Pharyngula

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 26, 2009 11:11 AM

Over 50% think the book of Genesis is a true account of our origins.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're all creationists; it depends on the value of "true". Some might believe there's a deeper level of truth, as in "deeper than reality", expressed in what they consider the metaphors in Genesis…

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 26, 2009 11:15 AM

Apparently some atheists believe in angels, the fall of Adam and Eve, and that prayer isn't a waste of time. The rifts are bigger than I ever thought.

Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | October 26, 2009 11:24 AM

"Christopher has faith in the role of scientific inquiry, rational inquiry. He has faith in that process. Christopher is as much a man of faith as I am."

Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, but one believes in scientific, rational inquiry due to the overwhelming evidence that consists of the tremendous and still growing body of scientific knowledge that brought us from the stone age to where we are today. Wilson's claim really shouldn't be very hard to refute. I hope Christopher Hitchens handled it well.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 26, 2009 11:25 AM

Okay, I didn't read far enough down. No atheists seem to think prayer works, but some don't think it's a complete waste of time.
And some atheists agree that Jesus was born of a virgin and was god made flesh. Did Harris at any point explain to these people what an atheist is? More than I ever would have thought seem to believe in a god of some sort which kind of makes them not atheists...

Posted by: mr.ed | October 26, 2009 11:31 AM

Wilson's sorta kinda right, say, about 2.7%.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | October 26, 2009 11:32 AM

There are probably some atheists who believe that angels exist but are really extra terrestrials or beings from another "plane" or tho old ones. Also some people just won't ever say strongly agree or strongly disagree. Half the time I'm one of them. I tend to equate the word "strong" with "deeply emotional" and so it kind of bothers me some times in those kinds of polls. I'm not going to beat my head with a shoe because of it, but I disagree etc.

Posted by: BigBob | October 26, 2009 11:37 AM

The debate between Hitchens and Wilson at the Westminster Theological Seminary is still available online at:

http://tinyurl.com/68zvyr

Posted by: Chuck | October 26, 2009 11:40 AM

Tabby Lavalamp @7:

And some atheists agree that Jesus was born of a virgin and was god made flesh. Did Harris at any point explain to these people what an atheist is? More than I ever would have thought seem to believe in a god of some sort which kind of makes them not atheists...

I think this results from people parsing Harris's questions more finely than he might have intended. If someone asks me, "Was Luke Skywalker raised on Tatooine, trained by Yoda, and eventually struck a crippling blow to the Galactic Empire," I'll probably say yes -- within the confines of the Star Wars universe, that is a true statement. But if someone asks me whether Luke Skywalker was "literally" any of those things, I'll say no, because it's fictional. That's what I see at work here: Harris asked whether Jesus was born of a virgin and God incarnate, and some people said, "Absoultely, even though the whole thing is a bunch of bunk, everyone agrees that's what Jesus is within the confines of the story." Then, when he asked whether they literally believed that, they said no.

Posted by: raven | October 26, 2009 11:42 AM

25% of Americans believe Jesus will return in 2007 One out of four americans believe the rapture is going to occur next year. .... -1/+10So does this prove that at LEAST 1 out of 4 people in the U.S is retarded? ... The first amendment gives citizens the rights of free religion, ...

What the 66% Who Believe Jesus Will Return in 2009 2008 2007 Don't Know But Should Update: What I said (and was right about) for 2007, also applies to 2008, so read on: An Ipsos poll says that 25 percent of adults believe it is at least somewhat likely that Jesus Christ will return to Earth in 2008 2007. Of white evangelical Christian adults it's 66%. Want to know why Jesus won't come in 2008 2007, before most find out in Jan 1, 2009 2008? »»

Being consistently wrong slows them down but not by much.

The USA is the world leader in many areas. We lead the world in lunatic fringes as well!!!

The Rapture always struck me as a particularly amoral and evil belief. God is going to show up any minute and destroy the earth and kill 6.7 billion people and this is a good thing? The only way it could get any worse is if we discover UFO type aliens. Then god can kill them too.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 26, 2009 11:45 AM

DW is probably the best theist CH has come across yet, and DW still just doesn't measure up. In fact lately DW's lines of attack have been pretty bad, especially that rant of his that HuffPo posted last week. DW seems to think that we must buy into his vision of reality in order to think properly. Taking the "science is faith" tack, while not uncommon among theists, is starting to turn into a desperate attempt at getting attention. I flatly reject the science as faith meme. Sorry, that just doesn't play with me. Science can be tested and retested; faith cannot be tested and cannot be verified. I *think* science is the best means, I don't *believe* that. If one wants to talk about having faith in others, that is entirely different and much more tangible than what people declare in pews. I would also say that people misuse the word faith when speaking of it in terms of real things; I think they honestly mean they have *trust* in something based on good or bad reasons. That trust, while inherently intangible as a concept, is still far more real and testable than 'faith' in the religious sense.

Posted by: Brian | October 26, 2009 11:57 AM

A very strong argument could be made that the Bible is the most important book on the planet. We may not think it should be, but it probably is, atleast as far as impact on the world and influence on people.

Is there any other single book that you can think of that is more important to the past and present (and likely future) of the planet?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 26, 2009 12:02 PM

@Antiochus Epiphanes,

True, one must "have faith" (that is, assume) the universe is objectively real, it is consistent, it is coherent, and it is observable. However, it seems we have evidence this is true -- every time science fails to fail, it validates the assumptions on which science is based. If science only worked part of the time, perhaps you might be able to claim there is no evidence; but it works all of the time. Even when the wrong conclusions are reached, the fact that other research sets us back on the right course shows this is not a failure of science itself.

This may not constitute irrefutable evidence, of course. There's always solipsism waiting in the wings as the ultimate epistemic trump card. However, it is still evidence.

Therefore, I believe the term "faith" (as in, "belief without evidence") is inappropriate, even from a metaphysical standpoint.

Posted by: Alsofish | October 26, 2009 12:03 PM

I'd love to see a similar (and similarly lengthy) rundown of things like evolution, causality, the scientific method, etc., with atheists and christians side by side.

Antiochus Epiphanes: Epistemological doubt does make a bit of a problem here, but I would argue (to a theist) that sense-data correlation to the real world and the true functioning of logic are the least possible assumptions we can make (and thereby do the least harm to the rest of the system), and seem to be supported by inter-subjective consensus (that is, people seem to agree that we can sense the world and that logic holds up). I would further argue that positing things beyond just "that we can sense the world" and "that logic works" is where the most grievous errors come into play.

Of course, my desire to make the fewest and least powerful assumptions possible about the world and take the rest on evidence is one of my pernicious science-based values that undermine true spirituality (or whatever a theist thinks science undermines).

