Pharyngula

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 9, 2010 12:35 PM

Hey, I got into this argument with a friend because of this, so it's probably appropriate:

What the hell is Einstein?

Okay, that was actually a tertiary point, but I've seen him claimed to be everything, so I'd like some sources on whether or not he was agnostic/atheist or actually a practicing Jew.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 12:39 PM

PZ you're not framing that question right. All those secular philosophers couldn't come up with anything if there wasn't religion around to keep people's minds in the right place.

I mean religion is what provides the moral background for progress in Science and EVERYWHERE!

(uuuuuggggghhh! I feel dirty)

When does John Oliver get his own show?

This this this this this. And he's so fucking cute too.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 9, 2010 12:39 PM

Glad I missed that.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 9, 2010 12:41 PM

Name one. Name one insight religion has ever given us that could not have been made by secular philosophers, that was also useful and true.

OK. If you don't sacrifice this virgin girl before noon tomorrow, Gasmos the Great will hurl the giant fireball in the sky at our city! Hurry now! Make haste lest we all die a fiery death!

Posted by: te24hours | July 9, 2010 12:43 PM

There are a lot of wet babies in the street, from all that bathwater you've thrown out.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 9, 2010 12:44 PM

The more you delve into science, the more it relies on faith.

The Comic Sans was deserved, that statement was slightly disturbing.
If he read that interview again, I'd hope he would realise that one got away from him a bit.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 12:45 PM

It's a sad day when Jon Stewart says something dumb enough to merit a grumpy + Comics Sans.

Posted by: mistereveready | July 9, 2010 12:47 PM

stopped watching stewart years ago. i think craig kilborn was funnier anyhow.

as for his statements, imo, he's either an idiot, or someone kissing religious ass for ratings. quite possibly both.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 12:50 PM

When the book is done, get your publishing agent to book you on the show.

Seconded. Or Colbert. Here's hoping.

Posted by: JackC | July 9, 2010 12:50 PM

I don't watch Stewart and don't really care for the show - but I have to wonder if maybe he was thinking DARK matter and said ANTI matter.

Of course, that perhaps ascribes too much intelligence to him.

It is also true that although we have never observed (directly) dark matter/energy, we do observe the effects and can map it. This alone takes it out of the woo realm.

For my money (which is not much at all), dark energy/matter is about as close as we can come to some sort of "faith". No, it isn't the same thing, I know that.

JC

Posted by: gussnarp | July 9, 2010 12:54 PM

While I wish Stewart took a positive atheist stand, well, you can't get everything you want. And no one can be all things to all people. He's still better than Bill Maher, and I'll take either one of them on a whole host of political topics.

Posted by: Volant Proboscidian | July 9, 2010 12:57 PM

Et tu, Stewart?

I'm a big fan of the Daily Show, and I had the same reaction as you, PZ. Religion's claims are based on nothing more than argument from authority, and as such the "insights" it provides are worth precisely dick. If you can defend a proposition based on reason and logic, wonderful, it's worth considering; but if all you have is a book of ancient Near Eastern mythology of dubious authorship with no empirical evidence, you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 9, 2010 12:58 PM

Jesus one comment and everyone is willing to call Stewart a moron and throw him to the wolves?

And you really think devout Catholic Colbert would have done better?

Posted by: marisateika | July 9, 2010 12:59 PM

*sigh*

I just had a big long blog about Stewart and TDS.

After the whole Jezebel / Olivia Munn debacle I've decided I need a break from TDS. They just acted like childish asshats in response to some really key points.

And now this. Giving credence to bullshit. I don't see Robinson as that much better than Glenn Beck's stance on religion, and the fact that he'd pander to her bullshit really disappoints me. What has happened to you, Jon? Where did my charming, sexy, smart lovemuffin go? And how long till you start hawking homeopathic cures?

And when can I have sexy, sexy funtime with John Oliver?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 1:01 PM

OMG can we get PZ on the show? I would love to see that! The Markos from daily KOS was on there, why not PZ?

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 1:01 PM

I don't watch Stewart and don't really care for the show - but I have to wonder if maybe he was thinking DARK matter and said ANTI matter.

Probably. Stewart always seems grossly over his head when science comes up in the interviews. I don't expect a comedian to know much about science, but for someone as smart as Stewart it surprises me how ignorant he is on the topic.

Interestingly, his father was a physicist. I have no idea if there is any connection.

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 9, 2010 1:03 PM

Is it just me, or has no-one noticed that the programme is on Comedy Central?

I love Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, but shouldn't the focus of our ire be on slightly more real newsy targets?

Posted by: Sunday Afternoon | July 9, 2010 1:08 PM

My comment the moment he mentioned taking the "anti"/dark matter implication on faith was that John Stewart needed a smack for that comment.

It also prompted a 5 minutes explanation of 2 different astronomical methods by which the effects of dark matter CAN be measured (galactic rotation curve measurements and gravitational lensing).

Yes, I have a PhD in astronomy.

Posted by: geralcorasjo | July 9, 2010 1:10 PM

PZ needs to be on the Daily Show or Colbert!

Posted by: LuoAnLai | July 9, 2010 1:14 PM

@#25 Rutee

I know, but I think Jon Stewart's response in his classic Crossfire interview is valid.

At that time he was on after sock puppets making crank calls. It's not proper news people!

I am continually amazed/apalled by the fact that comedians seeem to be more in touch with political reality than news broadcasters.

When he fucks up people like PZ should be offering to get on his show, not kicking him.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 1:15 PM

science does rely on trust

The difference is that when trust is earned and when it is betrayed there are consequences and it has to be earned again (if possible).

Faith is granted, never earned, and can not be betrayed because anything that decreases faith is only a test of the strength of that faith.

Apples to oranges, and its a manipulative lie to imply that they are synonyms.

(Not that I'm accusing you, specifically, of that)

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 9, 2010 1:16 PM

Neil DeGrasse Tyson should go on and explain to Stewart what was wrong with what he said. Hell, he should go on even if he says nothing about what happened, he's fun to watch!

Posted by: estein888 | July 9, 2010 1:18 PM

So true! I watched a little of it and turned it off in disgust. I always thought Stewart was an atheist because of how much fun he pokes at it. Guess I was wrong.

Posted by: marisateika | July 9, 2010 1:23 PM

At #46...

Stewart is actually Jewish. In fact, his real name is "Jon Stuart Leibowitz."

Posted by: E.V. | July 9, 2010 1:26 PM

I'm with Jack above - I believe Jon meant dark matter.
As for taking it easy on Jon because he represents Comedy Central just as a comedian, have you forgotten this?

Posted by: cameron | July 9, 2010 1:28 PM

Ugh, please not Colbert. If PZ is going to go on a talk show, maybe he should aim for one where the host lets the guests talk...? Some of Colbert's stuff is funny, but his interviews are excruciating.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 9, 2010 1:31 PM

So true! I watched a little of it and turned it off in disgust. I always thought Stewart was an atheist because of how much fun he pokes at it. Guess I was wrong.

I thought the same thing about Colbert when he did the This Week In God segments. I was wrong.

It is obvious that Jon Stewart has a huge blind spot when it comes to science. All that means is that I will not pay as much attention when he has other guests like Marilynne Robinson on.

(I cannot take anything that Marilynne Robinson says seriously but I still think that Housekeeping is a wonderful novel. But do not ever ask me to read Gilead.)

Posted by: Et in Arcadia Ego | July 9, 2010 1:32 PM

Colbert would have kicked her ass !

Not likely.

Colbert is a Catholic, and so is his on-stage persona.

Posted by: DC | July 9, 2010 1:35 PM

Based on previous comments he's made, I believe Stewart has a religious (catholic?) wife. And probably doesn't want to create too many problems at home. I usually enjoy his broadcasts and interviews, but felt let down too. It was really weak.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | July 9, 2010 1:35 PM

I know this is way, way off-topic, so I apologize.

That being said, look at the font Dan Gilbert used in his psycho ex-girlfriend rant after losing LeBron James in free-agency.

Holy cow, it's everywhere.

