…and this is a 
Jerry Coyne missed one: he lists a few annoying columnists in the Guardian, Andrew Brown and Madeleine Bunting, but I guess he didn't notice that Michael Ruse just posted a whine about Dawkins and other atheists. Well, a few of us: he mentions Dawkins, Dennett, Coyne, and me as the people who bring atheism into disrepute. We're in a schism, don't you know; I just wish he'd used the term "Deep Rifts", since that seems to be the fashionable phrase for everyone who wants to find consolation in the imminent demise of the New Atheist movement (to which we have to reply that we're very fond of our rifts, and consider our willingness to plunge into battle with even our fellow unbelievers to be part of our plucky, feisty charm).
Now here's the problem with Ruse. He believes that people who are atheists but are not Michael Ruse are all lacking in rigor and a charitable appreciation of the profundity of theological belief. At the same time, he believes that all those religious people whose beliefs he does not share must have built those ideas on a robust intellectual foundation, and that because they are nice people who invite him to give talks, maybe there could be something to that god-chattering stuff. And you should pat him on the back and congratulate him on his wisdom for seeing worth in even the most absurd proponent of creationism. For example:
I don't have faith. I really don't. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. If I needed advice about everyday matters, I would turn without hesitation to these men. We are caught in opposing Kuhnian paradigms. I can explain their faith claims in terms of psychology; they can explain my lack of faith claims also probably partly through psychology and probably theology also. (Plantinga, a Calvinist, would refer to original sin.) I just keep hearing Cromwell to the Scots. "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." I don't think I am wrong, but the worth and integrity of so many believers makes me modest in my unbelief.
Modest in his unbelief, perhaps, but at the same time remarkably immodest in his self-congratulatory appreciation of his own uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of his fellow human beings' twisty theological rationales. Of course any and all of us could be mistaken, and certainly are on many matters — but that does not mean that all of our critical faculties must be discarded, that we look wise when we listen to both the bible-thumping bumpkin claiming that god made the earth by magic 6000 years ago, and the geologist rattling off a long list of detailed, technical explanations of the evidence for a 4½ billion year old earth that got to its current state by the long accrual of natural events…and we say to both, "think it possible you may be mistaken". He looks like a clueless gobshite, instead. Ruse's game is to suspend judgment when looking at the most appalling foolishness, a body of superstitions which he does not personally find believable, and to dial up the judgmental denial to 11 when he's looking at atheists who are not Michael Ruse.
Now fortunately, Jerry Coyne also found another good columnist in the Guardian, Marina Hyde, who instead of the phony and peculiarly biased objectivity Ruse demands, actually suggests that looking at all religious claims critically is enlightening. She's discussing the recent bad PR that scientology has received, and suggests that when you step back and look at other religions, Jehovah isn't any more sensible than Xenu.
But when I think of Mel Gibson building his $42m church compound in Malibu, blithely telling interviewers at the time of the Passion of the Christ's release that his then wife would unfortunately be going to hell, because she was Church of England ... well, I can't find it in myself to find him any less barking than Tom Cruise.
Clearly, Scientologists should be forced to justify their doctrinal lunacies - the only sadness is that other religions are apparently exempt from having to do the same. Imagine for a moment a Bashir-type interviewing some senior cardinal. "So," he might inquire, "you're saying that by some magic the communion wafer actually becomes the flesh of a man who died 2,000 years ago, a man who - and I don't want to put words into your mouth here - we might categorise as an imaginary friend who can hear the things you're thinking in your head? And when you've done that, do you mind going over the birth control stuff?"
What a shame that we see rather fewer of these exchanges, however amusing and useful a sideshow Scientology may be.
I am sure, if I stop for a moment and put myself in a Rusian frame of mind, that Tom Cruise is wealthier and better-looking than me, and has achieved a remarkable level of success that suggests that we shouldn't dismiss his abilities as entirely without worth. I am also sure that McMullin, Plantinga, and Williams have also navigated the shoals of life successfully and acquired personal and professional reputations of which they can be proud. That does not in any way imply, however, that I should regard all of their views as having earned some measure of respect; rather, we should learn from these fellows that some measure of lunacy and belief in groundless, overwrought nonsense is not a barrier to worldly success, and even that a whole-hearted frolic in a superstition shared by an influential community can be a personal benefit.
Could I be wrong in my belief that there is no god? Sure. Cromwell's cry applies to me and to you and to everyone. But you will not sway me by telling me that the proponents of god belief are not bad men, which was not an issue in question anyway; you will not find me appreciative of an approach that says the first step is to learn to be uncritical of ideas and suspend judgment simply because the other guy is caught in a different "paradigm". An understanding that we may be mistaken does not mean that everyone is equally mistaken. Some beliefs, such as in Xenu and his fleet of space-faring DC10s, or Jesus performing cheap tricks in Galilee and giving us a ticket to heaven by being tortured to death, are simply patently absurd and demand far more rigor in their defense than lame testimonials to the good character of some theologians.
Comments
Posted by: vanharris
|
November 2, 2009 9:56 AM
"..they are not stupid or bad or whatever."
No, just deluded. And i wouldn't trust them on anything if they believe stupid Bronze age mythology, as they admit.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 2, 2009 10:04 AM
"Maybe something out there" is not an acceptable definition of God for those who really believe in that stuff.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 2, 2009 10:08 AM
How apt is that metaphor? We're expected to be happy with a discourse consisting of religious diarrhoea.
Posted by: vanharris
|
November 2, 2009 10:09 AM
Abdul, i would think that you're right on that. They'll likely think that it shows a lack of proper respect, so that the bugger will smite them.
Posted by: Valdyr | November 2, 2009 10:10 AM
Gonna need an elevator out of this DEEP RIFT.
Posted by: harv
|
November 2, 2009 10:15 AM
PZ, Tom Cruise may have you on money and looks, but after comparing your role as the science advisor in "Mr. Diety" and TC's role in "Cocktail", its obvious that you are at least on par with him as an actor.
Posted by: mattincinci
|
November 2, 2009 10:22 AM
funny that Michael Ruse is ashamed of his atheism over a book ...guess he's used to being a minority and likes it that way
Posted by: Newfie
|
November 2, 2009 10:24 AM
oh... he thinks up shit for a living... same with Ray Comfort.
By his own thinking, we shouldn't judge somebody who is getting life instructions from their dead cat. We should respect them, on the minuscule chance that their dead cat is actual talking to them.
Posted by: raven | November 2, 2009 10:24 AM
The only "Deep Rift" I see is between Michael Ruse on one side and reality and everyone else on the other.
He is a schism of one.
To Michael Ruse, this is all just a game of academic gin rummy. To people who live in a country nearly wrecked by the GOP and their fundie xian allies, with a failing economy, two wars, and piles of bodies and rivers of blood some of it our friend's, this isn't much of a game. Watching hordes of wackos drunk on toxic religion wandering around attacking science, the basis of our civilization, and trying to destroy the USA isn't all that funny either.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
November 2, 2009 10:25 AM
Actually, one problem with criticizing Scientology-the-belief-system* is that a lot of people conflate the crazy beliefs with the unethical practices of the organization.