They're going to take away my parentheticals license if I keep this up.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | October 26, 2009 12:06 PM

I had someone pull the "you have faith, too" argument on me a few weeks ago. I apparently have not just "faith in science", but also "faith in evolutionists".

My opponent, however, has "faith in the living God". How can mere faith in evilutionists compare to that? Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins and my own feeble brain, up against Yahweh hisself (and his wise preachers)? Answer me that, smarty-pants atheists!

O Jebus, deliver me from thy retarded people.

(Yes, I tried to answer the guy in a reasonable way, but I don't think it had much effect.)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 26, 2009 12:10 PM

There's always solipsism waiting in the wings as the ultimate epistemic trump card.

The best way to deal with solipsists is to punch them in the face. It makes you feel better, and the solipsist would have to put it down as being self-inflicted.

Posted by: Richard Dawkins | October 26, 2009 12:12 PM

It looks as though there's one rogue 'atheist' in Sam's sample who doesn't understand what the word means.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 26, 2009 12:16 PM

It looks as though there's one rogue 'atheist' in Sam's sample who doesn't understand what the word means.

Do you reckon they polled Chris Mooney ?

Posted by: Anonym | October 26, 2009 12:21 PM

have you ever considered that the Christian God may hate you? -- #16

Posted by: Ray Moscow | October 26, 2009 12:23 PM

ostranenie @32: I have a question for PZ and y'all: why don't atheists simply say they have no beliefs?

I have a friend who maintains that position. My observation is that his arguments with religious people tend to get stuck on the meaning of "belief".

I prefer to say that I try to apportion my "beliefs" in accord with the available evidence on that subject.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | October 26, 2009 12:29 PM

I prefer to say that I try to apportion my "beliefs" in accord with the available evidence on that subject.

That seems pretty reasonable to me. The only think I would add is that I also take into account the consequences of being wrong, mainly on a pragmatic basis.

Posted by: raven | October 26, 2009 12:31 PM

have you ever considered that the Christian God may hate you? -- #16

Naw. God hates fundie cult xians. He is always sending tornados and hurricanes into their heartland of the south and central USA. They never catch on though.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 26, 2009 12:34 PM

Chuck @15 - That would be fine in the questions where there is room for that misunderstanding, but it doesn't hold up when some of the options are very explicit.

Angels really exist.
There is no God who holds authority over the natural world.
God does not punish me or anyone else.
God's presence can be directly felt.
Satan is almost certainly fictional.

There are more, but there is no room for uncertainty in those above options. There can be an argument made that you can be an atheist who believes in angels or Satan if you go by the strictest definition of "atheist", but those middle three? If you're an atheist, you literally can not believe that God punishes you. Not unless you redefine "atheist" with no regard for what the "a" in front of "theist" means.

Ostranenie @32 - Because you'd be redefining "atheist". Not believing in gods doesn't mean you don't believe anything.

Posted by: Hank Fox | October 26, 2009 12:36 PM

Regarding my last post, I'll add this:

Certain words are "dirty" -- they're already the domain of godders and will continue to communicate religious meanings no matter how much you try to redefine them in some rational way.

Meaning: If you use a religious language set in a discussion of science, you will communicate badly.

You CAN'T write a book and call it "The God Particle" and not have certain people misunderstand you from the moment they read the title. You CAN'T talk about "faith" and use it to mean "understanding of the power of facts and evidence" if your audience already knows it means "warm and fuzzy acceptance of the peace and beauty of Jesus Christ, Savior."

Words are mental buttons. If I say NAMBLA, you have a certain reaction ... if you have that button to push – the meaning installed in your head. If you don’t, you have no reaction ... until you get the button installed.

If you say “god” or “angel” or “heaven,” in MY head they all have minor secular meanings. He’s a god of zydeco. I’m looking for a financial angel. I’m in heaven when I’m out with my dog.

But a devout Christian will have fuzzy religious meanings attached to those word-buttons, and nothing you can do can cause them to redefine them. No matter what you MEAN, when you push the button “god,” they’ll hear whatever they have installed in their heads.

Likewise, the word "faith" pushes all their god-buttons, and none of the reason ones. And YOU CAN’T CHANGE THAT.

I think it's a mistake for people of reason to attempt to explain "faith" – or any of their other words – so that it means something real. To use those words at all is like slinging mud around. The entire linguistic set of religion is so badly tainted that you can’t ever get the poison out of it.

Making the effort to redefine their linguistic set so that the words mean something real is like trying to build a gadget to turn sewage into food and water.

If you have a choice, why not stay away from the sewage and just use food and water?

Posted by: Oregon Sage | October 26, 2009 12:43 PM

I happened to catch that clip of Hitchens and Wilson on NPR yesterday and was reminded what a slick operator Wilson can be. As a former resident of Moscow, ID, his home base, it is my considered opinion that what Wilson believes is that the BUSINESS of christianity is very good for him. He and his flock are well know for pleading special consideration for proper treatment of christianity on one hand, while asking not to be judged as christians on the other. It is an ongoing battle to keep track of which businesses in town are connected with his enterprise so one can avoid accidentally supporting the larger enterprise. On the other hand they are happy to plead for use of public facilities because we shouldn't discriminate against religion. This is not a case of your competent local coffee shop happening to be owned by christians, a la Morris, but of the Wilson business model being to deliberately own a variety of businesses as part of a diversified business empire which promotes itself as a 'church'.

His slippery definition of 'belief' fits nicely into the same pattern.

Posted by: Brian Jordan | October 26, 2009 12:46 PM

I never thought it would fall to a Brit to remind y'all of Mark Twain:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Posted by: Sastra | October 26, 2009 12:53 PM

Passerby #44 wrote:

Science believes everything HAS to be proven, usually by some one else, whereas religion believes proof lies within to be discovered by oneself, for oneself. Science believes atoms exist even without seeing them or showing them to others.

This is confused (and confusing.) Science is a method which must be completely transparent: if scientists agree that atoms exist, it is because this can be demonstrated to a high level of reliability to a reasonable skeptic. Our confidence in scientists isn't based on trust in their good character. It's based on a recognition that the method itself is critical, rigorous, and competitive -- and it will catch errors.

Proving something only to yourself doesn't have anything like the same sort of rigor -- and therefore it isn't as reliable. For all the fuss theists make about having faith in God, the real person they have faith in is themselves.

Posted by: Gilipollas Caraculo | October 26, 2009 1:01 PM

I'm with Brian Jordan on this. Mark Twain's take: "Faith is believing in something you know isn't true."

Nobody actually thinks Genesis is true.

Proof:

God first created all living things, and then created man. (Gen 1:27)

God first created man, and then created all living things. (Gen 2:7)

People who found it was fun believing in the Tooth Fairy would likely find it fun to believe in the Sand Man, Jack Frost, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and might even enjoy believing in angels and demons and air fairies.