MikeM

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | July 9, 2010 1:43 PM

To be fair, he never goes hard against book-pushing guests, even the political ones. He finds something "interesting" in their book to talk about and fills the time. On occasion, he gets very excited about a book's subject matter and is very enthusiastic. To me, this didn't seem like one of those occasions. He asked bland questions, blandly responded, and the faith in anti/dark matter comment seemed to be an attempt to elicit a laugh from the audience (which it did). Personally, I got the impression that he wasn't that keen on Robinson, her book, or her premise.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | July 9, 2010 1:50 PM

I must also say, the entire time I was wishing that it was PZ interviewing her instead. I'd love to see him on TDS when his book comes out.

Posted by: legistech | July 9, 2010 1:54 PM

It was really irritating. I didn't mind all that much that he wasn't challenging her directly, but when he tried to claim that scientific arguments and religious arguments were "the same", it turned my stomach.

Posted by: Travis | July 9, 2010 2:02 PM

Antimatter, really? That is his example? We create antimatter all of the time. Look at the Tevatron outside of Chicago. It is a proton/anti-proton collider!

Even more common, positron emission tomography! PET scans use positrons that are the antiparticle of the electron.

Posted by: SteveM | July 9, 2010 2:03 PM

re 48:

At #46...
Stewart is actually Jewish. In fact, his real name is "Jon Stuart Leibowitz."

I don't know about the "real name", but Stewart regularly (almost incessantly) jokes about his Jewish heritage; but "Jewish" has two aspects: cultural and religious. I get the strong impression that religiously, Stewart is an atheist (or at least non-practicing), and only culturally Jewish.

Re #2:

Einstein too was not a religious Jew and emphasised the culture and heritage of being a Jew. His religious beliefs seem to be at most a form a Deism if not outright atheism with his famous quotes about God being more metaphorical usage.

re "the interview":

Stewart's strength is political commentary and regularly "falls apart" on religious (and scientific) issues. To me, the political takedowns make up for softballing the religious kooks.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 9, 2010 2:05 PM

Interesting. Anti-matter has an interesting history. Originally, Dirac proposed the idea to explain negative-energy states (e.g. positively charged electrons) that were implied by his equation for the relativistic quantum mechanical wave function. Pauli was especially adamant that the fact that the Dirac equation implied these states meant that it could not be right.

Dirac initially thought the negative energy states might correspond to the proton. However, Pauli showed they had to have the same mass as the electron. Reluctantly, Dirac concluded--based only on the fact that his equation worked on many known problems and with no empirical evidence--that the negative-energy states had to be real. Now, I suppose that was a faith of sorts. Indeed, Dirac was the only one who believed in these particles until they were discovered in bubble-chamber photographs of cosmic rays in the 1930s.

There are other examples of scientists being convinced of the correctness of their theories. If you want to call that "faith", I suppose you could. However, it's more often wrong than right.

And, Dirac, after all was not a normal human.

Posted by: Maverick Librarian | July 9, 2010 2:08 PM

I am glad to see I was not the only one feeling let down by Stewart last night. I very much enjoy the segments when he has book authors in the program. I often do search out some of the books to read, and I always got the impression he was pretty good at probing some ideas now and then in those books. But last night I just sat there, and it just seemed wrong. Faith and science need each other? Really? And he just did not question it, but just let it sit there. Not one of Stewart's brilliant moments. Oh well, hope that there is always something better next time. And no, I am not going to seek out that particular book.

Best, and keep on blogging.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 9, 2010 2:08 PM

I was vastly disappointed by Stewart, but getting her to speak was like teaching a goldfish to fly. He basically had to lead her through the interview, basically saying things she said in the book, so she could say things like, "Oh, I agree completely."

It was painful and it was stupid. I think some of it could be attributed to a touch of desperation, trying to save the interview.

I just wish he could've been a little more open and perhaps even contrary.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de | July 9, 2010 2:15 PM

I assumed that he was just trying to rephrase what she was trying to say rather than expressing his own opinion.

But then he actually gave the example of anti-matter. (As people pointed out he probably meant dark matter).

It's the fact he actually drew out an analogy like scientists and theists both say "they're both just there" and equates that to faith, and just let's it stay like that is the problem.

If he said that, but then asked a question back about how scientists rely on observation to and base their view on that, and change then if they find themselves to be wrong and that it's theists that ignore observation so that belief can be preseved, then I'd be okay with it.

Posted by: Loreo | July 9, 2010 2:16 PM

I've never yelled at The Daily Show before - bad way to start my day.

I still think he deserves the "most trusted man in news" moniker.

Posted by: walter.amos | July 9, 2010 2:19 PM

The part that really got me is when she said something approximately like "Scientists observe the lives of worms and extrapolate to the nature of the cosmos!" to which I was shouting at the TV "as opposed to religion, which observes NOTHING and exatrapolates to the nature of the cosmos!?"

Posted by: babs | July 9, 2010 2:20 PM

It was a lame interview--the content of the book was not really discussed, and I don't think JS read it (how many of those books does he read anyway?) Not surprising, since science vs. religion discussion are usually lame. I agree JS was probably thinking of dark matter, not anti-matter. I'll give him a cringing pass though, most of the shows are great.

Posted by: mrhoward190 | July 9, 2010 2:26 PM

I don't really watch the show anymore. Personally, I think it's crass.

Posted by: MathMuser | July 9, 2010 2:28 PM

I think the comment directed at antimatter was misappropriated from dark matter or dark energy, not that faith is any more germane. Much to my surprise, Stewart's default setting seems to be sycophancy, not skepticism. One sees this whenever his guests step outside political and social commentary.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3HlPyjgGuJB4WPsKrZ0YVHxra0iLbg--#26c1f | July 9, 2010 2:34 PM

Not only is antimatter real, but it's accessible to everybody. The humble banana is rich in potassium, including the positron-emitting isotope K-40. Your average banana produces antimatter once every 75 minutes. And it doesn't stop just because you eat it.

Posted by: alopiasmag | July 9, 2010 2:42 PM

Glad to know I was not the only one to notice... He disappointed many of us last night.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | July 9, 2010 2:54 PM

marisateika @87: Actually, the article did say that he's a sexist prick (without using those exact words), that TDS is a horribly repressive environment to work at, and that there were only two female staff. Also that Munn was only hired for her looks (Aasif Mandvi is not a comedian either, so I don't know why that should be an issue; lots of standups are not good actors).

Posted by: dcotler | July 9, 2010 3:20 PM

Einstein's views on religion were unequivocal and widely disseminated, including on Scienceblogs, e.g.
from a recently auctioned letter:

"Still, without Brouwer’s suggestion I would never have gotten myself to engage intensively with your book because it is written in a language inaccessible to me. The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. "

Posted by: marisateika | July 9, 2010 3:26 PM

@Midnight Rambler
It unequivocally did not say that he was a sexist prick. It questions whether there is an institutional sexism at TDS. Read the article. It questions whether Munn was hired for her looks since there were so many, many other comediennes and/or comedic actors out there. It does not say that that's the only reason. It was also more than fair to TDS and quoted Sam Bee and others who were happy with the show.

PS - Aasif Mandavi is an actor and comedian. Wiki that shit.

Posted by: secularshawshank | July 9, 2010 3:34 PM

THANKS for posting on this, P.Z.

I was really angry at Stewart as I watched the interview. He's usually a smart enough person.

Robinson (and now Stewart) typifies this on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand kind of thinking, and it has to stop. Implying that a scientific theory---one that is testable and verifiable, no less---is the same as someone believing (without a shred of evidence) in angels, is just plain crazy.

We need to push back HARD against this meme that says "science has 'faith' too." Clearly smart people are being lead astray by it.

(I apologize on behalf of freethinking English professors everywhere. Funny how Robinson lacks the expertise to make even the most general pronouncement on anti-matter, or anything having to do with the hard sciences. Ugh.)

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 9, 2010 3:42 PM

Desert: Stewart takes the existence of anti-matter on faith (or trust?)--- but we take a lot of the world around us on one or the other.

The difference is that Stewart was claiming that the scientists he's trusting themselves are basing their claims on faith. The reality is that Stewart may have "faith" in them -- but the scientists are not supposed to be staking their beliefs on faith.

