Pascal's-freaking-Wager for being redundant and unoriginal. Just how many original rebuttals are we supposed to come up with for one of the most hackneyed, worn-out arguments in apologetics?

I think that some people just don't like ridicule.

/shrug.

It may be cheap, but sometimes it's the perfect response.

Posted by: Huey | September 2, 2009 7:42 PM

Shit! don't none of you know nuthing!

Posted by: Sherry | September 2, 2009 7:45 PM

Any chance the Pascal's discussion can go somewhere else?

The joker who authored the e-mail is worth talking about.
I'd like to see a miscreant like him get what he deserves.
We really can bring attention to this email to Air Force higher ups, but not by arguing about "the wager".

Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 2, 2009 7:55 PM

'TisHimself, sorry to hear that. One of the first Sci-Fi books I read was "This Immortal (...And Call Me Conrad)" 40 years ago.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 2, 2009 7:57 PM

As MB points out he plagiarized the second last paragraph:

Article from Apologetics Press,

The walls of their Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around them. They know it. They’ve known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!

Jack,

The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!

The article is titled: "Those Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, Wicked Creationists"

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 8:01 PM

John, EV and Raven, thanks for the baseless insults, and the confirmation of exactly the point I'm making.

I think it's perfectly reasonable and has nothing to do with my ego to point out that this blog entry has 450 COMMENTS!, the vast majority of which are redundant and equate to "me too! I know why Pascal was wrong too!".

Now if you had something else worthwhile to post, like Jim Tatro just now, then more power to you! I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of intelligent people here with interesting things to say, or that I'm more intelligent then any one of you. The point I'm after, is that there's ALSO a layer of vitriolic name calling and unsophisticated blather that has to be dug through to get to the good stuff, and that layer is getting deeper and deeper by the day. We don't all have 3 hours to read the comments on a blog post, and the best blogs make an effort to keep the discussions concise and on point.

I prefer to read the comments, precisely because 99% of the time, someone is going to say what I was thinking and say it in a way that is immensely better then the way I would have said it. It's only occassionally that I find myself thinking of an angle that hasn't otherwise been presented, or was presented poorly.

If you guys are so proud of the community here, and think it's so worthwhile, you should be agreeing with me and making an effort to lower the noise floor so the signal can get through, otherwise, whats the point? I've seen countless forums be reduced to inanity and uselessness by exactly these mechanisms. I'd rather not see it happen here, but it's apparently already too late.

All that being said, I understand why you guys are so angry with me; Someone who takes no part in the community comes in and basically tells you all that you are a bunch of boring sheeple, your anger is justified, although I think you'd all be forced to agree that name calling and some of the other conduct I've unfortunately uncovered are never worthwhile. I of course know that I'm not above having used similar tactics, it's just best to make an effort to avoid reducing any discussion to that.

Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | September 2, 2009 8:04 PM

Pray the Air Force Academy gets an Amish Zoroastrian commandant before it goes down in flames

Posted by: Sastra | September 2, 2009 8:06 PM

Notatheist #439 wrote:

There could have been a very interesting discussion in these comments about the narcissism of religion, but it's been deflated and overrun by a bunch of rookies who think debunking Pascal's Wager makes them smart or interesting.

The two topics aren't mutually exclusive. The flaws in Pascal's Wager may rest at least in part on the narcissism of religion.

I think that a lot of the people who bring out Pascal's Wager really do believe that, by acting as if you believe in God, you will eventually come to believe in God sincerely. "Fake it, till you make it."

I remember running into a 12-Step Program pamphlet in a hospital waiting room, and reading a hypothetical question: "What if I don't believe in a Higher Power?" The response was that you ought to create belief from non-belief by forming a conscious habit of saying "thank you" every time something good happened -- the sun was shining, a bird was singing, a bus was on time, whatever. "Thank you, God. I appreciate that, Spirit. How nice, Higher Power."

Get into the routine of expressing gratitude, and evoking feelings of gratitude, towards an imagined invisible, ever-present POWER. Learn to see everything as having a message. Treat each event as specially directed towards you. Eventually, the seeker was assured of feeling the 'presence' of a Higher Power. You will pass from imagining, to believing, by small degrees.

There was no sense that any of this was intellectually dishonest, or artificial, or forced. No, this was how one ought to naturally and normally induce faith. Not through reason, but by practicing the right emotions.

And all of it is incredibly narcisstic, but gives off the impression of humility.

There's a chance the pilot was trying to humble himself by calling himself "stupid" -- evoke the image of meekness, and disarm PZ. Heck, don't just pretend to be meek -- be meek. Wallow in it, till you're sincere. Go through the motions of humility and feel humble -- and that way you will humble others, who want to learn to be like you.

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 2, 2009 8:09 PM

The commenters on PZ's blog have ruined it for me. I'll keep reading PZ, because he's a smart guy and an eloquent writer. The rest of you, with a few exceptions, I could do without.

Maybe it's time for some moderation PZ, lest the reputation Pharyngula has for being the epicenter of vitriolic atheist flame wars becomes cemented and this blog spins off in to irrelevance.

1. Stop reading the comments. Nothing says that by being here you need to read anyone else's opinion on the matter.

2. Be the change you want to see on the blog. Can you bring intelligence anc eloquence to the comments? Can you incite discussion in the way you want to see it?

To me, a comment like the one you made above is nothing more than a passive aggressive attempt to take the moral high-ground. You can leave, you can try to make the change you want to see here, but to ask PZ to moderate it so it fits your tastes? Just wow

Posted by: Qwerty | September 2, 2009 8:15 PM

There are requests to take the conversation off on a different tack. So, any Minnesotan worth his lefsa knows a person hasn't grown up here by they way they pronounce Wayzata.

Just another tidbit of worthless information.

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 8:20 PM

Now that i'm here and all riled up, I might as well actually contribute.

Sastra, thanks for that take on what I was trying to say. I agree with you, they aren't mutually exclusive. The narcissism of religion has always been it's 800 pound gorilla in the room to me. Even as a teenager who didn't know the first thing about the real arguments against religion and God, it always seemed odd to me that the religious had no problem putting themselves upon a pedestal by insisting that they were somehow more in touch with this supposed higher power then any one else who didn't believe what they did.

I see the same pattern in all irrational thinking, whether it be truthers, birthers, psychics or CAM practitioners, it always boils down to the idea that "I know something you don't". Seems to me that there is one group of people that avoids this egocentric pitfall, and that is the group that says the scientists who dedicate their lives to empirical study know something that I don't, and I'd like to to understand a tiny fraction of what they do about the universe." Knowledge is something to aspire to, not something you claim to already have.

Posted by: Korbl | September 2, 2009 8:21 PM

They say the true torment of Hell is the absence of God.

To which I say "Good Riddance, I never felt him in life anyway."

Posted by: Buzz | September 2, 2009 8:22 PM

@ 226, Michael Simpson - "Military academies do not focus on basic science, but applied science like Engineering and Aerospace...The military academies don't teach critical thinking in science."

The Air Force Academy has an entire division called the Basic Science division, from which you can get such basic science degrees as biology, chemistry and physics. I'm not sure you well-enough informed to be making such pronouncements.

@465 - While using his rank was inappropriate, I think you are reaching if you believe that the Lt Col is going to get in trouble for this. Even if you could pin down a solid violation of regulation, it would be a minor infraction and probably carry no more punishment than an admonishment.

While Eagle pilots aren't nearly as bad as their rep, this does jive with at least a certain subset. As an aside, while it's obvious the Lt Col is an F-15 pilot, I've been working in that community for over five years now and never seen anyone write it without the hyphen like he did. Meaningless, but odd. Maybe he's not good with computers either.

Posted by: maxamillion | September 2, 2009 8:22 PM

I am always amused by people that advance "Pascals Wager".
Surely feigned belief in a deity would be a SIN!

Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | September 2, 2009 8:23 PM

Pixelfish #446 or thereabouts...

Your point seems concise to me but I would add that the older one gets the more insanely difficult it becomes to admit to yourself that you have been living a lie when the realization finally strikes you. If you are unfortunate enough to come to this realization only minutes before your death or less, then you must accept that your entire life was in a sense a lie, and spent in some measure enabling those who cynically and mercilessly capitalize on that lie out of their greed for power over others, and wealth which are somewhat the same thing.

