Pharyngula

Posted by: pcarini | November 29, 2009 1:24 PM

Make that 6:45 PM GMT, or about 20 mins from now. I'll be there, lurking as usual ;)

Posted by: Sara | November 29, 2009 1:32 PM

I'm just getting a black box instead of a video, is this a region thing?

Posted by: Damien Trotter | November 29, 2009 1:36 PM

I'm ready.

I have a bottle of sugar-free pop, and a bag of Twiglets to munch. Well, it makes a change from popcorn.

DT

Posted by: Vadjong | November 29, 2009 1:45 PM

As a fundamentalist(-ic?) a-fundamentalist I will agree with the motion beforehand, and than change my vote afterwards.
Just to help pharyngulate the meaningless poll.

Posted by: pcarini | November 29, 2009 1:53 PM

I've got a stream. I had to disable noscript a flash blocker Firefox addon, though.

Posted by: Evee | November 29, 2009 1:55 PM

At least in the meantime until the feed starts working we can watch "The Great Catholic Smackdown"...

Posted by: Mobius | November 29, 2009 1:58 PM

If I understand the intelligence2 site correctly, the streaming audio requires the live-station software, which is over 20 MB. On my crappy dial-up connection, that's over 1 hour to download...which means the debate will be over by the time it would be done.

PZ...if this debate is posted as an audio file later, will you inform us? 'Cause it sure looks like I am going to miss the live debate.

Posted by: Sara | November 29, 2009 2:00 PM

That must be my problem too, getting nothing at all. Will have to hope somebody gets this up on YouTube lickity split.

Posted by: Newfie | November 29, 2009 2:04 PM

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/live/_nocache
this link worked when refresh didn't.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 29, 2009 2:07 PM

I'd rather save my militant fundamentalism for something important, like not wearing shoes.

Posted by: corpus.callosum | November 29, 2009 2:15 PM

Woohoo!

Cheers for the headsup PZ. Read your post just in time to put the kettle on and get the stream up and running as the opening comments were winding up.

Harries on now and already waffling. I'm going to throw my hat in the ring right now and say 'rout' :)

Posted by: pcarini | November 29, 2009 2:21 PM

I'm not sure why I expected a better argument from the former bishop. It's not as though "clergyman" is a particularly skilled occupation...

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2009 2:22 PM

Fundementalists defend fervently things that they claim to know about, in spite of the fact that they cannot possibly know or prove them.
Atheists defend fervently that they are unconvinced by the fundamentalists.

Atheism is not based on belief, it's based on the believer's inability to convince them. I can understand why that upsets the believers but trying to put atheists on the same continuum of belief makes no sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2009 2:31 PM

Try http://www.livestation.com/channels/78

Posted by: bsk | November 29, 2009 2:33 PM

Oh god, argumentfromauthorityargumentfromauthorityargumentfromauthorityargumentfromauthorityargumentfromauthorityargumentfromauthority

Posted by: Jon D | November 29, 2009 2:38 PM

sigh.. bringing up the nazis again..

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 29, 2009 2:38 PM

Anyone can not wear shoes.

You must not go shopping very much.

Not wearing trousers, that's something to work towards.

Agreed, but the slippery slope has to start somewhere, and I'm going from the bottom up.

Posted by: bsk | November 29, 2009 2:41 PM

Jesus Christ, what a sermon.

Posted by: corpus.callosum | November 29, 2009 2:42 PM

Cut out just as Dawkins got up... ARGH!

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 2:46 PM

Hi, Christian concern-troll@41!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 29, 2009 2:50 PM

Every time I speak out against the arrogant attitude of many atheists, I'm simply written off as a troll or as a Christian.

I've not come across a group of people, like the ' new atheists' who are so willing to so blindly follow their leaders anywhere they take them

A great bulk of the ' new atheists' time is spend mocking and belittling others, like they're a bunch of drunk frat boys having a laugh at someone elses expense.

The way many of you act, especially on this blog, I'm embarrassed at your sophomoric behaviour.

I suppose, if you spend your entire life on a university campus..

Posted by: articulett | November 29, 2009 2:51 PM

#41-- distance yourself further; we can still read your words.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 29, 2009 2:53 PM

Oh, the intolerance, mockery and disdain. To the fainting couch!

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 2:55 PM

Arguing for the motion is Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford, and Charles Moore. former editor of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator. I know nothing about either of them. - PZ

Harries is knows as "Bomber Harries", because of his fondness for nukes. Moore is an all-round right-wing arsehole. Here's a representative quote:

"You can be British without speaking English or being Christian or being white, but nevertheless Britain is basically English-speaking and Christian and white, and if one starts to think that it might become urdu-speaking [sic] and Muslim and brown, one gets frightened and angry."

Posted by: Malkara | November 29, 2009 2:56 PM

That assisted suicide guy looked and sounded like a Monty Python caricature.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 2:59 PM

I'm actually a Christian pastor, (I really love your blog, PZ,) and I'm perplexed by the position here. Fundamentalism is a specific thing, not merely intolerant religiosity. The first fundamentalists had seven fundamentals that they believed all Christians had to believe or they weren't Christians. (Interestingly, biblical literalism was not one of the fundamentals.) Atheism, as I understand it, makes no positive claims. To declare anything fundamental requires positive claims. Am I mistaken in my understanding of atheism? That's not to say that atheists can't be intolerant or mean-spirited. Christians haven't quite cornered the market on those yet. But calling atheism a fundamentalist position just makes no sense.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 29, 2009 3:01 PM

"But calling atheism a fundamentalist position just makes no sense."

You don't need to tell US.

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 3:03 PM

The concern fallacy. Somebody says they are concerned about something, and then everybody else mocks them with disdain and intolerance.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 3:05 PM

Rey, I guess you're right. I mainly just wanted to make sure I understood what atheism was. I'm not mischaracterizing it, am I? (Although maybe since it is not itself a belief system, it doesn't even make sense to talk about mischaracterizing it.)

Posted by: pcarini | November 29, 2009 3:08 PM

@Joshua Williams: As far as I understand it, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god/gods. We need to be careful to make the distinction between this and a belief in the lack of any gods.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 3:10 PM

pcarini, good point. And just further evidence of the absurdity of the claim of this IQ2 debate.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 29, 2009 3:11 PM

"I mainly just wanted to make sure I understood what atheism was. I'm not mischaracterizing it, am I?"

No, you're not. At the base, atheism simply is a lack of belief in gods. I think that at fora like this, you will see it coupled with more positive notions like secularism and humanism, but that's not always the case. The "fundamentalist" charge is still a non sequitur used for mudslinging., and pretty much just fueled by shallow understanding of language and belief systems.

#59: More distance, please.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 3:15 PM

Nerd of Redhead, fundamentalism isn't the belief that any one book is inerrant. Fundamentalism holds that particular set of beliefs are fundamental to human experience and that such and such are these beliefs. In theory, you could be a fundamentalist questioner of everything if you held that questioning everything was the only true path to knowledge and happiness. Of course, this would require one to questioning absurd things, like whether the sun would rise tomorrow, making it as ridiculous as any religious fundamentalism.

Posted by: Matthew Putman | November 29, 2009 3:22 PM

This is perhaps more important than any of the religion v.atheism debates, I have seen yet, because it addresses my understanding that atheism is not a faith based religion. This is the most common argument I have with religious friends. They say that it takes faith to be an atheist, I am left arguing about probability. This debate answers these questions so much more eloquently than I do.

Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | November 29, 2009 3:26 PM

@ "Distancing" myself from atheism
You're doing it wrong.

@ Joshua Williams
I don't think you are mis-characterizing atheism - there are no defining characteristics of atheism that I've found, save for not believing in gods. Basically, anytime you hear "no true atheist would" or some variant, its just the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The other characteristics most associated with atheism (such as skepticism, cynicism, liberalism, intolerance, etc) are on a very individual basis.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 29, 2009 3:29 PM

I think what distinguishes atheists from fundamentalists is that since atheism is the negative position, all it would take to change my mind is to show that God exists. Well any god, anything supernatural with quasi-deistic qualities.

I guess if we are going to use the f-bomb... Speaking out on government makes you an anarchist fundamentalist; speaking out against misogyny makes you a feminist fundamentalist; speaking out against social inequality makes you an equal rights fundamentalist; etc.

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 3:30 PM

"Balance of probability". Uh huh...

Posted by: pcarini | November 29, 2009 3:32 PM

"Balance of probability". Uh huh...

I got a good chuckle out of that myself. I was hoping Dawkins could get Harries to say he felt good about a 50/50 split.

Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | November 29, 2009 3:35 PM

@ Joshua Williams
No worries - I've said for years I prefer hell. After all, all my favorite bands and all my favorite comedians are going there, so I figure thats where all the entertainment is going to be :)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 29, 2009 3:38 PM

Pastor Williams,

Atheists come in many different flavors. You can see a couple of them in this thread. "Distancing myself from atheism..." is one type, the laid back, retiring type who just wishes to have a peaceful, live and let live relationship with theists. There's also the noisy, raucous folks like many of the regulars here who can be confrontational with everyone else (including each other).

You may notice that "Distancing myself from atheism..." is disdainful towards us rowdy types. We're not nice boys and girls. We mock and even (gasp) belittle others. Very rude indeed. What were our mothers doing when we were being raised. Our pinkies remain curled in when drinking from teacups. Our pearls are not clutched. There is nary a fainting couch to be found in our rooms.

Yes, we can be rude, crude and lewd. But you've probably noticed that. You're more than welcome here, since you don't talk down nor preach at us. So have a seat and let us know what you think. This is Liberty Hall, you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 29, 2009 3:39 PM

...You lash out and dismiss every differing viewpoint of being unworthy...

Nah. Not really. Just the really stupid ones.

Thing is, the way I see it, there are a lot of really spectacularly stupid ones in the world right now--and some of 'em are so awfully full of 'emselves and so very used to getting deference they've never much earned, so sure, the outright dismissal they so richly deserve will look startling to some, when expressed, I guess...

And speaking of, and as to this notion about being 'willing to so blindly follow their leaders anywhere they take them', sorry, no, again. I mean, I like PZ okay, think he's generally got a good head on his shoulders--same with Dawkins--but it doesn't work that way... It isn't 'Oh... PZ said it... it's right'... You still read, you still think about it, you ask yourselves: is he essentially on with this one?

... and sure, pretty generally, he and they are in the ballpark, far as I'm concerned. But then, again, realize that there's a certain coarseness about the questions considered here in the first place, so it ain't like that's any big thing...

I mean, insofar as on the one side, you've got people with spectacularly silly beliefs about magical men in the sky, perfectly inconsequential deistic evasions of the burden of proof, fuzzy, muddleheaded, deliberately meaningless vapour about ineffable this and that and so on--and that's not even mentioning those purveying transparently fraudulent bullshit about equally broad questions in evolutionary biology--insisting they want 'respect'...

Well, pretty much all you have to do to get in the ballpark of sane against that is open yer mouth, laugh out loud, and say 'kay... that there's bullshit', and okay, pal, odds are that's good enough, and that's the point, and that needs to be said, and that works for me...

So again: no big thing. Folk act like it's so surprising so many folk are generally in agreement about stuff like that, but as I've pointed out before, agreeing the theists in general are incredibly full of shit is a bit like being in general agreement the sky is blue, the day is long, the world is round, so on... These people are generally neither especially smart, nor especially subtle bullshitters--expecting, as they do, not really to be questioned, they tend to say hilariously stupid shit on a wonderfully regular basis. Makes 'em pretty easy to call out.

(/Put another way: without running down our gracious host's abilities in any way--and the man can write, by the way, too, absolutely--sure, we're all reasonably pleased PZ and Co. are hitting the target here... But then, let us remind you: the target they've been offered is pretty much the size of the side of a barn.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 29, 2009 3:42 PM

Nerd of the redhead, you're exactly what I'm talking about.

Not one person may every disagree with you folk without being called a troll, mocked, belittled and told to fuck off.

Your intellectual bullies. Unless someone agree's with you, they can fuck right off.

Just like a Christian fundie.

This is obvious to everyone, except your I'm completely blind to it.

Posted by: Jon D | November 29, 2009 3:44 PM

BTW if you're watching the live feed, you need to revisit/refresh the page so you can vote, it wont bring up the voting options automatically

Posted by: raven | November 29, 2009 3:46 PM

JW:

I mainly just wanted to make sure I understood what atheism was.

Atheism is just one side of a continuum. The No Religion's include Deism, Apathetics, Agnostics, and Atheists among others.

The NR's run around 20% of the US population. People who describe themselves as atheists run just a few percent.

The NR's are a true mass movement created by fundie death cult xians and many or most are ex-xians. The fundie goal of destroying western civilization and the US and then setting up a theocracy just isn't popular in many quarters.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 3:47 PM

Tis Himself, thanks. I've been reading this blog for years but have been a little scared of posting. No need to use the title. Plain ol' Josh is fine. I just mentioned my career to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

We Are the 801, I'm not sure I agree. As atheism grow as a movement (is that the right word?) and more and more people consider themselves atheists, more and more assholes will also consider themselves atheists. When the Church was just a group of a hundred or so people in Jerusalem, it wasn't uncommon for even their detractors to refer to them as loving people. it would be a sign of madness to refer to Christians as a whole as loving people these days. However, it is true that a group accustomed to dominance views the end of its dominance as an imposition, just as pro-segregationists did in the South. I'm sure some Civil Rights activists were assholes who just liked picking fights with rednecks. Some atheist are jerks who just like to shock people. But you're probably closer to the truth than I want to let you be.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 3:50 PM

Raven, it's also not very popular in most Christian corners. However, the wackiest of us get the best press.

Posted by: Yahzi | November 29, 2009 3:52 PM

@Joshua Williams
Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

Wow, that's easy.

5) Healing an amputee.
4) The New Testament written in mile-high gold letters on the moon.
3) God appearing on The Tonight Show
2) A phone call.

and the number one piece of evidence that would convince me that God exists:

1) Christians actually agreeing with each other about God's nature and rules.

See, one of the ways we know science is true is that independent investigators doing different experiments keep coming up with the same answers. Religion is the exact opposite; even people trained in a specific theology tend to fracture and modify it into a bewildering variety of sects, schisms, and variations.

Posted by: Pareidolius | November 29, 2009 3:52 PM

"Atheists go online". Duh. Thanks for the heads-up PZ, that was a great breakfast entertainment!