In a religious context, you may have faith in the Pope precisely because he has faith. Your faith is in his faith -- not in his evidence. In a scientific context, you may trust someone else in their field -- but not in their faith, but in their honesty in presenting an analysis of their evidence and theory.

Completely different. A network of trust that simply ends in trust is trust built on fairy tales. A network of trust must in the end rely on external evidence at the end of the chain to be a scientific network of trust.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | July 9, 2010 3:44 PM

Fail.

Posted by: United Atheist Front | July 9, 2010 3:53 PM

This is the second time in two days that Jon has "aired" something that made me cringe. Yesterday he aired a series of clips where RWNJ Politicos alluded to the US being a "Christian Nation". All the Christians in room with me smiled and said, "See!" Oh, Jon...

Posted by: SteveM | July 9, 2010 3:55 PM

re 105:

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God; so either you commit to the belief that He exists, or you commit to the belief that he doesn't exist.

fallacy of the excluded middle. You can also commit to not believing god exists. That is different that believing god does not exist.

Posted by: Dark Matter | July 9, 2010 3:59 PM

Expect to see more "we got played" / "you let me
down" controversies in the near future.

Some of our supposed "friends" are starting
to feel the fire get too close to their own
(hidden) faithist leanings...

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 9, 2010 4:00 PM

salgadoce: A philosopher, on the other hand, is not constrained by the tools and implements of the laboratory; he can ask questions without having to answer them; he does not have to prove his conclusions in order to make progress in human understanding.

Shorter: philosopher:scientist :: masturbation:sex

Posted by: johnsonr3 | July 9, 2010 4:01 PM

On whether or not there is faith in science:

Would anyone here say that, if a theory is not provable in every aspect, but is supported by the replicability of a majority of its results, that it would not be accepted and used in the absence of contradiction?

Scientists will indeed willingly take and use that model based on their belief that their is a "tipping point" which makes a posit more likely to be true, and thus comports the best with reality, making it usable, even if not provable.

Furthermore, science will willingly take and promulgate a theory, which may or may not be eventually proved to be "true", as an interim solution to a problem, especially when limitations in evidence, or the ability to technically uncover evidence, prevents the "reality" from being known (which is how the universe was headed to the big crunch when I was in college, but is energetically expanding now, 30 years later).

This is not a slap against science, nor is it a boon to those who promote religious perspectives. It is a plea for intellectual honesty and critical self-examination on all parts.

Posted by: E.V. | July 9, 2010 4:04 PM

But both require a leap of faith.

Posted by: salgadoce | July 9, 2010 4:08 PM

re 110:

I took logic, but didn't really dig it. Let me put my position another way.

The three possible positions are: Atheist; Agnostic; Believer. Let's say they are all 'on the fence.'

The Agnostic sits on the fence, and decides to stay there; he claims he can't know, so he sits tight.

The Atheist decides to jump to one side of the fence - the 'No God' side.

The Believer jumps to the other side - the 'God exists' side.

The Atheist and the Believer both take leaps of faith. It may turn out that the Atheist is right on the money, but we can't know for sure, no matter what arguments we make, no matter what data we may have.

My point is that the Atheist and the Believer are more related to each other than the Agnostic is to either one of them.

Posted by: Escuerd | July 9, 2010 4:09 PM

Here, the term 'philosophy' can be used interchangeably with the terms 'religion' and/or 'metaphysics' (which can generally be seen as being 'anti-science')

In what universe is philosophy interchangeable with religion?

1. The set of all questions science can answer is a subset of the set of all the questions that can be asked in philosophy/religion/metaphysics.

So it is possible to ask questions that we don't know how to answer scientifically? Gee, you don't say. This does not even marginally add to the credibility of the answers provided by religion.

1.2. A philosopher, on the other hand, is not constrained by the tools and implements of the laboratory; he can ask questions without having to answer them; he does not have to prove his conclusions in order to make progress in human understanding.

And the credibility of any conclusions that philosopher reaches should be weighed accordingly.

As Ms. Robinson pointed out, the best scientific minds have also been highly religious minds. An atheist scientist is good for scientific grunt work - gathering data and crunching numbers - and not much else.

Gee, I guess Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac, Alan Turing, Steven Weinberg weren't among the best scientific minds (No, it's not an exhaustive list, just four that spring to mind immediately). I guess that's also the reason that atheism is more common among people in groups like the American Academy of Science (which selects for good scientific minds) than among scientists in general.

Of course, who cares about reality when we can just make shit up?

And it's amusing to me that atheists don't realize that they rely on faith just as much as the believers do. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God; so either you commit to the belief that He exists, or you commit to the belief that he doesn't exist.

False dichotomy and incorrect description of atheism.

But both require a leap of faith.

Just as it requires a leap of faith to disbelieve the claim that Mars is filled with underground caves inhabited by giant, intelligent gopher-people. Gotcha.

Both dark matter and dark energy are as nebulous a concept as any.

No, not really. There's actual evidence for their existence, and observation places plenty of constraints on their nature.

Posted by: E.V. | July 9, 2010 4:10 PM

Typing while trying to talk to a tech on the phone is not my strong suit.

Posted by: John Sven | July 9, 2010 4:13 PM

Episode 70 Accommodationism with guest Chris Mooney Are Science and Religion compatible? The New Atheists argue that a proper understanding of science undermines faith. But according to atheists such as Chris Mooney (author of Unscientific America and host of CFI's podcast Point of Inquiry) not only are science and moderate religion compatible , but the uncompromising rhetoric and harsh tone of the New Atheists "can only damage the cause of scientific literacy." For this episode, the doubtcasters share their take on the "accommodationist" vs "confrontationist" debate. Also on this episode: a critical look at the Templeton Foundation and we look at the psychology of persuasion for a new installment of God Thinks Like You.

To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here. Find the episode you want and right click the "play now" link and select "save target as..."

Corrections: Michael De Dora is the director of CFI New York City not Amherst. P.Z. Myers said "demented fuckwit" not "fucktard" and in this particular instance of nasty language he was writing about someone who deserved it.

Over all.... ehhhhh... PZ your just a meany

Love to here what you think of how they framed you PZ? fucktards:) LMAO,

Posted by: United Atheist Front | July 9, 2010 4:14 PM

re 115:

seems you totally missed the point of that piece.

Actually, I got the point. The Christians in the room completely missed it, and took it as vindication of their skewed conception of US History.

Posted by: DesertHedgehog | July 9, 2010 4:18 PM

@103---

No, what I'm saying is that, while the skills and information needed to evaluate the evidence for, staying with the example, anti-matter or dark matter, are in principle available to anyone, most people will never have the time or resources to learn those skills. My degrees are in History and Law. I'm interested in certain sciences, and I enjoy reading about them. I'd like to have a least a passing knowledge of more. But I don't have the background to do more than look for reputable names, presses/journals, and read reviews. Beyond that, I have to take certain things on faith/trust, since I haven't done the research myself and wouldn't know how.

I would disagree about learning religious faith. You can learn the tenets and doctrines of a religion (and do all the social things like attendance at services that a religion demands at a given time and place) and never have any thought that it might be 'true' or 'real'. I know a fair amount about Catholic doctrine and ritual, and I know a fair amount about Islamic theology and law. I don't have "faith" in either, or in any other religion. You can be taught a religion and its rituals, but I've always thought that "faith" had to be subjective and internal--- an emotional response. [And...OMG...I'm hearing the ghost of Martin Luther.] Though I can see the argument that consistent acceptance of the rituals and tenets even for purely societal reasons is functionally the same as emotional belief...

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de | July 9, 2010 4:19 PM

The Agnostic sits on the fence, and decides to stay there; he claims he can't know, so he sits tight.

The Atheist decides to jump to one side of the fence - the 'No God' side.

The Believer jumps to the other side - the 'God exists' side.

*Bullshit alarm blares*

You don't know shit about atheism and theist and agnosticism if you're still using that bullshit 3 stage bunk.

Atheist and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive.

Atheism and theism are mutually exculsive. Agnosticism and gnosticism are mutually exclusive. Pick one of each.