It is one thing to live a mistaken life, to blunder through and manage or not to avoid worst case scenarios. I think that is what many religious people do, they believe because they can't figure out any other way to cope and their options seem so limited (they are surrounded by believers). For many of them, thanks to the efforts of the group to which they belong, the thought never crosses their mind that it all may be a lie. Once that thought arises....

Then there are those who know full well as you and I that it is all a lie, but they exploit it. They are the chosen, the elect, their dog speaks to them and they speak to us, they are the go between, the facilitator, the brokers. They also are the ones who obstruct every effort to increase the common good of humanity by sound, reasoned policies and actions. They promote poverty and ignorance, they know all too well the more one suffers the less one thinks. They are the worst kind of parasites. Their product is a con that is disprovable, unlike most, no one comes back from the dead and says - folks, it's all a con, when you die, you are dead. So they fear and hate atheists. We are all that stands between them and total hegemony, which they indeed virtually possessed for many centuries. To them we are worse than Satan because at least Satan fears god in their minds. We don't.

Often when I am challenged by a believer as to "why" I think there is no such thing as dog, my answer is - just lucky I guess. While it is not a very good answer in most respects, it does save a lot of time, time that to me is precious.

Posted by: John Morales | September 2, 2009 8:31 PM

Notatheist:

Knowledge is something to aspire to, not something you claim to already have.

So, is this something that you know? ;)

Posted by: Laurie | September 2, 2009 8:32 PM

Notatheist@483--

I will bite! You have made a sensible comment about the narcissism of many strains of religious belief (though I would submit that what you describe is more correctly described as arrogance). But your handle is "notatheist." What has led you to retain a belief in a god or gods, notwithtstanding your recognition of the 800-pound gorilla in the room?

Posted by: E.V. | September 2, 2009 8:34 PM

Notatheist:

Learn to bluster (not whine) and learn to scan. As you pointed out, not every post is a gem.
It's the manner in which you chose to "announce your departure. It is the dreaded enfant terrible I'm going to make a huge mess, you're going to have to deal with it and clean it up and then I'll return later and act as if nothing ever happened (or ingratiate yourself to PZ) that makes me want to "find your inner child and kicks its little ass".(Don Henley's Get Over It)

Why would anyone not consider you part of the community after 2 or 3 posts? There are people who rarely post who have every right to consider themselves a part of the Pharyngula community just as there are thousands of lurkers who do as well. You think Walton doesn't consider himself a part of the forum? The insults, flames and stepped on toes come with the territory, where coarseness is shrugged off and you learn give as good as you get. There is satire, humor and rudeness here coming from some sharp thinkers and jesters among the rabble. You may prefer a more genteel forum but the "You people.../I'm never coming back" is just bad form.

Lead - throw out an idea, a concept; expound upon it. Sastra will show up sooner or later, SC, Knockgoats, AJ, Sven, John, Carlie, Windy (David has been MIA?) and countless others you've insulted will add to/detract from or ignore your posts. The Aussie twins and I will snipe and Smoggy will perform his own brand of satire. You're part of the party!

We can't read minds and for you to jump up and scream "NO, NO, NO! - this is ALL wrong" is perplexing and infuriating.

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 8:38 PM

John, It was precisely because the noise was so elevated that I thought it might be a good opportunity to take note of it. It's not the first time I've thought this and held off on pointing it out. Now that I've thrown it out there, I have no interest in beating the dead horse. Some of you might agree with me, the vast majority may not, either way, it's out there.

Kel, stop with the concern troll BS. It's a weasel word intended to impugn my motives. I am concerned, precisely because this has been for me a place to come and find intelligent people having intelligent discussions and I see it slipping off the rails. There's nothing wrong with expressing this concern. I also never asked PZ to moderate the blog to my tastes, I asked if it might be a good time to institute the same sort of moderation methods a thousand other blogs have implemented in order to keep them from turning into another youtube chat room, that is all. I even phrased it as a question specifically because I'm not the person to demand it or stipulate how it should be done. I simply suggested it.

Whether you guys like it or not, the reputation I eluded to is out there about this community, and not because of me. If you are all ok with it, and PZ is ok with it, that's fine by me. Again, it will be my loss alone I guess that I'm going to miss out on some good discussions simply because I can't take the time to wade through 500 posts to find the 100 good ones.

With that, I'm done. I have nothing more to add on this subject and I apologize for sidetracking the thread. I just thought it was time to finally express my frustration over the situation.

Posted by: SinSeeker | September 2, 2009 8:39 PM

If you really wanted to take Pascal's wager as Pascal probably intended it, wouldn't you need to convert to Jansenism? After all, that's the branch of Catholicism that Pascal was involved with.

Presumably if you're not a Jansenist you're off to the eternal barbecue in the sky?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2009 8:40 PM

Laurie, I think notatheist's handle should be parsed as "not a theist" as opposed to "not atheist", though I could be wrong.

Now that i'm here and all riled up, I might as well actually contribute.

That's the spirit!

As I was composing while you were writing that, please feel free to consider my comment as food for thought (if you don't feel like responding) and continue with your discussion.

Posted by: articulett | September 2, 2009 8:42 PM

I just feel like gloating a little. I saw the fatal flaw with Pascal's wager in my early teens. Having friends with different religions, I realized there was really no way to tell who was believing in the right invisible entity with the right fervor and following the correct rubric--there was no way to tell "the TRUE religion" from myth.

It makes me quite merry to realize that I'm smarter than a fighter pilot.

Posted by: Eidolon | September 2, 2009 8:47 PM

Noatheist:

sorry mac - I think EV @ 457 has it right. Either dazzle us with your brilliance or STFU. As Raven @ 454 said, you're being forced to be here. BTW, how is that a baseless insult? If you come in here thrashing about, throwing rocks, don't expect a warm reception. come in here honestly and you'd be amazed at the responses you get. I'll point you back to the thread a while back responding to Nikki.

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 8:50 PM

Not "Done" with the community, "done" with that discussion.

John and EV, your last two posts were accurate, and you both made very good points. I see now a little better where you are coming from. I assume we're all better listeners when were not being talked down to.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2009 8:52 PM

What? Wowbagger, Kel and Rorschach are all Aussies?

Gross.

Posted by: Fred | September 2, 2009 8:55 PM

An F-15 pilot? Sorry, only X-15 pilots are qualified to talk about god.

Posted by: What | September 2, 2009 8:57 PM

What if there isn't a negative number of gods?

The amount of credence lent to Pascal's Wager bt an individual is inversely proportional to that individual's intelligence.

Really. How stupid do you have to be ...

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 2, 2009 8:57 PM

(In no particular order) Kel, Rorschach, John Morales, Wowbagger, Bride of Shrek, and maybe a half dozen more...

He mentioned John separately - which I think is fair enough; he's certainly a level (or more) about me so I don't mind him getting a specific mention - and Bride of Shrek doesn't necessarily post often enough (sadly) for everyone to be immediately familiar with the name or know that she's another downunderer.

Kel, Rorschach and myself tend to get (quite fairly) lumped together 'cause we're similarly snarky and post at the same time, i.e. when most of the rest of you are asleep.

Well, with the exception of Nerd, who appears to need all of about 4 hours a night...

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 2, 2009 9:02 PM

Re the Wager, I was most amused in the movie The Mummy, when Beni met the eponymous mummy and was well-prepared — he pulled out various holy symbols in turn (and recited the corresponding prayers) until one worked! :)

I loved that scene too! Of course, the point was to demonstrate Beni's overly pragmatic, lookin'-out-for-number-one attitude. I never once considered it might be an attitude sensible Pascal's Wagering theists would applaud, as I presume they must.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 2, 2009 9:06 PM

Basically, if you don't like the tone of a thread, you have three choices: a) ignore the posts you don't like, b) attempt to steer it in another direction without moaning about it, or c) fuck off.

If you can't manage a) or b) then c) is your only option.

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 2, 2009 9:11 PM

I snipe? It doesn't sound like my posting style. I liken it to repeatedly beating someone over the head with a heavy blunt instrument. I don't have the linguistic eloquence to snipe.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | September 2, 2009 9:14 PM

I'm sick and tired of the people who go on and on. Then they go on some more. After that, they go on and on. Then, sometimes, they're even discourteous to boot! It's primarily those people--the ones who go on and on and who are also discourteous--that really get my goat. The other ones--those who simply go on and on without being discourteous--well, they're not quite as bad, but I've still got my eye on them. Let that be a lesson to us all.