When they say they believe, we know they lie. They prefer their lies to the truth. Lies are easy to spin up: truth is hard to dig out. Faith is the easier path.

Posted by: inkadu | October 26, 2009 1:02 PM

Pastor Wilson puts himself into rhetorical checkmate or this is a null move.

If faith is a completely arbitrary exercise, then what Pastor Wilson believes has as much validity as what anyone else believes. You bring the debate to a draw, but you also have to go back to your congregation and explain that the Christ story is as valid as any junk a comic book artist could think about while on LSD.

But that's the problem with these debates. They are artificial. We need to come up with better terms to these debates. Not, "Is there a God?" but "Is there a Christian God?" I would also accept the terms that a pastor would have to preach about their winning debate points to their congregations; I'd gladly lose a debate to a pastor to hear them say before their flock that "God doesn't literally answer prayers, that no serious Christian actually believes in the Virgin birth, that the bible has been garbled beyond recognition by translation and purposeful re-writing." Any time a pastor uses one of these dodges, the atheist can merely write it down and say, "I will concede this point if you agree to include it next Sunday's sermon."

At which point I can skip listening to the debate (and have we come up with any new material in the past 100 years?) and go right to something new -- a pastor being chased out of his church.

Posted by: ostranenie | October 26, 2009 1:07 PM

Ray @ 37
I'm glad I'm not alone anyway. But "belief" is a word after all, and one rather central to some religions: shouldn't we at least be able to define the damn thing in a way that everyone can agree on, and then make the next move?

Tabby @43
Point taken. (Although most believers, as far as I know, do not define atheists as "people who do not believe in god" but rather "people who believe their is no god." This is an important psychological difference for them, since many believers think that *everyone* must believe something. I wanna argue that this isn't so.)

Hank @45
Seems to be saying what I'm saying: let's just disown the word "believe"... take it out of our vocabulary altogether.

Sastra @456
I dunno: is being "without belief" stupid? I didn't think so. Why can't an "nonbeliever" have confidence in things or have rational thought? A "nonbeliever" can still "think" things are true, and "assent" to propositions, but without the emotional investment that "belief" implies. I don't think it's a "verbal trap" because I think anyone will agree to my assertion that "believe" has two meanings: in *everyday speech" I believer I am typing this, but when we're having a serious conversation about religion, then hell no, I don't "believe" I am typing this, I *see* the screen, I *feel* my fingers tapping... there is no "belief" involved whatsoever.

Let me rephrase the question: Why ever believe anything? Why not simply never engage in the activity denoted by the verb "to believe"? Belief/Faith: just don't do it.

Posted by: cn | October 26, 2009 1:08 PM

Theist: Science is a kind of faith, too.
Atheist: Oh yeah? [thinks] ...well religion is a form of atheism!
Theist: What!?
Atheist: It is! You don't believe in gods just as much as I don't.
Theist: How is that?
Atheist: I don't know.
Theist: You don't know?
Atheism: Well, no, I know it. I know it by faith.
Theist: That's not good enough.
Atheist: Rabbit season!
Theist: Duck season!

Posted by: Sastra | October 26, 2009 1:16 PM

Carlitos #54 wrote:

And as far as believing in "Angels"...putting the term itself aside...scientific progress has allowed us to observe so many forces and forms that are invisible to the naked eye, it seems silly to dismiss the possibility of more. Human consciousness may come and go, but awareness itself may be omnipresent, a property of energy/matter. So could invisible energetic structures match the complexity of the human brain as a platform for accommodating intelligence?

Just because we accept that we can never be certain doesn't mean that we can never make any progress at all in how we understand the universe. Although we can't "dismiss" the possibility that brain states can exist all over, without any brains, there's no good reason to think they do -- and a lot of good reasons to think they don't.

It's not silly then to dismiss the possibility of angels "for all practical purposes." What is silly is trying to bring in this vague, slender, academic, impractical speculation and present it as something profound and enlightening, filled with pregnant possibilities. It's not. It's more like what's called "kidding yourself."

Posted by: Zifnab | October 26, 2009 1:19 PM

If the only way you can support your beliefs is by claiming that all ideas, from Scientology and Young Earth Creationism to Ohm's Law and the theory of evolution, are equally matters of faith, then your only line of defense is to endorse ignorance and the pretense that everything we know is stupid. It is contemptible.

But, at a certain point, there are only so many things you can accurately test. When Europe says it wants to build a $40 billion LHC, you can't give everyone a crash course in particle physics to convince people of the research value of the Higgs Bozon. When the FDA recommends a 2000 calorie diet, how do you even begin validating that kind of statement?

I don't have time to fact check every niggling detail of the universe. At a certain point, I have to take it on faith that the bones in the Natural History Museum aren't some elaborate forgery and that the Theory of Electricity will hold when I try to turn on the light in the morning.

There is a certain amount of stuff you learn in grade school and there's more you can learn as a hobby or out of interest. But the bottom line is that a lot of people take science on faith because they can't or don't test it all out on their own. And these people are open season for religious hucksters.

The priest recognizes this because it's the foundation of his trade, but I think you and Hitchens might miss exactly how much science the unwashed masses simply take for granted.

Posted by: chrisD | October 26, 2009 1:25 PM

When we rid ourselves of religion that will be when the aliens stop hiding from us.

If you were an outside observer of the planet as a whole you'd think we were suffering from mass dementia and quarantine yourself from us. Billions of people thinking there is a magical dude that talks to them before they go to bed? 5 times a day? A state where you sublimely transcend existence induced by closing your eyes and focusing thought at one idea? All this in conjunction with our propensity to violence... Makes this one scary place and if I wasn't used to it I'd be screaming for them to take me off this rock with all these lunatics. No, wait, I AM screaming for them to let me off this rock... or stop being so damn effin' crazy.

But hey, religion is normal to us. It's those bastards who are still practicing their antiquated voodoo hoodoo witch doctor stuff who are abnormal! I mean, have you heard some of the stuff they do? Crazy right?

Posted by: cm | October 26, 2009 1:31 PM

At a certain point, I have to take it on faith that the bones in the Natural History Museum aren't some elaborate forgery and that the Theory of Electricity will hold when I try to turn on the light in the morning.

Not quite. The fruits of science are available for examination to everyone. You may not understand why something, like a cellular phone, works, but you can plainly see that it works. On the other hand, aside from the emotional effects that religion shares with many other activities, where can you observe the fruits of religion? What predictions, products, methods, etc. has religion provided that one can easily observe? What is there besides mere words?