I personally, and most atheists for that matter, are atheist AND agnostic. I do NOT BELIEVE in any deity, but I don't claim to KNOW there isn't any deity. I simply think "he" there is a complete lack of evidence for his existance, so I treat him as I do all imaginary creatures (fairies, unicorns, FSM, etc).

Get your shit together if you're going to be hanging around making comments. It sucks correcting the same shit over and over and over.

Posted by: Fek'lhr | July 9, 2010 4:23 PM

The real disappointment to me is how this episode portrays the Iowa City intellect. The University of Iowa has hosted some really great thinkers and minds, but the sycophantic fellating of the Writer's Workshop has really started to become an Achilles Heel.

I ask everyone please not to use Ms. Robinson as an example of Iowa City intellect. As a citizen of Iowa City, I have worked in dishrooms with guys that had PhDs* that would run circles around her arguments and assertions. No, her success and esteem are a product of a variation of the "good ol' boys network" that has reared it's ugly head at our "prestigious" Writer's Workshop.

In other words, well-written bullshit is still just bullshit.

(*the PhD Peasant is kind of a sick irony that life in one of the few real intellectual oases of the Mid-West produces. There are so many people over-qualified for their position at work, it is ridiculous. For example, I have a young lady with a master's degree sitting next to me doing data entry. Or, like my example above, when I was 20 I worked in a dishroom with a gentleman that had a PhD.

It's really sad when there are this many educated and intelligent people in Iowa City, some blowhard like Robinson manages to "float to the top" because of the Writer's Workshop.)

Posted by: marisateika | July 9, 2010 4:26 PM

Jesus-fetus-fajita-fishsticks.

I am so fucking tired of superior agnostics claiming atheists are just like believers. How many times has this been gone over? A million? A billion?

Posted by: Rosalie | July 9, 2010 4:27 PM

I had two uncharitable thoughts during that interview:

1. People have been on Jon Stewart's case lately for not having enough female guests. Did he find this woman in a rush and then feel obligated to agree with her to placate feminists? If so, ouch, on a lot of levels.

2. That woman keeps speaking (and writing, I looked her up after) in long sentences full of big words, but when I try to parse them they barely seem like they mean anything. And then Stewart would say these vague things about science and faith and she'd say "I completely agree". I bet if I just strung together a lot of words like metaphysical and quantum and faith and inquiry, she'd totally agree with any unintelligible sentence. She gave a horrible interview -- her points seem flawed, but she was also really really bad at articulating what they were.

Oh, and I absolutely agree that PZ should go on The Daily Show! I often skip the interview portion but I'd watch that.

Colbert is a Catholic, and so is his on-stage persona.

I don't know what Colbert would have done (I wouldn't have predicted what Stewart did last night) but Colbert often makes fun of people precisely by agreeing with them too strongly. So, he could have done that, and it would be consistent with his character being religious.

The comments here are hardly "everyone is willing to call Stewart a moron and throw him to the wolves".

Yeah, more like we like him and want to hold him to a high standard.

I suspect he meant dark matter too, but his comments would still be really bad. No one is asking you to take it on faith that dark matter exists-- there are scientists out there right now actively working on proving or disproving it, to find out for sure. In the end you'd have to have some measure of trust that they aren't all lying, but if you wanted to you could learn the physics and check the results. There's a little bit of faith in the general process, but no blind faith, nothing like the faith they ask for in religion where they're proud of not questioning it. You're supposed to question science.

I laughed heartily when I looked up the woman's credentials and found she has a PhD in English and writes fiction novels. Way to go.

I looked her up too and found an article she wrote about The God Delusion. For someone with a PhD in English, she doesn't write very clear sentences, but I think she's saying that because some people who said they liked science have done bad things, everything about Dawkins career is wrong ;-)

Posted by: salgadoce | July 9, 2010 4:32 PM

SteveM and the author of 117/132:

Thanks for clearing that up; I'll be chewing on that for while.

As to the conceptual status of 'dark energy' and 'dark matter,' I'm pretty sure the measurements that have been made are indirect. I need to read the article that Blake Stacey posted, but I don't think it is a slam dunk, in terms of furthering understanding of the cosmos. The point is, the concept is going to change and evolve with time and as more direct measurements/data/observations come in.

Let me just make a few more observations guaranteed to tick people off:

1.1 A 'belief' is a premature commitment to a possible reality.

1.2 'Beliefs' are taken to be ampules of knowledge, when they should be taken as epistemic 'place-holders'

1.3 Scientific knowledge ITSELF is an epistemic placeholder; unless it is bounded by/confined to the abstract/notional plane, it is ephemeral and transitory.

Posted by: hyperdeath | July 9, 2010 4:33 PM

salgadoce:

The Atheist and the Believer both take leaps of faith. It may turn out that the Atheist is right on the money, but we can't know for sure, no matter what arguments we make, no matter what data we may have.
My point is that the Atheist and the Believer are more related to each other than the Agnostic is to either one of them.

Has anyone here heard this line of argument eviscerated fewer than twenty times?

Posted by: marisateika | July 9, 2010 4:38 PM

@hyperdeath

THANK YOU.

What's worse is that every time some agnostic or "believer" throws it our way they have the nerve to act like they're being original and smart with it.

Posted by: Rosalie | July 9, 2010 4:42 PM

Actually, I'm gonna say that I have no idea how to use the word "proven" in the context of dark matter. There is strong evidence for it, how about that?

I do pure math. We actually prove things. It makes it hard for me to know how to use the word prove when we're talking about a pile of evidence and not a proof.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de | July 9, 2010 4:47 PM

BTW critical self-examination is something that science does not countenance: when was the last time you saw a scientist critique his or her own work based on their interior state of mind when they were doing their research? Indeed, science contends that it is the method and results that matter, is that not so?

Heard of peer-review yet? It's point is to catch ANY errors made by the scientist regardless of his state of mind. Your point is moot.

Because assuming that you are just because is... wait for it...

Faith!

Get bent you stupid, fucking troll. Being a scientist and/or atheist requires you to accept no claim without evidence.

Posted by: SteveM | July 9, 2010 4:48 PM

re 133:

What a steaming pile of horseshit.

Thanks for proving my point so succinctly!

BTW critical self-examination is something that science does not countenance: when was the last time you saw a scientist critique his or her own work based on their interior state of mind when they were doing their research? Indeed, science contends that it is the method and results that matter, is that not so?

Critical self-examination asks if individuals have been honest and thorough critics within themselves

(which, if you are a scientist, SteveM, makes you a perfect specimen of the willfully unexamined life.

As for whether I am a "tone troll" (aren't you just up to date!)

i don't give a damn what you think of think of me or of the others here - I thought the point of the conversation was what can be said to be true. Man up, and give up on the bumper-sticker phrases,

oh, like "atheism = faith"? Who is using bumper sticker phrases here?

and actually engage ideas,

How was pointing out your misuse of the word atheism not engaging ideas?

instead of just assuming you are right because you are a SCIENTIST (if that is what you are). Why? Because assuming that you are just because is... wait for it...Faith!

WTF are referring to? Where have I said I am right just because I'm a scientist?

Posted by: babs | July 9, 2010 4:55 PM

Frog responded at #95:

I think it was a really poor way of stating the reductionism problem, that certain problems at certain scales are impossible to derive from the behavior of their constituents in practice.

My post was an answer to a previous question. I agree with your answer and Robinson is deinitely being critical of reductionism. My point was simply that her comment linking ants to the cosmos was a reference to E.O. Wilson's studies of ant societies, which led to to his theories of sociobiology and the genetic bases for behavior and cognitive function. Wilson may be trying to explain human behavior, but I do not believe he is using his observations of programmed ant behavior to explain the cosmsos, as Robinson implied. Too bad she didn't try to explain herself better. She really didn't say very much in that interview.

Posted by: E.V. | July 9, 2010 5:00 PM

but I've always thought that "faith" had to be subjective and internal--- an emotional response.