Posted by: bobxxxx | September 2, 2009 9:15 PM

Back when I was still teaching I was berated by a Christian parent for asking her child to think. She told me that she believed that thinking was how Satan got into peoples' minds and that we shouldn't encourage children to do it.

Wow.

That really explains everything, doesn't it?

I would very much like to see these Christian assholes, who destroy the lives of innocent children, put in prison.

Posted by: jorge | September 2, 2009 9:20 PM

#319

By regulation, Federal Employees are prohibited from using their rank or military association when sending stupidity. The Federal Government CANNOT be even perceived as endorsing a particular religion or outlook.

Jack the twit is wrong on so many levels.

Posted by: Sastra | September 2, 2009 9:24 PM

bobxxxx #426 wrote:

I would very much like to see these Christian assholes, who destroy the lives of innocent children, put in prison.

Prison? What, for the psychological abuse of telling children it's bad for them to think? No. The power of the state should never extend that far. If it did, it would soon be turned to imprison people who dare tell children it's okay to think there's no God.

Posted by: Brad | September 2, 2009 9:27 PM

Well, if there is a God, and he created the universe according to a Plan, and we all have a part in this Plan, and can't derail it, and things are going according to this Plan and will in the future forever and ever etc...
Then it is part of God's plan that I don't believe in him. In fact, it is an essential part of God's plan that I, particularly, am an atheist. I feel so special now.

Pascal's wager is a lame argument for belief, it is not an argument for the existence for any god. "Suppose God exists, or he doesn't."

Posted by: Bobh | September 2, 2009 9:31 PM

I'm a pilot for a rival airline. There are quite a few of us who are non-believers. Most of the rabid young earth super christians are from a military background and most of those are Air Force. I think the USAF has been taken over by militant christians.

Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | September 2, 2009 9:37 PM

1) There is no god
and I'm not either.

2) I was reading Michael Tobis the other day, and he makes a pretty good argument for a kind of experiential based non-god of some sort, that I didn't really get, but it didn't require pascal's wager to believe in.

3) Remind me never to fly again, that is, if this guy is saying it takes faith to pilot one of those things.

Posted by: AJ Milne | September 2, 2009 9:39 PM

I think the USAF has been taken over by militant christians.

Funny you should mention. Seem to recall a whole lot of coverage a few years ago concerning a lot of ugly church and state issues and officially sanctioned prosyletizing at a USAF academy--think it was in Virginia? But I can't recall what ever happened there... Been a while.

Posted by: John Morales | September 2, 2009 9:46 PM

re religion in the armed forces (US):
A question of faith
Religious bias and coercion undermine military leadership and trust
(by Barry S. Fagin and LT. COL. James E. Parco)

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 9:48 PM

Kel, a concern troll would be someone who lies about their true view on a subject and accuses people of being uncivil or mean with the nefarious intention of sidetracking a debate. Unless you are accusing me of lying about being an atheist just so I could sidetrack this 500 comment long thread, then really dude, get off your forum police high horse and acknowledge that I've already capitulated to those who think I could have been more tactful. I agree, but frustration gets the best of us sometimes.

Jeff@519 - Gimme a few minutes to compose something, I have some distractions IRL. I'm not ignoring you.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 2, 2009 9:54 PM

Kel, a concern troll would be someone who lies about their true view on a subject and accuses people of being uncivil or mean with the nefarious intention of sidetracking a debate.

Originally, yes. But the current use of the term is to describe someone who moans about the tone or 'meanness' of posters. Language evolves; this is an example.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 2, 2009 9:59 PM

the nazi SS's slogan "gott mit uns"

My SWOTI syndrome has been triggered. It was the German Army (Heer) whose motto was Gott mit Uns. The SS (Schutzstaffel or "Protective Element") motto was Meine Ehre heißt Treue (my honor is loyalty).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 2, 2009 10:02 PM

Oops, in #546 that should be "SIWOTI".

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 2, 2009 10:15 PM

Kel, a concern troll would be someone who lies about their true view on a subject and accuses people of being uncivil or mean with the nefarious intention of sidetracking a debate.

It's interesting though that you're hung up on the label itself rather than the substance I wrote on your posts. I"m not accusing you of lying about anything, I'm calling out what I see as you "trolling" here with your concerns about the style and presentation that people use to present their arguments. And on that "concerned troll is concerned" comes to mind.

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 10:27 PM

John, yes I have ;)

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 2, 2009 10:29 PM

Here's what I just saw happen:

Notatheist finally admitted that he agreed with PZ, after complaining about how this is nothing new and we've seen it all before. He earlier complained about how we're such a self-congratulatory bunch... then became self-masturbatory in an attempt to turn the conversation to a new subject. As Brownian said earlier:

"Wah. PZ, everybody's not having the conversation I want them to have."

*ducks*

Posted by: Notatheist | September 2, 2009 10:39 PM

Mark of a true asshole (see I don't need clever words from urban dictionary), talk about someone in third person when you know they will read it.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 2, 2009 10:41 PM

Mark of a true troll: Derailing the conversation for over 200 goddamn posts in an attempt to start a completely unrelated one.

Oopsies.

Posted by: Lee Picton | September 2, 2009 10:44 PM

I waded through all the comments(!) to make sure I wasn't being more than a little redundant. I side with those who disagree with PZ's take on the flyboy. He is Uriah Heep redux.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 2, 2009 10:54 PM

Out of curiosity, which is your favorite episode?

Posted by: Trug | September 2, 2009 11:02 PM

Jim @ 451:

Doubt that you ran into me at Misawa, I was there just a few years back. I can't say for sure since I wasn't a flightline guy, but what I saw of the officers out there in my time was a little different from what you described in your post. Could be I just had the bad luck to run into some of the more extreme examples, or maybe the fliers in the USAF have gone a little more toward becoming the kind of officers like our good friend the Lt. Col. up there.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | September 2, 2009 11:10 PM

Thespis.

Excellent. I have a hard time selecting one above the rest, but if forced I'd probably waffle uselessly between The Hungry and the Hunted, The Quality of Mercy at 29K, and The Reunion.

And The Giants Win the Pennant. But those are it for the top slots.

Except maybe The Six Southern Gentlemen of Tennessee and Shoe Money Tonight. Oh and Dear Louise, but that's where I'd have to draw the line.

O.k., fine, The Cut Man Cometh, too. That's it, though.

I always knew I could narrow it down.

No kings,

Robert

P.S. Too late to add Eli's Coming? Yeah, o.k.

Posted by: Rorschach | September 2, 2009 11:12 PM

Bloody hell, 550 comments already !

Way back @ 140,

He probably thinks that firing missiles into Muslim villages is God's will too.

That's the problem.
Fighter pilots for jeebus who believe thinking is elitist and bad for you.

Posted by: friendthegirl | September 2, 2009 11:15 PM

Even before I get to the next reasonable point in the conversation, where you ask, "Well, what if you're wrong, too?" I get stuck on what they mean by "believe." If "believing" is something that you can just decide to do -- not because the belief itself makes sense, but because believing a thing that doesn't make a good cover, then can these people possibly know what belief really is?

I guess to them belief is actually superficial enough for this wager to make perfect sense to them, in the same way that their morality is not something intrinsic (i.e. - If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from committing murder?).

If you can seriously pose Pascal's Wager, your understanding of the word "believe" has got to be all messed up.

Posted by: Kelly | September 2, 2009 11:19 PM

To: Strange Gods Before Me:

Graduated USAFA in 1995, taught from 99-01

Posted by: JD Middleton | September 2, 2009 11:30 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so willing to believe in science when it suits their needs. In this case a pilot who is willing to put his life on the line, and the lives of others, based on the scientific principles that allow man to fly in heavier than air crafts. However, they are very quick to discount the same scientific method when it conflicts with their particular pet superstition. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, what if he is wrong about every other god?