Personally, I care a lot more about the abuses of power in the Church of Scientology, or the Catholic Church, etc. than 'weird stuff they believe'. Because it's easy for other theists to say 'look at those people who believe weird things, while my religion is perfectly normal', rather than admitting any organization, especially ones that claim universal truth, has people who either desire only their own power/wealth/happiness, or desire only to protect the organization against outsiders, or some combination of these two, without considering moral implications. So you have people treating other people like garbage, and the rest of the group not doing what they should, because it's in-group, and how dare outsiders intervene. Throw in the stuff versus the Enlightened/Saved versus the Ignorant/Unsaved, and you have a problem. And of course, it's only those Weird Outsiders that have a cultish organization, not Our People.
* Or Catholicism, or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, etc.
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | November 2, 2009 10:25 AM
Ha, P.Z. I saw this an hour ago, independent of your post, and just put up my own. Good job, but need I point out that YOU ARE THE GUY PHOTOGRAPHED HUGGING MICHAEL RUSE?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 10:27 AM
-Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). -
He has faith that Rowan Williams has faith...and who says these guys are nice? and trustworthy? Williams is a complete plonker. I wouldn't trust him to speak on any matter...he has said some ridiculous things in the past.
-Of course any and all of us could be mistaken-
Since most gods seem to demand that they are the one and only, i would say that quite a few people ARE mistaken. Funny how that little bit of maths seems to escape most people.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 2, 2009 10:27 AM
OK, after reading some more of Ruse's posts, I can see why PZ called him a "clueless gobshite".
Posted by: mattincinci
|
November 2, 2009 10:28 AM
ruse is just another discovery institute suck up
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 2, 2009 10:28 AM
Darn... Wha' happened? You two seemed to be getting along so shockingly well earlier. :P
A short reading of Ruse's opinion piece shows he at least takes up part of the New Atheist creed: be creative/humorous in how you insult others. For instance, "unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously" elicited a small chuckle from me.
Yes, that is a very real concern of accommodationists, but the Four Horsemen and New Atheist bloggers are not ignorant about religion. The sad truth is that Christianity is built on shaky foundations and is easy to knock down from its lofty perch.
Being a good person or knowledgeable person doesn't exempt one from being wrong in fact (not just in Ruse's opinion) or from holding-on to contemptible cultural beliefs.Posted by: Stuart | November 2, 2009 10:34 AM
Maybe there will be an atheist ‘reformation’, or perhaps you will simply schism into different denominations, as some atheist ‘believers’ seem unable to accept the doctrine of Dawkin’s (pbuh) infallibility?
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 2, 2009 10:35 AM
JAC @11: "Good job, but need I point out that YOU ARE THE GUY PHOTOGRAPHED HUGGING MICHAEL RUSE?"
The "new PZ": accomodating the accomodationists, keeping faith with faitheists? Or just failing to be rude in public? You decide.
Though I tend more to the "be friendly in general, argue when necessary" mode myself.
Posted by: Robert | November 2, 2009 10:35 AM
Religion is the classic case of the "emperor not having any clothes" - as atheists we are challenged that unless we can authoritatively comment on the fine cut of the clothes we cannot criticize. But all we're saying is the emperor has no clothes. That doesn't need any authority except a brain.
Posted by: Joseph Dunnam | November 2, 2009 10:37 AM
We born-again Christian NEVER claim God "made the world by magic" .Actually things need to be definesd here and I'm gonna do it.
God (god) n. The one supreme being ,perfect in power , wisdom , and goodness , creator and ruler of the universe : God created the entire universe and rules over it .He is eternal , without beginning and end (Psalm 90:2 ) NOTE: The God of the Bible is all-pwerful (Luke 1:37) , all-knowing (Psalm 157:5 ), and present everywhere (Psalm 139 :7-12) .He never changes (Malachi 3:6 ). He is holy (Isaiah 6:3) and just (alwys fair and impartial , regardless of a person's age , race, color, sex, social standing ,or anything else) (Isaiah 30:18). He is faithful , always keeping His promises (Psalm 145:13).I have to add an etc, because there is so much about the God (Triune in The Father ,Son , and Holy Spirit ) that I serve.
Now about magic.
Magic:The art or practice of using supernatural forces ; the use of charms, spells, and rituals in seeking or pretending to control events; sorcery (This is forbidden by The Bible) : This is the Sovereign Lord says , " I am against your magic charms ..." (Ezekiel 13:20) -- NOTE: God hates this sinful practice and all sin , but because of his great love and mercy he forgives those who truly repent and put their trust in Jesus for eternal life (Mark 1:15 ; Acts 16:31 ; 1 John 1:9 ). 2. A type of entertainment such as sleight of hand , producing unexpected objects by tricks. 3. A charming quality or influence : the magic of love -- the magic touch .
There wwas no slight of hand , no forcing nature .God spoke and the universe came into being .Its that simple.
Posted by: gman | November 2, 2009 10:40 AM
PZ, I missed Coyne's talk @ Chicago, but I understand he posited seven steps in an academic's career; the seventh step being to reconcile religion and science.
I think Ruse isn't sucking up to the Discovery Institute; he's sucking up for a Templeton.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 10:41 AM
-Religion is the classic case of the "emperor not having any clothes" - as atheists we are challenged that unless we can authoritatively comment on the fine cut of the clothes we cannot criticize.-
We also have to repeatedly explain why it is not our job to prove that "their" magic invisible clothes don't exist.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 2, 2009 10:41 AM
Uh-oh. That photo is going to be thrown in my face forevermore.
Posted by: Valdyr | November 2, 2009 10:42 AM
"He is holy (Isaiah 6:3) and just (alwys fair and impartial , regardless of a person's age , race, color, sex, social standing ,or anything else)"
Unless they're a queer, right?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 2, 2009 10:43 AM
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 2, 2009 10:44 AM
Joseph Dunnam @19: "There wwas no slight of hand , no forcing nature .God spoke and the universe came into being .Its that simple."
That's "using supernatural forces", aka "magic", as you posted above.
Posted by: Standard curve
|
November 2, 2009 10:45 AM
That's great and fine if for instance you are coworkers at an office. But if your job is to think clearly about issues (like scientists and up to this point I assumed philosophers) then you can't stop there, particularly in your writing. It has to be, "I think you are wrong because of X, Y, and Z. You have no leg to stand on telling me I am wrong based on your arguments T, U, and V. Which are flawed because of Q, R, and S."
Sure, you can ask them about the best way to clean your drains, or whatever, and have a beer with them, but don't just agree to disagree when the point of what you do is supposed to be seeking "truth".
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 10:47 AM
-The one supreme being ,perfect in power , wisdom , and goodness ,-
Seemed awfully powerless during genesis and the "magic apple/talking snake" saga. Also makes some horrendous mistakes in the old testament. Also the old testament laws got chucked out the window when Jesus came around didn't they...
When we talk about magic, we usually mean anything that is supernatural. We don't split fibres when the cloth is invisible.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
November 2, 2009 10:47 AM
A question of the proper definition of magic. Magic operates on a set of existing "laws". Just like science, except it's not real.
Really God willing the universe in existence is not the same thing as magic.
It's much more preposterous.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 2, 2009 10:47 AM
Somehow, and I am sure it was just an oversight on your part since you would not want to be rude, you forgot to provide the evidence to support this contention.
Could you fix that ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 2, 2009 10:48 AM
No it isn't, since your deity is imaginary, existing only between your ears, it can't happen that way. Try again with some real evidence, preferably physical evidence.Posted by: strangest brew | November 2, 2009 10:48 AM
Sitting on a fence is not only uncomfortable but rather smacks of a fear of commitment.
I doubt he is actually an atheist, because lauding a spurious 'goodness' of men of god really tastes like a desperate attempt at 'hiding the pea under one of possibly three egg cups!'