As a former Evangelical who did a lot of youth evangelism, I can tell you that people are taught from a very early age to attribute any hypomanic behavior (giddyness/ euphoria) to being interpreted as a religious experience unless it involved drugs and sex which was just a sign of Satan's reality in the world.
It is drummed into you, just like Santa to toddlers, that God and all psychic/supernatural/demonic manifestation s are real. We break it to the kids that Santa and his subsequent magical fellows aren't real when we are embarrassed that they're a little old to believe in silly constructs but wish-granting/protector God and miracle-performing-dead-oh-wait-he's-arisen Jeshua r forrealz!!

Speaking in tongues(which is pathetically laughable when you actually witness an example) is either lauded as being possessed by the holy spirit by some churches and a sign of demonic possession by others and just plain laughable by the higher protestant churches. It's ALL THEATER, in which everyone does their best to carry on the Noble Lie™ for the sake of the rest of the faithful. It works, the congregation/audience get all that dopamine and adrenaline going and whoa! IT'S A SIGN FROM GOD!! It's roughly the same as successfully psyching up a football team in the locker room or freaking groups of people out at a Horror show - the parents, by proxy of the church, are just teaching you to assign those feelings to a deity mover/shaker and the preachers and deacons/elders all back it up.

Watch the display of movers/closed eyed wavers on a televised Evangelical service. Look for the people just spazzing out claiming to have been taken hold by the spirit. It's very bad community theater but no one dares to betray it - it's one huge game of The Emperor's New Clothes and the stakes in keeping the masquerade going are deadly in earnest.
Religious faith is the rejection of logic and reason to establish a communal concensus for what there is no material evidence for - a magic father figure and an afterlife, because this one is too shitty/unfair/short for most people.

Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism. | July 9, 2010 5:02 PM

The more you delve into science, the more it relies on faith.

I'll give you that this is disappointing, but really, I'm not sure what I should expect of Stewart on the topic of science, particularly given the amount of blatant misinformation spread in this vein already.

What we have here is a very typical golden mean fallacy of the sort beloved by our media. We have a media guy who doesn't really know much about science except that some of its proponents attack religion. But he knows that science deals with unknowns right? And he knows that some of science's answers haven't been fully established. So that must mean (the fallacy goes) that the cutting edge of science is populated with scientists who "have faith" in the validity of their explanation, and thus the difference between science and religion is split, because clearly both groups are doing the same things.

This is obviously and trivially debunked by the fact that the scientific community is very strict in regarding its guesses as guesses, and not given to accept anything without sufficient evidence. But it sounds Reasonable(tm), and requires no discernment on the part of Stewart (or any of the cranks who use this as a workhorse argument for their disinformation) so I guess I'm not overly surprised that he bought it. Hopefully he'll notice that he is being called out for employing it and learn something in the process.

And at least he didn't stoop to "quantum mechanics therefore everything is true". That would be unforgivable.

Posted by: SteveM | July 9, 2010 5:08 PM

re 135:

As for whether I am a "tone troll" (aren't you just up to date!) i don't give a damn what you think of think of me or of the others here - I thought the point of the conversation was what can be said to be true. Man up, and give up on the bumper-sticker phrases, and actually engage ideas,...

Okay, so I mixed you up with "salgadoce" with the "atheism = faith". But still, I explained why I thought your "plea" was the sign of a tone troll and didn't just bumper sticker you with the label. How did I not "engage" your idea that scientists should be self-critical and intellectually honest? To say they should be is to imply that they currently are not.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 9, 2010 5:11 PM

Man up

Damn, I hate that phrase. So much.

Posted by: SteveM | July 9, 2010 5:12 PM

re 157:

Nope. It's "godlessness". There's a-, which is the same thing as Sanskrit a-, Latin in- and English un- and often means "without"/"-less" in Greek; then there's theos, "god".

is it a-(theos-ism) or (a-theos)-ism?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 5:13 PM

IANA philosopher, but I've got to wrestle with this mess:

1.1 A 'belief' is a premature commitment to a possible reality.

No I don't think so. A belief is a psychological phenomenon. It isn't a premature commitment at all. It is the object of a perception of being correct. It may be correct or incorrect, but the belief is a part of the state of belief. The correctness is irrelevant. Belief is neutral to accuracy.

1.2 'Beliefs' are taken to be ampules of knowledge, when they should be taken as epistemic 'place-holders'

Beliefs are either correct or incorrect if judged by standards outside of belief. If accuracy is desired belief has to be abandoned. Criteria have to be established to test what is being described and how, and put into falsifiable terms. Belief doesn't hold the place of anything. It doesn't go anywhere if it happens to correspond to objective reality. Likewise inaccuracy does nothing to a belief. One can easily believe despite evidence to the contrary. Belief is not replaced whether a belief is shown to have a corresponding relationship to objective reality or not.

Science does not test beliefs though I don't think, although scientists being humans may "believe" in... well anything. Science attempts to describe phenomena. Science is neutral to belief except where people who hold certain beliefs find those beliefs challenged by information that doesn't correspond to the belief.

This is their faith in their beliefs. It has to do with their psychological states surrounding their belief, and not with the actual objective truth of that belief. They either can go on in their state of belief or they can not. But the belief remains exactly as it was, and while they may modify or adopt a different belief, the motivation for changing it does not become a belief. It prompts them into a new *state* of believing. From which they may generate a belief.

Science does not require this belief. The information gathered will still be there even if it is ignored.

1.3 Scientific knowledge ITSELF is an epistemic placeholder; unless it is bounded by/confined to the abstract/notional plane, it is ephemeral and transitory.

Scientific knowledge is just a body of results from tests run on phenomena. Some tests remain, and require better investigation. Some are largely supported explanations. Some failed to continue to prove accurate. But this does not really make it a belief.

Everything, after all, that is perceived by humans is ephemeral and transitory. But believing is first and foremost a state, and a belief is a product of that state.

One may create a belief in response to scientific data, but that belief is not scientific data, it is not science. It is a phenomena of human perception.

Science attempts to disregard belief, so that data can be transmitted regardless of the psychological perception of those participating in the ephemeral and transitory experience of reality.

Some times it may accidentally correspond with belief and some times it will counter it.

Where it does not exhibit this quality, it is weak and either needs more descriptors or else will fall away.

One individual may hold a belief for any reason, whether it has a scientific basis or not, but that is the nature of psychology. It does not however mean that because one can experience a state of belief surrounding scientific information that all scientific activity *is* belief.

Likewise the fact that individual scientists are capable of having beliefs does not make all scientific inquiry belief.

The body of knowledge of science is just recorded data. Much like a rock, it is neutral to belief. It can be corrupted by belief, but it is not, itself belief.

Belief is everything and anything believed in. But calling everything belief has fuck all to do with practicing science!

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 9, 2010 5:15 PM

I do pure math. We actually prove things. It makes it hard for me to know how to use the word prove when we're talking about a pile of evidence and not a proof.

Just don't use it. Most scientists bend over backwards and say "suggest" or "strongly suggest"... :-)

(I've done it myself.)

Posted by: hyperdeath | July 9, 2010 5:18 PM

johnsonr3:

BTW critical self-examination is something that science does not countenance: when was the last time you saw a scientist critique his or her own work based on their interior state of mind when they were doing their research? Indeed, science contends that it is the method and results that matter, is that not so?

Have you ever actually met a scientist? Every decent scientist is a savage critic of their own work. If they weren't they wouldn't get anywhere as a scientist.

Critical self-examination asks if individuals have been honest and thorough critics within themselves (which, if you are a scientist, SteveM, makes you a perfect specimen of the willfully unexamined life.

Projection, much?

As for whether I am a "tone troll" (aren't you just up to date!) i don't give a damn what you think of think of me or of the others here - I thought the point of the conversation was what can be said to be true. Man up, and give up on the bumper-sticker phrases,

That's a bit rich for someone who seems to be cribbing from the anti-science 101 revision notes. What withering reply do you have lined up next? The "more things in heaven and earth, Horatio..." quote? A bit of philosophical name dropping? A few denunciations of positivism, perhaps?

At present your argument is little more than "sneer...sneer... I'm much smarter than those silly little scientists...". If you want a decent conversation, provide something decent yourself.

and actually engage ideas, instead of just assuming you are right because you are a SCIENTIST (if that is what you are). Why? Because assuming that you are just because is... wait for it...Faith!