Posted by: The skepTick | September 2, 2009 11:31 PM

I'm willing to bet that Heidman thinks of P.Z. and all other intellectuals as elitists, and the only way he can deal with elitists is by adopting his sneering tone. What he doesn't know is that elitism starts at home. So when Johnny or Janey brings home those straight A's, he should reach for the belt.

Posted by: Anri | September 2, 2009 11:43 PM

Speaking purely for myself, when I stop hearing the Wager, I'll stop refuting it.

Until then, I don't mind hearing other people's take on how they deal with it - many people here are much better writers than me, and I hope to shamelessly steal their pithier sound bites.

.
.
Um, I mean borrow their phraseology...

Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 2, 2009 11:49 PM

Monado, it seems anti-intellectualism has been part of the fabric of America for at least 50 years going back to the McArthy hearings or even back to WWI. It may be more noticable due to the power of TV and the internet reinforcing and extending the social dumbing down effect of popular culture.

Posted by: TiltingAtWindmills | September 2, 2009 11:52 PM

Is Zelazny still writing?

As was mentioned earlier, Zelazny died in 1995 from cancer. He was only 58. His books "Lord of Light" and "Creatures of Light and Darkness" were brilliant. Perhaps I am showing my age, but to me the best science fiction was written in the late 60's and early 70's before fantasy took over the science fiction world.

Posted by: Katkinkate | September 3, 2009 12:11 AM

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood @ 25 "One thing: I would be careful of trying to imply that being an F-15 driver is not a major exercise of the brain. The guys who get there tend to have majored in a fairly technical discipline such as math or physics. Flying a fighter jet or an airliner is less a stick-and-throttle reflexes thing and more a major task of systems management. The workload is colossal. It requires skill, discipline and not a little intelligence. F-15 pilots don't lack brains. ..."

I knew a commercial pilot a long time ago and he said once that the commercial companies preferred their pilots bright, like over average intelligence, but not too bright. He said the very highly intelligent tend to get too curious and experimental with the procedures and can get bored with what they are doing too quickly. Both circumstances that can lead to very expensive crashes.

Posted by: Bean | September 3, 2009 12:21 AM

"He didn't believe in wasting time learning in high school, when he could instead make time with the girls."

Okay, being in high school right now I can tell you that I do this ALL THE TIME, and it's really not something to reprimand him for.

Posted by: Kelly | September 3, 2009 12:34 AM

Eidolon:
I took a couple of SCUBA classes at USAFA, but none downtown COS.

I think I'll go worship the God of Bermuda while I'm down here in Sawgrass. I try to practice my religion every weekend:) It's best to play it safe, you know...

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 3, 2009 12:49 AM

Obviously if you can afford it you should be buried in a tomb with an iron chariot and iron weapons, so that you can defend yourself in case Yahweh tries to cast you out of the heavens.

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | September 3, 2009 1:11 AM

Pascal's Wager is a sucker bet. No matter which God you choose, you lose.

If you are an atheist and take the wager and God is one that punishes you forever for not believing (and you don't actually, in fact, believe) you go to Hell. If God is one that rewards good works regardless, then you didn't need to believe after all, and spent your life in vain worship of a God that doesn't care about worship. You might as well accept Evolution, either way.

My belief is we should do the right thing 'cause it's the right thing to do. A literal interpretation of Genesis is not the right thing, and never was.

And yes, Jack - fighter pilot and airline pilot, I stake what you believe is my eternal soul on this.

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | September 3, 2009 1:24 AM

#563 Posted by: CatBallou on September 2, 2009 10:59 PM

DazedNConfuzed, your example is stupid and so is your conclusion. We're not talking about convincing yourself of something that you clearly don't believe, such as a different color for the sky. But can people talk themselves into believing something that they want to believe? Absolutely--it happens every day. Sastra's reference to 12-step programs is an excellent example.

I don't think choosing to believe is as effective as you think. I tried very hard to believe for far too long. I thought my eternal soul depended on it, since everyone around me kept telling me it did. I never really believed, though, it isn't in me - at least not the literal faith in the word as written. I went as far as reading the bible and studying about it. That was the final blow to my faith, of course.

Perhaps some people can talk themselves into believing. I can't - I couldn't even when I was desparate to believe and tried the best that I knew how.

Posted by: dtlocke | September 3, 2009 1:34 AM

BrentH, 587: great comment!

Posted by: Pascalle | September 3, 2009 1:54 AM

@ Dawn..

You probably weren't a true Atheist.

(oohh.. look what i did there!)

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | September 3, 2009 2:01 AM

#239 Posted by: Dawn on September 2, 2009 2:55 PM

Like many of the comments here, I, too, was a smug intellectual atheist.

You don't sound like it. I suppose congratulations are in order for so thoroughly shedding your intellectual cloak.

I notice that many of you use the exact same reasoning, wording and thought processes that I once employed. I have to laugh now when I recognize the ignorance and fallacy in these words.

Which wording and thought processes might those be. I'd like to see if I recognize them in myself.

Not one of you here has made a reasoned argument--because not one of you has the actual knowledge to do so. What a hypocrisy!

You really believe this? Odd. Nice how such blanket statements are a challenge for us to repeat ourselves ad nausium. First of all, which arguments were we supposed to be discussing here? The original post is about a message PZ received. There was little in the message to actually argue. The man claimed our intelligence is superior and his is poor. OK, we debunked that to a degree by discussing how being a fighter pilot actually does require intelligence. He also plopped Pascal's Wager down before us - which we also discussed, and disagreed with - Pascal's Wager doesn't stand up to real scrutiny - which God is the God one must bet their eternal soul upon? Does it matter? If not, the wager is moot. If it does, then most choices will be wrong. Eitherway, I choose to live according to real evidence and not fairy tails written long before we had the tools necessary to understand the world, and stories which quite frankly, weren't even original when written.

I recognize it plainly, as it was the badge that I previously wore as well.

Again, please explain what you mean. I'm apparently too dimwitted to understand your message.

I suggest that the best way to "debunk" Christianity is to take the time to actually study the subject. Learn the Bible.

I did. I read the Bible - not just the pick and choose most Christians do, but the whole bible (ok, I admit I skipped a bunch of begats). Then I went the next step and read about the authors of the bible - the real, human ones. I read about the historical context of the stories, the books, the tales, and the poetry. I also read how the bible came to be editted and fragmented and strewn about. It is a book (or collection, really) written by men to control other men.

Then you will have the required knowledge to debunk it.

I quite agree.

Otherwise, you are just a blowhard who is smugly intellectual with no facts to back it up.

I recommend a quick trip to the mirror on that smug bit. Or just reread your op.

And, yes, I am now a Christian.

And I am not.

And, yes, I have degrees in mathematics.

And what does that have to do with religion and philosophy? My minor is in mathematics - what does that prove? That I didn't like maths as much as you?

First, foremost, and forever, the vast majority of the folks here do have a deep understanding of the biblical works, and likely not just one edition, or interpretation, of the bible. Preaching to them to go read it and learn and praise god will draw only laughter and derision. Think about what you write and who you are writing to. A careful little peek will reveal a great deal of experience with Christian literature. Many of us arrived at our conclusions about god as a result, not inspite of, or from a lack of such experience.

Posted by: javedahmad | September 3, 2009 2:10 AM

2. Faith, Logic and the Truth
Preface: A contemporary study of "Science, Religion & Philosophy". A challenging approach to understand God. (November, 1995)

http://www.geocities.com/javedahmad/Javed.htm

Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 3, 2009 2:15 AM

http://www.geocities.com/javedahmad/Javed.htm

Why should anyone take the time to read this drivel?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 3, 2009 2:25 AM

he isn't being smarmy, smug, obnoxious or unpleasant

Another person with a severe lack of perspicacity.

"The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You've known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!"

Yeah, nothing smug there.

Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords | September 3, 2009 2:41 AM

It isn't a problem of intelligence, but a problem of what I would describe as "honest curiosity".

When meeting a "believer" (in religion or whatever) who advocates a childish and ridiculous theory on something about which much is known, the thing I immediately ask myself is: does this person have ANY real interest in the subject?
As Richard Dawkins has often found in talking with ordinary people who "hate" the ToE, should his brief introduction to the wonders of the evidence elicit curiosity, that person is one with whom discussion (and, eventually, even a limited agreement) can take place. If not, the person is in essence your enemy, and one whom will now have to demonstrate any change of their untenable - and utterly, transparently dishonest - position.