And that is an ecclesiastical trait.
It is a trick that present day religionists employ to the full, distraction and misdirection, about what is expected for a con trick!
One wonders what he thinks about the other doyennes of religiosity...the Ham's and the Hovind's...the hatreds of the Warren's and the Haggard's...?
Does a handful make up for the preponderance of rancid?
Ruse is not balanced in his analysis..in fact he is being religious...he is keeping bad company...and obviously picking up bad habits!
Posted by: Newfie
|
November 2, 2009 10:49 AM
The other religions don't agree with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Posted by: Spiro Keat
|
November 2, 2009 10:50 AM
And here's me thinking he said that to Charles I because he would have preferred not to execute him.
Still, Ruse must be right.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 2, 2009 10:50 AM
Not just mistakes, it explicitly disclaims omnipotence (iron chariots are a problem for someone omnipotent?) and omniscience (why do you need markers to know your people?)
Posted by: exjehovah
|
November 2, 2009 10:53 AM
Lifelong Jehovah's Witnesses dissident speaks out on JW belief system .
A) They are at your door to recruit you for their watchtower society corporation,they will say that "we are just here to share a message from the Bible" this is deception right off.
B) Their 'message' creed is a false Gospel that Jesus had his second coming in 1914.The problem with this is it's not just a cute fairy tale,Jesus warned of the false prophets who would claim "..look he is here in the wilderness,or see here he is at the temple."
C) Their anti-blood transfusion ban against *whole blood* has killed thousands.
D) once they recruit you they will "love bomb" you in cult fashion to also recruit your family & friends or cut them off.
----
Danny Haszard Jehovah's Witness X 33 years http://www.dannyhaszard.com
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 2, 2009 10:55 AM
The one supreme being ,perfect in power , wisdom , and goodness - Joseph Dunnam
As is of course conclusively proven by the existence of rabies, polio, Alzheimer's disease, Huntingdon's disease, harlequin syndrome, guinea worm, earthquakes and tsunamis, impacted molars,
smallpox(tsk - in our base ingratitude we eliminated that particular blessing to humanity), multiple sclerosis, cholera...Oh, and if we're talking about the Biblical god, he proves his goodness in the OT by genocide (both personally, and by ordering it), sending bears to tear children to pieces, "hardening Pharoah's heart" to give himself an excuse for some more child-murder, killing the children of his faithful servant Job and inflicting him with boils in order to win a bet; and in the NT by threatening eternal torment to anyone who believes the wrong thing.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 10:58 AM
-Lifelong Jehovah's Witnesses dissident speaks out on JW belief system .-
I have yet to hear of a religion that doesn't recruit, make stuff up, have weird rules about what you can and can't do and which doesn't lovebomb new members.
Posted by: Paul Priest | November 2, 2009 10:58 AM
Why insanity ?
How about arguing against what Christians and Theists actually believe rather than what they don't ?
Were Jesus' teachings erroneous, specious, immoral, insane?
Were his ethical teachings inhuman, irrational and redundant for today's society ?
Are the cosmological arguments of aquinas utterly irrelevant given they're suggesting that in order for there to be anything there had to be an actual and a causal beginning because an infinite regression is impossible - does not causality demand an uncaused cause to actuate anything ?
Is it insane to think there is [possibly inbuilt?] purpose and meaning and a potential cosmic intelligence or will directing reality ?
If this is merely an entropic bubble to accelerate cosmic annihilation within the 2LT then why does it use such a process - and does that in itself not require some intelligent will towards that end ?
If there is no God then any inductive metaphysical speculation regarding purpose/meaning/morality all vanish into nihilism or atheistic existentialism - but in each direction there are problems - nihilism suggests that the cosmos is inadvertently obliviously mockingly cruel to we humans who have evolved into deluded hope-filled idealistic dreamers of an ultimate purpose and meaning and an eternality of beauty, truth, goodness happiness etc ; for the atheistic existentialist we attempt to impose a transient purpose and meaning and morality and idealism against the cosmos where it's absent - i.e. the cosmos has evolved creatures which are objectively better than itself - living according to dreams and aspirations and rules which the universe does not even consider - so from where did these things come ?
If they evolved into a complexity through accident, natural selection and 'survival of the fittest' accommodating the environment for the transmission and furtherance of the genetic code - how did they achieve such a complexity from such a simplicity - how is this possible ?
it may be utterly wrong to believe or hypothesise that there has to be something more to reality than what's actually before us - because mechanistic empiricism doesn't fit, behaviourism doesn't fit, no economic theory or social science theory fits the pattern - so what is it ?
evolutionary psychology would hypothesise that if we were merely genetic conduits we would be doing two things
a] protecting our environment and the survival of the species.
b] ensuring the survival of the species
yet :
a] any environmentalist will tell you we're destroying our habitat.
b] the largest annual amount of human killings occur not by war, famine, disease, crime or even old age - but by abortion.
so what gives ?
have we broken programming ?
but hang on - there can't be any programming can there ?
ok have the scientific laws produced a self-destructive entropic bubble deliberately to homogenise the energy and mass in the cosmos all the more rapidly ?
er...wait...that would require programming too wouldn't it you can't accidentally produce an entity biologically directed towards one thing [furtherance of the species] but psychologically and socially doing the exact opposite ?
or can you ?
I don't know - but it sounds pretty insane doesn't it ?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 2, 2009 10:59 AM
"Christianity" as explained by the period-challenged.Posted by: mattincinci
|
November 2, 2009 11:01 AM
"YOU ARE THE GUY PHOTOGRAPHED HUGGING MICHAEL RUSE?
Uh-oh. That photo is going to be thrown in my face forevermore."
good chance that might happen PZ...just claim over and over again that you "dont recall" lol
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 2, 2009 11:03 AM
So Cromwell's cry shows "worth and integrity"? To me it shows paternalism.
@19: so god spoke and the universe came into being? I guess that makes it a "sleight" of the mouth rather than the hand, then.
Does god use voice control?
Posted by: bsa
|
November 2, 2009 11:05 AM
Deep Rifts would be an excellent name for a rock band.
(I know, I know, just trying to get past TypePad login crapola.)
Posted by: mattincinci
|
November 2, 2009 11:07 AM
Deep Rifts would be an excellent name for a rock band or a bad porno LOL
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 2, 2009 11:07 AM
Yes, some of his supposed teachings were pretty terrible. For example, "Do not resist an evil person" (Matt 5:39) was completely wrongheaded.
"Hate your father/mother/family" (Luke 14:26) is pretty shitty, too.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 11:08 AM
-How about arguing against what Christians and Theists actually believe rather than what they don't ?-
You all believe different things...it's annoying. We are doign the best we can though :)
-Were Jesus' teachings erroneous, specious, immoral, insane?-
Some...yes. Leave your mother and father stuff as far as I recall.
-Is it insane to think there is [possibly inbuilt?] purpose and meaning and a potential cosmic intelligence or will directing reality ?-
No, but a little proof would be nice.
-If they evolved into a complexity through accident, natural selection and 'survival of the fittest' accommodating the environment for the transmission and furtherance of the genetic code - how did they achieve such a complexity from such a simplicity - how is this possible ?-
Evolution. Complex systems. You don't ask how complex sand dunes form. Or perfect bubbles....or snowflakes...are those complex magical things? So why should the rest of natuer be different.