The border case here is "magic" (in the sense of flim-flam); they make it seem like supernatural things can occur and such fruits can exist. This is why we need people like Randi and Basava Premanand--to educate us on how to judge effects. In fact, this completes the picture: we shouldn't judge the merits of something by the very least astute among us, but by those who either have some basic knowledge of the state of human understanding and/or some ability and willingness to pursue it when needed. Religion will continue to fail the tests of predictive power when such approaches are brought to bear.

Posted by: SirBedevere | October 26, 2009 1:31 PM

As others have pointed out, what Wilson is doing is called equivocation: Using two different definitions to create a line of reasoning that is semantically correct but logically fallacious. To skeptics "faith" means belief because of evidence. To the religious "faith" means belief without proof (and is actually considered superior to faith because of evidence).

This is the same game they've been playing with the word "theory" when arguing against evolution. It's something to be wary of because you can persuade people more easily if you win them over to your definition and conceal the existence of the other definition.

A word that's been virtually destroyed, as far as I'm concerned, by this technique is "belief" (and "believe"). It used to be that "belief" could be rational, based on experiment or experience. Now, at least in the U.S.A., "belief" is almost universally come to be shorthand for "irrational belief" (faith, in other words).

Posted by: Sastra | October 26, 2009 1:34 PM

ostranenie #57 wrote:

I dunno: is being "without belief" stupid? I didn't think so. Why can't an "nonbeliever" have confidence in things or have rational thought? A "nonbeliever" can still "think" things are true, and "assent" to propositions, but without the emotional investment that "belief" implies. I don't think it's a "verbal trap" because I think anyone will agree to my assertion that "believe" has two meanings: in *everyday speech" I believer I am typing this, but when we're having a serious conversation about religion, then hell no, I don't "believe" I am typing this, I *see* the screen, I *feel* my fingers tapping... there is no "belief" involved whatsoever.

From what I can tell, the "two meanings" of belief you're talking about faith-beliefs, and pragmatic-beliefs. The term "faith" is religious, but has a secular meaning. The term "belief" is secular, but can be given a religious meaning also.

I'm not saying that your argument here can't work, if you have the time to lay it out and explain, explain, explain. Yes, I see what you mean. But I still think you've now gone on to fight a battle that's even stickier and messier than the semantic argument we have over the word "faith." And you're granting too much turf to the religious.

To make an analogy, it would be like conceding that love does indeed come from God, and that God is Love -- and so atheists will no longer use the term, or feel "love" for one another. That's a religious concept. What's wrong with saying we just experience "affection" instead?

Never mount a defense that is likely to make your opponent piss his pants with excitement.

Let me rephrase the question: Why ever believe anything? Why not simply never engage in the activity denoted by the verb "to believe"? Belief/Faith: just don't do it.

Because it's impossible to function in the world without making reasonable assumptions, and, by eliminating the word -- and maybe even the concept -- of "belief" from the atheist's vocabulary, you're too close to engaging in a pointless form of greedy reductionism, and too likely to make an already muddled situation even worse.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 26, 2009 1:49 PM

Nigel The Bold writes:
However, it seems we have evidence this is true -- every time science fails to fail

...should read "every time science seems to fail to fail." It appears to me that if you're completely skeptical about reality, then you fall into an infinite regress when you try to derive anything about reality through observation. Science cannot be said to "work all the time" it can only be said to "...appear to work", etc. After all, a good enough simulation to make us think we are "here" ought to be good enough to consistently simulate the apparent results of experiment (and experimental non-failure) as well.

I'm not defending or adopting to solipsist position. I do think a lot of people don't realize that a little bit of solipsism goes a looooong way. If you're willing to engage in a certain amount of doubt regarding objective reality it seems to me that it all falls apart pretty quickly.

Posted by: gnomonkey | October 26, 2009 2:16 PM

Ha - nice use of comic sans in the blockquote.

Posted by: Zifnab | October 26, 2009 2:25 PM

#67

On the other hand, aside from the emotional effects that religion shares with many other activities, where can you observe the fruits of religion? What predictions, products, methods, etc. has religion provided that one can easily observe? What is there besides mere words?

Most of the benefits are emotional. That's not nothing. A feeling of relief in confessing your sins, or a sense of community you receive after Sunday mass might not be as fungible as the ambient radiation of a 40watt light bulb, but many people still consider it valuable. And the emotional benefits can (and have been) tested and observed.
There are also various financial benefits, depending on where you are in the hierarchy.

:-p These reasons aren't unique to religion, or even "good", but there they are. It's what keeps people coming back to church, even though they might not receive tangible benefits. Same thing that keeps people coming back to a good movie or a soccer game.

#72

We can also, in this society, say that it requires a much greater level of paranoia to believe that science is "fake," just by the sheer magnitude of technological innovation that permeates every hour of our lives.

Well, and that's why seven or eight incarnations of Christianity later we still recognize Newton's Laws as fairly immutable. And I definitely accept that.

But I feel more comfortable arguing "faith versus reason" than "faith versus science". It falls to easily into that trap definition of the word believe, and to generic human ignorance.

Posted by: gillt | October 26, 2009 2:34 PM

All good points Sastra. Besides the sun rising, I think there's pragmatic reliance (as opposed to faith) that the universe is comprehensible and amenable to testing. Divine Intervention by the Judeo-Christian god would be an obvious example for questioning this reliance improperly called faith.

Posted by: CJO | October 26, 2009 2:37 PM

And the emotional benefits can (and have been) tested and observed.

As far as I'm aware, no they have not. At least not with an eye to what I see as the crucial question: are these benefits distinguishable from the similar benefits that accrue to those who are regular attendees at a book club, sewing circle, poker game, etc. and etc.

No one questions that camaraderie is a Good Thing, and may have tangible benefits in terms of general satisfaction with life, feelings of community and well being and all. But whether religious observance is a good way to take advantage of it, whether religion's net effect on the society as a whole and the well-being of its adherents is a positive or negative one, these are completely open questions, on which research is desperately needed.

/channeling Dennet's Breaking the Spell

Posted by: cm | October 26, 2009 2:37 PM

Most of the benefits are emotional. That's not nothing. A feeling of relief in confessing your sins, or a sense of community you receive after Sunday mass might not be as fungible as the ambient radiation of a 40watt light bulb, but many people still consider it valuable. And the emotional benefits can (and have been) tested and observed....There are also various financial benefits, depending on where you are in the hierarchy.

Sure, I don't think there are no benefits to being religious. But I thought the question discussed here was not a practical one but an epistemological one: whether or not we have good reasons to accept religious faith as true or at least a good model of the world. That it is comforting is no good reason; fairy tales might be comforting, too.

If the question is, instead, "Can religion provide emotional benefits?" I would say that the data on that so far seems to indicate the answer there is yes, but I don't know what the "effect size" is in comparison to, say, another belief system like atheism. I'd expect there to be some appreciable overlap in the distributions of people who are happier due in part to their beliefs, whether religious or atheist.