This "pilot" seems so comfortable with his idiocy that debate is useless...

...so WHY did he BOTHER TO WRITE?

Posted by: Notatheist | September 3, 2009 2:56 AM

"Religion is like a philosophical homeopathic placebo."

Right on, that's a brilliant analogy.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 3, 2009 3:00 AM

Oh, and - in 600+ posts - did ANYONE try to even partially defend this "stupid pilot"?

There's a lack of witness, snivelling, lying Xians here! Where are Dumbski's classes' kids?

There were two posts (209 and 239) that tried, but we kinda ripped them to shreds.

Posted by: ian | September 3, 2009 3:15 AM

Pretending to believe in God because of Pascal's Wager is not a ticket to heaven unless God is either stupid or morally bent and telling non-believers to believe in God on the basis of Pascal's Wager exposes the cynical rot at the core of their beliefs and may in fact be a ticket to hell.

Posted by: GAZZA | September 3, 2009 3:46 AM

TiltingAtWindmills@582: Zelazny is one of my all time favourite authors, but the fact that you specifically call out Lord of Light confuses me when you say (paraphrased) "science fiction was best before fantasy got in". For a few reasons.

Firstly, Lord of Light is, at the very least, "science fantasy". Without resort to spoilers - seriously people, this is a deserving winner of Hugo and Nebula awards, and you owe it to yourself to read the great man's best novel - there are clearly characters in this novel capable of feats that are best described as at least mildly psionic in nature. And his Amber series, which is made of pure win (the Corwin series more than the Merlin series, admittedly), is pure fantasy. I mean no derision when I say this - I do not regard science fiction as "better" or "worse" than fantasy, merely different.

Secondly, the genre of science fiction has gradually tended to get "harder" rather than "softer". Another favourite series of mine is E E Doc Smith's Lensman series. Space Opera at its finest, which is basically just "fantasy in space". Few authors that attempted to write something in the same vein nowadays would pass their works off as science fiction; authors such as Peter Hamilton or David Weber, even writing in the same basic genre, are at least attempting to give their works a more thorough scientific grounding (I believe the usual guideline is that you can break one scientific law, as long as you do it consistently).

Just my opinion - I suspect we even like the same sorts of authors, but I we apparently disagree on when the "fantasy" began to enter the "science fiction" genre. I'd say it's always been there - and I'd disagree that it makes it automatically worse.

Posted by: Rahul | September 3, 2009 3:54 AM

@Tilting at windmills -> care to make a few recommendations from that era ? Am a huge sci fi + fantasy geek but been reading mostly post 80's stuff ( Besides Asimov and Philip K Dick ) I agree that recently there has been a plague of very mediocre multi volume epic sagas ( George RR Martin is decent though),but there is also some really good stuff around like Pratchett and Gaiman.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 3, 2009 4:16 AM

Okay, so lets answer it:

I could say that picking your faith would be equivelant to picking a lottery number for the chance you have of getting precisely the right one.

I could also argue that bribery isn't exactly the sort of reasoning I respect.

Instead, I am going to point out the argument for Satanism:

Most of histories greatest scientists, philosophers, poets, engineers and musicians were not Christians or Christians of your given denomination. Those that were probably still wouldn't have made it.

The people who will get into heaven, for the most part are people who you wouldn't want as neighbours. They are fanatics (God vomits the lukewarm), the poor (Jesus on camels and needles' eyes), the stupid (entrance is dictated on gullibility) and the vicious (Else they couldn't accept the concept of eternal punishment.)

Meanwhile the people who get into hell are going to include some bad people, and some good people much like we have on Earth. Sure, the trully wicked will be sentenced there, but so will the people who made something of their lives, the people who investigated the universe and sought to use its laws to make the world a better place, the people who may have been wrong in their theology, but were right in their values.

Hell, from its very start was about people who wouldn't accept their place. The devil, led a rebellion against God and was caste down, because he wouldn't stay in his place. Nor would I, in the end.

This is not simply out of pride, an unwillingness to abjectly sacrifice my integrity in order to toady to a dictator with a nice house, but also out of my belief in the concept of what it means to be free.

To be free does not mean to have it easy. It does not mean that you never have to work, or that you never struggle, feel pain or suffer. Freedom means that your actions are dictated by you, that your consequences are your own, and that while people can help you, you ultimately decide who you are.

Hell, represents the struggle for that freedom, it represents growing up and yes, it means suffering. Heaven represents eternal bliss as an eternal drug addict.

So you ask me, if I am wrong about God not existing, what then? Then I will work towards making a better hell just as I work towards making a better world - and I will do this in good company.

Posted by: KevinC | September 3, 2009 4:33 AM

I haven't had time to read the whole thread yet so I may not be the first to say this, but I found myself wondering about the pilot's alleged credentials. He's an F-15 pilot and a commercial airliner pilot for American Airlines? How does that work? "Sorry boss, I can't do the New York to London flight, I have to go bomb some Afghans this weekend. But I'll be back by Wednesday." If he'd said he was an F-15 pilot and now is an airline pilot, that would make more sense, but he asserts both in the present tense.

Now, on to my reply:

Sorry, Mr. Pilot, I hate to break it to you, but all Pascal's Wager Christians are going to Hell, even if Jesus does exist and rules from on high. Allow me to demonstrate:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

--Matthew 7:21-23

See? "But I said the magic words! 'I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior!' I said 'em! I went up for the altar call and everything!" isn't gonna cut the mustard on Judgment Day, even if you do happen to have the right answers to the Celestial Quiz. Because, you see, the test also has a lab component:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

--Matthew 25:41-46

Think about how you conservative Republican "Christians" treat the poor (hungry/naked/thirsty), the stranger (e.g. "illegal alien"), the sick (if you can't afford insurance, it's your own damn fault if you die--bootstraps!), the prisoner (prison-rape jokes are soooo funny!). That's how you're treating Jesus. But then, you right-wingnut "Christians" never pay any attention to Jesus, especially when he talks about money or how to treat your fellow human beings.

Notice also, if you read Matthew 25:34-40 when Jesus is talking to the righteous who make it to Heaven, he never even brings up the question of what they believed, much less what they might have pretended to believe in order to cover their asses.

Not only does reality have a liberal bias, so does Jesus. Now, most world religions generally agree with the basic Bill & Ted Ethics ("Be excellent to each other" *air guitar*), even if they tend to apply it only to the in-group. So, if I was a gamblin' man, and a little worried that maybe Jesus or Osiris or Vishnu or the Triple Goddess might be waiting to judge me after I died (and that there would be an "I" to judge), I'd bet that being good to my fellow human beings and the planetary biosphere I live in would be more likely to get me on a deity's good side than any pseudo-belief adopted out of cowardice.

As an added bonus, being good to my fellow lifeforms is a beneficial strategy in this life that works just as well if there aren't any deities or afterlives.

Furthermore, Pascal's Wager is an implicit confession that your god is nothing but a meme in your head. Any real deity/-ies would know that He/She/They/It existed, and wouldn't be desperate for our reassurance on that score. If a proposed deity needs people to believe in it, resorts to all manner of threats and bribes to induce belief, then (according to believers) behaves like a cornered animal when faced with unbelief, we can be confident that this is a god that will cease to exist when no one believes in it anymore. The question of belief is life or death for this sort of god, because people's belief is its means of survival.

It is, in other words, a meme, a computer virus for the human mind that depends on you to store it, run it, and infect new hosts with it. Such a thing cannot offer you immortality and glory. Rather the opposite: its ability to continue existing for thousands of years and have power on Earth (cathedrals built, holy wars and Inquisitions waged, laws passed, etc.) comes from you, and your willingness to enslave yourself to it and infect your children with it.

An immortal cosmic super-spirit wouldn't need Pascal's Wager. Memetic malware for the mind would. Download some Critical Thinking Anti-Virus Mind-ware today!

Posted by: MosesZD | September 3, 2009 4:47 AM

What if I'm wrong? I'm not... Seriously. Any reasonable amount of study shows the basic orgins of the Christian God-Myth. A myth, frankly, not any more compelling than any of the other God-Myths. Even if 1 of 6 people, or so, gets off on it...