-evolutionary psychology would hypothesise-
No it wouldn't. Learn some evolution before you blast us with inanity at this level.
-I don't know - but it sounds pretty insane doesn't it ?-
We are a pretty insane species all told. So yes, you probably can make us do incredibly dumb things.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 2, 2009 11:09 AM
# 19
"There wwas no slight of hand , no forcing nature .God spoke and the universe came into being .Its that simple."
Religion is magic...it always had been.
And every xian cult has its own magic ceremonies of which they are well proud.
RC's = Transubstantiation
Protestant = Speaking in tongues
Choose ya cult ...pick ya insanity!
And the church sevices of all religions depend on magic so the bible is not quite the authority you pretend it is!...
That is apart from the 'miracles' of jeebus...which is religious speak for magic.
Something is even simpler...you are not being honest...and if you are then you are a totally blinded fool.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 2, 2009 11:13 AM
Ah. So god uses incantatory magic, the ritual recitation of verbal charms or spells to produce a magic effect, rather than any of the other kinds? (here's a useful list of different kinds of magic)
I suspect he was also dabbling in necromancy after his son's tragic conviction and execution.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 2, 2009 11:15 AM
@Paul Priest:
All of your cosmological arguments are arguments from ignorance. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
You want complexity from simplicity? Go look at a picture of the Mandlebrot Set.
You want uncaused cause? See Quantum Mechanics.
Survival of the fittest is short term, not long term. Things that aren't fit will die. If we're fit enough to destroy the environment but not fit enough not to, well, humans will die out. Que sera sera.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 2, 2009 11:16 AM
Woo-hoo! Multiple incoming trolls!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 2, 2009 11:16 AM
Indeed. There was no hand at all.
Posted by: raven | November 2, 2009 11:16 AM
What actual beliefs? Todays fundie cultists believe:
1. You should send their leaders all your money and your cutest teen age boys and girls.
2. They should rule the country because they are Xian Dominionists.
3. The earth is 6,000 years old, Noah had a boat full of dinosaurs, and science is evil and wrong.
4. Everyone who doesn't buy their insane cult nonsense is wrong and going to hell. As soon as those secular governments let them, they will send you there ASAP.
5. Our cult is the True Xianity. All the other 38,000 cults are Fake Xians.
The actual beliefs of fundie cult xians are a mixture of primitive superstition, christofascist ideology, and right wing extremism. We argue against their real beliefs all the time as a matter of personal and national survival.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 11:18 AM
-Woo-hoo! Multiple incoming trolls! -
It's fun, like blog tennis. How fast can you refute and fire-back the incoming barrage of odd thoughts before someone beats you to it.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 2, 2009 11:18 AM
It must be grading time at Liberty U (or was it Baylor?) again.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 2, 2009 11:19 AM
Paul Priest,
You are but a few ALLCAPS short of Timecube glory.
Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 11:19 AM
Doesn't this imply Ruse thinks these two words have the same meaning? hmm.... Instead of "have the same meaning", should I have asked "have the same meaning/God"? Am I missing something here? What could an atheist and professional philosopher possibly mean/God by such nonsense?I'll also note he's pursuing the same bizarre line of argument as in the "clueless gobshite" thread: that teaching evolution contradicts religious claims itself constitutes "teaching religion", which is therefore a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause. I will conclude that he doesn't understand the enormous difference between science and religion.
The last paragraph is strange, to say the least. He doesn't actually draw out the analogy he's trying to make between "atheist fundamentalists" and biblical literalists. I suppose, as a professional philosopher, he can just insinuate it and the audience's imagination will do the rest.
The whole thing is stupid, all the way down.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 2, 2009 11:20 AM
Did he remember to speak backward?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 2, 2009 11:20 AM
Nah, I place him at a little less than 0.5 TC.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 2, 2009 11:23 AM
Sure. Let us know when you guys come to a consensus. Don't forget to include your empirical evidence.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 2, 2009 11:26 AM
Hey Paul #38
Thanks for all the stawman arguments and the display of your ignorance of evolutionary biology and cosmolgy.
Just one thing: according to you the biggest cause of "human death" is abortion. Given that most of those abortions are "spontaneous" does that make god the biggest genocidal murderer of all time?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 11:27 AM
-Sure. Let us know when you guys come to a consensus. Don't forget to include your empirical evidence.-
Evidence for christianity. Now you're asking too much. They do have a collection of warm fuzzy feelings and some very amazing coincidences though.
Should we then make them decide who is right...christians or muslims. I'd like to see them consensus THAT.
Posted by: AC Skeptic
|
November 2, 2009 11:28 AM
That's funny, I thought about responding to Priest but decided by the time I actually had typed it up I would have been beaten by at least 10 others, most of whom would be more clear, interesting, and funny as well as spell things correctly and use better grammar.
Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | November 2, 2009 11:31 AM
"Deep Rifts" sounds like a name for a porn flick. Which leads me to think of a whole slew of nasty lines it could be used with. It could even be used as a bad name for cleavage. I'm sure if I asked my boyfriend if he wanted to see my "deep rifts," without any further explanation as to what I mean, that he'd say sure with a smile.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 2, 2009 11:35 AM
If they manage that, then they'll be able to answer deep religious conflicts of the modern age: Windows or Mac? Kirk or Picard? And just which way should the toilet paper roll face?
Posted by: Peter G.
|
November 2, 2009 11:35 AM
Now there's something you don't see every day: a philosopher with self-esteem issues that prevent him from asserting everybody else is an idiot and he has a monopoly on truth. For pity's sake someone call Dr. Phil! And bring the ego crash cart. Stat!
Posted by: MarkW | November 2, 2009 11:37 AM
If the shoe fits... We try. But any one theist idea we argue against is challenged as "not what we believe" by many other theists. It's notoriously difficult to pin down exactly what theists do believe. Some of them, yes. (Assuming for the sake of argument that the "teachings of Jesus" that are reported in the wholly babble are what they claim to be -- a hefty assumption in the first place.) Some of them. See above. Ockham's razor would suggest we view the universe itself as the "uncaused cause" rather than an unevidenced creator-god which (by definition) would have to be more complex than the universe itself. Perhaps not insane, but an idea that has no evidence to support it whatsoever. I don't understand the question. Argument from cosequences. This hand-wringing is irrelevant to the question. Eminently possible. You're posting on a science blog, I suggest you read up on the science before dismissing it out-of-hand. I don't understand the question. You misunderstand. Evolutionary theory is not a guide to human actions. You are also mistaken about abortion. Far more human embryos spontaneously abort on their own than are killed in termination procedures. Yes. Your questions do sound insane.Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 2, 2009 11:39 AM
Paul Priest,
Christians and theists believe many different things. What specifically did PZ argue against that no Christian/theist believes?
Some of his teachings were wrong (or the documents written decades later claiming to be Jesus' teaching). Like, equating lusting over a woman to adultery. Or things like "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out" if taken literally are excessive. If he did indeed say he was the son of God, that might make him a little insane.
Some of them, yes.
A lot about the universe has been learned since Aquinas' time and we have found that the universe does not bend to our preconceptions. In any case, postulating a God as the creator is problematic. What caused God? If you answer God always was or God created himself, then he might as well say the same thing about the universe, which at least we know exists.
I wouldn't say it's insane since humans are programmed o look for purpose and meaning. However that's mean there is such purpose. It appears that life is inherently meaningless. However, you are free to choose what meaning your life takes.
?