Once again, it is painfully obvious that your knowledge of scientists is limited to that gleaned from Saturday morning cartoons. Every scientist is fully aware that their knowledge is ultimately probabilistic, and that most (if not all) theories are merely approximations to higher theories. Scientists may make working assumptions, but unlike "faith" such assumptions will be challenged.

You have said nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before. You're just tediously repeating the same tedious questions that every tedious hack with an axe to tediously grind against science tediously asks.

When did you last critique your own argument?

Posted by: Escuerd | July 9, 2010 5:19 PM

And, PZ, and all you other PROOF people, read Rosalie in #146 and weep! Her point is exactly mine: if there is a gap in understanding, and you are willing to go with a preponderance of evidence, BELIEVING that the weight of contrary evidence makes it unlikely you are wrong, that is FAITH in your method, NOT sole reliance upon evidence, proof and replicability!

Most of the posters here already know that science doesn't deal in absolute proof.

Provisionally accepting a conclusion based on evidence is not faith, no matter how much you insist that it is.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 9, 2010 5:22 PM

Over here in the UK I have just girded my loins and watched the Daily Show episode in question.

Fortunately, I narrowly avoided an aneurysm.

The sheer concentration of smug stupidity emanating from Marilynne Robinson should carry a health warning. I found it particularly galling to hear her whining that scientists have the bad form to claim that evidentially supported science has a superior level of factual authority to woo. In her eyes, science and religion are equivilent sources of knowledge.

I ground my teeth while listening to her statements that sceintists who stand up for reason are fringe 'gladiators' of atheism (don't get me started on her 'good' atheism crack that repeated the old cannard that atheism is just another 'religion'), and so are not the best 'representatives' of science. She feels that she is in some kind of position of authority from which to decide who is best situated to represent scientific knowldege, despite being a non-scientist herself.

When she started going on about the importance of 'religious perspectives' and saying that the seperation of science and religion was artificial and unnecessary, my television set was imperilled from thrown objects.

All the while I was watching Jon Stuart engage in an uncharacteristic display of sycophantic, nodding agreement to all the misrepresentations and false equivilencies on offer, periodically making his own contributions about science being based on 'faith', and crazy physicists sucking the idea of 'anti-matter' (his statement about scientits believing that most of the universe was made up of this 'anti-matter' leads me to suspect that he was referring to Dark Matter) out of their thumbs.

All in all, it was nauseating.

Posted by: legistech | July 9, 2010 5:23 PM

when was the last time you saw a scientist critique his or her own work based on their interior state of mind when they were doing their research?

You have heard of double-blind trials, haven't you? They were created precisely to prevent the scientists' interior state of mind (or "expectation") from affecting the results.

I'm really curious what point you think you made that SteveM illustrated. Somehow, I suspect you believe you know his internal mental state better than he does. Please confirm whether this is accurate.

salgadoce, it looks like at least you're listening, which I appreciate. I'm wondering why you switched from talking about faith to talking about belief. I certainly do have a number of beliefs that may turn out to be untrue. I generally base these on specific evidence (I believe my car will start this evening because it's generally started reliably), though sometimes I do indeed base them on very little (like, I believe that the subterranean Martian squirrels don't exist, even though I have no evidence for their lack of existence).

Posted by: CJO | July 9, 2010 5:24 PM

if there is a gap in understanding, and you are willing to go with a preponderance of evidence, BELIEVING that the weight of contrary evidence makes it unlikely you are wrong, that is FAITH in your method, NOT sole reliance upon evidence, proof and replicability!

You're equivocating. "Faith" in a certain colloquial usage, divorced from specifically religious contexts, can mean, roughly, "trust" or even "reliance". Science relies upon evidence, proof (really logic), and replicability, to name just some elements of empirical methodology. So what? That the semantic field of the word "faith" encompasses this kind of reliance is trivial and to say so doesn't address anything of interest in the discussion.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 9, 2010 5:26 PM

The difference between science and faith... with science if you wanted you could spend the time to study the field and see whether the conclusions are valid.

Yes, the average layperson has never seen anti-matter just the same as they have never seen an atom. When they go for a PET scan, it makes no difference that anti-matter is at the base of the technology - just as they couldn't differentiate between semiconducting material and magic blue smoke in electronics...

If it seems like a faith position, it's because many are disengaged from the process. THe remedy to this is engaging themselves, even as laypeople, in order to understand. Hypothetically anyone can see why anti-matter exists, yet no-one can ever tell whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Science and faith are the opposites. If you think otherwise then throw out your computer because you're being a hypocrite. To quote from Cat's Cradle: "Science is magic that works."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 5:31 PM

he Atheist and the Believer both take leaps of faith.

A philosopher, on the other hand, is not constrained by the tools and implements of the laboratory; he can ask questions without having to answer them; he does not have to prove his conclusions in order to make progress in human understanding.

BTW critical self-examination is something that science does not countenance:

don't think it is a slam dunk, in terms of furthering understanding of the cosmos.

Posted by: E.V. | July 9, 2010 5:32 PM

Oh, and if you bring up Catholic miracles of Jebus or Virgo mama in a cloud, on a screen door or on toast, or a bleeding wafer/dead Saint anatomy - my Jewish and Protestant friends will laugh with me at you.

Posted by: Peter H | July 9, 2010 5:33 PM

@ johnsonr3

"...when was the last time you saw a scientist critique his or her own work based on their interior state of mind when they were doing their research?"

You've corrupted your own premise. During conscientious research, one's "interior state of mind" should be zealously guarded against rather than being used as any sort of criterion.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/lQQQEmJsxtz.hmSUx9p_W4k7Pg--#8bdcf | July 9, 2010 5:34 PM

First, since when is empathy wrong? Trying to understand the viewpoint of a fellow is as intellectual as challenging it. Jon has never been disrespectful to a guest. That's the kind of person he is.

Second, sciences like biology are in a comfortable area. They need not question existence. If they look down they see chemistry, if they look up they see psychology and other sciences. All the world seems perfectly rational. However, if you dig down deeper you suddenly smack into a concrete wall: Physics.

Physics is at the bottom of the stack. While all other sciences rest comfortably on its shoulders, below them is a gaping void. Swimming in the unknown, they turn to methods that look very familiar. Preaching the gospel of strings and hyper dimensions. Why? The book of equations says so. Don't for one moment think that the universe might actually be a little messy. Don't think that the equations might all be overly simplistic. It has to be elegant! The equations have to add up! There has to be some invisible, unexplainable thing that would explain new observations and still allow all the old equations to work! After all, they are the LAWS of physics. The rules on which everything is based, rather than a high-level mathematical model that approximates some effect as in other sciences.

The dogma of physics, which some call the only true science, has only one comparison.

Posted by: johnsonr3 | July 9, 2010 5:39 PM

Hyperdeath:

Why is it that I am parroting cartoons, but your repetition of every sophomoric slogan from all the posters before you is epiphanic?

Besides, who says that faith is an unchallenged quantity? AGAIN, my point - scientists are willing to accept certain premises as true notwithstanding those aspects of a theory which are (presently) unproven. Sure, scientists are willing to be disproven. That is not a quality peculiar to scientists, BTW. That is common to every rational being.

Hyperdeath, I have published, as a matter of fact. And, it might surprise you to know, I am not anti-science. I AM anti-blowhard, and all of you who are here to say that scientists' shit do not stink because of evidence-dependence and peer-review haven't been paying attention to what is happening in your own fields.

This is why scientists have had to undertake discussing distasteful subjects like ethics: there was NOT enough self-critique in the field to account for lapses in judgment, method and moral behavior. You just don't get it, do you: science does not stand in splendid isolation among the domains of human knowledge (as so many here like to pretend it does). Instead, it is as human a discipline as any, and pretending that its pretensions to empiricism make it above question, or as a sufficient metanarrative to judge all other narratives is the problem.

Posted by: Peter H | July 9, 2010 5:42 PM

Substitute, perhaps, "Grow up!"? Pretty gender neutral and of wide applicability.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 5:43 PM

if there is a gap in understanding, and you are willing to go with a preponderance of evidence, BELIEVING that the weight of contrary evidence makes it unlikely you are wrong, that is FAITH in your method,

Posted by: CButter | July 9, 2010 5:46 PM

Yahoomess:

First, since when is empathy wrong?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Trying to understand the viewpoint of a fellow is as intellectual as challenging it. Jon has never been disrespectful to a guest. That's the kind of person he is.