Posted by: Am I Evil | November 29, 2009 3:52 PM

Final results:

For - 363, Against - 1,070, Dunno - 85

Posted by: Jon D | November 29, 2009 3:54 PM

I always enjoy watching Dawkins speak. he has a fantastic sense of humour
Grayling was also really good. I think this was the first time I've seen him and would like to see more

Well the numbers say we won. anyone surprised?

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 3:56 PM

Yahzi, why are those conditions of God's existence for you? I bet you and I define God very differently. The God I believe in can't heal amputees, for instance. Or cancer victims, or the mentally ill, or anything. Or can write things on the moon. I don't believe that God is omnipotent. As far as you're concerned, would God have to be omnipotent?

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 3:56 PM

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

Silly question. Obviously designed to reinforce your own delusions. The question is for the benefit of yourself, not the benefit of the furthering of discussion. A "wolf in sheep's clothing alert!" type of a question.

Posted by: Lynna | November 29, 2009 3:59 PM

Well, like several others, I had trouble finding a site where the livestream was working. (Thanks to those of you who posted alternative websites for the stream.) I missed part of the debate.

Next time, let's post alternative sites for the stream at the top.

Loved the coinage from Dawkins of "pussyfootery" and I plan to steal that for frequent use.

Grayling did a great job of comparing the common structural features of monolithic, absolutist ideas like those espoused by Stalin to those of major religions like Christianity. I especially liked the point Grayling made about punishment being promised if you don't subscribe to whatever absolutist idea is being offered.

Dawkins pointed out that a logical train of thought within a religious belief system can be used to justify violence, but he rejected the idea that atheism leads directly, via any logic, to violence.

Grayling answered the charge that atheists don't understand the religious experience. "We understand it all too well." Too right, Mr. Grayling. We've been there and done that.

Grayling also made the point that, although we drop belief in other supernatural entities, like Santa Claus, in our childhood, beliefs in supernatural entities like gods are massively reinforced, using social reinforcement.

Posted by: pcarini | November 29, 2009 4:00 PM

I don't believe that God is omnipotent.

Wow. Do you believe that this God created the universe? If so, wouldn't she be able to effect change on a cosmic scale, such as the gold lettering on the moon example?

Posted by: Donovan | November 29, 2009 4:03 PM

Well, I think the final votes were rather commanding. But I am worried about the 360 some odd people that felt atheism is fundamentalist. In what way? This was never addressed. They made quite a whine about our being rude, but I hardly think rudeness stands up to burning at stakes, crushing by rocks, or even societal banishment.

Posted by: Owen | November 29, 2009 4:04 PM

Pardon me if this has been posted before...

Pat Condell's latest is fantastic.

Aggressive Atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

Posted by: BoxNDox | November 29, 2009 4:05 PM

Joshua Williams @#54 -

I agree with your assertion that fundamentalism is, properly speaking, a specific set of beliefs, not a general term for intolerance, and that it therefore makes about no sense whatsoever to talk about an atheist fundamentalist, irrespective of how tolerant or intolerant atheists are.

That said, and while it's been 30+ years since I studied this in school and my memory may be faulty, but I thought that there were five core beliefs to fundamentalism laid down back in early 1900s. Not seven. And the first and foremost of those is that the bible is divinely inspired.

Biblical inerrancy isn't on the list, but supposedly follows from the divine inspiration thing.

Of course in more recent times the meaning of the term "fundamentalism" has broadened - as meanings often do - to include all forms of literal and dogmatic religious belief. And now there appears to be a concerted attempt underway to broaden it to apply to passionate atheism. I think this sloppiness is unfortunate, but probably inevitable. So perhaps the right thing to do is capitulate and start referring to the original sort of fundamentalism as Presbyterian fundamentalism.

Even so, we should still strongly resist the application of the term "fundamentalist" to atheism because it still makes no sense to equate dogmatic belief in anything with a simple lack of belief.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 29, 2009 4:05 PM

Kel, that's an interesting point. Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

In general, the principle could be "proved" with any violations of natural law, that is to say something akin to water spontaneously turning into alcohol. Such an event would require a violation of natural law, and since we can only measure the effect we could detect that the cause is beyond nature.

As for big-g God, miracles that correspond with biblical stories of course. When I was in scripture at school, they assured me that Christianity is true because there is evidence for it. They kept pointing to miracles, and these were miracles in the way Hume would qualify miracles. Not someone surviving a plane crash, actual violations of the natural forces.

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 4:06 PM

Joshua Williams, if it's not a silly question, then how about giving a shot at answering it? Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2009 4:07 PM

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

If the dead sea scrolls had a side-note next to them reading: "on Dec 25, 2009 Google stock will be at XXXX. There is a number you will know as 'pi' and from the 372,983th decimal place it is 80482840493." Or, 12 light-year tall diamond letters, discovered by the hubble space telescope, reading: "when I said 'heavens and earth, this is what I meant, beeeyotch.'" Or something to that effect.

The stuff about jesus' resurrection and water to wine and stuff like that - those are tricks Penn and Teller can do, and I'm pretty sure they aren't supreme beings. But I did see Penn saw Teller in twain, and lo! He was remade as one! And he causeth a submarine to vanish as the morning dew! And he guesseth the correct card from a deck of 52!

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 29, 2009 4:09 PM

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

It totally depends on which conception of God we are talking about. I find that most of the God concepts are so poorly defined that they do not imply either corroborating or falsifying predictions. This is where I differ from Dawkins. The Abrahamic conception of God can't be treated as a hypothesis, because it predicts no set of observations and precludes no set of observations. It doesn't even make sense to talk about the existence of a God that has no real properties.

Posted by: Harmless Eccentric | November 29, 2009 4:10 PM

A god who isn't omnipotent, who didn't create the world, who doesn't affect the world, and who doesn't reward and punish behavior in a real afterlife seems to me to be indistinguishable from a god who does not exist.

Actually, that's how I stopped believing in God: by stopping believing, one by one, in the things I'd been taught about God that were directly contradicted by the evidence, until at last all I had left was a vaguely benign inactive spiritual force, and believing in that seemed a bit pointless.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 29, 2009 4:12 PM

The problem with Christian fundamentalists is they're a noisy lot. Bill O'Reilly rants about a make-believe War on Christmas (Pat. Pending) which has a bunch of people convinced that stores are forbidding their employees to say "Merry Christmas." Ken Ham and his ilk make people think that evolution is a theory gasping its last breath and propped up by godless liberals. Who knows what Pat Robertson is actually saying but he's saying it at the top of his lungs.

As a result, the fundamentalists appear to have more power and prestige than their numbers would indicate. Great Aunt Tilly goes to church regularly, sings in the choir, and believes fervently but quietly. There are millions like her living peacefully in the background. Fred Phelps runs a tiny sect consisting mainly of his family but everyone's heard of him because he's noisy.

Posted by: Lynna | November 29, 2009 4:13 PM

I suppose, if you spend your entire life on a university campus...what else could one expect?

And I would give your hurt feelings and red ears more credence if you offered a credible argument as a side dish -- doesn't even have to be the main course.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2009 4:14 PM

Actually, I think the coolest way god could have showed his existence would have been to encode "also sprach zarathustra" into the cosmic background radiation from the big bang. That would have been really flippin' classy!

Another good one would be when the voyager probe got far enough out, it tore a hole through the shell surrounding us (that separates us from heaven) and we could see shining light and angels and stuff. That would, I assure, you, confound the living shit out of a lot of cosmologists and it'd be pretty convincing for the rest of us, too.

Another cool trick god could have done is not make his true believers so fucking stupid. But that might be beyond his ability.

Posted by: Rox | November 29, 2009 4:16 PM

@Joshua Williams

What would it take to get me to believe in god?

First, someone would have to give a concrete definition of 'god'. Not just some vague bullshit about transcendence and divinity. Tell me what god is in CONCRETE terms.

Then I would have to evaluate whether god as specifically defined made sense given what we know about the universe.

Some people characterize god as 'benevolent'. But when I look at all the suffering in the world, this kind of god just seems absurd.

Likewise, people used to use god as an explanation for how everything got here. I think that physics and biology (particularly evolution) have rendered such explanations unnecessary.

In order for me to buy into a particular definition of god, the universe would have to make MORE sense with that god than without. So far I have yet to encounter a definition of god that wasn't superfluous.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 29, 2009 4:16 PM

"If God didn't create the world, who did?" Heh. That's like asking, "if there aren't tiny little men inside my television screen making it work, then what tiny little creatures ARE inside making it work?"

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 29, 2009 4:17 PM

The debate featured several mentions of the 'New Atheists' by the faith side of the table.

The only thing 'New' is that those religious institutions which have long been an unquestioned part of society are finally sitting up and taking notice that they aren't universally tolerated and welcomed! 'Bout damned time, too. There is an incipient trepidation spreading throughout established religions that is a revealing demonstration of what an increasingly cohesive and accessible platform of unbelief can accomplish.

The InnerTubes are powerful medicine, innit? Tip 'O the Hat to blogs like this one. There's lots of others, too; just start clicking links . . .

Also good to see a new commenter welcomed with a touch of class. Dialog is more productive than a single voice in the long run. Thanks to AJ Milne @ 84. Nicely done. Here's to looking forward to engaging exchanges.

Posted by: Lynna | November 29, 2009 4:18 PM

articulett, I was squealing in unison with you. Loved Dawkins' one-word answer of "yes" to the question of whether or not human civilization would have been better off without christianity.

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 4:19 PM

Concern fallacy:

"I am concerned, therefor I am right."

The assertion that if one is coming from a position of concern (for the feelings of others, or a specific problem), then their conclusions must be viewed as credible.

It could very well go the other way, too.

The assertion that if one is coming from a position of concern (for the feelings of others, or a specific problem), then their conclusions must be viewed as not credible.

Posted by: deadwildroses.wordpress.com | November 29, 2009 4:21 PM

A great debate.

Summed up as follows.

RD: Science flies people to the moon, Religion flies people into buildings.

Woo Haa!

Posted by: bsk | November 29, 2009 4:25 PM

Joshua Williams:

Wait, wait wait. How is Jesus not an example of god intervening in the world?

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 4:29 PM

Wow, I barely get one comment written, and there are several more to respond to. Thanks, folks. This is fun. I'm learning a lot.

BoxNDox, I'm not sure. I would, though, definitely argue that divine inspiration of the scriptures is different than inerrant scriptures, which in turn is different from literally true scripture. I'm something or a lingual purist, so I resist the despecification of words.

Kel, great point about which God one believes in. Like many theists, I tend to forget there are other ideas of God than mine.

386sx, do you mean what it would take to convince me that God doesn't exist? Like I've said, I don't know. I've been wondering about that for a while now. I suppose in some sense modern liberal theists are guilty of moving the goalposts, redefining God to make sense in light of things that make God seem less likely.

Nerd of Redhead, agreed. Don't have anything else to add to that.

Marcus, I don't give much credence to those miracles, either. They're stories about what God is like, I think, not what God did. Why would the things you listed be things God can do?

Antiochus, interesting point. I need to mull that over.

Screechy, you're right. I didn't mean that to be confrontational. Like I said, it's something I've been struggling with, so when Kel brought it up, I wanted to ask him about it.

Harmless Eccentric, you aren't saying much I disagree with. I experience God as a grounding in love, and that's all I expect from her.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 29, 2009 4:35 PM

... I have to say honestly, one of the other things that alway amuses me about this whine we get from various quarters about atheists having become too 'shrill' of late is that honestly, I always find myself thinking something like: 'Fuck... you have no idea.'

... as in: I don't actually know about PZ, nor about Dawkins, nor about, say, many of the rest of the commenters, but me, I'm always toning it down just to get it to where it is...

I figure you pretty much have to. It's a weird and omnipresent necessity that comes with the almost entirely absurd world you find yourself living in. Your first reaction to, say, just about anything that comes out of the Vatican's or the DI's press office is going to be: 'Okay... that's [expletive] incredibly [expletive] stupid and [expletive] presumptuous and [expletive] insulting of you [expletive] [expletives] even to suggest... how [expletive] stupid do you [expletive] think people [expletive] are... take that inane, transparently [expletive] stupid [expletive] and shove it up your [expletive] you [expletive] [expletive]...'

... but you read that in your editor, and you get to thinking: okay, not everyone comes from the world I do, not everyone is going to be as startled by the sheer, over the top pompous, windy, wide-open-for-baffled-derision stupidity of this as am I... and if I say it like I'm actually thinking it, they're gonna think I'm from Neptune, and never mind it looks to me like it's them aren't so much from this planet...

... and whether or not you've got the time to say as much in detail, you also get: this is pretty complicated, psychologically, at least. Sure, they sound like they're from Neptune, but then, a lot of the religious experience creates a bubble that makes 'em think that is where they live... Maybe--even probably--they or some of them know this is bullshit, to some degree--but this is part of the social expectations they live with. They're used to hearing this particular variety of crazy. So while you've really got to get across to them how incredibly insane it looks to you from outside or go a bit crazy yourself, you also do have some sympathy about the whole thing--if little time--and increasingly less patience--to repeat that whole spiel every freaking time they say something just utterly cracked...

... So you saw out a good nine tenths of those expletives, try to find a metaphor or something illustrative enough to get it across to them how incredibly ridiculous this shit looks to you, try to come halfway, so at least they might hear you on their world. And at least try to find the funny in it, if you can, if there is any... and honestly, that's tough sometimes. There are Catholic clergy deliberately fucking with people's heads over how well condoms work in some of the most AIDS-ridden places on the planet, and I'm going to find the joke in that? Umm...

Yeah... well... there must be one... I'm sure Gervais would find it eventually... so I'll get back to you...

... but then they whine we're 'shrill'? And that PZ is being deliberately provocative?

... you get to thinking: okay, by their standards, maybe it seems that way...

... but as concerns PZ especially, I more often find myself thinking: 'okay... sure, I could see how some might read him as a bit snide against the background they're used to, but I'm pretty sure if I'd taken a crack at that one, a bit snide is about the gentlest I could have ever hoped to achieve.' It's an ongoing joke about he always gets portrayed as being such a teddy bear when people actually meet him, but considering everything, this seems no surprise to me: my impression of him is: fuck, you'd have to be an awfully calm, patient person to immerse yourself in the stupidity of some of this stuff to the degree you'd have to even to write about it from a reasoned, independent, educated viewpoint on a regular basis without needing strong medication. Me, I figure PZ has to have some serious talent for making deep breathing exercises work for him just from the fact that he still reads his mailbag, now and then...

(/So again: shrill? They have no fucking idea.)