Posted by: alias Ernest Major | September 3, 2009 4:56 AM

Catballou @563

I might have overlooked it among the flood of messages, but I don't think that anyone said that Pascal was stupid. Pascal's Wager being stupid is not the same as Pascal being stupid.

And I think that you're also committing the etymological fallacy. Pascal's Wager, as currently understood, refers to the bastardised forms used by lazy evangelists, such as Lt. Col. Jack Heidman. That Pascal argued something else isn't particularly relevant.

The person who got closest to (implicitly) calling Pascal stupid is the Lieutenant Colonel.

Posted by: DingoJack | September 3, 2009 5:16 AM

So, according to Matty the tax-farmer (a paragon of moral rectitude), in order to get past god's bouncer, Jesus, and into 'Club Heaven' (the dullest club on the whole strip), you have to go out and find a hungry, thirsty, naked, sickly carnivore*, nudist, ex-prisoner who is a stranger to you and take him/her to live in your house.
Shhesh, if you don't want to let me in, just tell me I'm wearing the wrong kind of shoes or something, no need to give me a load of bullshit.
'The Hellfire Club', right across the road, has the best live music, played by the best musicians, more celebs, artists, and bon vivants than you can hold a real conversation with, and there's no cover-charge at the door!
Who's laughing now, suckers? - DJ
_______________
*(no vegetarians or vegans need apply)

Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 3, 2009 5:27 AM

"The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you."

Jericho? Like in the story with the trumpets? Hmm...

Does it means that we're all going to get hacked into pieces, and our pets too?

Or will we merely be showered with air-to-ground missiles?

#626 re Pascal:
Well the guy definitely wasn't stupid. Inventing a mechanical computing machine in the 17th century is no small feat of the mind in my opinion (and lots of scientific works, etc.). But, hey, who, even the most intelligent people, has never made a stupid bet in their life... ?

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | September 3, 2009 5:49 AM

Interesting. First it started with the "you should post such things PZ" crap...
Then its the "you commenters shouldn't be discussing what you're discussing" crap.

This is something I just don't understand. With the many millions of blogs on the internet, how do these people manage to find the time to tell the 99.99% of them that they need to blog differently because the current state of the blog doesn;t meet with their approval?

I can save you some time. Go to blogger.com. Now be sure to put in the http:// before that!

Look around - see the options? You can have your VERY OWN BLOG!
You can make sure that only what you approve of is posted! Not only that, you can post comments to yourself so that the discussion stays on track.

But here's the secret - you can restrict commenting to only yourself. That way not only can you make sure nobody pops in to derail the conversation form what you approve, you can also be sure that nobody will point out the inconvenient fact that you're an insufferable ass!

But seriously, would you walk into a room full of people boisterously interacting and jabbering and start screaming at them "Stop talking about that! You should be talking about what *I* want to talk about!"

Well, maybe you would.

Posted by: John Morales | September 3, 2009 6:51 AM

travc:

I think you [PZ] should write him back in all sincerity.

You don't consider PZ's post a de-facto response (an "open letter")?

I'm pretty sure Jack can find this thread, if he has any interest in PZ's response.

I, for one, would welcome his entry into the fray.

Posted by: Cactus Wren | September 3, 2009 7:19 AM

Ah, but don't you all realize that you've never tasted his Jesus?

Actually, "You've never tasted my Jesus" is almost certainly the sort of argument Heidman finds irrefutably compelling. The whole "I am not a biologist ... I would seriously like your opinion on another stupid creationist question I have" bit reminded me intensely of the "Docta Tillich, I got one question" opener: the educated professor, with all his intellectual pretensions, suddenly deflated by the humble uneducated person's simple question.

What's really amusing, though, as others in the thread have pointed out, is the juxtaposition of ostentatious humility ("I bet I'm twice as humble as you are!") with the arrogance of LOOKIT ME, I'M AN F-15 PILOT AND CAN SIGN MYSELF "LT COL"! CAN YOU SAY THE SAME YOU DUMB ATHEIST?

Posted by: Carlie | September 3, 2009 7:30 AM

"He didn't believe in wasting time learning in high school, when he could instead make time with the girls." Okay, being in high school right now I can tell you that I do this ALL THE TIME, and it's really not something to reprimand him for.

Ah, but his point wasn't to admit that he was staring at girls rather than paying attention. What he meant by that statement was "While you, nerdy little Nerdy McNerdson of Nerdsylvania, were actually paying attention in class, I, Rod Studwell, was getting some ass because I was so much more of a manly man even when I was 16 than you could ever hope to be". It was a transparently snide little bit of penis-waving, and therefore, hilarious in its ineffectiveness.

Posted by: Richard Eis | September 3, 2009 8:28 AM

If I had had the requisite training, I am pretty sure I could fly an F15 too. along with probably most of the planet.

I fail to see what is so special about it.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 3, 2009 8:40 AM

Rahul, I've got nothing against the Fantasy writing, but I felt the market ended up getting saturated.

You may enjoy the following if you can find them and a synopsis of the stories can be googled. Wiki also has a list of the Golden Age of Science Fiction Writers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Science_Fiction

Capek "War With the Newts" 1936, "R.U.R" 1920.
A.E. van Vogt "Slan" 1940, "Future Glitter" 1975.
R. Heinlein "The Door Into Summer" 1956, "The Puppet Masters" 1951.
G.O. Smith "Highways in Hiding" 1956.

Brian Daley's Smith/Fitzhugh series 1980's.
D. Brin's Uplift Series.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2009 8:53 AM

If I had had the requisite training, I am pretty sure I could fly an F15 too. along with probably most of the planet.

I fail to see what is so special about it.

That's a pretty ignorant statement don't you think?

There are plenty of people who want to be Navy or Air Force pilots but do not make the cut.

Let's be critical of his stupidity but not be so willing to attack that we ignore reality.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 3, 2009 9:13 AM

640+ comments, & not one by anyone named Heidman.

Is it at all possible that Heidman could have found out about PZ Myers the Dread Atheist, email address and all, without learning that there is a blog thereof?

Prof. Myers - did you send a reply to Heidman when you posted the above dissection of his billet-doux, mentioning that his 15KB of online fame began yesterday?

Perhaps he's all jet-lagged out, having contacted our esteemed host just before driving a load of American Airlines passengers from Dubai to Dublin or from Jacksonville to Jakarta, but his 20-hour-&-counting silence does leave certain implications about the strength of his faith that thousands of implacable infidels may not infer with the loving charity unique to humble followers of Jesus.

Why, if he doesn't at least pop up to reveal he's groveling praying for us, some sick sinners here may be so jejune as begin calling him Hidingman. And to leave that kind of aspersion unanswered would stain the escutcheon of manly true-believing fighter-jocks-for-jesus everywhere!

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | September 3, 2009 9:20 AM

You know, the really sad thing about this is that Jack seems to think he's being clever by raising Pascal's Wager. It's as if the previous couple of centuries pointing out the logical failings of this argument haven't registered. You really ought to know something's wrong when Homer Simpson can spot a logical flaw that you've missed!

OK, for the sake of argument, let's take a Bayesian look at Jack's and my chances of sliding through the pearly gates. The problem is that there are many, many gods posited by the mind of man, and many religions automatically send you to hell if you don't believe in the right God. Since we have no way a priori of knowing which god is THE GOD, we start with a maximum entropy Prior, assigning equal probability to each deity. Assuming roughly 1 million potential deities, Jack would seem to have a 1 in a million chance of getting in, while I, as an agnostic, would be SOL. Ah, but wait. I've got Mormon relatives (and they like me) and Jack probably doesn't. So if the Mormons are right, I'll probably get my GET OUT OF HELL FREE card before I even get a deep suntan. Jack probably won't be so lucky. In all likelihood, even if he has Mormon relatives, they're probably pissed at his smug ass, so they'll let him get good and toasty before intervening. I figure I've also got it made if the Unitarians are right, so my chances are probably every bit as good as Jack's.

Now, if I wanted to increase my chances, my best bet would be a polytheistic religion--Hinduism or Animism look like good bets with deities everywhere you look.

Now this is just our prior. We next have to update the prior over deities with available evidence... Oops! Well, Jack, let us know if you ever find any and see y'all in hell (in all likelihood).