You either don't watch The Daily Show much, or you have a pitifully superficial view of what constitutes disrespect. See the Jim Cramer or John Yoo interviews, for example. As a hint, it is possible to be substantively disrespectful while employing a smile and a calm voice.

Posted by: Escuerd | July 9, 2010 5:46 PM

My point is that there comes a point in the trajectory of understanding when 'science' hands off to 'faith.' Kind of like the Big Bang? We can tell a story for the first 15 billion years of existence (more or less), but after that, it gets pretty nebulous, if you catch my drift.

Do you mean to say that we can't predict the future or that there's a point in the distant past beyond which our knowledge of physics does not give us a clear picture of what was going on in the universe?

Either way, faith is not the proper way to deal with it. The proper way is to admit that there are parts that we don't know, not to make up answers and take them on faith.

Posted by: legistech | July 9, 2010 5:50 PM

all of you who are here to say that scientists' shit do not stink because of evidence-dependence

We'll need a citation for that.

But moreover, wtf was that last post about? It certainly didn't have anything Marilynne Robinson or Jon Stewart were talking about. If I had to guess, I'd say you're a climate-change "skeptic" and are flogging emails, again.

Say, have you posted at Pharyngula before?

Posted by: salgadoce | July 9, 2010 5:58 PM

I think people are conflating 'faith' with 'God' with 'religion' with 'deism' with 'theology.'

For those who have seen the movie Red Planet, I mean faith in the way that Chantilas uses it; when Burchenal asks him, "we're gonna talk about God now, aren't we?"

Chantilas replies, "Not God...faith."

As in, "you wouldn't be traveling to Mars on a ship that was never properly tested if you didn't have a little faith."

Is faith just a different word for less-than-full-confidence? Perhaps.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2010 6:02 PM

"Preaching the gospel of strings and hyper dimensions. Why? The book of equations says so. Don't for one moment think that the universe might actually be a little messy. Don't think that the equations might all be overly simplistic. It has to be elegant!"

Have you ever actually spoken with a working string theorist?

Physicists are aware that mathematical "elegance" is a subjective, contextual judgement. The same result can be presented in slick and in clunky ways; a derivation might appear to be graceful, but only because the irritating clutter was swept under the rug.

See: Feynman's The Character of Physical Law and volume 2, chapter 26 of the Lectures on Physics; chapter 12 of Zwiebach's First Course in String Theory; the discussion of normal-ordering constants in chapter 2 of Polchinski's String Theory.

"The equations have to add up! There has to be some invisible, unexplainable thing that would explain new observations and still allow all the old equations to work! After all, they are the LAWS of physics. The rules on which everything is based, rather than a high-level mathematical model that approximates some effect as in other sciences."

Actually, effective field theory — that's "effective" in the sense of "close enough for government work" or "adequate for present purposes" — has been a mainstay of physics for decades. Zee's Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell contains a readable introduction.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 9, 2010 6:03 PM

Is faith just a different word for less-than-full-confidence?

Posted by: Aquaria | July 9, 2010 6:09 PM

johnsontwit:

Tell us what you think science is, in 100 words or less. No posturing. No hysteria. No canards. Define it. Don't look at the dictionary. Tell us what you think it means.

Posted by: sacredchao2305 | July 9, 2010 6:11 PM

I'm honestly half-convinced that the reason I can't seem to get into the University of Iowa Writers' Workshop (of which she is a member of the permanent faculty) is that she doesn't like the atheist worldview that comes through in my fiction. I mean, it couldn't possibly be that I am competing against 1400 other people for 25 spots, right?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 9, 2010 6:19 PM

johnsonr3 @ 188;

Besides, who says that faith is an unchallenged quantity?

Religious doctorine is specifically constructed to be an unfalsifiable proposition. The whole concept of 'pure' religious faith revolves around the idea that 'god moves in mysterious ways' and that our human judgement is 'flawed', so we are in no position to judge the supposed actions of a conveniently indetectable godhead. Then we get the whole surrender oneself to jesus/allah/*insert favoured deity* stuff.

AGAIN, my point - scientists are willing to accept certain premises as true notwithstanding those aspects of a theory which are (presently) unproven.

They are willing to accept the provisional credibility of certain premises until such time as they are challenged by superior premises with a stronger evidential basis. Just because scientists do not already know everything you cannot claim that all science is a blind leap of faith. Any guess work is informed by the best available information, and is viewed as a provisional position only until it is proven or discredited by hard evidence. This is hardly the same as the dogmatic assertions of theists.

Sure, scientists are willing to be disproven. That is not a quality peculiar to scientists, BTW. That is common to every rational being.

Scientists are indeed williing to be disproven, but this is not the insignificant attribute you paint it as. A scientist will willingly abandon decades of work if the evidence indicates that the hypothesis is flawed. Can the same honestly be said of theists? Have you not seen religious figures who are clearly in denial of reality itself, such as the young earth creationists who still insist that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs?

I am not anti-science. I AM anti-blowhard, and all of you who are here to say that scientists' shit do not stink because of evidence-dependence and peer-review haven't been paying attention to what is happening in your own fields.

What would you suggest in the place of evidence-dependence and peer-review as a means of evaluating the truth of a claim about the quantifiable universe? What other objective measure of reality is there? There is reality, or there is superstition. The two are not compatible. Make your choice.

This is why scientists have had to undertake discussing distasteful subjects like ethics...

What, pray tell, have ethics to do with whether or not the scientific method provides an accurate means of assessing the value of a truth claim about the quantifiable universe? Whether or not a given experiment is ethical speaks to the morality of performing it, not to the efficacy of the scientific method. Why do you consider ethics "distasteful" in any case? It is important that scientific pursuits do not lead one to abuse the fundamental rights of others. Any scientist of worth would acknowledge this. If you are trying to claim that morality flows from religion, then should not religion put its own extremely bloody and oppressive house in order before pointing fingers at science?

You just don't get it, do you: science does not stand in splendid isolation among the domains of human knowledge (as so many here like to pretend it does). Instead, it is as human a discipline as any, and pretending that its pretensions to empiricism make it above question, or as a sufficient metanarrative to judge all other narratives is the problem.

I fear that it is you who does not 'get it'. The scientific method is not and cannot be subject to the whims of post-positivism or to the filters of the preconceptions of any group or individual. Rigorous science must strive always to deal with the actual evidence, and present its findings clearly, without fear or favour. Anything less defeats the purpose of the scientific endeavour altogether. Once science is slaved to politics or theology, it stops being science and starts being propoganda.

Science is the only means of examining the quantifiable universe that delivers results; that provides a worthwhile and reliable predictive capacity. If something else (like religion) makes claims about the nature of the quantifiable universe (as religion so often does), then scientific empiracism must trump mythology. If all religion is mere 'metaphor', then religious figures should avoid making any claims of being able to judge the worth of scientific analysis as a means of understanding reality.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 9, 2010 6:20 PM

We can tell a story for the first 15 billion years of existence (more or less), but after that, it gets pretty nebulous, if you catch my drift.

I don't catch it.

We can tell a story for the so far last 13.72 billion years. For the Planck time that came before, we can't; it's not just nebulous, but the solutions to all equations go either to 0 or to infinity.

Don't for one moment think that the universe might actually be a little messy. Don't think that the equations might all be overly simplistic. It has to be elegant! The equations have to add up!

We don't know if they have to add up.

But so far they do add up. Did you know that "QED" stands for "quantum electrodynamics"? The predictions of that theory line up with the results of experiments to 17 significant digits. Try to surpass that.

Define it. Don't look at the dictionary.

Dictionaries have a strong tendency to get technical terms wrong anyway.

How about this:

1.a New scientific theories and theoretical proposals can't be created without faith as an ingredient. That is, you need a little bit of faith (in yourself, the Creator, it doesn't matter) to be able to posit something new. Because, if you didn't have faith in your own mind (or the Creator's mind, for all you theists/deists) you would never have the nerve to propose something new? Is this controversial as well?