Posted by: cm | October 26, 2009 2:52 PM

Damnit! I should've said, "If epistemology is a base, both solipsism and god are acids."

I think you should have said, "if epistemology is a substrate, then religious faith is an acid and solipsism is a base."

Acids (faiths) donate a proton ("god")--that is, they add something, and in so doing, corrode the substrate. Bases (solipsism) steal a proton ("scrutability"), and in so doing, corrode the substrate. On this metaphor, faith + solipsism = neutrality; in other words, you become Paul Krassner ("As an atheist and an absurdist I figured the best thing I could do would be to worship a god I didn't believe in.")

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 26, 2009 2:56 PM

A troll once accused me of being a follower of the "faith of atheism". I told him he had no clue what faith meant. He said since I believed inthe statement "god does not exist" which cannot be proven, I had to have faith in that. I said to him that I was waiting for evidence to believe in god, but since we were in the business of proving negatives, he should prove that Brahma doesn't exist or get assigned to the faith of "abrahmaism". I never heard back.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | October 26, 2009 3:00 PM

@cm,

I bow to you. Thank you.

Posted by: littlejohn | October 26, 2009 3:23 PM

While the general distribution of answers didn't surprise me, I did get the impression that a small number of atheists misunderstood some of the questions. How could any atheist vote with Christians on the virgin birth (a fairly obvious mistranslation, not to mention biologically improbable) and the truth of the Bible?
Also, how could anyone who calls herself a "Christian," and understands the meaning of the term, not agree regarding the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection? I mean, aren't those the things that make one a Christian, as opposed to, say, a deist?
To Glen: Dawkins isn't a "man of science" and neither am I, if you mean we are not professional scientists or do not have advanced degrees in a scientific discipline. But Hitch and I both studied philosophy, and science is an epistomology, not a body of knowledge or a vocation. By that definition, Hitchens most certainly is a man of science. So am I.
He is also, of course, a man of letters, which makes him all the more interesting. What I wouldn't give to have his gift with the language. But I believe I'll keep my own lungs and liver. I fear this man I admire so much is cutting his time with us short.

Posted by: Gerwood | October 26, 2009 3:50 PM

I propose that there is one concept that we all accept on faith and that we all agree on.Is that possible?

Posted by: will von wizzlepig | October 26, 2009 3:59 PM

I think he ought to add these to his poll, I'd like to see the results on that from both sides.

belief in the scientific method
belief in the existence of gravity
belief in the validity of newton's laws of motion
belief in the theory of relativity
belief in the validity of radiocarbon dating and its ability to reliably return useful results
belief in the ability of biological classification / scientific taxonomy to accurately describe life on this planet
belief in the ability of astronomy / cosmology to accurately describe the universe and its contents
belief in the ability of particle physics to accurately describe the world of subatomic particles

Posted by: Sastra | October 26, 2009 4:09 PM

Gerwood #93 wrote:

I propose that there is one concept that we all accept on faith and that we all agree on.Is that possible?

It depends, of course, on what you mean by "faith." I think it is only logically possible as a hypothetical if the secular meaning is used -- faith as a working assumption, a reasonable inference, a pragmatic reliance, and so forth.

If the specifically religious meaning is intended, then I think what you've written would contain an internal contradiction, and not be possible. A faith that is either so reasonable -- or so necessary -- as to be capable of gaining a consensus, is going to be too objective to qualify as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." There will always be reasonable skeptics who "choose" not to believe.

Posted by: Gerwood | October 26, 2009 4:15 PM

The concept that I am talking about about is NOTHING.
Since Nothing cannot be "by definition?" we can never find any evidence of it. To me that means that we all accept this concept on total faith.

And I think I can safely say that you will agree with me that you believe in NOTHING.

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 26, 2009 4:19 PM

Actually, no, Gerwood, I don't believe in nothing as actually existing. It's a useful concept that doesn't have seem to have a corresponding reality. We don't find nothingness anywhere in nature, even in the "vacuum" of space.

Posted by: spurge | October 26, 2009 4:26 PM

truthspeaker wrote:

"Science isn't at war with novelists or screenwriters as far as I know."

I take it you have never seen any Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich movies?

Posted by: abb3w | October 26, 2009 5:17 PM

I consider it useful to restrict the term "Faith" to refer properly only to primary philosophical premises; that is to say, those held valid without prior, as opposed to those held as Inference resulting from other held proposition(s). In this sense of Faith, science takes valid Boolean Propositional logic for philosophical propositions, the self-consistency of the joint affirmation of the ZF axioms, and the assumption that Reality produces Experience with Pattern as the "Creed".... or alternatives which generally reduce to these.

Also in this sense, Hitchens does not put "faith" in the role of scientific inquiry, he has a belief held valid as inference based on these premises. Similarly, while none of Scientology, Young Earth Creationism, Ohm's Law, nor the Theory of Evolution are taken as Faith, the first two require taking Scriptural Inerrancy as an additional premise of "Faith".

To someone who does not understand the sequence of inference leading from premise to conclusion, of course, the conclusion itself appears to be held as a premise without prior, making it quite understandable that they should mistake such beliefs as "Faith". However, that doesn't mean they're correct; it just means they don't understand.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 26, 2009 5:23 PM

Although most believers, as far as I know, do not define atheists as "people who do not believe in god" but rather "people who believe their is no god." This is an important psychological difference for them, since many believers think that *everyone* must believe something. I wanna argue that this isn't so. -ostranenie

As a prior Christian, I wouldn't say I did not believe or disbelieve in the genie, but I recognized it as a purely fictional character. Belief in the genie wasn't even a choice, it simply was not something to be believed in. It is why I find the Harry Potter analogy to Jesus/God useful. Who in their right mind would believe in Harry Potter? It is absurd. But it is equally absurd to go around professing disbelief in Harry Potter because Harry Potter is fictional.

The same shift in thinking can be seen in people who stop believing in Santa Claus. Do adult Christians really actively disbelieve in Santa? No! They know it was a trick and that Santa in all the stories and songs is just for fun for kids even though Santa was based on a real person. No mentally competent adult believes or disbelieves in Santa. In this way, asking an adult the question "Do you believe there is no Santa Claus?" is just as deceitful as asking "Did you stop beating your wife?" There is no way to answer such a loaded question once you have been enlightened about the cultural practice of dishonestly teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Santa is in a different category altogether from things that can exist, and for me, so is the Christian god and every other god I have been told about so far.

Side note: Scienceblogs, how about putting a link to the sign-in page on the comment preview screen, and also how about warning us when we are automatically logged out during previews? That is really annoying.