Nope. In fact, I don't think I've ever met a nihilistic atheist. Even if I did most atheist aren't nihilistic in any regard. They believe they choose what the meaning of their life is. They are moral because other people suffer like they do and that should be avoided. They also believe we can know (if only roughly) some truths.
If by 'it' you mean your ranting, then yes.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 2, 2009 11:47 AM
True that. I saw:
...and prematurely blogulated :)
I still think he's a few cardinals short of an inquisition, though.
Posted by: charley | November 2, 2009 11:48 AM
On one hand, Ruse can use science to explain their belief in weird supernatural stories for which there is no evidence. On the other hand, they can pretend to explain his lack of belief in these stories (which requires no explanation) using more made up stories.
Hmm...I just can't decide which approach is better...
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 2, 2009 11:53 AM
In listing his departure from the so-called new atheism, Michael Ruse wrote:
Right off the bat, he constructs a straw man. The 'new atheists' all readily admit that religion has inspired many good, noble, and beautiful things, and has enhanced and uplifted many lives. But what is valuable in religion is valuable for secular reasons. They all have their roots in human nature, and human relationships. The religious views themselves are false. And, because they are false, they can now allow people to justify things as good, noble, and beautiful which make no sense from a secular point of view.
Religion is like pseudoscience. If the Reiki Master provides a comforting cup of tea before he does his silly voodoo with the feet, you can't claim that critics of Reiki fail to take account of the merit of the tea.
The new atheists are more serious than Ruse. For one thing, they seriously consider the possibility that, in theology, agreeing to play the game by theological rules may be part of the problem.
How dare Michael Ruse be so condescending, as to pretend that Dawkins, Myers, etc. are so simplistic, so stupid, and so ill-natured as to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge that people of faith may be perfectly reasonable, nice, and reliable in areas other than that of their faith. Perhaps he should apply that last sentence to the new atheists, and his own appalling arrogance.
Because there are different types of "incompatability," and evolution does not interfere with religion in the political sense. Evolution is not directly incompatible with religion. You can be a Christian and accept modern science. This is because faith can reconcile any fact into its narrative. It's not bound by rational rules.
But evolution is indirectly incompatible with religion, in that, if the existence of God is approached as one approaches a hypothesis in science, the hypothesis is not only unsupported, but runs contrary to current evidence. Because it is not bound by rational rules, faith is not compatible with science. The fact that it can add in "oh, and science is right" doesn't effect this, for the addition may be welcome, but it's arbitrary.
More nonsense. None of the new atheists claim that all the world's problems are due to religion. They cite irrationality as the root cause. And religion institutionalizes a particularly intractable form.
Ruse lacks insight into the views of the people he disagrees with. Ironic.
Posted by: ShaunOTD | November 2, 2009 11:59 AM
@ Paul Priest
Short answer: Yes.
Clearly not. If the original cause can violate causality, causality cannot be inviolable. There is also no reason to attribute to this first cause the complex & contradictory characteristics of Yahweh/God/Allah.
It's very simple, you know. It only gets complicated if you assume God as your starting position.
Posted by: sailor1031 | November 2, 2009 12:07 PM
So if I have a deep, irrational belief in things that are incredible and for which no evidence exists that's profound? And if a lifetime of study of science and scripture of all kinds and of thinking convinces me that religionists are wrong I should just shutup because after all they're nice and they just have a different paradigm? I guess Adolf Hitler had a different paradigm too, so our forebears should have just let him have his way......pretty deep! WTF ever happened to plain common sense?
Posted by: Prometheus
|
November 2, 2009 12:14 PM
"If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion?"
The question of whether or not evolution should be taught in schools should be completely independent of whether science does away with God. Shame on Michael Ruse for failing to stand up and say otherwise.
Michael Ruse is on the wrong side of history, it will be the New Atheists who will be in our grandchildren's textbooks.
Posted by: Peter Beattie
|
November 2, 2009 12:19 PM
I suppose it shouldn't, but Ruse's infantile babbling makes me angry. He starts his hackery by dangling his credentials in front of the reader ("As a professional philosopher …"), as if that made any difference. In fact, he is not so much a professional philosopher as a fucking embarrassment to the profession. But we'll get to that. Next, he feints a definition of the term 'atheist' and seems quite pleased with himself when he comes up with two opposing descriptions that neither have any bearing on a presumed schism nor represent the oft-stated views of the opponents Ruse is so childishly proud to have attracted. Even that he manages to get rather tragically wrong: they do not oppose him. They ridicule him. There is simply nothing of substance to oppose.
What there is is this. A couple of lines ("I am not whining") about how those terrible Non-brain-damaged Atheists compared him to Chamberlain (a lie; the passage in TGD is about "a school of thought"), "loathe and detest" his thinking (plainly ridiculous, since that would presume that anybody takes it seriously), that PZ called him a "clueless gobshite" because he was sympathetic to Creation Museum visitor (again, a lie; PZ called him that for his barking mad interpretation of the First Amendment). And then he doesn't even have the guts to say what a real philosopher, Dan Dennett, thinks of his ideas and instead hides behind his readers' pearls that he just clutched for them.
Next up, he engages in some ad-hoc 'reasoning', falsely accuses the By-now-yawning Atheists of assigning the blame for all the world's evils to religion and of thinking "all religion is necessarily evil", and then says "unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously". Somebody seriously needs to take his meds.
Then it's some name-calling of Dawkins again and a bit of pseudo-philosophical posturing—how dare Dawkins be so childish as to question the existence of the emperor's new clothes? No serious philosopher would do that. Which, if true, would explain why philosophers are usually safely ignored. Then he trots out the utterly absurd claims of Mary Midgley about TSG, without giving even a single argument, as if some other crackpot's authority alone should persuade anybody of anything.
Then he goes on about how modest he himself is and how condescending the Sane Atheists are. Oh, and of course about their atheist "beliefs". And TGD's message was terribly simplistic, did he already mention that?
"Forgive me if I don't sign on." Don't flatter yourself. Nobody would ever ask you to sign on. Except the asylum.
We who live outside the asylum, though, were under the impression that is was common philosophical practice for a discussion to be rational and conducted using actual arguments. But apparently, opinion is divided on the subject.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 2, 2009 12:20 PM
I guess Ruse is unaware that there is a correlation between scientific literacy and belief in god. I also suspect he is not aware than it is an inverse correlation, and the more education someone has in science the less likely they are to be religious, and if they are religious the less likely they are to be fundamentalist.
Of course if we accept the argument from Ruse that if evolution is incompatible with Christianity (and we should not) then it is an argument against using the establishment clause in fighting creationism, not an argument against teaching evolution.
Posted by: kopd | November 2, 2009 12:28 PM
Since Jesus' teaching have been brought up, I'd like to offer up a link to this deconstruction of the Sermon on the Mount for those who haven't seen it.
Posted by: cag | November 2, 2009 12:31 PM
So PZ, did your "laying on of hands" have the desired effect?
Posted by: Peter G.
|
November 2, 2009 12:35 PM
Q. What's the difference between a theologian and a xenobiologist?
A. Nothing yet but the xenobiologists are still hopeful.
Posted by: co | November 2, 2009 12:51 PM
@ InsightfulApe:
Yes. That's why it all comes out as "Let’s set so double the killer delete select all."