Posted by: co | September 3, 2009 9:26 AM

If I had had the requisite training, I am pretty sure I could fly an F15 too. along with probably most of the planet.

I fail to see what is so special about it.

That's a pretty ignorant statement don't you think?

There are plenty of people who want to be Navy or Air Force pilots but do not make the cut.

Let's be critical of his stupidity but not be so willing to attack that we ignore reality.

It's ignorant, in that most people would be excluded merely on the basis of their age, or other physical conditions preventing high-stress flying. However, he probably meant that if one had the requisite flying hours in, the physical requirements are mostly already met, and, frankly, being in the top of one's academic class in the USAF may not be, ahem, rocket science.
I don't mean to impugn high-performance aircraft pilots -- I have known some absolutely brilliant ones. I also know a few less-than-brilliant ones, and if they can pass muster, a whole helluva lot of people could.

Posted by: Flex | September 3, 2009 9:44 AM

MA Jeff wrote,

One of the interesting things to me about this comment thread are the folks in the USAF (in particular) who note what a foothold the fundies have in that branch.

In the late 80's, when I was in the AF I didn't notice a religious bent to the DRU I served in. However, I did notice another rather peculiar aspect to the service.

The AF was still somewhat segregated into various cliques, by type of unit. My DRU had been around since before there was an AF, and the first woman they allowed into the command was in the class before mine (1985). The first black who entered the command was after my time. In 40 years, no women or blacks were considered good enough to join the DRU! Luckily that was changing in my time.

However, while it's been disheartening to hear about the increase in fundementalism in the AF Academy, I suspect that the AF Academy may be a stronghold of white protestantism and evangelical christianity because of the entrance requirements. They are very selective, not only do you need excellent grades, you also need a record of community service and a recommendation from your congressman.

As I found out in the Boy Scouts, belonging to a church really helps get your community service activities going. I didn't get my eagle scout rank mainly because the community service activity activity I planned attracted no volunteers. After working on is for a few days, I gave up. I wouldn't do that now, but I'm much more tenacious now than I was when I was seventeen. It is, in fact, much easier to be seen as an active member of your community if you are a member of a church.

My point being, that once fundamentalism (or any discriminatory idea) gets a foothold in an institution which is allowed to discriminate between applicants, it can easily grow until it dominates. Apparently that has happened at the AF Academy. A public outcry won't solve the problem, as it lies in the members of the entrance selection board. Simply ordering the members of the board to avoid looking at the religion of applicants won't help either.

Eliminating the community service requirement and the congressional recommendation, and banning applicants from mentioning religious affiliation would go a long way toward allowing some of the more qualified applicants who are not community oriented and/or politically connected into the AF Academy.

Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2009 9:51 AM

Guitar Hero&trade =/= guitar.

Posted by: Richard Eis | September 3, 2009 10:04 AM

-Pure arrogance and ignorance. Fighter pilots are the elite of the elite. If you really think that just anyone can be one, you're as delusional as the YECs.-

and is that skill made? or am I to believe that regardless of how hard I work I haven't been magically blessed enough to be able to fly a plane?

Posted by: Computing A Hell | September 3, 2009 10:14 AM

#655

So can you now imagine the possibility of an extremely complex God who doesn't violate the physical laws?

And a "God" who can violate physicals "laws" like the Second Law and everything connected to 'entropy' including the 'direction of time' and quantum decoherence to explain wave function collapses, etc.

The stupid creationist's ignorant What if question doesn't sound that vacuous now, right?

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | September 3, 2009 10:17 AM

He didn't say fly it well. Also, we have the apparent fact that the Lt. Col. made the cut.

However, he probably meant that if one had the requisite flying hours in, the physical requirements are mostly already met, and, frankly, being in the top of one's academic class in the USAF may not be, ahem, rocket science.

Don't confuse intelligence with delusion/ignorance.

USAFA applicants average a 3.8 GPA and 1300 SAT scores. Most pilots are aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, physicists, and other diciplines related to aircraft maintainence, design, or the physics of flight.

If you talk to them about religion, they'll seem dumb as a brick. If you talk to them about piloting, physics, etc, they'll seem like the most brilliant people you've ever met.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 3, 2009 10:22 AM

Yawn, troll trying to hide his imaginary deity in the SLoT. Snore...

Posted by: Rob Linford | September 3, 2009 10:32 AM

Hmmm. As a pilot myself I can tell you that the scariest thing about this post is that this knuckle dragger is flying loads of people around in a big aluminum death trap. Pilots who believe some sky god is going to protect them from harm should not fly passengers. The guy I want to fly with believes that death is simply the end of existence, something to be avoided at all costs.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | September 3, 2009 10:32 AM

Computing a hell:

Re: Maxwell's demon

If there were such a tiny, tennis-playing demon, it would have to perceive the atoms to discern their speed. This implies some sort of detection--e.g. interaction with photons, etc.--at least twice, along with the ability to measure time. It's pretty easy to show that this process alone would result in an increase in entropy that more than compensated for the efforts of the demon.

So, really, the stupid creationist's question still sounds just as stupid and ignorant as it did before.

Posted by: Jeff | September 3, 2009 10:41 AM

The comments about the personality traits of fighter pilots in general help to explain this fellow:

http://www.christianfighterpilot.com/blog

He's become one of Ed Brayton's trolls.

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | September 3, 2009 10:45 AM

#640 Posted by: Richard Eis on September 3, 2009 8:28 AM

If I had had the requisite training, I am pretty sure I could fly an F15 too. along with probably most of the planet. I fail to see what is so special about it.

You might be able to fly one. But could you land one? Could you dog fight one? Are you up to the nine-plus G maneuvers? Don't belittle the skill it takes to become a fighter pilot just because one of those pilots has a school boy crush on a misogynic god. That he's a fighter jock isn't a reason to dis' the dude (that he tries to lord it over you is).

and in #656 Posted by: Richard Eis on September 3, 2009 10:04 AM

and is that skill made? or am I to believe that regardless of how hard I work I haven't been magically blessed enough to be able to fly a plane?

Have you done so? Flying a fighter isn't as simple as pointing the nose where you want to go and firewalling the throttle, nor is landing so simple and picking a spot on the ground and dropping in on it. There is a great deal of energy management and situational awareness required. There are a great many people unable to combine the two so that no matter how hard they work they just can't do it.

Plus, the ability to deal with high stress situations where someone else, potentially better at flying their aircraft, is actively trying to shoot you out of the sky is really important. Again, many people wash out of the program, even though entirely able to fly the plane and set it safely on the strip of ribbon USAF pilots call a runway (or the moving postage stamp Navy pilots land on) because they can't deal with combat training.

That's like saying just anyone can get a Ph.D. if they just work hard enough. The hard work is only one part of the requirement. There's also that bit about contributing to the body of knowledge and convincing the review panel that you've done so, and so many other things.

Such a dismissive attitude toward real achievement is as disastrous as blind faith. Being a cynic isn't being a skeptic any more than being religious is being smart.

Posted by: Britomart | September 3, 2009 10:47 AM

Be aware. This attitude is more common than you can imagine.

Posted by PZ Myers at 12:23 PM • 666 Comments • 0 TrackBacks

Wow
that's a fast run to a magic number !

Wonder how many there will be when I am done reading them all...

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | September 3, 2009 10:56 AM

ComputingAHell, you're off your meds again, arent you?

Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2009 11:02 AM

So can you now imagine the possibility of an extremely complex God who doesn't violate the physical laws?

Posted by: Trug | September 3, 2009 11:04 AM

@ 640:

There is something to be said for the ability of most people to be able to adapt and overcome to be able to do pretty much anything if they set their mind to it. That does not, however, mean that everyone will have the willpower and tenacity necessary to see the job through to the end.

I'm not a fighter pilot, but I do know that the training is very rigorous. There is a fair amount of academics behind it that you need to get through, and a helluva lot of physical endurance needed to be able to function in a high-G environment. If you aren't the sort of person who can grit their teeth and batter your body into the kind of shape needed to do that, you won't make it. And not everyone can do that, some people just can't or don't want to put in the effort needed.

And on a sillier note, some people really can't become fighter pilots for a very good reason. Anyone over 6 something (I don't recall the exact height, but I know I'm over it) can't fit in the cockpit!