Posted by: Sastra | October 26, 2009 5:32 PM

Oran Kelly #106 wrote:

And it is not a matter of lies: a leap of faith is exactly that--I believe in the value of human life, say, and i will dedicate my life to bettering it. I believe knowledge to be the means to that end. These aren't provable propositions. And even if we evolved to favor one or both, it doesn't mean they are true.

I think you're blurring the distinction between value statements, and fact statements. Values are always subjective; the only form of objectivity we're going to find here is inter-subjectivity. Human lives do indeed have value to ourselves, starting with our own. As for knowledge leading to human flourishing, there are those who claim that it won't: better a comforting fable, than a hard truth. We can make rational arguments against that stance, but we will always have to appeal back to basic values, and hope that we share them, and in the same order.

If theists thought about God as simply a value statement, a concept or symbol representing the importance of love, or progress, or tradition -- much the same way Father Christmas represents the joy of giving -- your analogy about "leaps of faith" might apply. But they don't really think of God that way. They think it is a fact, a thing that really exists in its own right -- though they are understandably vague about the details.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | October 26, 2009 5:32 PM

@Gerwood...just today, my understanding of "nothing" was shattered. Check out Lawrence Krauss' presentation on Atheist Media Blog (http://www.atheistmedia.com/)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 26, 2009 5:37 PM

JP Sartre gives a good definition of Nothing in his book Being and Nothingness. I'm sure you can Google it. Wiki also has a good def of nothing.

Okay. In that case, I don't believe in nothing because Satre's definition is contradictory. Consciousness is not material but it is not nothing. Copulo ergo sum or something like that.

Posted by: Sastra | October 26, 2009 5:56 PM

aratina cage #107 wrote:

I agree with that, ostranenie, and I think it is important to teach believers all the diverse ways atheists really think.

I think William James made a good point re this, when he talked about "live options." There are things we don't believe in which we nevertheless consider to be realistic possibilities. We mulled them over, thought about pros and cons, and have made a tentative decision against they're being true. It wouldn't take much to change our minds, though.

I wasn't raised with religion, and for me, the traditional versions of God are not even live options. They sound fake, they seem fake, and there's nothing about them which makes me consider myself as somewhat on the fence. The less traditional versions of God -- vague spiritualities involving Higher Levels of Transcendence and Mystery of Being -- are slightly more plausible, perhaps, but only because they're hopelessly muddled. They were once, for me, live possibilities, but are getting deader by the day, I think. And one is not going to get into a religion by using the sort of Fingernail Theology of a Karen Armstrong. Those are the rationalizations one uses when hanging onto an old faith by one's fingernails.

Christians who have tried to convert me don't understand the scope of the problem. They think Christianity is a live option for me. Maybe if they came up with another amazing Biblical prophesy, or told me another story about how their life got better when they let God into it.

Still, I don't like ostraninie's solution to the misunderstanding, which is to allow, even encourage, religious people to claim that ALL beliefs are faith, and then say fine -- we don't just throw out faith, now we throw out belief. We don't have any! That's how little we believe! Not at all!

Reductionist semantics.

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 26, 2009 6:03 PM

The Nothing that I am talking about , as I'm sure you are well aware of, is the absolute total absence of anything.

...which never occurs in nature. That's why I don't believe it exists.

Posted by: Gerwood | October 26, 2009 6:07 PM

thruthspeaker #117

But you believe in the concept

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 26, 2009 6:20 PM

I really dislike that science is a faith argument, how can people say that with a straight face while living in a society that scientific discovery is central to almost every facet of our lives? I'm sitting on a computer that does billions of calculations per second, every second and never get it wrong. This isn't faith, it evidentially works.

Just unreasonable people trying to justify their unreason by making those who use reason seem contingent on unreason...

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 26, 2009 6:25 PM

Or in other words...

Science is real, from the big bang to DNA.
Science is real, from evolution to the milky way.
I like the stories about angels, unicorns and elves.
I like the stories as much as anybody else, but...
When I'm seeking knowledge, either simple or abstract.
The facts are with science. The facts are with science.
- They Might Be Giants

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 26, 2009 6:30 PM

Nothing isn't a "true" concept. Nothing doesn't exist. It's a useful concept, but it's not "true". I "accept" it as much as I "accept" the concept of unicorns. No faith is required, just imagination.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 26, 2009 6:37 PM

I suppose that someone has found nothing lately?

Posted by: speedweasel | October 26, 2009 6:43 PM

I once had a lively debate with a philosophy undergraduate who was impressed by the idea of Solipsism. As has been pointed out, it can be used as a convenient, rhetoric ‘trump card’ and he was delighted to use it on me.

Eventually I said, “Listen. See the desk drawer on the other side of the room? In there you will find a sharp pair of scissors. Walk over, take them out and jam the pointy end, as hard as you can, right into your fucking eye. You’ve got nothing to worry about, because all of this; me, everything, is just happening in your mind, right?”

Of course, he wasn’t prepared to see if his ideas held up in an experiment.

Solipsism. It’s a cute idea, but as far as I can tell (to borrow a physics term) it doesn’t do any work.

Posted by: Gerwood | October 26, 2009 6:46 PM

NoR #127

I hope that you will enlighten me and point out the errors in my logic. I always appreciate someone explaining what I don't understand.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 26, 2009 6:56 PM

Re: Sastra #115

Interesting concept of live options (and thank you for directing me to William James). Yes, I think how you explain God as not even being a live option is precisely right for me now at this time. I think the same thing applied to Santa Claus would also explain the current feeling of most prior believers in Santa Claus — he is fake and there is no fence-sitting about this. And no, Christians really don't realize the scope of the problem. Informing believers about the immensity of the challenge before them, the challenge of making their god a live option for us, is the essence of New Atheism.

Still, I don't like ostraninie's solution to the misunderstanding, which is to allow, even encourage, religious people to claim that ALL beliefs are faith, and then say fine -- we don't just throw out faith, now we throw out belief. We don't have any! That's how little we believe! Not at all!

So I did (unquestioningly) believe in the existence of God (not Jesus though, not really ever, despite being raised Christian), but now, rather than disbelieving in that god, I believe that all gods I know about are fictional characters in human stories. They are cultural constructs, deus ex machina explanations for things that happen in reality, much like Santa Claus, the elves, and Rudolph may have been colorful and fun, but ultimately wrong, ways to explain how those toys got in your stocking while you were asleep.

Posted by: becca | October 26, 2009 7:08 PM

@118, RickR:

Most believers can't wrap their heads around the idea that their deeply-held beliefs sound absurd to someone not indoctrinated into them since childhood.

well, I was raised with Christianity as a given from childhood, and I find it the beliefs absurd. I tried - I really tried - to believe, but never quite could. I guess I'm not very good with cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 26, 2009 7:20 PM

Gerwood, you theoretically have a point somewhere, put you can't just state "this is what I believe and why", and just keep asking a stupid and inane question over and over. I have found that people who do so are lacking in their argument, that is they have nothing. Therefore, either put out your idea, stop asking your question.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | October 26, 2009 7:28 PM

Credulous: But you have just as much faith as I do. Your faith is in science.