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 2, 2009 12:54 PM
Peter G.,
Twas a good laugh. However, at least xenobiologists are prepared to apply actual science to any data discovered; and in a much more stunning divide, the speculative and fictional extraterrestrial lifeforms of modern xenobiology are typically more clearly defined than the speculative and fictional deities of theologians. Fans of scifi have much more tangible models to relish than theists, such as my favorite, the Xenomorph. And speaking of hope, there is a certain segment of the Christian population, the Rapture-ready crowd, that has hope-sacs where their brains should be.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 2, 2009 12:58 PM
I read that as hop-sacks.
I was all ready to post on how hops are a vital ingredient of one of the most important substances known to man when I realised my error.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | November 2, 2009 1:06 PM
I have a piece in that series too - I think it will be posted tomorrow or the next day. We can play Compare and Contrast.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 2, 2009 1:08 PM
I think it is pretty clear who will come out on top, without even needing to read yours.
Posted by: llewelly | November 2, 2009 1:14 PM
Jerry Coyne | November 2, 2009 10:25 AM:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Posted by: CJO | November 2, 2009 1:17 PM
If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion?
If, as Michael Ruse surely agrees, the Paleo-Anthroplogy of the Americas is incompatible with the Book of Mormon, then will he give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion?
The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?
Gah! "Clueless gobshite" doesn't even cover it. "Their beliefs" (Darwinian evolutionary biology) are not "beliefs," that's why! And, incidentally, religious beliefs aren't "Kuhnian paradigms" either. He would be eviscerated at any gathering of philosophers of science for throwing that term around so loosely, yet in the popular press he feels completely at home dropping Kuhn's name, as if we're just supposed to shut up about it, 'cause, well, I said "Kuhnian." All paradigms are equal, and you can't criticize one speaking from the perspective of another. Think about that, and think what a truly oppressive impact such a stance would have on free inquiry and academic discourse. It's absolutely absurd that a wannabe public intellectual of Ruse's supposed stature would spout this Fuller-ian bilge. It's fucking shameful.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 2, 2009 1:19 PM
I would hope to never slander the single most important source of brain nourishment in the world, although there does seem to be something fermented in the Rapture-ready skull.Posted by: VIcki | November 2, 2009 1:39 PM
Most atheists won't even say that irrationality is the cause of all our problems, because a lot of real problems are not caused by humans (or any other potentially rational actor). Rationality may get us better earthquake-resistant structures, but it won't reduce the number of quakes. A lot of what reason lets us do is mitigate: mitigate everything from multiple sclerosis to tsunamis.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 1:44 PM
-Windows or Mac? Kirk or Picard? And just which way should the toilet paper roll face?-
Windows. It's what everyone is used to.
Picard. Please...thats a no brainer, Patrick Stewart is an Ac-tor. And that voice. Makes me go wibbly.
Shouldn't the roll face towards you, so you can yknow...grab it.
There i've started us on the road to world peace (or a deeper rift than ever :). Now it's the fundies turn.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 2, 2009 1:46 PM
Udo Schuklenk and I have co-authored a piece in the same series as the one by Ruse. Needless to say, we'll be taking a somewhat different approach from his. Stay tuned tomorrow, or maybe a bit later this week.
I see that Ophelia Benson also has a piece coming out in the series.
Posted by: Gavinicus | November 2, 2009 1:47 PM
PZ you disrespectful lout, Xenu's spaceships looked like DC-8s (sans propellers), not DC-10s. Once again, you show your contempt for the sophisticated theology that you don't even pretend to understand.
Posted by: Mr T | November 2, 2009 1:50 PM
Fermentation can occur in feces, but that's not to say that at this point I could rule out sour cream, pickled eggs, stinky tofu, or fish sauce.Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 2, 2009 1:52 PM
You mean like everyone is used to God?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 2:00 PM
-because a lot of real problems are not caused by humans -
Bad things sometimes happen, but all the wars are manmade, the market collapsing and climate change to name a few. Also I would say that we could solve most problems that aren't manmade. We just don't, or haven't yet.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 2:04 PM
- Windows. It's what everyone is used to.
You mean like everyone is used to God?-
Yes. I didn't say it was any good though, or that it won't change later. We are linux. You do everything yourself. Windows does everything for you (except the hard stuff when it leaves you high and dry), demands constantly that you answer it's confirmations and costs money.
Posted by: Crewvy
|
November 2, 2009 2:12 PM
I beg your forgiveness for my ignorance but, wtf does
even mean?
Lol Mel Gibson, totally fuckin` insane ,I saw one interview where here claimed everyone will be going to heaven ,eventually, just that he will get there quicker cos` he follows the true interpretation of his holey babble.
Posted by: Jamie | November 2, 2009 2:39 PM
@19:
So God spoke and the universe was created huh? Sounds an awful lot like a SPELL to me.
Magic is just a means of doing something in a supernatural way. It seems like you're just adding something to the meaning, like "something supernatural that God does not approve".
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 2, 2009 3:00 PM
We are caught in opposing Kuhnian paradigms
PoMo swill.
the worth and integrity of so many believers makes me modest in my unbelief.
Ad hominem: The worth and integrity of the person who makes an argument is not relevant to the validity of the argument.
Special pleading: Is he also modest in his unbelief in Santa Claus, or does he think that children are worthless and lacking integrity?
Circular argument: Just what does "integrity" mean here? Can that word really apply to the sort of apologetics that people like Plantinga engage in, a process that starts with religious belief and then seeks out arguments to justify it, rather than following reason and observation wherever they lead regardless of consequence?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 2, 2009 3:08 PM
No fair spoiling my false dichotomies!
But, if you insist...
Emacs or vi? KDE or Gnome?
Posted by: irenedelse.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
November 2, 2009 3:18 PM
It means that Ol' Crowmell wasn't above a little swearing or borderline blasphemy himself. A modern day translation would be something along the lines of:
"Will you please admit that you could be wrong, ferchrissakes! Pretty please, with a holy cherry on top?"
Posted by: mds | November 2, 2009 3:22 PM
Clearly the answer is Ed, since Ed is the standard text editor!
And with Ed, you don't need no stinkin' X Windows and its fancy-pants window managers!
Posted by: blf | November 2, 2009 3:24 PM
Nope! Unix. (Now Linux.) Since before windross existed. Almost never used the shite—mostly only every deleted it from the disc—and see no reason to fondle garbage.
Posted by: Tim in England | November 2, 2009 3:25 PM
You guys should stop arguing so much about Creationists, and beware the threat that is ever so slightly more ominous
http://www.patcondell.net/index.html see the video 22 October.
Posted by: Hasan-i Sabbah | November 2, 2009 3:34 PM
1. What does it mean to say God is all powerful? I know it's cliche, but I've still never heard a decent answer for the "Can God create a rock He cannot lift" paradox. Most I've gotten is a dismissal that those kinds of thoughts are human and don't apply to God. Well, if logic doesn't apply to God and he doesn't think that way, then why did he make us think that way, why did he make it our most powerful tool of understanding, and why did he create an entire universe that opperates upon logical consistancy?
2. God is unchanging and all knowing? Well, if he's all knowing, he must know that today is Monday and tomorrow is Tuesday. But if he can't change, then he won't be able to know by tomorrow that "Today is Tuesday and tomorrow is Wednesday." Hardly perfect knowledge there. So what's the deal? Can he change his mind? Or perhaps does he not know everything, but only abstracted universals?