So your point is understandable, but not necessarily true. Not just anyone can fly an F-15.

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | September 3, 2009 11:10 AM

#675 by blueelm on September 3, 2009 10:57 AM

Damn. I guess I'm too stupid to post here. Let me disembowel myself to the gentle hum of my laptop.

What brought on that comment?

I'm often amazed by the towering intellect of some people commenting here, but I don't let that stop me from adding my $0.002 worth (and some might argue I don't contribute even that much).

Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2009 11:24 AM

"God is like a M.C Escher's physics defying drawing: It looks like a conceivable three dimensional object but it's really just a two dimensional illustration. It's a pseudo paradox: a two dimensional concept versus an impractical three dimensional reality."

Posted by: Umilik | September 3, 2009 11:38 AM

# 664 The guy I want to fly with believes that death is simply the end of existence, something to be avoided at all costs.

Amen to that (no pun intended) given that the last bunch of religious zealots we know of who flew planes ended up crashing into buildings believing there were virgins waiting.

Posted by: Angry Air Force Retiree | September 3, 2009 11:44 AM

Sherry @ 460,

I see that his CO is a graduate of Baylor?

Well that fucking sucks.

Posted by: Notkieran | September 3, 2009 12:02 PM

I don't know if anyone's said this yet, and it's a bit late where I am to scan through all the comments before bedtime, but this strikes me:

If our email friend is an average USAF pilot, does this explain why the US air force appears to have the worst friendly fire rate in the world, managing to hit allied armour, allied helicopters, UN mine-clearing facilities, the Chinese Embassy and, in a particularly memorable case, Bulgaria?

Posted by: aratina cage | September 3, 2009 12:13 PM

@Computing A Hell

God = a computer simulation? A god in a box? Excuse me while I laugh at that.

Posted by: Ric | September 3, 2009 12:20 PM

75% of Xtians who are trying to convert me claim that they used to be "smug intellectual atheists" or some variety thereof. The rest claim they used to be hardcore partyers and drug users. It's just a schtick, and both claims are almost always bullshit.

Posted by: DingoJack | September 3, 2009 12:31 PM

No Walton - it happened. Not offensive, accurate.
Perhaps you need a little help in differentiating, maybe you could get an adult to help you. - DJ

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | September 3, 2009 12:46 PM

Computing A Hell, actually the only one of those books any sane person would want to read is that by Brian Greene. The others have little if anything to do with physics. Even Greene's book is highly speculative. Why not stick to physics instead?

I really hate when people use the inherent weirdness of quantum mechanics to try to justify their particlar brand of woo.

Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2009 1:02 PM

aratina cage:
It's from a friend of mine who I realized at the last minute probably might not want his name attached to his college musings of twenty-some-odd years ago. (It was written down but never published) I have tons of old notes and unfortunately many of them are of the Pascal's Wager=awesome caliber. *heavy sigh*

I thought the God/M.C. Escher Drawing analogy wasn't bad in an age of innocence way Ca. 1980 -81.

Posted by: DaveL | September 3, 2009 1:16 PM

yes, if 'god' is 'reality'.

Don't. Just don't. We have perfectly good words for things like 'reality' and 'the universe'. Please use them. The word 'god' is unavoidably laden down with all sorts of attributes and personification, not to mention a long line of oily sophists who have tried to use generic redefinitions like yours as a way of sneaking said attributes in through the back door.

If you want to talk about the universe, talk about the universe. If you want to talk about reality, talk about reality. If you want to redefine God so you can plausibly argue for his existence, redefine him as a ham sandwich and hit the deli down the street.

Posted by: DingoJack | September 3, 2009 1:19 PM

Computing A Hell (aka Deus ex Machina) - Unfortunately Alan Turing (you remember him right?) figured out hat once the object being simulated reaches a fairly low level of complexity the simulation becomes greater in size than system being modeled. The universe is well above Turing's limit.
So you are postulating that the universe is much bigger than the universe? Hmmm perhaps it's time you went back onto your meds.
Thanks for playing & etc. - DJ

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 3, 2009 1:24 PM

Yawn, some physicists write a theoretical physics/philosophy book, laden with sophistry, and now it is considered evidence for imaginary deities? No wonder by BS detector is alarming...

Posted by: Alan Bombria | September 3, 2009 1:28 PM

"BIBLE BELIEVING" is usually fundie code for the "King James Only" sect. You might as well post a random letter from an insane asylum or argue with a tree.

Posted by: Computing A Hell | September 3, 2009 1:30 PM

DingoJack:

Computing A Hell (aka Deus ex Machina) - Unfortunately Alan Turing (you remember him right?) figured out hat once the object being simulated reaches a fairly low level of complexity the simulation becomes greater in size than system being modeled. The universe is well above Turing's limit. So you are postulating that the universe is much bigger than the universe? Hmmm perhaps it's time you went back onto your meds. Thanks for playing & etc. - DJ

E.V.

Just like lite beer tastes like real beer and diet coke tastes juuuust like coca cola. *snort*

"The objection could be made that the simulation does not have to run in "real time"[13]. But it misses an important point: the shortfall is not linear, rather it is a matter of performing an infinite number of computational steps in a finite time.[14]

Note that these objections all relate to the idea of reality being exactly simulated. Ordinary computer simulations as used by physicists are always approximations.

These objection do not apply if the hypothetical simulation is being run on a hypercomputer, a hypothetical machine more powerful than a Turing machines[15]. Unfortunately, there is no way of working out if computers running a simulation are capable of doing things that computers in the simulation cannot do. No-one has shown that the laws of physics inside a simulation and those outside it have to be the same, and simulations of different physical laws have been constructed.[16] The problem now is that there is no evidence that can conceivably be produced to show that the universe is not any kind of computer, making the Simulation Hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore scientifically unacceptable, at least by Popperian standards[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality#Computability_of_physics

I mentioned universal quantum computer not a conventional computer.

"A quantum Turing machine (QTM), also a universal quantum computer, is an abstract machine used to model the effect of a quantum computer. It provides a very simple model which captures all of the power of quantum computation. Any quantum algorithm can be expressed formally as a particular quantum Turing machine; thus, quantum Turing machines have the same relation to quantum computation that normal Turing machines have to classical computation."

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

Posted by: DingoJack | September 3, 2009 1:37 PM

Hank Fox - weirdly I read it as saying: "Yes we acknowledge this Lt. Col. Roger Ramjet is a complete wingnut of the highest order. However we really need pilots who are willing to work for peanuts, so sadly we can't afford to fire his sorry ass. We heartily apologise for both his idiocy and the economics that keeps this delusional idiot employed. Hope you can look past this and fly our raggedy-assed airline sometime, please we really, really need the patronage! Pleeeaaase!" - DJ

Posted by: Hank Fox | September 3, 2009 1:40 PM

DingoJack, heh. I got back to them with this:

Except, I guess, when your pilots make you part of it by dropping your name into creationist screeds, and inspire people to decide not to fly with American. If overly-devout, preachy pilots seem prone to pray rather than react rationally to emergencies, some of us feel a little less safe.

As I said elsewhere, Heidman is welcome to have strong convictions of any sort in his private life, but when those convictions are projected into the lives of others through him invoking his authority as an American Airlines pilot, it starts to become an issue that spreads beyond his private convictions.

And of course there are other airlines.

Posted by: aratina cage | September 3, 2009 1:48 PM

@E.V.
No wonder :)

I thought the God/M.C. Escher Drawing analogy wasn't bad in an age of innocence way

Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2009 1:53 PM

A Human (with all his/her imagination), including you, is also a quantum computer.

Posted by: Wade | September 3, 2009 1:57 PM

"Or maybe Pascal was just recommending that one pretends that one believes. But of all his supposed attributes, isn't it at LEAST assumed that Yahweh is psychic and could see through such a charade?"

That's what I keep saying! :)

Posted by: aratina cage | September 3, 2009 2:01 PM

@Computing A Hell

Hey, you got me! :D

Human brains are quantum computers? Not likely. Quantum level computing seems unnecessary for brains to do what they do. Besides, wouldn't dependence on that level of operation make brains too sensitive to changes in the environment? It is more likely that the robust cellular level of operation is adequate to explain minds. I wouldn't discourage people looking at our brains as quantum computers, though.