Posted by: David Clebveland | November 29, 2009 4:36 PM

Well hell, I missed the debate, that sucks. Does anyone know if it's posted yet or when/where?

Posted by: francois boisvert | November 29, 2009 4:36 PM

Joshua Williams - I like you. I'm very happy to see a believer online with whom I can agree.

I do have a mild criticism to make if I may: why aren't we hearing more from people like you in public forums? People like yourself should be the most vocal in opposing fundamentalist believers. To paraphrase the old saying, it's your own house, why aren't you the ones cleaning it?

Posted by: vanharris | November 29, 2009 4:37 PM

Josh # 127 I take a pretty strict materialist view of the universe.

You don't, otherwise you realize that we evolved the capacity for love. We see it in other animals, particularly mammals (that rear their young) though often not so much in the males that are controlled by a need to render females open to mating, by killing their young.

I saw what must surely be the expression of love in a lion & tigress pairing, & there wasn't a lion or tiger Jebus. Heck, i even see it in our cats.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 4:44 PM

Nerd of Redhead, very true. No need for God for that. Can I just say again, that while I am answering questions posed to me, I'm really just trying to learn here. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Rox, good point. That's how I view my personal faith journey, trying to make sense of God in light of what we know about the universe and the horrible things that happen in it. I don't think my belief adds anything to the universe. Such belief isn't necessary to be a good and loving person or to be happy or any of that. I might even be tempted to argue that God is superfluous. Hmm.

Kel, I don't understand.

Antiochus, sure.

Pcarini, and it keeps us from getting hung up in irrelevances. As far as I'm concerned, Christianity is not a belief system, it's an ethical code. Metaphysics and what not just distracts us from that.

Gerry, I see your point. I'm not explaining myself well, but I'm not sure how to do it better. Let me think about it.

BSK, well, do you want me to answer you like I would to my ordination committee or like a professor in seminary? Jesus was a human being who lived a life so grounded in a love of other humans that he, in a sense, became divine because he was so full of love. I feel comfortable claiming that Jesus is divine because of that, not because his mom got diddled by an angel.

Posted by: Lynna | November 29, 2009 4:47 PM

Dear Sound Engineer for this debate,
Wake up!

Sheesh. Next time, take more care with sound checks. Set the mike levels so that each individual debater is speaking at approximately the same loudness. And if there is a problem with clarity, replace the mike, and/or reposition the mike to solve the problem.

You did a great disservice to soft-spoken Mr. Grayling, and did not do all that well by Dawkins either.

Posted by: AdamK | November 29, 2009 4:50 PM

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

First: an internally consistent definition of "god." No warm fuzzy feelings or paradoxical handwaving allowed.

Second: Evidence.

Third: The opportunity to test the evidence against the definition.

This would work for any supernatural being or phenomenon, actually.

What would it take to convince you that fairies, ghosts, Santa Clause, unicorns, pixies or boojums exist?

Posted by: Furcas | November 29, 2009 4:52 PM

Harries made it sound like these ancient Christian philosophers all came to the conclusion that theism is true independently. In reality, they believed in theism for the same reason that most people do, because that's the way they were indoctrinated as children. They started from the false, faith-based assumption that theism as true, and from there they attempted (and failed) to find justification for that assumption. Obviously, this doesn't demonstrate that theism is a respectable intellectual position, it only demonstrates that theism is childhood indoctrination is an efficient way of ensuring the survival and propagation of a meme.

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | November 29, 2009 4:53 PM

@JoshuaConcerntroll:

You lash out and dismiss every differing viewpoint of being unworthy.

No no no. You are making the standard concern troll error of equating "every different viewpoint" with "you particularly stupid, insular viewpoint". Please try not to do that again or I'm afraid I will have to fail to reassess my opinion of you.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 29, 2009 4:54 PM

"Jesus was a human being who lived a life so grounded in a love of other humans that he, in a sense, became divine because he was so full of love. I feel comfortable claiming that Jesus is divine because of that, not because his mom got diddled by an angel."

Are there any other human beings, living or dead, who you would put in that category?

If you take away the miracles, and don't believe that Jesus's crucifixion had any "magical" ability to cleanse others of their sins, then it seems to me that you're left with a man who made some nice speeches about loving one's fellow man (along with some weird ones about leaving one's family, and consigning people to a lake of fire...), and who was willing to suffer for his beliefs. Why wouldn't Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, be every bit as "divine" as Jesus?

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | November 29, 2009 4:58 PM

@JoshuaWilliams

AGH! My apologies, Joshua! That wasn't supposed to be directed at you but at the "DistancingMyselfFrom Atheism" guy!

God, I hate it when I do that!

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 5:00 PM

386sx, then I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking me. And, just to be clear, I didn't mean this as a challenge. Kel mentioned the question and I was just curious.

TheShouldersOfGiants, I preach what I consider to be the real message of Christianity: love others. If asked directly, I would say that I don;t believe that God is all-powerful, although I'd probably couch it differently. Why? Because I don't see the question as relevant. For people who already claim to be Christians, we need to focus on loving others, not whether God exists. I'm a maker of disciples, not a converter of non-believers.

Stephen, I guess I just don't see those as mutually exclusive, despite the attempts of many of my brothers and sisters to make it seem so. Seriously, though, "being nice" and "loving" are very different things.

Posted by: vanharris | November 29, 2009 5:01 PM

Josh, Vanharris, sure. No argument.

So why did you claim to "take a pretty strict materialist view of the universe" then?

Do you now no longer claim that? You can't have it both ways - not if you're a rationalist & a materialist. Maybe you're some kind of non-rationalist materialist!

Posted by: Rox | November 29, 2009 5:03 PM

@AJ Milne #150

I know exactly what you mean.

When I hear Catholic apologists dismissing child abuse as if it were an unpaid parking ticket... And to hear them scoff at all the criticism over their policies on condoms as if it were a mere trifle even though their policies are KILLING PEOPLE... It really is like they are from a different universe.

And I do have to tone myself down when I talk about these issues. Because it makes me FURIOUS. There are days when I literally can't believe the shit that is going on in our world. It is simply too insane.

When I think about all the things that I want to say but don't out of politeness...

And to think that people say we are strident NOW. They have no idea.

Posted by: Anonym | November 29, 2009 5:06 PM

Ah-h-h, the irresistable bait does it every time.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 5:09 PM

Screechy, you raise a good point. I believe (and it is a belief) that Jesus did this in a unique way. Your examples might be divine, although I don't think I'd call them that.

Jack, no worries. I assumed it was a typo.

BSK, I'm sorry if my humor came off as snarky. You don't seem confrontational. I am religious because I belong to a religion called Christianity. My beliefs have nothing to do with whether I am religious. Lots of religious people have done away with miracles and divinity. Dr. Hawkins' good friend Bishop Spong, for instance. You don't get much more religious than being a bishop.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 29, 2009 5:12 PM

Not one person may every disagree with you folk without being called a troll, mocked, belittled and told to fuck off.

Funny... In the middle of the concern troll's whining, a theist walked into our midst and wasn't mocked, wasn't belittled, wasn't told to fuck off. He was treated with civility, and there was much polite debate/discussion.

You see, distancing from brains, what fuckwits like you just don't get is that you don't crash a party held by a host whose party style offends you, shit on the canapes, then complain about how bad those taste. Don't like the way someone entertains? Then stay the fuck away, you tiresome git.

Posted by: francois boisvert | November 29, 2009 5:14 PM

Joshua - Point taken, I understand you're getting a lot of questions on here as it is, so I'll make one last comment: I'm afraid that if the trend towards fundamentalism doesn't reverse, we will have a nuclear war on our hands. While I might be excessively pessimistic, this is not unrealistic at all; take a look at what Islam has become in some parts of the world. Your voice has a much better chance of being heard by the crazies.
What I'm saying is, PLEASE save us all... You might be the only ones who can.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 29, 2009 5:16 PM

*checks Molly lists to make sure Aquaria is on one. Yep.*

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 5:19 PM

Rixaeton, while I certainly don't believe that all religions teach basically the same thing, I would agree that my ethical framework, which i see as the essential core of my faith, would fit in nicely in Buddhism. Now, I do consider some elements of worship important, but I don't think they're strictly relevant to this conversation.

Vanharris, if I claimed that God is necessary for love, then I misspoke. God certainly isn't. Love can be explained other ways. I don't think God is necessary for anything.

Dave H, wonderful point. That's going to give me something to think about.

Charles, thanks for your kind words. You aren't going to like my answer to your first question. God is love. That's as far as I go with it. Like I said earlier, metaphysics just bogs us down in irrelevant issues. I simply don;t spend time thinking about such things. As for your second point, I didn't mean to use the phrase new atheist. It's not one I find helpful. My point about the increasing number of atheists was about in our culture. While there have always been atheists, they haven't been common in the post-Christendom West, and their numbers have been growing as their positions have been made more public. I didn't mean it as a put-down.

Knockgoats, your perspective is welcome and interesting. As for your second question, I don't believe that God is necessary for anything. Maybe source was the wrong word, as it seems to have obscured my point.

Posted by: Paul W. | November 29, 2009 5:23 PM

Joshua,

I'm with 386sx and others here. If you're going to tell us you believe in God, and ask us what it would take to get us to believe in God, you need to be specific---what do you mean by God?

Like I said earlier, metaphysics just bogs us down in irrelevant issues.

No, it doesn't. It's entirely relevant to making sense of anything you say about God.

It is relevant on multiple counts, so you owe us
some clarification. (A lot of clarification, preferably.)

For starters, is your god a person of some sort, with beliefs and desires?

Is it a moral authority?

What does "God is love" mean?

Does it mean that to be God is exactly the same thing as to be love? (Strict logical equality.) If so that would imply that god is nothing but love, and vice versa.

Or does it mean "God is a kind of love"? (A subclass or set instance relation.) If so, that would mean that anything that is not love is not GTod, but some thing that is love might not be God.

Or is it just a poetic slogan with no particular meaning, or what?

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 5:25 PM

386sx, you're probably making a great point that I'm just missing, but I do believe that God exists. I can't prove it, there is no evidence, but there it is.

Fracois, I couldn't agree more. We live in a world threatened by intolerance, and primarily religious intolerance. Whether it's nuclear war or the erosion of civil liberties, religious people are doing great harm in the world. I think that there are more and more non-insane Christians, though. (Although I won't argue the point that being a Christian makes one insane automatically. Won't do it. Nope.)

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 5:30 PM

I'm with 386sx and others here. If you're going to tell us you believe in God, and ask us what it would take to get us to believe in God, you need to be specific---what do you mean by God?

I'm asking the same question he asked everybody else. What would it take to convince him that God exists? Being specific about what he believes in isn't enough. What is it that convinces him that God exists? (My guess would be that he talks to God, but I don't know.)

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 5:34 PM

Gerry, I still think they're irrelevant. The nature of God has nothing to do with what it means to love my neighbor. As long as we're focused on love, what we actually believe about God doesn't really matter. However, the questions you mentioned are really more fodder for bible studies, which is a different environment than worship.

Paul, let me put some thought into this and get back to you. I have to leave soon.

David, maybe I am, but I don't think so. Even if I am, though, how does that mean I can't be a pastor?

Just as a final note, I do believe in a God with whom we can personally commune. As I said earlier, my experience of God is a a ground of love in which I find cause to act. This is a purely spiritual idea, however, and I assumed it would seem silly, perhaps with good reason, to all of you. I'm more spiritual than I might seem based on this conversation, but like I said, I came here to learn.

That being said, I have to go. I have rehearsal this evening, and I needed to spend the afternoon studying my lines. Oh, well. Thank you for your conversation and challenges. I'll check back in this evening.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 29, 2009 5:38 PM

Kel, great point about which God one believes in. Like many theists, I tend to forget there are other ideas of God than mine.

In terms of the nebulous notion of god, I'm of the opinion that the question is insoluble. But such a god is quite a useless construct, it doesn't really say anything about anything at all. It's more that people like the word and some of the metaphysical connotations of a greater force with some personal attributes - though of course they can't say that it does have personal attributes for that would be defining the undefinable.

But what shook me out of that position was a philosophy graduate who reminded me that there are plenty who define god and do so with very specific attributes. And in those cases there is a case for atheism.

It's that nebulous meaningless feel-good use of the word God that really gets me. And they seem to fall into two categories. The first category is the ones who actually take this nebulous construct seriously, talking in vague terms that essentially render the word God meaningless. The second category are those who believe in a well-defined god, but argue for this nebulous construct it seems so they can win the debate and call an atheist a fundamentalist / militant / faithhead / unenlightened / whatever, then as soon as the atheist is looking away they go back to espousing the triune god the atheist was arguing against in the first place.

Posted by: Mr T | November 29, 2009 5:38 PM

Joshua Williams:

I believe that God is the source of all love. That love calls us or lures us towards loving others. God doesn't directly intervene through the world, but Christians, as the Body of Christ, should be acting in the world as Jesus would. The point is simply to live in love.... Did God create the universe? Hmm. I don't really think so. [my emphasis]

You're an atheist (more properly an agnostic atheist) and that is perfectly okay. By the sound of it, you might call yourself a "cultural Christian" or something else, but that's not the point of the theist/atheist distinction. You're answering a different question than "does god exist?" or "how did the universe come to exist?". Redefining "god" as "love" only confuses the two concepts. I believe in "love" and that "loving" people is good, but I do not believe in a "god".

This is a fairly common phenomenon among Christians, even among the clergy. If you want to help enlighten your parishioners, it's up to you to understand the difference and to help them do the same.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 5:41 PM

Okay, really quickly before I leave:

386sx, I was completely misunderstanding you. Okay, in short, I experience God as love, love greater than I am capable of, that pervades my life and calls me towards being a more loving human.

Antiochus, you're right that it's hard to know what Jesus really said. I find in the synoptic gospels a mostly consistent portrait of a man who preached love of God and neighbor before all things, but who, like all people, could be inconsistent. I tend to dismiss John's gospel out of hand. Jesus in it is not the same Jesus in the synoptics. For me, the Kingdom is not something that's coming but something that is when we see the world as God sees it and act in it as God would have us act.

Everyone, I know I've been inconsistent here, but it's difficult to answer so many diverse questions coming from people who define things like God and religiosity differently from you. I'm doing my best. See you later.

Posted by: Paul W. | November 29, 2009 5:41 PM

Joshua Williams,
Dr. Hawkins' good friend Bishop Spong, for instance. You don't get much more religious than being a bishop.