3. If God is everwhere in the universe, how can he be eternal and unchanging? Our universe is a constantly changing, temporal phenomenon with a beginning (and supposedly) an end. If God were a part of that world of generation and decay, how could he possibly be wholly eternal and unchanging? Or how could he simply be whole and one? After all, He created this universe to follow the law of identity, for particulars to be distinguisheable from each other, to the point where one could make a good argument for extreme nominalism. With so much difference, if God is everywhere, then he would be infinitely seperable into each and every part, each as distinct as how they exist in this reality. He could only exist as a unitary, eternal being by existing completely apart from this reality, never to sully his perfect hands with our imperfect, changing universe. But then again, that would keep him from affecting miracles, or even really just thinking about any of us beings. He would practically have to ignore everything that's going on down here, because even thinking about it would subject him to change, to cause and effect, and to all those things which would compromise his perfect eternality, unchangeability, and oneness. How does one resolve all of that?
There, that mostly covers all the major issues and questions which pretty much lead medieval Muslim philosophers to completely abandon metaphysics. Can't really blame them; once you put religion up to rational scrutiny, it turns into an infinite regress of nonsense, and what you have left doesn't even resemble the religion in the slightest. Hell, just look at what the Mu'tazilites cooked up from the ingredients of Islam: a totally different religion, basically. Our own "Western" scholars of the Enlightenment did the same thing with Christianity: they pondered these age old questions, applied them to Christianity, and out came Deism, which is basically one philosophical point away from complete atheism, and in practice IS atheism (a non-effectual, non-interfering God is practically no God at all).
Posted by: kopd | November 2, 2009 3:40 PM
re: Linux v. the world
If I could sync my iPod and get World of Warcraft to run properly in Linux then I'd have no use for Windows. If only.
Note: I said if I could do those things. I did not say they are not possible, so please don't respond by telling me I'm wrong and those things can be done. Yes, I'm sure they can, but currently it's no simple task given my current setup. Believe me, I've tried and am putting off trying again until the setup changes.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 3:55 PM
-Emacs or vi? KDE or Gnome?-
All of them silly. Atheism isn't one operating system. It's just a lack of Microsoft Windows (or any operating system you pay for).
If you're going to abuse a metaphor run with it. Run like the wind :)
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 2, 2009 3:59 PM
Sorry #98, but "in the bowels of Christ" gives me a rather different mental image.
Kind of like the more commonly used "in Christ".
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 2, 2009 4:09 PM
To be fair, that's also true of Emacs and vi.
With ed, however, you don't need a video screen at all.
Posted by: heironymous | November 2, 2009 4:17 PM
I'm just going to point out that in my definition of atheism, I don't claim _any_ knowledge about the existence of a deity, an afterlife or deities. I merely state the obvious truth that all religions created on earth are created by _people_ to try and explain natural phenomena observed but not understood. I object to all religious institution's dogma and attempt at super-natural flim-flammery while I accept some of their definitions of morality/ethics because they are frequently based on interpersonal interaction. They are of course, subject to change over time.
So there's no *&^&ing way that I am wrong, regardless of what's out there.
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 2, 2009 4:42 PM
With ed, however, you don't need a video screen at all.
I believe that's true of vi as well -- on a teletype, it's restricted to ed commands.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 2, 2009 4:49 PM
@truth machine: Ah, but is it really vi anymore, then?
(Deep philosophical thought courtesy Michael Ruse.)
Posted by: Crewvy
|
November 2, 2009 4:49 PM
By eating those little wafers ,the holy jeebus christos,ends up in the bowels of cato-holics all over the world ,every sunday.
Boy, talk about taking one for the team.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 2, 2009 4:50 PM
"Windows or Mac? Kirk or Picard? And just which way should the toilet paper roll face?"
@87...wrong, wrong, wrong. The answer is obviously: Mac, Kirk, could give a damn.
I'm not a Linux nerd, so I can't speak to that, but obviously if you are interested in stability, Mac provides a better platform. Further, Macs are rad looking and are status symbols. Any yahoo can cart around a PC.
Picard, really? We aren't talking about Shatner vs. Stewart, but Kirk vs. Picard...and Kirk would beat Picard like a gorilla pimp. Picard does not even know basic fight moves like the karate chop and the two-fisted hammer to the back-o-the-neck. Kirk beat up Spock for crying out loud. And Kirk was a hit with the ladies, regardless of species.
Last, why even put the toilet paper on a roll? Why not on the back of the toilet/the floor/countertop, etc. A great many simple tasks give me no end of grief, but I can wipe my deep rift regardless of how the paper is presented.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 2, 2009 5:00 PM
-Further, Macs are rad looking and are status symbols-
Meh, so is the popes hat.
-but Kirk vs. Picard...and Kirk would beat Picard like a gorilla pimp-
Yeah, because obviously you should choose the man with anger management issues. Thanks but I like my characters with a smattering of diplomacy, intelligence and 3 dimensionality. The two dimensions of kick it and then smooch with the nearest alien woman lacks that certain something.
Posted by: JonJ | November 2, 2009 5:20 PM
"Atheism isn't one operating system. It's just a lack of Microsoft Windows (or any operating system you pay for)."
Well, there's a PhD thesis right there -- religiosity vs choice of operating system. Given that religious believers on average are known to be both keener on authority and lower in IQ than atheists, I hypothesise that they will be diehard Windows users, while Mac and Linux users will be largely atheistic -- Christian Ubuntu, Muslim Ubuntu and Satanic Ubuntu notwithstanding.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 2, 2009 5:25 PM
Bullshit. Picard picked a fight with Nausicaans over a game of dom-jot, survived Cardassian interrogation and assimilation by the Borg, and served as Cha'DIch in a Klingon capital trial. Give the man his due.
(Note: He was not beaten by some disgruntled El-Aurian 'scientist' in Star Trek Generations. That film never existed.)
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 2, 2009 5:27 PM
@Richard
"Thanks but I like my characters with a smattering of diplomacy, intelligence and 3 dimensionality."
That's how I like my neighbors. On the other hand, I like my Sci-Fi adventure characters with fighting skills, ass-whoopery, and green women hanging all over them. Its the paradigm I'm caught up in. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 2, 2009 5:43 PM
So to say that there's an omnipotent omniscient supernatural entity that always exists is just fine, but to say that such a claim is silly is being a bad atheist? Fuck Michael Ruse can be a tool at times.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 2, 2009 5:45 PM
What a Janewayian thing to say.
Posted by: Dahan | November 2, 2009 5:45 PM
Are you trying to speak for ALL atheists?! What if I'm not fond of our rifts? Hah! Another deep divide!
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 2, 2009 5:56 PM
"What a Janewayian thing to say."
Well played, sir. That's going to sting for a couple of days.
Posted by: Yahzi | November 2, 2009 5:58 PM
Yes, we could all be mistaken. The question is, and always has been, how do you know?
By what process do you go about determining if you are mistaken?
This is the only answer that matters. If your answer is, "examining empirical evidence with an eye towards eliminating bias," then you are a rationalist, regardless of what you happen to believe at the moment. If your answer is "praying, mediating, and other forms of navel-gazing," then you are an idiot, equally regardless of what you happen to believe at the moment.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
November 2, 2009 5:58 PM
I get the sense from such "I take scholarship seriously" types that to say such a claim exists is being a bad atheist.
Remember, God as a wrathful deity who created the universe in six days and will fuck your shit up if you order the lobster bisque is a strawgod. Religious people, to a person (apparently), all have incredibly nuanced and sophisticated beliefs in a deity that somehow defies description other than to say said deity is totally not like whatever the mean New Atheist described.