Incredulous: Err, uh, no. We both have beliefs, I'll give you that. But we're not on equal footing. All of my beliefs are based on evidence, and thus conditional on the emergence of new evidence. Your beliefs are based on, well, nothing. You just believe them without evidence. That's why you have faith, and I don't.

Credulous: No, don't you see? You can't really know that the evidence is true in the first place. You have to make assumptions, and take them on faith in the background in order to believe in your method and your evidence. So it's all just faith. All beliefs are ultimately faith-based beliefs.

Incredulous: Oh, boy, here we go.

Credulous: What?

Incredulous: Do you really want to stick with that argument?

Credulous: Of course.

Incredulous: So, every possible belief is faith-based, and there's no way to differentiate among them whatsoever?

Credulous: Exactly.

Incredulous: Say, when's the last time you jumped in front of a speeding train?

Credulous: What? Why would I do that?

Incredulous: Why wouldn't you?

Credulous: I'd be killed.

Incredulous: How do you know?

Credulous: Oh, I see what you're doing. Sorry, my friend, but I'm not falling for it. I have faith that I'll be killed. Yes, that's right, I still have faith that I'll be killed. Faith and nothing more.

Incredulous: But the guy who does not have faith in that, he's on equal footing with you? The guy who believes he can jump in front of a speeding train, be completely smushed by it, and just get up and walk away, that's just a faith-based belief all the same as yours?

Credulous: Yep.

Incredulous: And there's really no way to prove anything empirically either way?

Credulous: Yep.

Incredulous: Not even in a way that reduces the probability of being wrong?

Credulous: Uh, well . . . no. I'd have to say no.

Incredulous: So, you also just have faith that everything is faith-based, right?

Credulous: Huh?

Incredulous: Well, if every belief is based on nothing but faith, then you must have faith that everything is based on faith. You could be totally wrong about it, and people who think that some beliefs are evidence-based are on equal footing with those who think all beliefs are faith-based.

Credulous: No, I'm saying that all beliefs are faith-based because there's nothing to go on. So Christianity and Science are on equal footing.

Incredulous: And so, the belief that they're not on equal footing is also on equal footing, right?

Credulous: Will you please cut it out with your word games?

Incredulous: Hey, you started it!

Credulous: Look, this is so easy to understand. You have to make assumptions to believe based on evidence, and those assumptions are ultimately based on faith. Okay?

Incredulous: Yeah, yeah. I heard you the first time. What does any of that prove to you?

Credulous: Clearly that there was a talking snake to led to the fall of man, and that a magical being in the sky turned into a man himself, and conspired to have himself killed in order for man to rise up again. Of that, there can be no doubt, and all who do doubt are sinners who'll burn in hell.

Incredulous: You really, honestly don't understand why I don't bother talking to you outside these fictional conversations on blogs, do you?

Credulous: What?

Incredulous: Never mind.

Posted by: inkadu | October 26, 2009 7:30 PM

sastra - I can see someone getting into "fingernail theology" the same way i can see people getting into literary criticism: for reasons of arrogance and love of mumbo-jumbo. but, yes, otherwise fingernail theology seems to be the sole province of older upper-class educated people in upper-class educated congregations -- those being the congregations that already drift away from biblical literalism. It's probably super popular with Unitarian-Universalists, god bless their little hearts.

I think it's interesting that two new terms -- Courtier's Reply and now Fingernail Theology address this point. I think we have new terms for it because they are the only respectable defenses of religion left in a modern, scientific time.

Posted by: latichever | October 26, 2009 7:46 PM

Some scientists, and philosophers of science, point out the fact that it is an unprovable postulate to believe that empirical evidence tells us facts about the world. And then they say, if you want to have faith in that book, that's your choice, but I choose to believe in the scientific method, and all its fruits.

Posted by: Gerwood | October 26, 2009 7:55 PM

NoR #137

The great majority of human beings believe in the concept of nothing.The word itself has been used several times just in this blog. The concept of " NOTHING " cannot be supported by evidence and therefore we have to accept on faith the concept of nothing. I happily believe in NOTHING.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | October 26, 2009 8:05 PM

Do you believe in Santa Claus?
In Heaven’s Own Unchanging Laws?
In spite of all the tons of flaws
That ought to give you chance to pause,
To blink your eyes, to gape your jaws,
To see the army made of straws,
The king’s robes, less than filmy gauze,
Do you, despite a doubt that gnaws
Do you believe it, just because?
Your malady is faith.

If you, instead, should practice doubt;
If you eschew the term “devout”;
If you refuse to simply spout
The nonsense that the preachers shout;
The gaudy robes and rings they flout,
The heaven you can do without;
If evidence, for you, has clout,
Reality is strong and stout;
Religion beckons, you stay out—
The “ist” you are is “athe”.

Posted by: Snoof | October 26, 2009 8:13 PM

But you believe in the concept

What do you mean by "believe in the concept"? Do you mean "considers the concept to have physical existence", as in "I believe in Zeus"? Do you mean "are in favour of the concept", as in "I believe in democracy"? Because by either of those definitions, no, I don't believe in "nothing".

I suggest you're using another definition of "believe in the concept" meaning "am capable of conceptualising the concept", in which case I'd say "possibly". Not having ever experienced "nothing", and lacking a suitable definition, I can't go any further. I mean, zero, yes, that's well defined in a number of formal systems. The empty set, yeah, I'm OK with that. Empty spacetime completely lacking in matter, fields, vacuum fluctuations, etc... yeah, OK, I think I can go with that. Absence of spacetime? Now you're pushing it. The absence of definition? That's a contradiction.

Also, do you have a point, or are you just indulging in philosophical wankery?

Posted by: Anri | October 26, 2009 8:24 PM

Was my question too difficult for you, Gerwood? I hate to be this way, but you seem to have skipped over answering it.

If you don't want to, that's fine, let me know and I'll quit asking.

Posted by: MadScientist | October 26, 2009 9:02 PM

Well, who do you thank but god and Pope Ratz for giving us medicine, computers, cars, airplanes, and so on? That's right - god gave all that, you ingrates. Science - bleh - god obviously does the work through the biggest ingrates of all.