You can be a lot more religious than Spong, and by the most widely understood standards of what "religious" means, most people in the world are.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 29, 2009 5:45 PM

Crap. Need to stop refreshing the page. Okay. Real quick.

386sx, I didn't say talk. I said commune.

Mr T, whenever I get involved in these debates, atheists want to convince me I'm an atheist who just doesn't realize it yet. It makes me feel like the prettiest girl at the ball. :)

bsk, I would define religious as having a cultural component. I'm not a non-believer because I believe in God.

I will check in later. Thanks again.

Posted by: Steve in Dublin | November 29, 2009 5:48 PM

@Owen #114

Pat Condell's latest is fantastic.

Aggressive Atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjO4duhMRZk

Yeah, I agree about 99% that's how most of us around here feel. Just wish he hadn't played the Jerusalem card though. Cheapened it a bit, IMO.

Posted by: Anonym | November 29, 2009 5:50 PM

Pastor dude with gig just can't stop reeling 'em.

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 5:52 PM

386sx, I didn't say talk. I said commune.

Okay then I guess you don't talk to God. (?) Okay then, what would it take to convince you that God exists? Not much apparently!

Posted by: raven | November 29, 2009 5:55 PM

JW:

Kel, great point about which God one believes in. Like many theists, I tend to forget there are other ideas of God than mine.

There is no such thing as xianity. There are a number of religions that use that name. They have little or nothing in common with each other.

Once one gets over that hurdle, everything makes sense.

That is why the ecumenical movement didn't go all that far. That is why the various sects hate each other and fight wars when the secular authorities are asleep at the wheel.

The fundies don't worship god or jesus. They worship a hopelessly mixed up anthology called...the bible. Their saints are Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin, and other vaguely humanoid toads.

Posted by: 386sx | November 29, 2009 6:00 PM

Pastor dude with gig just can't stop reeling 'em.

You might be right, because why would someone with a (ostensibly) vague notion of God, ask the question: What would it take to convince you that God exists?

Posted by: Paul W. | November 29, 2009 6:03 PM

Joshua@206,

You're being evasive.

So you don't talk to God, you "commune." OK, what do you mean by commune---and please don't just give us another ill-defined word, thanks---and what do you mean by God, such that you can "commune" with "God."

And you "experience" god "as love." What does that mean? Do you mean that you have a subjective experience of love that you interpret as a sign that there's actual love being spread around by some actual being that is what most of us would consider a god? Or what?

Does that mean that you don't think that God literally is love in either of the senses I clarified before?

And yes, it is relevant, whether you think so or not. We're faced with the task of interpreting your ambiguous utterances, and if you keep it up, pretty soon we'll think you're being evasive on purpose.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that you're not an atheist, and find that quite credible.

I suspect that you believe in some vaguely person-like thing that manifests itself as a felt experience of love, which you assume means that actual love is involved...

But how can we believe your description of your beliefs if you talk mush-talk with no clear meaning?

Posted by: David B | November 29, 2009 6:09 PM

Many thanks to whoeveritwas who posted the Pat Condell link. I'm passing it on.

I'd come across him on youtube before, but not that one.

It's nice to see a Christian here both asking and doing his best to answer questions. His god don't seem up to much, though. Rather as Spong's and Karen Armstrong's aren't up to much.

What do they do other than aspire to a feeling of communion with something more that are the feelings that Dawkins described in the debate as - I forget the exact words - but to the effect of the feeling of awe and wonder that one can sometimes find oneself in when contemplating Life, The Universe, and Everything?

Nothing that I can see.

David

Posted by: dave | November 29, 2009 6:10 PM

Joshua Williams #77 "It seems I understand it well enough. It makes me feel better about condemning you all to hell!

Just kidding. Sorry. Just a little holier-than-thou joke."

Very funny. If it makes you happy to condem people to hell, feel free to do so (it's not like any atheist would care)!

Joshua Williams #113

"Kel said that he would change his mind if it could be shown that God exists. I wanted to know what would constitute such proof."

I think if there was a god, the proof would be obvious and multitudinous. That is, if there was a god, a discussion about what that "proof" would need to be would be moot (ie, pointless).

Posted by: Aquaria | November 29, 2009 6:13 PM

AdamK:

I'm not an OM. Nerd is talking about his personal list of people to vote for when the time comes.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 29, 2009 6:18 PM

JW, your position that you can "commune with God" is incompatible with the claim that God doesn't intervene in the universe. Please to pick one and stick with it?

Posted by: ceepeethreeoh | November 29, 2009 6:32 PM

JW - I'm fascinated by your input - probably because I come from a "Christian" family which includes/included a mix of members from one who was convinced that the world was created in six consecutive periods of twenty-four hours to one who considers the OT irrelevant to Christianity and claims to have a view of God as expounded in "The Shack".
I find it impossible to discuss Christianity with anyone until I understand their definition of Christianity - so I wonder how you define a Christian. Is there a test, does a Christian have to accept the 39 articles (doesn't make you CofE if you do) and/or believe the words of the Nicene Creed? - and if you don't so believe how do you regard those who do - are you really part of the same faith structure?

To those with greater knowledge/brains than me - do we need a word for an unbeliever/disbeliever which isn't "atheist" but isn't "agnostic" either.
Is there already a word for someone (now there's a hostage to fortune!) who admits the logical impossibility of denying a supernatural existence (albeit, due to the lack of evidence for it, probably one that cannot or will not interact with our "natural" state) whilst being certain that the human Gods, Abrahamic, Roman, Norse etc. are fiction?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 29, 2009 6:46 PM

Pastor Williams, What would it take me to believe in god?

Which god? And which particular definition of said god? If it's the god of the bible, well biblical type proof would be good - after all, god supposedly set the standard. At this point, even a We apologise for the inconvenience written in letters of fire would be good.

If there really is 'one god to rule them all' it would be nice if said god could take a moment and clarify all the religious differences fracturing people and peace all over the planet.

Now, if you don't subscribe to an omnipotent, interventionist god, but simply some nebulous source of love; why add the unnecessary step of a god at all? Why not believe humans are the source of love, and in living and acting on that love, we have a long way to go and religions and god beliefs hinder that love.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 29, 2009 6:53 PM

David Marjanović, OM@213,

You're right of course, at least without further specification of where the spelling-out happens and how much of the Koran - if the whole thing was spelled out sequentially in the first quadrillion digits, that would be pretty convincing. BTW, you say the digits are "random", but what do you mean by that? It has been proved to be normal: all sequences of length n appear equally often in the limit - but the same is true of: 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829...
It's not random in the sense of requiring infinite amounts of information to specify: any of the formulae for pi does that!

Posted by: Mr T | November 29, 2009 6:58 PM

Joshua Williams said:

Mr T, whenever I get involved in these debates, atheists want to convince me I'm an atheist who just doesn't realize it yet. It makes me feel like the prettiest girl at the ball. :)

When one talks about "love", it doesn't necessarily imply anything about any supposed creator of the universe, or that all love has a single or external "source". According to your understanding of "god/love", do atheists believe in "god/love"? Do you get to redefine atheism as well?

You've said you don't believe, or aren't sure whether you believe, or just don't care enough to ask yourself whether you believe:
1) god exists
2) god created the universe, or
3) god intervenes in the world

These are obviously what people some of the things people are talking about when they say "god." They're necessary for belief in a theistic god. From your comments, it's reasonable to assume that you are not a theist. You're also probably not a deist, pantheist, or panentheist. I didn't think I was making a lot of unwarranted assumptions when I concluded that you're an agnostic atheist. You could also just be confused, not know what you believe, or not care. There are plenty of options, but I was trying to get to the point where you understood that professing to believe "god is love" is not sufficient for believing in a theistic god.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 29, 2009 7:09 PM

Aquaria #224

I'm not an OM.

We'll see about that, young lady. Now you go to your room and stay there until you are an OM.

Posted by: Dentroman | November 29, 2009 7:14 PM

Sorry. Messed up the tags. I'll get the hang of it eventually.

Joshua-I wanted to ask you something quick. The god you reference seems (from my reading of you comments) to be only vaguely representative of the Judeo-Christian God I'm familiar with. I'm curious why you consider yourself a Chrisitan, and not, for example, A Hindu or Muslim. Why did you select Christianity above other religions? Thanks in advance!

Dentroman

Posted by: Michelle B | November 29, 2009 7:16 PM

Religious believers like Pastor Williams are a dime a dozen in my neck of the woods. They have cherry picked Christianity to a tiny, withered twig which they inanely insist on being this wonderful, inspiring, nourishing, grounded-in-Jesus, spiritually buoyant view.

While all I see are guru-followers, love junkies (what is it with Christians and their insatiable craving for love?), and ethical cowards. Love is a mere emotion, not this magical force. Insisting that it is more than what it is, it is cheapened. Yup, Pastor W, in your greedy grasping for love (forget about defining god, define love first) you make it seems that a church factory can just churn the stuff out.

As for murkies like Pastor W speaking out in the public sphere to balance out the literalists, I suppose if your neck of woods are infested with fundies, the murkies might reclaim some ground lost to reason. But, I have my doubts.

What does this guy do during the day? Help people handle their emotions better? Does he have the professional training to do that? Is his preaching business tax exempt? Does he pass out uppers to keep his audience from not passing out from boredom (just a little joke, Pastor W, something you should appreciate as you find most liberal Christian websites to be boring).

If your neck of the woods are full of fundies, then maybe a Pastor W type may seem refreshing to you, but for me, meh. All Pastor W is, is a murkie.

Posted by: hyoid | November 29, 2009 7:21 PM

Joshua, I'm calling POE. Really love the Blog, read it for years, yet claim little knowledge of atheisim, and now you are tap dancing around the questions put to you.

Posted by: hyoid | November 29, 2009 7:27 PM

Oh and then there's that too. The bait thing.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 29, 2009 7:30 PM

Now you go to your room and stay there until you are an OM.

How the hell is it that Aquaria isn't an OM? That's just not right.

Posted by: scooter | November 29, 2009 7:34 PM

What is wrong with Carribeans trying to dance under a stick?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | November 29, 2009 7:56 PM

These days I seem to be hearing more people recite the line 'I'm not religious, I'm spiritual'; what I'm not sure about is whether it's out of genuine distaste for organised religion (understandable) combined with the need to cling the coddling effect of believing that there really is some kind of all-powerful being who is 'looking out for them'.

A case of having their faith-cake and eating it too, perhaps.

Anyway, I do find this slightly annoying, since it seems to me like a way of dodging the issue, and it's only slightly more rational than 'regular' Christianity. But it does have the benefit of not being anywhere near as impactful on society - at least in the sense they don't choose to be told how to vote on things like same-sex marriage and other issues the churches love to meddle with.

Posted by: Xantief | November 29, 2009 8:00 PM

Any person can construct a symbolic god in their imagination, and I argue that any person's god is a completely personal creation, and that the teachings of religion are unnecessary and sometimes undesirable modifications thereto.

I'm happy to say that after some independent soul-searching, my own god is similar to those of Spinoza and Jefferson, so I'll label myself 'deist'.

I have always ignored churches, scripture, and preachers. I was very disappointed at the first reading to discover the Bible was not actually The Human's Manual: How to Live in a Marvelous World... It was a Baptist minister that taught me at a tender age that *There Is Nothing Stopping A Grown-up From Being A Stupid Idiot.* The buffoon couldn't even tell me why the sky is blue! Why then should I trust him with the intangibles?... Seriously, what are churches other than very expensive fan clubs?

I've taken my own personal spiritual journey since then. As I stumble along, I don't intentionally break what is known as the Golden Rule (except perhaps by omission), so I suppose I have the right basic idea.

Religions, as I have learned to perceive them, provide:

1) emotional security blankets to ward off imaginary evils
2) those same imaginary evils
3) self-reinforcing fear of "the others"
4) cookie-cutter social matrices
5) barriers against natural human experiences

Good people are good, more in spite of their religion (if they subscribe to one) than because of it. Bad people can, and do, use religion for their own selfish ends.

I owe to another man's god precisely what I owe to the monster under his bed. Nothing.

I like AC Grayling's presentation. Reality at work.

Posted by: gettingfree | November 29, 2009 8:06 PM

hyoid @ #242
"...I'm calling POE."

I'll second that.

Posted by: Mr T | November 29, 2009 8:14 PM

xantief, #252:

1) imaginary emotional security blankets to ward off imaginary evils

We may as well derail the thread a little further, so I'd like to ask: why are you a deist?

I probably won't agree with you, but based on your one comment, I'm guessing you're likely to have a more coherent and interesting answer than Joshua Williams'.

Posted by: Yahzi | November 29, 2009 8:18 PM

@ Joshua Williams
I bet you and I define God very differently.

We do, but that's not the point. The point is that you and billions of Christians define God very differently from each other.

In any case, when you say the Bible is a source of moral inspiration, I disagree. Irrespective of its factual truth, it is a horrible moral framework. The chief - indeed only - sin is disobedience. Genesis and the tale of original sin are not about choosing good vs evil, they are about choosing to obey vs not obey. And the rest of the book is basically about the same topic.

I am not a Christian, not even a cultural Christian, because Christianity is not moral enough. My standards are higher.

Posted by: Butch Pansy | November 29, 2009 8:32 PM

Hmm...God is the Unified Field Theory?

Posted by: BoxNDox | November 29, 2009 8:36 PM

JW @ #148: I find it interesting that you don't conclude that divine inspiration of scripture necessarily leads to inerrancy or literal truth. I recall someone raising the very same point in class when this was presented.

However, this all transpired in American Studies, not Sacred Studies, and the professor countered that inerrancy was the conclusion reached at the time, never mind how it doesn't logically follow.

In hindsight this would have led to a much more interesting discussion in a Sacred Studies context. Sadly, that particular class focused on the teachings of Paul, and left me with little more than an abiding disgust for Corinthians, Romans, and all the rest.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 29, 2009 8:47 PM

We'll see about that, young lady. Now you go to your room and stay there until you are an OM.

But...But... Daddy, if I go to my room, all I'll have to play with is myself!

Maybe I needed to say that on the porn thread.

Posted by: Jessa | November 29, 2009 9:01 PM

Joshua, I'm calling POE.

For now, I'm giving Joshua the benefit of the doubt.

But I'd be lying if I said I didn't have the suspicion that Joshua is a more fervent Christian than he admits and is simply trying to get us nasty atheists to bash the warm, fuzzy, it's-all-about-the-love version of god so that our reputation as big heartless meanies is further confirmed. A sort of "half-reverse Poe", maybe? I've seen it before.

Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com | November 29, 2009 9:03 PM

@Joshua Williams
It seems that you are suggesting that god might be a meme. Interesting.

Do you post over at RichardDawkins.net? It would be good to have you there (be prepared for an early pummelling, but you can get it over with real quick in the hello part of the forum, just tell 'em you're a pastor and sit back for a bit while they work out all their assumptions).

I'm DanDare over there. One of my earliest topics was to ask how could god prove she existed, was it even possible? (No, I am not a theist but it was such an interesting question, some of the suggestions were entertaining but none actually worked).

Posted by: Dentroman | November 29, 2009 9:10 PM

@Knockgoats, #232: Where is the proof that pi is normal? I've never heard of it, and the Wikipedia article on "Normal number" says that the normality of pi is still unproven. Of course, I believe that pi is normal, but that's a point of faith and hence inappropriate for this blog :)

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 29, 2009 9:29 PM

... Dawkins simply cited the title of chapter 4 of The God Delusion: "Why there almost certainly is no god."

This bugs me. Would Richard Dawkins say the same thing about the Easter Bunny?

Why there almost certainly is no Easter Bunny.

That would be a nutty thing to say. Of course there's no Easter Bunny. It's a childish ridiculous idea. But the idea there's a magic fairy hiding somewhere in the universe is equally if not more ridiculous. I don't say "There is almost certainly no god". I say "Of course there's no god fairy, are you nuts or something?"

Posted by: Aquaria | November 29, 2009 9:38 PM

1) Statement of belief isn't Apostle's Creed.

2 Lots of churches have statements of belief, but, save for a few functions/functionaries, those things never come up, really, in services. I'd wager that a big chunk of Southern Baptists have no idea what's actually in the SBC's equivalent of a statement of belief, the Baptist Faith and Message, or even which one their church actually follows; some churches/pastors don't take up the most recent statements as quickly or thoroughly as others. Alot of Southern Baptists are still dithering over the 2000 BFM (the most recent). Everytime the SBC comes up with a new BFM, it creates schisms galore. This is probably why the average SBC church doesn't bring up the BFM during services. They go about it a bit more sneakily (subtlety is way beyond them)--no recitation or any of that, like I saw of the Nicene/Apostle's Cree in Catholic, Episcopalian and Lutheran services.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 29, 2009 9:46 PM

Argh. I'm an idiot. Leave off point one. I don't know what I was thinking there...

Too little sleep, and I'm going nuts from tobacco withdrawal.

Yeah, I quit smoking. Stand back everyone. If y'all thought I was mean before, well, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The only thing keeping me sane is Kasugai candy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 29, 2009 9:57 PM

If y'all thought I was mean before, well, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by: efrique | November 29, 2009 10:18 PM

Joshua Williams said:
Atheism, as I understand it, makes no positive claims. To declare anything fundamental requires positive claims. Am I mistaken in my understanding of atheism? That's not to say that atheists can't be intolerant or mean-spirited.

Indeed not - atheists can be pretty much anything at all, as long as it doesn't encompass belief in any gods, and atheists are as capable of including the intolerant and mean-spirited in their number as anyone. It's just harder to pretend it's anything other than intolerance and meanness.

Some (a very few) atheists do make positive claims (that there is no god). The majority don't make an absolute claim, but neither do we make an absolute claim about the nonexistence of unicorns. We just don't lend belief to such things in the absence of sufficient evidence.

(Although maybe since it is not itself a belief system, it doesn't even make sense to talk about mischaracterizing it.)

Of course one may mischaracterize atheism, since for example, one can characterize it as a belief system...

"What would make you believe?" is a question every atheist that has regular conversations with theists encounters. I myself have answered it dozens of times.

There are several parts to the typical answer I give:

#1 "which god are we discussing?"
#2 "what observations would rule out such a being?"
#3 "evidence extraordinarily sufficient to match the extraordinariness of the claimed god, sufficient to rule out alternate non-supernatural explanations, and also sufficient to rule out alternative supernatural ones"

In other words, if you specify which god hypothesis we're proposing up front, and what evidence could rule the hypothesis out (otherwise it's an hypothesis without explanatory value), I'll then be prepared to consider evidence for it.

If the evidence is sufficiently extraordinary (including repeats, experiments ruling out alternate explanations and so on) compared the the extraordinariness of the claim (I'll potentially accept almost any reasonable evidence as long as it's all consistent), then I will change my beliefs. It would be crazy to do otherwise.

Posted by: Xantief | November 29, 2009 10:27 PM

Mr T @273,

1) So far, no one has ruled out the existence of anything in nature prior to the Big Bang, so I'm not convinced that it's right to consider the Big Bang a single "creation event", whether natural or supernatural. As "Big Questions" go, perhaps this is just a nitpick.

The upshot here is, there's no possible way [yet..?] to know what actually existed or occurred before the singularity. This unknowable circumstance is a fertile field for fantasy, I'm sure we can all agree.

2) The "supernatural" part is ill-defined and superfluous. This is more than a nitpick. If you're an atheist in every other sense, then what do you mean by "supernatural"? Do you believe it's a better explanation than a natural one?

My definition of super-natural: any speculated object or event that can not be described or defined by natural laws or processes, as we know them; observed objects or events do not qualify.

I have no disagreement with "ill-defined and superfluous". To use 'supernatural' instead of 'ineffable' or 'unknowable' doesn't really do much except add 'woo' to the word salad.

Posted by: Xantief | November 29, 2009 10:43 PM

DaveH_of_Lundun@275, Not being a physicist, I'm at a disadvantage. I don't propose to add X to the model, thank you.

Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | November 29, 2009 10:56 PM

You propose God instead.

Posted by: Lynna | November 29, 2009 11:08 PM

AJ Milne @150, Great post! I've read it twice now and I may just go back for more. May I just add, "Me too."

In case you need more ammo in the future for describing the [expletive deleted] repetitive idiocy of, say, the Discovery Institute, I thought I'd offer a variety of F-words:
fen-sucked
flap-mouthed
fly-bitten
folly-fallen
full-gorged

All courtesy of Shakespeare. To expand our vocabulary even further, we may need more help from Will S. (the bishops and vicars do tend to leave one speechless):
goatish
gorbellied
pribbling
yeasty
beef-witted
boil-brained
knotty-pated
sheep-biting
swag-bellied
toad-spotted
bum-bailey
canker-blossom
foot-licker
maggot-pie
varlot
whey-face

and I'll add my own:
wind-sucker
flack-wit
god-flogger

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 29, 2009 11:41 PM

I haven't commented in a few days ( family + turkey :) ), but I can't let this one go.

-

Concern troll #79, Distancing myself from atheism... or whatever the fuck you call yourself, you wrote,

Nerd of the redhead, you're exactly what I'm talking about.

Not one person may every disagree with you folk without being called a troll, mocked, belittled and told to fuck off.

Your intellectual bullies. Unless someone agree's with you, they can fuck right off.

-

bobxxxx #272, I agree. It is ridiculous to throw down such a large slab of red meat for Christians to chomp on in between communions. The onus is not on us to allow for the off-chance that a god exists but for theists (or anyone for that matter) to provide even a shred of evidence that a god (or any imaginary character) does exist, and so far that hypothesis has failed.

But I also understand that Dawkins has reasons for allowing the possibility that a god exists, one of which is probably getting fence sitters and leaners (people who don't get the larger picture that gods are in the same category as the Easter Bunny) to consider that they might be atheists as well, or at least get them to see atheism not as a limiting position but as a position open to credible possibilities.

-

AJ Milne #150, exactly! I can't count the number of times I've deleted words that emphasize my frustration from my comments.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 1:10 AM

Smoggy, I already know I have more in common with most atheists than most Christians. I wish I could indulge your desire for invective, but I guess I'm too loving for that.

386sx, I believe in God because I have experienced God. I talked a little about his before. I know this is easily explained as a seizure disorder, and I'm fine with that. I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything.

David, okay, I start with the assumption of God. Like I said, I'm not evangelizing.

Raven, I think you're right about the worst of the fundies. And the worst of the progressives have similar faults. Maybe there are just a bunch of unrelated practices called by a similar name. However, all of these, at least in theory, start with the belief that God is primarily revealed through Jesus Christ. We just all think that each other misunderstands what is actually revealed.

386sx, I was not the first to ask the question here. I sis not pose it to anyone, except to Kel, who mentioned it first. It was simply curiosity on my part. It was not meant as a challenge or a "if God didn't make the universe, then who did" stumper. Back in post 74, Kel said, "all it would take to change my mind is to show that God exists". I just wanted to know what that meant to him. I am not asking it of anyone.

Paul W, Okay. Look, I'm really not trying to convince anyone of anything here. I am here to learn. I don't want to convert you. I don't think you're hellbound. I think you're mostly happy and well-adjusted people. maybe I am being evasive on purpose, because I don't want to be seen as an evangelist.

However, since you asked. My belief in God is based in a desire that the universe really is meant to be a place where intelligent beings treat each other lovingly. Yes, I freely admit that my belief is based in what I want to be true. I assume you have experienced love for another person. Take that feeling of love, remove any selfish aspects from it such as the need for protection, sex, affection, what have you (and maybe you don't have such things clouding up your love), and imagine being completely enveloped in that feeling. When I experience God in a transcendent way, that is what I feel. I believe this comes from outside of me because it sometimes happens when I am angry or frightened or what have you, and the love that I direct at another human replaces what had been hatred or jealousy. I don't believe that such love would come from within me. I attribute it to God, because living the ethic preached by Jesus Christ makes communion with this God easier. I believe this God is a person (meaning it has intelligence and will). God is love means that all God has and is is love. God is not wrathful, jealous, or hungry. God loves, but more than that, God is love. To be one with God is to be one with love. Also, I don't mean this to be rude, but I don't think I owe you any explanation. I'm a seeker here.

Vadjong, I haven't read that, and I don't understand what you mean by "believer in belief".

David B, maybe God doesn't offer anything. I don't need God to be happy or to have a fulfilling life. But God calls me on towards being a more loving person in ways that nothing else has ever been able to. Maybe this is a mystical claim, but I'm okay with that.

Dave, I wasn't condemning anyone to hell. I don't believe in hell, and even if I did, I wouldn't think anyone was going there just because they didn't believe in God. I am genuinely sorry if I seemed rude. Also, interesting point about proof. Let me think about that.

Mr T, I don't why I can't claim that. Could you elaborate? I'm not claiming that God is all the love in the universe. I think I've already addressed your second point above. I don't especially care if your examples are divine are not. As I said, no further example for me is necessary beyond Jesus. Maybe he didn't exist. What's recorded of him, even if fiction, works for me. Again, I am not trying to convince anyone here of anything.

Stephen, I don't believe God interferes with the material world. I do believe God can "interfere" on a more spiritual level.

Dave, I'm not sure that my God isn't more common than many of us think, although it isn't really traditional. The classical problem of theodicy states that there are three statements that can be claimed about the presence of evil. 1) God is good. 2) God is omnipotent. 3) Evil exists. All three of these cannot be true. (Certainly, even none of them could, in theory, be true.) #3 is obviously true. I think a lot of contemporary Christians would rather cling to #2 because it feels safer. I cling to #1 at the expense of #2.

C3PO, my definition of Christian isn't going to help much. For me, a Christian is someone who believes that the ultimate revelation of God was in the person of Jesus Christ. I can expound more, if you want, but this post is already on the brink of breaking the internet.

Mike, United Methodist. Actually, fairly orthodox in most of my beliefs. Again, I don't really think God is necessary. I find God extremely helpful, and can explain my own experiences only in divine terms.

Newfie, I'll do you one better. I don't care if Jesus even existed. His life, death, and resurrection, even if fictional, still reveal God to me.

Mr T (again), I'm fine with you not finding my reasons sufficient. It's also very difficult to answer these questions in such an ad hoc manner.

A Noyd, I think I've responded to you as best as I can already in this post, for now anyway.

Dentroman, because I live in a primarily Christian society. Had I been born in, say, Tehran, I'd probably be a Muslim now.

Michelle, I disagree with you. The type of pastor you've described is exactly the type of pastor I am not. I'm not a counselor. I listen to people, but I have no training in helping them deal with emotions. My week is spent trying to lead my congregations into making positive changes in the world. And if I may repeat myself, I am not trying to convince anyone here of anything. I am answering questions in an ad hoc manner that does not give a full picture of my theology. (It's like the three blind men and the elephant. You're just getting little parts and I'm not giving you enough to work into a whole.)

Mr T, I think I am taking objections to it seriously. But, that being said, I am not here to defend my beliefs. If you're curious, ask away. If you're not, ignore me. I'm fine with either. I'm just here to learn from you.

Haruhiist, briefly, I am an emmanent Trinitarian. I do believe that God exists in a meaningful way. I'm answering questions here briefly, and this doesn't serve to give a good overview of my theology.

Jessa, United Methodists tend not to use creeds a lot, but I'm really not too uncomfortable with anything in them. I affirm most of what is contained in the creeds. I can answer my ordination questions honestly.

Jadehawk, do groups claim that since 80% of Americans are Christians, they can do/legislate particular things? It's not a claim I'm familiar with. Maybe you're right that for non-fundies to remain Religious does active harm. That, too, is something I'm struggling with. Oh, and some UUs and UU Congregations self-identify as Christian, but not all do. I don't know about census forms or things like that.

Lifewish, I can certainly see how you got that from what I've said, but that's not what I believe. People wouldn't necessarily act the same if God didn't exist. Some would behave far better. I believe that we commune with God spiritually, and that leads us to interact with the world differently than we might have before.

Jessa, I'm not being disingenuous with you. I am answering the questions posed of me. I freely admit that I hold beliefs that all of you would consider absolute bullshit.

Danny, I'm not familiar enough with Dawkins' writing to post on his forums. Maybe someday.

Patricia, I can deal with being a sissy.

A Noyd, I might be a sissy, but I'm not making this up as I go along.

Wow. I know I didn't respond directly to everyone, but I think if I missed you it's because I think I answered your question elsewhere. Again, to be clear, I'm not asking anyone to tell me what would make them believe in God. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just here to learn. I'd like to keep posting here, but if I'm pissing folks off, I won't. I'll just keep reading.

Posted by: Zebra | November 30, 2009 1:30 AM

First post (here) though I lurk here when time permits. Mainly self-identify as a skeptic, though "atheist" fits like a glove too.

Joshua Williams is a common name, and could (of course) be used here as a pseudonym.