So, uh, remember that.
Sarah Palin may not know the names of the magazines and newspapers she reads, but like all believers (apparently) the sophistimacatedness of her theology would give Socrates a migrane. Oh, I bet Ruse gets tingles just thinking of the centuries of theological savvy that went into "God Hates Fags".
In some ways it makes me ashamed. Not as a New Atheist, but as a former Catholic. Unfortunately, not a single one of my bishops, priests, Catholic School teachers, fellow students took scholarship seriously. Either that, or they were nefarious New Atheists, because their beliefs were exactly as Dawkins and Hitchens described.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 2, 2009 6:09 PM
Gavinicus | November 2, 2009 1:47 PM #89
DC-8s didn't have propellers. Perhaps you were thinking of the DC-7.
Posted by: Robert MacDonald
|
November 2, 2009 7:10 PM
'I just keep hearing Cromwell to the Scots. "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." '
Cromwell made this entreaty in the middle of his invasion of Scotland. After some muddling around he then scored a lucky victory at the Battle of Dunbar.
Most of the 5,000 Scottish prisoners that he marched back to England in the aftermath died on the way, or while they were walled up later in Durham Cathedral. Most of the survivors were deported as slave labour.
You can think about and choose who you just keep hearing.
Posted by: eyespy | November 2, 2009 8:34 PM
Marina Hyde not only rawks, she is hawt.
I'd give up my gawd fer her any day.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 2, 2009 10:29 PM
I guess I'm a bad atheist then. Because if its going to be that interventionist deities need to be argued on theological terms rather than evidential - then what's the point of any of this? This is why I can appreciate Huxley's claim of the unknowable - how would we even begin to contemplate the supernatural as natural beings? How can we say things like an omnipotent omniscient being is an uncaused cause? How can we know such things are possible?Yet it's this sophist garbage that gets a free ride under this kind of thinking. As soon as one pulls God away from the natural and into the supernatural, they become absolutely useless as concepts. As Michael Shermer says: God is insoluble. We can't know anything about such a God, we can't even begin to comprehend such a God, and anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or making it up. I'm sorry for ranting, but I'm sick of having this "have your cake and eat it too" kind of thinking. Yet if I dare call it silly and say there's no possible way of knowing such a thing, it's me who is bringing atheism into disrepute. Sorry but I don't buy such inanity.
If this is unsound atheism so be it, but I think it intellectually dishonest to pretend that such arguments should be taken on their own terms for any other reason other than engaging theologians. It's like having a physic battle with your local fortune teller instead of showing that the physics means you can't really see into the future...
Posted by: kopd
|
November 2, 2009 10:33 PM
So, do we all agree that there are schisms or rifts, or is there a deep rift over that as well?
Posted by: kopd
|
November 2, 2009 10:36 PM
Crap, I forgot to put a ;-) on that last post. Of course I'm joking. I wouldn't want to trigger a schism here by insinuating we actually have deep bitter rifts among us.
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
November 3, 2009 3:03 AM
A troll from up-thread said,
Heresay...who was there listening? Furthermore, why would gawd even desire to speak if no one could hear him...does gawd enjoy talking to himself? Finally, I ask, why does gawd no longer speak?
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 3, 2009 3:06 AM
That's meant to say "psychic battle" as opposed to "physic battle", whoops.
Posted by: Greg. Tingey | November 3, 2009 3:30 AM
Joseph Dunnam (the christian maybe-troll) said:
"God (god) n. The one supreme being ,perfect in power , wisdom , and goodness , creator and ruler of the universe : God created the entire universe and rules over it .He is eternal , without beginning and end (Psalm 90:2 ) NOTE: The God of the Bible is all-pwerful (Luke 1:37) , all-knowing (Psalm 157:5 ), and present everywhere (Psalm 139 :7-12) .He never changes (Malachi 3:6 ). " ... etc.
OK.
"Never changes"??
Then why are there so amny onconsistencies and contradicyions in the "bible"?
And, reallly important:
..>"present everywhere".
In which case, he (she, it, they) should and must be detectable.
And isn't, and hasn't ben.
And, therefore, does NOT EXIST.
Posted by: Jonathan West | November 3, 2009 6:48 AM
Since I'm banned by Andrew Brown from writing above the line for the Guardian and as a result will not comment there below the line either, I decided to put my own response in my blog. Enjoy.
Michael Ruse and Faitheism
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 3, 2009 9:38 AM
Meh ... if you think explaining the DC-7DC-9DC-10 Trinity is a problem you've only scratched the surface.
Hubbard said ... The DC-8 airplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day .. and uh .. no difference .. except that the DC-8 had fans..propellers on it and the space plane didn't.
Gentle Pharyngulytes, for a musical injection of L. Ron Hubbard's nutbaggery I present to you ...
Pink Munky - "What's the matter with you, hat?"
Look out for the bronze dog. Seriously, this is a gem.*
IIRC most of this is based on audio "congresses" that aren't in circulation anymore for obvious reasons. Enjoy.
*unless you happen to be a Scientolgist.
Posted by: Michael Dowd | November 3, 2009 12:06 PM
I disagree with Ruse completely. Religious people, especially, would do well to read PZ, Richard, Christopher, Sam, and the other New Atheists regularly, not to argue, but to learn.
D.J. Grothe posted links on the Center for Inquiry website yesterday to two of my and my wife's recent podcasts encouraging devout religious people to listen to the New Atheists as if they were modern-day prophets - ornery characters speaking out boldly and uncompromisingly on behalf of reality: http://bit.ly/14RAbU
I see the flourishing of atheism in the coming decades sparking a radical naturalizing of religion throughout the world.
Posted by: Michael Wiersma | November 4, 2009 7:04 AM
" Some beliefs, such as in Xenu and his fleet of space-faring DC10s, or Jesus performing cheap tricks in Galilee and giving us a ticket to heaven by being tortured to death, are simply patently absurd and demand far more rigor in their defense than lame testimonials to the good character of some theologians."
I just loved that last sentence so much I wanted to post it down here again.
Posted by: Steve P. | November 4, 2009 10:47 PM
PaulPriest,
Nice to meet you Paul. Stick around. The folks here could use a hefty dose of reason to leaven their hyper-skepticism.
"Out of sight is not out of Mind."
or can you ?
I don't know - but it sounds pretty insane doesn't it ?
Posted by: Steve P. | November 4, 2009 11:00 PM
Gruesome Bob,
Er, it seems a 'gruesome' collapse in your logic.
Cosmological arguments rest on sound logic; more than can be said for 'chance in the gaps' arguments you put credence in.
The Mandlebrot Set? Just a repetitive pattern. What is so omplex about it?
Quantum Mechanics? What is uncaused? The fact that quantum particles 'appear' to pop in and out of existence leads you to the earth-shaking conclusion that these particles are uncaused?
Out of sight is not out of Mind.
blockquote>All of your cosmological arguments are arguments from ignorance. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
You want complexity from simplicity? Go look at a picture of the Mandlebrot Set.
You want uncaused cause? See Quantum Mechanics.
Survival of the fittest is short term, not long term. Things that aren't fit will die. If we're fit enough to destroy the environment but not fit enough not to, well, humans will die out. Que sera sera.
Posted by: Steve P. | November 4, 2009 11:19 PM
And what are we gonna learn from PZ? That he is right cuz, well he sez so? Because he spends time in a lab, he knows more than we do?
I'll believe it when PZ figures out a way to demonstrate chance and necessity.