As for Harris' poll, I have a philosophical objection to many of the statements. For example: "Man fell from a blessed state when he yielded to the temptation of satan." I cannot say I agree or disagree with such a statement because it's 100% pure bullshit. There are the implied premises "man yielded to the temptation of satan" and "man was previously in a blessed state", and I am being asked whether I agree or disagree that the non-existent blessed state ceased to exist because man yielded to a non-existent temptation from a non-existent malevolent fairy (who really doesn't appear as malevolent as the fairy who demands adulation). When you have bullshit piled on top of bullshit, as in that poll item, "Strongly Disagree" is not the appropriate response.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 26, 2009 9:14 PM

I happily believe in NOTHING.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 26, 2009 9:36 PM

Is nothing a dogma? How do you question nothing?

Is nothing sacred?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 26, 2009 9:43 PM

I am an atheist and enjoy making theists and religious folks squirm with this meme.

Posted by: Anri | October 26, 2009 9:47 PM

Gerwood:

The point that I am trying to make is that the concept of nothing is probably one of the most accepted concept on earth.

Which, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on its truthfulness.

It is woven in all religions even back to the Pharaohs.

So is the concept of god. Some people question that concept.

Is nothing a dogma?

Positive belief in anything without question is a dogma, so for some people, yes, acceptance of nothing may very well be a dogma.

How do you question nothing?

Like this: With regards to 'belief' in 'nothing', I think it may be possible that there is such a state somewhere, at some time. But I'm not certain that it has been so, is so, or ever shall be so again.

There is, as far as I can tell, no way to prove that a given situation is, in fact, 'nothing'. You should therefore say, "I'm not certain. Is that really nothing? Or just something we're not detecting?"

That is how you question the existence of 'nothing'.

(And sorry for jumping all over you earlier... I am ashamed to admit it, I misread your definition of belief not once, but twice - apologies).

Posted by: Snoof | October 26, 2009 9:49 PM

Ah, sod. Ignore the line, "Well, except maybe for number 3." in my last comment. I need to edit posts more thoroughly before hitting submit.

Posted by: Oran Kelley | October 26, 2009 10:09 PM

Knoockgoats: What definition of "proposition" are you using that excludes value propositions?

And what if I countered your "existentialism is bullshit" with "you are quadruple bullshit, as you have no idea what you are talking about." Surely that puts me ahead.

satra: The fact/value distinction is more or less what this line of argument wishes to stress, but the fundamental idea is that values are always the great motivators in our lives, not facts. So, scientists aren't motivated by facts but by values--love of truth of humanity, whatever.

And arguing about what believers generally believe is not to the point because a) we'd be responding to this particular argument, not to some argument some other people might make some other time & place; and b) because we don't know what believers generally believe on points like these.

Posted by: Gerwood | October 26, 2009 11:05 PM

Snoof #162

How can you associate exhist and thing with nothing?

Believe is used as in faith as I have said to accept a concept that you cannot have any evidence of.

NoR and wowbagger, Please state what you consider illogical and why it is illogical. Neither of you have tried to debate in any way.The only response I have had from you are attacks with no discussions or explanation of your positions

This discussion seems to have ruffled some feathers. Why? Do you really need to be this uncivil and impolite. I don't recall insulting anyone. Is there some special reason that this topic returns such gratuitous violence?

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 27, 2009 12:09 AM

Re: Gerwood #99: "Nothing" is a statement of belief that whatever is there is uninteresting, unworthy, undetectable, and/or unknown. No faith in a god required.

"Nothing" as "the absence of everything" means your definition of "everything" is lacking in imagination or awareness (The Neverending Story dealt with that theme).

Interesting, too, is how the mathematical symbol for "nothing" took a very long time to solidify as a near universal human concept. Yes, the way I see it, "nothing" is a relative concept and needs context or it is meaningless.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | October 27, 2009 12:21 AM

Gerwood wrote:

NoR and wowbagger, Please state what you consider illogical and why it is illogical. Neither of you have tried to debate in any way.The only response I have had from you are attacks with no discussions or explanation of your positions

At no point have I mentioned logic/illogic. If you believe otherwise, please cite the number of the post in which I described your 'argument' as illogical.

If you are referring to what I wrote in post #166 then perhaps you should reread what I wrote. If you do so carefully you'll see I describe your post as inane, which in no way references the logic of your 'argument'.

This discussion seems to have ruffled some feathers. Why?

Again with the (incorrect) perception of your argument having irritated or flustered people; please stop giving yourself credit where none is due. You are annoying because you're an inane troll wasting everyone's time*.

*_{Those who aren't fortunate enough to have use of a Killfile, that is. Trust me, if I had one I'd be using it on you.}

Posted by: Geoffrey of Ballard | October 27, 2009 12:43 AM

The Q&A from the Hitchens/Wilson debate at Westminster Seminary is quite entertaining (no video, mp3 only):

http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/hitchens_wilson_debate_10_30_2008_qanda.mp3

Posted by: Anri | October 27, 2009 8:08 AM

What is really real is beyond our grasp; what you call real is whatever you can get your hands on.

(Citation Needed)

I can appreciate the spirit of science only accepting what it has found to be true, but limiting yourself to the seen and heard is not worth any courageous person's time when the unknown is right there waiting.

Please indicate the top three methods for dealing with the unknown that do not deal with the known. Please be as specific as possible. Ideally, indicate why the methods you suggest are superior to other methods.
Thanks in advance.

the Earth loves you, never forget

"The Force will be with you, always."

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 27, 2009 10:46 AM

Gerwood, as you already stated, it is meaningless to talk about evidence for abstract concepts. So obviously we don't have "faith" in abstract concepts. We just conceive of them and understand them (or not). Your whole "argument" is just stating something obvious and trivial that we all already know as if it were something profound that we were disregarding.

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 27, 2009 10:51 AM

Oran, value propositions are not true or false, factual or counterfactual. They are subjective. They cannot be proven or disproven, and cannot be supported by evidence.

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 27, 2009 10:54 AM

Carlos, all you're talking about is being more in touch with our mental processes. There is no evidence that awareness continues after death. The only way humans have to interact with the rest of the universe is through our senses.

Posted by: Carlitos | October 27, 2009 11:52 AM

I am saying that when our attention is occupied by thought processes which endlessly recycle material, mundane, rational and/or predictable concerns, we may get a forceful reminder that we should be paying attention to more important things, such as where we place our feet. It's tough love, as they say; what else could push us out of our comfort zone?

Posted by: truthspeaker | October 27, 2009 11:58 AM

Posted by: Carlitos | October 27, 2009 11:52 AM

I am saying that when our attention is occupied by thought processes which endlessly recycle material, mundane, rational and/or predictable concerns, we may get a forceful reminder that we should be paying attention to more important things, such as where we place our feet

Well, yeah. Who could argue with that? But that has nothing to do with science or connecting directly to the universe.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 27, 2009 12:24 PM

It's tough love, as they say; what else could push us out of our comfort zone?

When the moon
hits your eye
like a big
pizza pie
that's...amore!