However, try searching "Joshua Williams" along with "love" and "pastor" or "Christian". See if anything interesting comes up, oh, like maybe a book about love. (First love, even.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 30, 2009 1:38 AM

I'd like to keep posting here, but if I'm pissing folks off, I won't. I'll just keep reading.

and yes, "most Americans are Christian and therefore you should do what I say" is the basis for the political activism of the Moral Majority and its descendants; it's at the heart of the "America is a Christian nation" bullshit, as well. And it's working, which is the worst part (and which invalidates claims that liberal Christians are successful at speaking out against this)

So voluntarily declaring yourself a member of Christianity gives silent support to those who claim to speak on behalf of American Christians, whether you agree with them or not. If "none" or "other" became the majority, even if it still meant most Americans considered themselves theists or "spiritual", they'd lose their strongest argument, and with it hopefully their influence on world politics.

another point is that fuzzy theists give Christianity a veneer of niceness that it historically and politically just doesn't deserve, but it makes it so much harder to defend against the evil deeds perpetrated by various religious groups.

anyway, my argument is that those whose beliefs are only marginally and tenuously related to any of the othodox strains of religion should really dump the label, because they're unwittingly giving shelter to some truly nasty stuff.

the alternative would be to purge the nutbars from your religion and make sure they never presume to speak for all Christians; but I don't find that even remotely realistic.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 30, 2009 1:54 AM

God is the God of the OT.

Since this is the only statement from my synopses that you rejected, I'm going to ask: How do you know?

Your other statements about God certainly imply that as you understand it, God does not provide revelations of knowledge or truth. So all you have to go on are the texts themselves, right?

They're a theological history of God's people, people who screw up more than they get it right.

But they don't just "screw up more than they get it right" -- the vast majority of the bible is about a God who is a person; who becomes angry and hurts others, or wants others to cause hurt in his name. Love is barely mentioned at all!

I would hope that you're not claiming that you can read the minds of all of the authors of the OT; to know that all the time they were putting together the laws of purity and sacrifice and commands to massacre Canaanites and so on that they were really thinking "love-love-love" and just getting it wrong.

Are you?

If not, on what basis do you make the claims you've made about the OT, and reconcile those with the claims you've made about God?

Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 2:03 AM

Joshua Williams, #292:

Personally, I don't want you to stop posting, and you're not pissing me off. Even though I can hardly understand what you're saying, you are much, much better than the ignorant, hateful trolls we get every day. If I was too harsh, it's because I'm frustrated trying to understand something which I don't believe. I'm still not clear what you believe the relationship between "god" and "love" is, but I can understand that if it were possible to have coherent beliefs about it, they probably would not be so simple that a few blog comments could express them.

So, let me just leave aside all the spiritual, supernatural junk for a minute a provide a few very concrete criticism from your reply:

As I said, no further example for me is necessary beyond Jesus. Maybe he didn't exist. What's recorded of him, even if fiction, works for me. Again, I am not trying to convince anyone here of anything.

Then, you keep saying you're not trying to convince people here. Why not? You say you're a "maker of disciples", so why not make disciples here also? Is it because you're not getting paid to do it here, or because you believe none of us will take the bait? I'm not just being sarcastic. I'd appreciate it if you don't evangelize, but you should be willing to support your beliefs and try to convince people. If you really believe they're true and understand why they're true, then it usually isn't difficult.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 30, 2009 2:05 AM

I seem to have accidentally edited out an important sentence out of my answer; namely, that politicians listen to the nutbars because the nutbars claim that they can win or lose elections for those politicians.

I'll also add that the nutbars are as loud as they are precisely because they believe that they speak for an overwhelming majority. take that away from them, and their reactive BS will stop being so damn influential!

also, I find your optimism cute but ultimately counterproductive. things won't have a happy ending, and the only way things ever improve is for people to fight the BS by all means necessary. and Christianity is not actively helpful in this; some Christians are, but that's not the same. good people will do good no matter what they believe, and bad people will do bad no matter what they believe; but it takes religion (and other dogmas) to make good people do bad things; and I see a lot of bad things being done with good intentions in the name of Christianity (as well as other religions). what we need more of is less acceptance of authority and more individualist critical thinking. and having fuzzy theists leave the umbrella of organized religion would be a giant step towards that goal in my opinion

Posted by: Zebra | November 30, 2009 2:14 AM

I also believe that part of Christianity is the promise that love wins in the end, not matter how awful things look.

Besides, that sounds like a deepity: "love wins in the end, no matter how awful things look."

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 2:22 AM

Jadehawk, I think the last presidential election is evidence that their BS is less influential. As part of my work as a Christian, I am fighting their BS. Also, I don't really believe there are good or bad people. There are people who have good or bad influences and who make good or bad choices. Christianity, although Christians fail to practice it as such, is ultimately a good influence that helps at least me make good choices.

The Swede, I would say different standards, not lower.

Zebra, I guess how easy it is to see the love in Christianity depends on your vantage point. From mine, surrounded by Christians, I see a lot of it. I see a lot of hate, anger, and fear, too, but I mainly see a lot of love. I don;t really know what deepity means, but it is a faith-based claim. I wasn't trying to persuade you with it. I was just explaining to Jadehawk why I remain a Christian.

Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 2:26 AM

About your second point, I'm not sure I see the problem. The bible is not the sole and absolute guide to morality. Jesus, whom we come to know primarily from the scriptures but also personally, is how I experience the fulfillment of God's will for our lives.

Owlmirror: I think this points vaguely in the direction of the temporal lobe. My pet theory is that this may also explain the tendency for word-saladism.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 2:31 AM

386sx, okay, I thought I'd answered it. If not, here's my answer. I believe that God is the God of the OT because I see the teachings and life of Jesus Christ based strongly in the thirst for peace and justice that lies at the core of the prophetic books. I believe the prophets felt this thirst because of their faith in the God who freed the slaves in Egypt and brought down their oppressors, who feed the hungry wanderers in the desert, and who gave a child to the barren (and, therefore in her culture worthless) Sarah. In short, God acts to restore the humanity of those are deemed worthless an inhuman by the world, so we should, too.

Posted by: 386sx | November 30, 2009 2:39 AM

It went from vaguely nothing at all, to just love, to now there's a whole bunch of "prophets" all over the place! And you still won't say why anyone should believe any of it at all. Bye dude!! Nice talkin. Cheers.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 2:43 AM

386sx, it didn't go from nothing at all to prophets all over the place. People asked me questions, and I've tried to answer them. That's it. I'm not offering a comprehensive theology, just answers to some specific questions. I have said over an over again I am not trying to convince you of anything. If you're done talking to me, then I thank you for your time. I enjoyed it, and it has been a challenge to me. Good night.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 2:47 AM

Peter, if I said God is only love, then I misspoke. I have also said that God is a person, meaning having intelligence and will.

Of course none of those stories happened. However, it was how primitive people explained their experience of God. The myths are based very distantly in true events (The Apiru people broke away from Egyptian controlled city states in Palestine)that evolved over millennia and incorporated elements of the peoples' experience of God. The stories themselves provided meaning and framework for further experiences of God, which influenced the prophets and through them Jesus.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 2:53 AM

I'm not upset, but it seems to me that if all you think I have to offer are lies, even if I believe them, then I truly don't understand why you're talking to me. I've already admitted that some sort or neurological disorder is more likely than that what I'm saying is true. I understand as best a layman can the naturalistic explanations. I know there are good reasons to talk with people with whom you disagree, and this is something I try to do often, but it's with the hope that I discover something I didn't know before. If you have already dismissed my experiences, and I'm sure you do so with good reason, then what do I have to offer you in conversation? I keep posting because this is fun and challenging for me. You all are asking some wonderful questions, and I'm enjoying trying to answer them.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 2:56 AM

Jadehawk, I'm confused. If they do horrible things, then how are they good people? Is it because they once were good but then religion courrupted them? I've also seen people who had done horrible things changed by religion into people who do wonderful things.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 30, 2009 3:05 AM

I disagree that the vast majority of the bible is about a God who as a person harms and gets angry.

That's not quite what I wrote.

However, consider that what I wrote is potentially empirically testable, by you, more or less: you could take an electronic text of the bible, and go through it verse by verse. Anything that refers to God as a person (including, but not limited to, being angry or harming others), you paste into a new text file called "disagree". Anything that doesn't, goes into two additional text files, one called "agree", another called "don't care".

And you could see, for yourself, the ratio of sizes between the three files.

Speaking of which, I note that this list is mighty slim compared to the bulk of the bible.

Some biblical stories are about that, though. If you want to know what I do with those, we might have to take them one at a time.

I'll limit myself to one, for now: Genesis 22

I certainly can't read the minds of the authors of the OT. They weren't thinking "love" and implementing it wrong. They were wrong from the get-go.

Then I'm not sure how you get the "broad strokes" and "general thrust".

Until this post, I wasn't aware I had made claims about the OT, except to say God is in it. Did I miss something?

I was just trying to clarify what you were trying to say about God, which as far as I can tell is in direct contradistinction to the theology of the OT.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 30, 2009 3:18 AM

I have also said that God is a person, meaning having intelligence and will.

Yet when I wrote, as part of my understanding of what you wrote earlier, that "God is not a person; does not think like a human; does not talk like a human. But one can commune with God, perhaps by feeling this enormous transcendental Love and letting it pervade oneself and one's life. It's a purely emotional experience, not an intellectual one."

You didn't disagree with that.

So I'm more than a little confused.

If God is a person with intelligence and will, can this person tell you anything that you don't already know but can discover by empirical experience?

I think you've not changed you mind that God is not omniscient nor omnipotent, but ... What does God know? What can God do?

Can God explicitly tell two people the same exact specific thing, so that they can confirm it with each other? If so, then God could mediate telepathy and/or clairvoyance.

Is there a reason that God could not do this? Is there a reason that a God that could do this would not?

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 3:21 AM

Owlmirror, I'm sorry if I mischaracterized you. I suppose I could go through that, but it won't surprise you to hear that I won't. It would simply take too long. I think part of the problem here is that I read the bible as a collection of shorter pieces by many people over many centuries. The fact that it has contradictions or inconsistencies or even that vast swaths of it are irrelevant to us doesn't pose a problem to me.

Third point before the second. By broad strokes, I mean a reading of the prophets as a whole. its and pieces could be picked out to argue with my claim, but overall what I stated above is the point of the prophets. Also, I don't think you can make a case for an OT theology. There are at least four main theological thrusts in the Torah alone, let alone the several prophets and their several redactors.

Okay, Genesis 22. Abraham and Isaac. That's a good one. Sometimes I think I know what to do with it, and sometimes I don't. If I were to preach on this, I'd probably preach against it, as a story about how we shouldn't act. For one thing, God never speaks to Abraham again. Does his willingness to kill his child separate him from God like Cain's murder of his brother did? I'd hold it against a NT text, most likely something like the prodigal son, and talk about which was really a God-ordained treatment of children.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 3:31 AM

Owlmirror, sorry, again I'm being unclear. I mean that God is not a human. I think I read over your post too quickly. What God does is lead me into loving others better than I could without her. I don't experience God as one who talks to me. I've had experiences where I and another have had the same insight on a situation or felt the same call to action that I believe to be God-given.

Jadehawk, I didn't mean that if you do a bad thing but have good intentions, then it's not really a bad thing. I meant that having good intentions does nothing to mitigate the bad thing. Sorry if I was unclear. And I think only bad religion (not the band) insists on revelaed truth and authority. Good religion focuses on the journey of a life lived in love. Is that a deepism? I just mean that good religion isn't about revealed truth but discovering how to live.

Posted by: Joshua Williams | November 30, 2009 3:37 AM

Rorschach, maybe we just read it with different expectations of what it was meant to be.

Sorry for the double post, folks, but the blog seems to think I'm posting too much and tells me I have to wait, and that seems to lead to me double posting. I'm going to take this as a sign to go to bed. That and the fact that I'm completely exhausted. I thank you all for a wonderful afternoon and evening, and if you're interested I'll be back tomorrow. Sleep well, and have a good day.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 30, 2009 3:51 AM

JW @ 329:

Good religion focuses on the journey of a life lived in love. Is that a deepism? I just mean that good religion isn't about revealed truth but discovering how to live.

Yes, it's a deepism. You like believing in belief, giving a name to a purpose in your life. You don't need religion or a god to enjoy the journey of life, to live in love or continue to discover how to live a more satisfying life. You don't need religion or a god to be a moral, compassionate person.

As for the bible, it's a badly written manual on how to be a monster. It provides justification for every evil humans can think up. Take a waltz through the SAB sometime, if you haven't already.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 30, 2009 4:09 AM

By broad strokes, I mean a reading of the prophets as a whole. its and pieces could be picked out to argue with my claim, but overall what I stated above is the point of the prophets.

Hm. I suspect that there's less there than you are saying, but I would have to read through them to find a more thorough rebuttal.

Also, I don't think you can make a case for an OT theology. There are at least four main theological thrusts in the Torah alone, let alone the several prophets and their several redactors.

I'm aware of the Documentary Hypothesis, but I am pretty sure that a case could be made that even among the stitched-together pieces, there is a general concept of God as a being that is not love, or anything remotely like love.

I mean that God is not a human. I think I read over your post too quickly. What God does is lead me into loving others better than I could without her. I don't experience God as one who talks to me.

Sorry, but I keep trying to think about this God-concept analytically and skeptically. I'm trying to think of things that would logically follow, if the concept as stated were actually true.

So: Even if God doesn't "talk", but communicates in emotions, God could still at least potentially mediate empathy.

Can God do this?

I've had experiences where I and another have had the same insight on a situation or felt the same call to action that I believe to be God-given.

That sounds close, but have you ever tested this? You've got confirming cases, but have there been cases where you turned out to be completely wrong? Are you sure that the confirming cases don't occur as would be expected by chance?

Does God, as you understand it, object to being tested?

Posted by: 386sx | November 30, 2009 5:00 AM

Has anyone considered that perhaps Joshua Williams is, in fact, a genuine prophet of the 'true' god? Yeah, it's a bit far fetched, but not more so than any other religious claim...

It doesn't sound so far fetched to me, what with all the prophets all over the place.

How many prophets does it take to change a light bulb? That depends on how many there are, and how many they need, and if the bulb needs changing, or if maybe it just came loose or something, or maybe check the circuit breaker too.

Posted by: Josh | November 30, 2009 5:33 AM

Maybe I needed to say that on the porn thread.

Nope. Nope.
You were free to say that anywhere.

Posted by: aleph | November 30, 2009 6:12 AM

Joshua et al

Just to step in briefly, and likely irrelevantly, to my mind the most telling statement is

"My belief in God is based in a desire that the universe really is meant to be a place where intelligent beings treat each other lovingly. "

Which tends to sum up the core argument and justification for ALL religious belief. My personal opinion only, of course. The intense desire for a meaning to their own existence, some form of justification for their own lives. Not morally, per se, but a de facto need for there to be "something else", a grand scheme that they are involved in. Gaining some sense of importance in the mere fact/knowledge that they are an essential part or component. That they matter in some way, small though it may be - a sheep that's part of a flock, if you will

There is also the security that a self-delusion like this provides. A bottomless pit is a scary thing, ditto the depths of the ocean when seen from the vantage point of a wooden fishing boat in the middle of the ocean, but only if one is of a certain type of mind. (Hemingway was on to something)

Having something to struggle against (good vs evil fer example), a grander purpose or final goal - such as heaven - can make it perhaps seem worthwhile. Or less arbitrary - nothing i can do about it, god's will sort-of-thing. But the hope/belief in the way the universe "should be" quashes one of the most frightening existential facts around - existence just doesnt care about you. It is intrinsically unfair for the simple reason that you, as special as you may want to be, matter exactly as much as a Hydrogen atom. That whole Total Perspective Vortex thing.

For this (and other) reason the asking of questions becomes anathema - an illusion only exists as long as you dont look at it too hard. Some questions may be rationalized away but others must be ignored as merely recognizing their validity would tear the whole facade asunder. Which is why debating the creotards is so bloody irritating.

But back on point, because i AM trying to convert

At the end of the day it doesnt matter what you hope/believe in, As you said Josh, in your view (belief structure) you are different from many of your "spiritual" brethren (i paraphrase) but that is not the point. It is that you "believe", not what you believe. Could be allah if you were in the Middle East, and would've been, right Josh? So why not believe in the potentiality that yourself?

stare defiant into the pit, spit into the sea

eat the vortex

Posted by: Simon Gardner | November 30, 2009 6:24 AM

For those who missed it: The intelligencesquared.com/ site is now advertising YouTube video of the event within 24 hours. Which is a vast improvement on last time [Fry/Hitchens and the catholics].

One suspects the final "I’m on your side" bit from the moderator will not be there.

It was all terribly English and I’m amused so many Americans were interested.

Charles Moore is an arsehole.

Posted by: SEF | November 30, 2009 6:55 AM

If you were to make a statement such as "I live my life as if there were a god, which leads to me love others better than I could otherwise", nobody would object to that.

Actually, I would object. Where's the evidence that the person genuinely is doing better (quite aside from the all-too-typical lack of description on which flavour of god might be being imagined).

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 30, 2009 8:15 AM

After reading all of Joshua's scribblings, i'm of the opinion he's just as retarded as every other faithist. He seems to go from none belief in a god at the start of his posts, to prophets and the rest of the crap near the end. Just another, if perhaps slightly diluted form of bullshit.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 30, 2009 8:26 AM

But...But... Daddy, if I go to my room, all I'll have to play with is myself! - Aquaria

Don't be ridiculous! You have a Bible there, don't you ;-)

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 30, 2009 8:58 AM

Joshua Williams wrote,

I'm not upset, but it seems to me that if all you think I have to offer are lies, even if I believe them, then I truly don't understand why you're talking to me.

I'll just add my two standard points to theists: 1) Harry Potter makes a better savior and role model than Jesus Christ (and Dumbledore rivals God in purity of heart, love, and devotion), and 2) if there was such a thing as the supernatural, anything would be possible and we could kiss science and any sense of reality goodbye.

Posted by: ChrisH | November 30, 2009 9:32 AM

WWJD?

Tell us to hate our folks before going home to make a scourge to give them there moneychangers a right good whuppin'....

Posted by: SEF | November 30, 2009 10:15 AM

@ Stephen Wells #351:

But whether or not it's genuinely helpful goes to the core of the issue and of what's wrong with the religious in general - viz that they like to pretend their religion makes them better, instead of going to the trouble (albeit within the limits of their natural talent) of genuinely being better. The pretence is what religion is all about - what sucks people in and keeps them suckered. All those lazy opportunities for fake merit.

They do so like to pretend they are intrinsically better - chosen people, holier than thou, more moral, possessing of special knowledge and special ways of knowing, "saved", promised a superior afterlife etc etc ... just because. Their fantasy world is all pretence of that sort but it's a big part of what makes them so vile in reality. They invest all their effort in the pretence instead of on the reality and they make out that vices are virtues (eg failure to check becomes having "faith").

Posted by: Simon Gardner | November 30, 2009 10:43 AM

New URL for the video "coming soon" http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism-is-the-new-fundamentalism.

Posted by: Paul W. | November 30, 2009 11:32 AM

Lars, I'm so gonna steal that. Thanks.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 30, 2009 11:39 AM

Sven,

Would that be the same "Tom Johnson" who claims his atheist colleagues at a leading US East Coast University attend conferences on religion and science and go around calling the believers names ?

Posted by: Paul W. | November 30, 2009 11:50 AM

Matt Penfold @Would that be the same "Tom Johnson" who claims his atheist colleagues at a leading US East Coast University attend conferences on religion and science and go around calling the believers names?

That's the one. The one who claims to be "a scientist" and who Mooney says he's verified is in fact "a scientist."

I'm pretty sure that means graduate student, and that when he talks about his colleagues allegedly being assholes, he's talking about a few students. When he talks about their "superior" condoning their behavior, he's talking about one professor.

Naturally, he and Mooney won't answer direct questions about whether he's a student or professor or what.

And everything else about the story is fishy---he clearly exaggerated and then backpedaled, then refused to clarify further, so I suspect that even as an anecdote, it's a shitty mostly-made-up data point.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 30, 2009 11:55 AM

That's the one. The one who claims to be "a scientist" and who Mooney says he's verified is in fact "a scientist."

Mooney refers to Kirshenbaum as a scientist. She does have a master's in marine biology, but she also has one in marine policy. Neither will have required undertaking original research and neither will have given much insight into the working life of an academic scientist.

For that reason alone I would not trust his definition of scientist.

Posted by: Paul W. | November 30, 2009 12:18 PM

Matt Penfold @ 364:
Mooney refers to Kirshenbaum as a scientist. She does have a master's in marine biology, but she also has one in marine policy. Neither will have required undertaking original research and neither will have given much insight into the working life of an academic scientist.

In fairness, it depends. I certainly did original research for my masters' thesis, testing my own original hypotheses. (Basically a pilot study for what sorta accidentally became my dissertation.)

I don't know what Kirshenbaum did for her thesis, either whether it was original research, or whether she was doing original science (like some graduate students) or mostly scutwork for her advisor (like some other grad students).

But you're right. Calling her "a scientist" may be technically true, but it's clearly making her sound like more of an experienced scientist than she actually is.

For that reason alone I would not trust his definition of scientist.

I would not trust a thing that Mooney says about anything. If he tells me it's raining, I'm gonna look-see whether he's pissing on my shoe.

Mooney has consistently flogged the same two big straw men for over two years, despite being called on it scores of times by dozens of people.

He completely stonewalls about those issues, as do almost all of his supporters. It's impressive, in a way, how consistently they avoid the main points and rely on 1) insults, 2) ad hominem dismissals, 3) arguments from authority.

Occasionally they throw in a fallacy of four terms (bait-and-swich argument) to vary the mix, but it's mostly insults, ad hominems, and veiled ad hominems (from authority).

Perhaps surprisingly, I have frequently pointed this out, and said that Mooney and Kirschenbaum are consistently dishonest, and they've let most of those comments through.

I'm always careful to avoid name-calling or ad hominems, though. If I say they're dishonest, it's the conclusion of an argument from false statements they knowingly make, not the premise of an argument to the conclusion that something they say is false.

If anybody else posts over there, be careful. Avoid gratuitous insults and dismissive ad hominems, because they will silently censor you for it, but let a lot of people on their side do it to you.

Also be aware that their blog software sucks, and things that you post may look like they just disappeared for a while, and then show up after 10 minutes, either plain or "in moderation". Bleah.

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 30, 2009 1:02 PM

Joshua Williams (#292)

My belief in God is based in a desire that the universe really is meant to be a place where intelligent beings treat each other lovingly.

Now, I consider god a useless belief because to achieve what you desire, we need to come to terms with reality and recognize that such a thing won't happen unless we make it happen entirely through our own agency.

Take that feeling of love, remove any selfish aspects from it such as the need for protection, sex, affection, what have you...and imagine being completely enveloped in that feeling.

How will denying the human experience help change the universe the way you want? I should think it better to embrace our "selfishness" so that our love for one another is as relevant to us as possible. In what way, after all, do our needs lessen the love born of them? So long as we're not so selfish we'll sacrifice others, there's more to be gained by retaining the humanity in "selfish" love.

When I experience God in a transcendent way, that is what I feel.

Do you not perhaps think that you're feeling a random but powerful emotion and, lacking any obvious trigger for it, you're arbitrarily giving it a divine origin and elevating it above love with identifiable causes? I've felt powerful, untriggered emotions before plenty of times, including joy or love, and I can enjoy them without deifying them.

I don't believe God interferes with the material world. I do believe God can "interfere" on a more spiritual level.

Yet, further down, you also say: "I believe that we commune with God spiritually, and that leads us to interact with the world differently than we might have before." Unless the effects of this interference is deferred until the person is no longer part of the material world (pretending for a moment that's possible), then by consequence, your god does interefere with the material world.

I think I've responded to you as best as I can already in this post, for now anyway.

Well, my question was more rhetorical than anything, but no, you haven't addressed what I was getting at. I was mostly pointing out that your beliefs are vapid and flawed no matter what but this fact is masked when you preach to those who fill in the gaps with their own assumptions.

I might be a sissy, but I'm not making this up as I go along.

Ah, so everything you're explaining to us was something that you were taught by someone else? I don't think you're making stuff up on purpose. It's a very natural thing for our minds to make up explanations. In a liberal sort of religion you have more freedom to do that.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just here to learn. I'd like to keep posting here, but if I'm pissing folks off, I won't.

You're more likely to piss people off by playing keep-away with your beliefs rather than flat out explaining them in a coherent way and responding to contradictions others bring up minus the special pleading. If you offer a dog a bone but only let the dog chew one end while jerking the bone away repeatedly, you can't be surprised if the dog mauls you. Don't mistake the bluntness for hostility towards you. Chewing up beliefs like dogs chew bones is just what we do here. And you should be trying to convince us of something: that your beliefs are sound. And if not sound, that they are better to hold than to discard of.

(#305)

I don't think I made my point clearly. It is difficult to make these points in a blog comment.

Again, I don't think there's anything special about the medium; I think you're not used to talking with people who spot every inconsistency or shortcoming you espouse. If you normally talk with other theists, they're probably just as reluctant to examine their beliefs (though you go much farther than most).

I need to be clearer when I'm talking about what I believe to be True vs. what I experience as correct.

You're missing what is true/correct regardless of belief or experience.

I know I wrote a lot, but most of the questions were rhetorical or for you to think on. I wouldn't mind if you addressed two particular points though:

1. How is the universe helped by dehumanizing and deifying love rather than rationally working towards a more loving society without denying our nature?

2. What is your answer to the paradox in god being able to change lives but not interfering in the material world?

Posted by: Haruhiist | November 30, 2009 2:38 PM

@Joshua Williams, #369

I am a Christian because I have had experiences that I can only explain in terms of God.

I don't believe God directly interacts with the material world, but can through people.

Both of these are pretty vague indications of what you believe. They are also part of the reason why I think your theology is ill-defined and more based upon a warm fuzzy feeling than anything else.

You mention experiences that can only be explained by God. However, this God only acts through other people. Presumably, (S)He chooses to manipulate the minds of people in some way, perhaps through this non-specific communing that you mentioned.

What is this communing? Is it God telling people what to do? Can you talk back? Is it just a good feeling you get when doing something in the name of God?

Anyway, according to you, God only acts through other people and not directly with the physical world. Personally, I don't adhere to mind/body dualism, as most psychology makes it improbable, so this is meaningless to me. But, how do you know it is actually God working through those people? Why can't it just be that they are nice people?
Dont say it is because they are Christian, that doesn't prove God was involved in any way.

So we end up with God acting through other people, but we can't be sure it was God.
But it is these experiences which make you believe in God? pretty nebulous to me...

Please don't take this as an attack on you. I understand you're here not to convert or anything. I just want to explain why I think your belief system is rather pointless.

Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 3:47 PM

Joshua Williams, #369:

Caine, people keep telling me I believe in belief. I'm pretty sure that's not true, but whatever. Yes, the bible has some horrible stuff in it. Doesn't mean parts of it aren't good. But the bible is not the source of moral authority for Christianity.

Dickens' novels have a lot of truth in them about societal injustice and capitalism, but they are fiction. Doesn't mean they aren't true. The same is true of some of the biblical stories.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "mediate empathy". I don't think God objects to being tested, but I don't see how you could work up a testable hypothesis here.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 30, 2009 4:41 PM

JW @ 379:

Caine, people keep telling me I believe in belief. I'm pretty sure that's not true, but whatever. Yes, the bible has some horrible stuff in it. Doesn't mean parts of it aren't good. But the bible is not the source of moral authority for Christianity.

You seem to put a lot of stock in Jesus. Are you talking about the Jesus of the bible, the son of god, new testament Jesus? If that's the case, you're kind of stuck with having and endorsing a bible-based morality and moral authority.

That everlovin' Jesus endorsed the old testament law and made the point it still applied more than once in the new testament. He did so twice in Matthew 5. He says to remember Noah and Lot's wife in Luke 17.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Matthew 10:35

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50

There are many instances of everlovin' Jesus being a rude, vicious bastard. You stick to Jesus as a character of love only - what the hell was the rest of it, bad hair days? So yes, it seems to me what you have is a deep, abiding belief in belief. You've cherry picked the bits you have no conflict with and molded yourself a new god, one specifically suited to your mindset and feelings.

Posted by: Mercurious | November 30, 2009 5:31 PM

Joshua. Been lurking a bit watching this conversation and think you have been doing a decent job of trying to explain your position. Two pieces of advice I'll give about this whole conversation.

First, remember this is a science blog, in science terms and general language are very carefully used and considered with very precise connotation. Trying to describe what you feel and experience can be very difficult, especially to people who like, or expect, very precise language.

Second piece refers to some of the phrases used by some of the comments such as deepits and belief in belief. They refer to phrases coined in, I believe, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennet. I do think it would be a book you enjoy.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 30, 2009 5:36 PM

Joshua Williams,

if I'm not fitting in here, then maybe I need to go away. It's cool. Beyond that, I'm answering people's questions. I assumed people were asking because they wanted know. If not, okay.

Unfortunately, like a drunk who knows drinking is ruining her capacity to cope with life but chooses to continue abusing alcohol anyway, theists often prefer their god delusion over reality. It's your choice to continue rambling on about your delusion or to take a step back and take a hard look at the nonsense you've written in this thread alone.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 30, 2009 5:40 PM

JW, please stop saying how you maybe need to go away; it's starting to sound like you're fishing for compliments. For the last time, no one is telling you to go away; it's just that this blog has a harsh debating tone, and that people here like to argue things down to their logical conclusions.

Jadehawk, life is about getting enough to eat and passing on your genetic material. Many people try for more than that. Christianity is how I try to have more in my life, not because of external authority but because of personal experience.

What I'm saying is: religion is not necessary for finding answers, and it is a very flawed method, and the flaws express themselves stronger in more strongly organized forms. so, to bring this back to my original point, I'd peronally ratehr that people were taught that it's ok to be the Master of your own life instead of seeking religous constructs to provide them with meaning; but for those who need or want the elaborate constructs of external meaning, it would be better to remain individualized (un-organized religion, so to speak) and label free, instead of aligning themselves with the large organizations, because the bad that comes from them is simply that much larger than the good that comes from them.

Posted by: ddpej | November 30, 2009 5:46 PM

Joshua Williams @ 375:

In my experience, what God does through me is more than I could do on my own. I've been in lots of circumstances where I'd have given up or quit my job or whatever if it were just me.

This intrigues me. The situation as I'm reading it:

You did something.
It was difficult/stressful in the doing.
You believe that your success in doing it was due to God as you know him/her/it.

The logical reading would suggest that you were therefore entirely capable, physically/materially/objectively, of doing the something, and that -- as God as you know it/him/her does not directly influence the world -- you were capable (in purely that objective regard) of doing the something in and of yourself.

Attributing your success to your God would then suggest that it is in a strictly mental or emotional regard that you needed help in the doing of the something in question.

Perhaps it's just me, but that seems very strongly to suggest that the she/it/he you believe in is little more than a mental and emotional crutch.

Posted by: Tark | November 30, 2009 5:53 PM

@Joshua (still... :-) )

So, it seems the only thing that is "true" is what you feel, since you seem to equivocate (possibly without intent to deceive) on just about everything else. Also, since you cannot articulate this "truth" that you feel in a way that other rational humans can understand, it's not too surprising that you are getting all these questions. I think the most telling statement, and related to a question I asked you a while back in this thread, is this...

"If it weren't because I really feel I'm a part of something larger, I would have had no motivation to continue.

I find this slightly sad but I see it in so many people. This also strikes me as a drawback for someone who wants others to follow them (disciples) when they do not feel strong enough in anything to stand alone in what they believe.
You should definitely read "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett.

You also mentioned that someone would have to come to you to request your special kind of guidance. If this "truth" is so compelling (as you say) shouldn't you really be a blatant evangelist?

And I apologize for laughing out loud at this line...
I almost died due to stress-related illness resulting from a completely insane church I was appointed to a couple years ago.

Not to belittle the seriousness of your illness but this is soooooo counter to every pastor that I have ever met, that you really do seem to be more Poe-like than real (beside the redundant adjective for church).

Tax Religion.
Tark

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 30, 2009 5:53 PM

Joshua Williams:

Caine, Jesus, a human being, I'm sure could be a dick from time to time.

Sure, but Jesus wasn't being a dick on a human basis - he was being the dick of God, so to speak. You really can't get away from that, when he's busy upholding the OT laws and threatening mass amounts of people with retribution, death and then eternal torture. That's god stuff. Maybe when he cursed the poor fig tree, he was having a bad human day.

What I have been given is a a series of books that have been passed down through oral tradition, eventually written, redacted, etc, etc. The parts of the bible I find relevant are those that in some way help me understand my experiences. I'm constantly challenged by the so-called hard sayings of the synoptic gospels. I struggle with them, I try to make sense of them, and sometimes I dismiss them because they don't jive with my experience.

Er, right. Which means what I said, you cherry pick the parts you like and can live with; those bits you feel have substance, meaning and a good message. If you struggle with the hard sayings of the gospel, that does mean you believe it, doesn't it? This is where people keep trying to pin you down - not out of nastiness, but for clarity. What about heaven and hell? Do you believe in them? How about the doctrine of salvation? Do you think God and Jesus will make good on their word, and toss all unbelievers into hell, whether or not they have ever heard the word of God?

Could you explain what is meant by belief in belief? I don't think I understand.

Have you read Breaking the Spell by Dan Dennett? Give this a try:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN8BHD9sXJ8

Belief in belief would be believing that some sort of religious/god belief is necessary for a happy and healthy society, leading a better life, etc. What is believed doesn't really matter, as long as there's a sense of guidance, comfort and some type of transcendence. This allows someone to fuzzy god down to whatever ideal they are comfortable with, and it's usually the type of god/belief you've tried to describe. I'm probably not stating this too well; best to let Dennett speak for himself, in the videos linked.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 30, 2009 6:15 PM

But the bible is not the source of moral authority for Christianity.

Glad to hear it. Far too many Christians who come by here want to argue otherwise.

OWlmirror, I think you're getting hung up on the word love. Love is a more modern, Greek concept. For the ancient Israelites, emotion wasn't that important.

Um. I was going by what you were describing about your understanding and experience of what God is, which certainly seems to be very strongly and viscerally emotional. Don't you think that that emotion would mean (and would have meant) the same thing to every person that experienced it?

I'm also confused by the assertion that "emotion wasn't that important". Emotion is a primary motivator to action.

Love looked like ending oppression, making sure all people were allowed a sabbath and periodic freedom from debt, that the alien and widow and orphan were cared for.

Some of that makes sense, and some doesn't. The sabbath was not a freedom from "work" as understood today, but a mandatory day of not performing certain actions which were considered taboo -- and willingly performing those actions was a violation of taboo deserving of extreme punishment.

Debt relief and charity to widows and orphans is a very minor part of the bible.

That is, in fact, the broad theme of the prophets, with the added focus that Israel's failure to do so was separating them from God.

As I wrote above, I would need to study the works some more to know how to respond to this.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "mediate empathy". I don't think God objects to being tested, but I don't see how you could work up a testable hypothesis here.

Perhaps I should have written "mediate emotions".

Consider a thought experiment: You get into an argument with a devout traditional Catholic. The Catholic insists that all of the dogma that you reject is indeed important; that God is indeed the omnipotent and omniscient creator, not just some transcendent spirit that wants people to love and care for each other. The Catholic insists that "sin" is real, in the sense of actions that don't harm other people but do offend God to the point where those that commit them are among the damned. The bible is critically important and true, and the parts where God kills or orders killings happened and are part of God's true nature.

So, you have some deeply irreconcilable differences in your theology. You argue a great deal, but come to no resolution.

You both agree to pray to God for the answer.

If God is real, shouldn't prayer provide a conduit for God to convince the Catholic that you are correct, by altering the Catholics emotional state?

If not, why not? Does the prayer fail because the Catholic is doing it wrong?

Throughout history, religious believers have tended to believe that dogma is more important than treating people properly. That's observable in the books of the bible and Quran, and in the history of the religions that use those books.

Wouldn't a God who was real as you believe God to be real have tried to ameliorate this behavior; have a doctrine that doctrine was less important than love and charity, from the very beginning?

But the first commandment is "I am the Lord thy God", not "Love thy neighbor as thyself".

Posted by: Stephen Wells | November 30, 2009 6:48 PM

JW, please bear in mind that coming in here and blandly making ludicrous claims which you won't provide evidence for is, how shall I put this: insulting. You're insulting your audience's intelligence and knowledge. It's also appeared that you don't know what you believe; for example you oscillate wildly between making fact claims about a god, and saying that it's all just your personal mental snuggle blanket.

Posted by: murgadroid | November 30, 2009 7:14 PM

Josh Williams:
I want to thank you for sticking around and engaging in a serious discussion. It's a nice change to see careful thought in replies to sometimes strongly worded critiques. Most of what we get are tiresome trolls.

You remind me of my father who was a Methodist minister for 25 years (and also a closet atheist). I once asked him how he reconciled the two. He replied that it was the best job in the world: he spent half his time helping people (counseling, visiting hospitals etc.) and half his time thinking; and got paid for it!

Posted by: Mr T | November 30, 2009 7:34 PM

Why should God look at whole peoples as if they are a single unit when God could deal with people on a one by one basis? Yeah, people have to do that because they lack the ability to be gods, but gods don't have to do that. I'm sensing some anthropomorphism going on here.

Alternatively, he could simply reject those parts of the Bible as not being True^TM, this "fact" being established ad hoc, according his emotional state at the time in conjunction with the most convenient unfalsifiable argument he can muster.

Really, though, he could answer however he likes. He's got a running start at making shit up that isn't even internally consistent, so there's no point in stopping now.

Smoggy: I couldn't agree more with your comment at #387.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 30, 2009 8:32 PM

JW @ some point:

I think God is transcendent, being both inside and outside the universe. I experience God as love, and all I can talk about are my experiences.

This is the reason I think Joshua Williams has a belief in belief. Some form of transcendence is very important, while a clear definition of god isn't. Karen Armstrong has this type of fuzzy thinking about belief and god, and isn't much better at actually defining what it is she actually believes.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 30, 2009 8:45 PM

Joshua's god seems very laid back. I see him as a Gilbert Shelton character, the guy who lives across the hall from the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers and has the best grass ever grown. God keeps sampling the product to see if it's still good. "Wow, man, just feel the love comin' out of the hookah."

Posted by: cafeeine | November 30, 2009 9:10 PM

A note, the debate is currently on YT for anyone who missed it. Enjoy.

Posted by: Ivan | November 30, 2009 9:21 PM

Whoops. Bungled the link I meant to leave in my previous post.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 30, 2009 11:14 PM

Joshua Williams, if you're still reading, you might find Ed Yong's latest post interesting: Creating God in one's own image

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Posted by: A. Noyd | December 1, 2009 12:05 AM

Joshua Williams (#369)

I think selfishness is bad. It leads us to do selfish things.

Oh, for pity's sake, do you also figure selfishness for some sort of magical force with a will of its own like love? Selfishness is not bad in and of itself. Like love, it's a tool built in us by our genes to keep us alive and well.

If we move beyond our selfishness, then by putting our needs aside, we can do more good.

Go see how much good you can do after you stop wearing clothes, stop eating, stop sleeping, stop taking time to collect your thoughts, etc. The sort of selfishness that induces us to look after our needs is a good thing. It's only bad when it's indulged at the expense of others, particularly for non-essential things. When we look after ourselves, we're in a stronger position to help others. Otherwise, we might as well just kill ourselves to free up resources.

If we all care for each other, then we are all cared for. This is better than small groups of people caring for each other.

Really? Really? If I was in need, I think the last thing I'd want is the whole world "caring" for me. I'd rather get actual support from people who don't particularly care about me. I'd rather feed ten people than have loving feelings towards the whole world. Small, real actions are what most of us are capable of, so I don't see how platitudes are better than real action. Being narrowly focused does not require that you're dismissive of those outside your scope.

This doesn't really answer the question, though. Why turn love into something apart from human experience in the name of improving human experience? What do we gain from utterly denying our natures? Is that really a path to improving ourselves or is it just another unreasonable set of expectations that might make you feel superior (and I don't mean "better than the rest of us" but "elevated over what you felt before") but would end up frustrating most people. Really, where's the sense in being something utterly alien to ourselves? If anything, I see your deification of love as a selfish act--it seems to make you feel happy more than it could ever lead to improving life for other people.

God does not interact directly with the material world, but can with us on an emotional/spiritual level, and then we interact with the world.

All right, putting aside the problem that you are part of the world, you might want to make sure to qualify your god's action in the world as indirect. Now, if you weren't leaving, I would have to ask if your god is powerless to act directly. If not, what sort of god that's all about love and freeing us from bad things would refrain from acting directly to make the world a better place?

(#375)

In my experience, what God does through me is more than I could do on my own.

But if there is no god, you do do it all yourself.

(#385)

I don't see any point in remaining in an environment where calling someone retarded is a legitimate debating tool.

Please, that's just the culture around here. We inflict all sorts of much worse names and insults on one another when we're having an internal disagreement.

Posted by: Mr T | December 1, 2009 12:31 AM

A.Noyd:
Sure, I've met people like that. You make a good point. I could revise it to, "as true as any other ...", and it wouldn't change a whole lot.

I guess I just got the impression from his hurt feelings that he really believes his mystical experiences are "more true" than naturalistic explanations of them. (I know there's no such thing as "more true") His partial skepticism (?) didn't seem to be enough to help him realize that he was making extraordinarily absurd claims. He went so far beyond "fuzzy thinking" that I'm not sure if he would ever be willing to honestly evaluate his beliefs and their relationship with other truth claims.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 1, 2009 5:42 AM

Richard, my universe is pretty cold. See, this guy sued me for my coat, and I gave him my shirt, as well.

Cute. But encouraging children to have their temper tantrum does them no favours. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Of course the cold isn't so bad once you get used to it. Like most things, it only seems bad at first.

Posted by: Martin Brock | December 6, 2009 11:09 AM

"Atheism is the New Fundamentalism" is obviously a gross over-generalization, but there are atheists with a "fundamentalist" attitude, and they're often former religious fundamentalists. Hoffer's True Believers are not limited to God-believers, and shifts between opposing ideological movements apparently are common. I have no interest in any Movement of Atheists or Skeptics. Dawkins' wish for a movement akin to modern feminism doesn't interest me, and I can't imagine a less attractive model. We don't need a movement at all. We need to question movements.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 7, 2009 5:51 AM

And don't even get me started on those fundamentalist mathematicians, going around insisting that 2+2=4 as if they knew all about it, honestly, it's so arrogant.

Posted by: Josh | December 7, 2009 6:14 AM

Yes, Kel, but don't you agree that the writers of Genesis were justified (justified I tell you!) in calling the moon a light source given what they knew of the world?

/snark