If you really want to call that "faith"...

The important thing is that I don't need to have absolute faith in anything. I don't need to believe that my mind is perfect when I want to present and/or test a new hypothesis.

Never forget: solipsism can't be disproven.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 9, 2010 6:30 PM

If you can just make it mean anything you want then what's the point of the damned word anyway?

Likewise, you can then say "science is a faith" as if it makes science and dogma equivalent!

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 9, 2010 6:37 PM

salgadoce: We can tell a story for the first 15 billion years of existence (more or less), but after that, it gets pretty nebulous, if you catch my drift.

Well, that just tells us that you know next to nothing whereof you speak. It's not nebulous at all -- there are equations going back to a small magnitude of time, and at 0 the equations break down.

There is no nebulousity at all -- there's a point beyond the limits of physics. So physics doesn't speak about it. That's not "unclear" or "faithish" -- it's just a limit.

So what? That's the difference between science and religion. When science reaches it's limit, it shuts the fuck up. It recognizes it's limit and doesn't feel compelled to keep on spewing baselessly.

Sure, there are questions that science can't ask. The world of knowledge is unbounded. Some questions are meaningless -- some questions can never be answered -- some questions can't be answered today.

The faithiest feels compelled to let his verbal diarrhea continue without the least shard of reason -- because he can make up a question, he feels compelled to say "something" "anything" at all. That's faith.

Reason is to stop.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 9, 2010 6:44 PM

salgadoce: That is, you need a little bit of faith (in yourself, the Creator, it doesn't matter) to be able to posit something new. Because, if you didn't have faith in your own mind (or the Creator's mind, for all you theists/deists) you would never have the nerve to propose something new?

Way to confuse different definitions. "Faith in yourself" is called self-confidence -- and sure, you need self-confidence to be a good scientist. "Faith in a creator" is an entirely different meaning -- it's the dogmatic assertion of their being a creator.

Two different roles for the same word. Who'da thunk that in a natural language, you can only define words in context of their usage? That they're pawns in a game?

Oh, who would'da thunk that?

Posted by: CJO | July 9, 2010 6:48 PM

My point exactly.

All right. At this point, salgadoce is acting like a chatbot.

That. is. so. interesting. to. me. salgadoce. Tell. me. more. about. a. genuine. conception. of. faith.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 9, 2010 6:56 PM

Jon Stewart needs to be sentenced to at least a first year astronomy class - minimum two semesters. It wouldn't be much of a sentence so much as an illumination of his giant failure last night.

I can't understand Stewart's hot and cold nature in taking guests to task. It must be because his grasp of politics and its shenanigans far surpasses his comprehension of the sciences and the shenanigans used against it by religious mind control peddlers.

If Robinson made claims of a political nature that filled with bunk I'm thinking she would have been torn a new one. This was a guest that should have been handed off to Colbert, someone who is more literate in science (or so it seems from comparison in guest Q&A).

What that infotainment block needs is an actual sciences graduate and skeptic who hosts a programme. I can just imagine a trail littered with religious dogmatist's bodies after a host who encompassed the skillset of Christopher Hitchens, The Amazing Randi and Carl Sagan got through with 'em. One moment making them eat their own bible quotes, the next punching logic-holes in their assertions then off to the lab or observatory for a quick experiment demo showing them up on national televison. It would work wonders on woo-oil salesmen like Deepcrap Copro too.

Actually, that show sounds really good. Direct me to the producer's office so I can pitch it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 7:00 PM

Don't you think it's pretty important to peg it down as a concept before criticizing it?

how do you communicate with the other 6 billion humans who do

Posted by: E.V. | July 9, 2010 7:06 PM

Lack of evidence in religion isn't a problem for believers since they can always rationalize it by saying "God works in mysterious ways", "God is Unknowable" or "God purposely hides against detection so that mankind retains free will" (which would completely discredits any miracle as proof of God, funny that).
It's all a ploy just slightly more sophisticated than "pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!". Faith is belief, not only in lieu of evidence, but belief when the evidence contradicts those beliefs. See: confirmation bias.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 7:09 PM

Sorry for my crap spelling.

By the way again to :

Don't you think it's pretty important to peg it down as a concept before criticizing it?

No. It isn't important to define it with a large universal definition. It is important to discuss it as it is being used in the specific context in which it is cited once it has been cited thus.

All words are variables, and subject to change. They only work in context. CONTEXT.

I can communicate with others via English because we have agreed well enough on what the words mean. If some one uses a word and you start opening it up to greater meanings then the word no longer has any meaning at all.

But that doesn't change the way it was intended in the original source.

I mean, we don't say lots of things the way we used to say them. Wherefore?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 9, 2010 7:11 PM

I fucking hate it when godbots and other mental masturbators take a word with multiple meanings and then pretend it only has one meaning, to make their idiotic arguments. they do this to "natural" and "theory", and they also do it to "faith":

"faith" in a person is synonymous with "trust in that person's ability/willingness to do x". Faith in a religion is a belief held regardless of the state of evidence about the issue. Only a completely gullible moron would have the religious sort of faith in a person, and the result of that is usually having your bank account cleared by a "nigerian prince"

Posted by: Peter H | July 9, 2010 7:19 PM

"Religion never changes with the evidence, which makes it far inferior to science for advancing knowledge."

Religion cannot advance knowledge, its role is to reaffirm the past. This renders religion a highly problematic intellectual pursuit.

@ #207
You're using faith as a synonym for confidence. This is not a proper substitution.

@ #233
"So, we have 2 entities which I compare to the 2 sides of a battery to make having a current possible."

Bringing Chopra into tis, are we?

Posted by: jeff.westbrooks | July 9, 2010 7:30 PM

I just saw the show and I think that the observation that JS meant dark matter instead of anti-matter is probably correct.
Although still wrong.
Only one thing to do....
PZ ON THE DAILY SHOW.
PZ ON THE DAILY SHOW.
PZ ON THE DAILY SHOW.
Hopefully just like that horrible horror movie this will come true, or was that Dorothy in the Wizard of OZ?
If he were to go on Colbert he probably not get as much of a chance to speak as Colbert has a tendency to let his "character" hog up the time.
Hmmmmmmm
PZ ON 60 MINUTES.
PZ ON 60 MINUTES.
PZ ON 60 MINUTES.
Hmmmmmmmmm
PZ ON QI.
PZ ON QI.
PZ ON QI.
Better said with only 6 letters. The product of the first three prime numbers.

Yep, Imma Geek.

Posted by: davej | July 9, 2010 7:37 PM

Amazon comments on her book are sparse and leaning toward the murk...

http://www.amazon.com/Absence-Mind-Dispelling-Inwardness-Lectures/dp/0300145187/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1278716192&sr=1-1

Posted by: salgadoce | July 9, 2010 7:40 PM

A response on the TDS website to my initial 'philosophy/atheist/science' post:

Firstly, thank you for going to the effort of commenting, and actually with some substance and length. However I would have to politely disagree with you on...well, just about everything :P I'll address them on a point by point basis. 1. The basis of science is that nothing is proved until there is enough evidence that doubt can be tossed aside with reasonable certainty. There is nothing like this in any of the areas that you mention. Also, philosophy is not religion, nor is it metaphysics. It discusses many of the same things as both of those areas, as well as science, but it relies on rational argument, and sadly the bible isn't proof of anything. As with metaphysics, after the scientific method came around, "metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence." (Wikipedia). (As this is purely a definition, I have no problem with using Wikipedia). So, metaphysics is not a substitute for science, either. 1.1. Scientists do not only ask about what they can test, it is only that they only consider fact, that which has been tested and shown to be so. Since you are attacking science for being narrow in scope and point of view. Isn't it religion who's only explanation for the universe seems to be "god did it"? So contrary to your opinion, I would have to say that it is religion that only addresses the issues that it thinks it has proof for. If you are talking about the issues of the soul and spirit, then give me a couple instances where you can prove that a spirit/soul even exists. If that isn't what you are talking about, then please elaborate on what you mean by "narrow world view". 1.2. I'm sorry, did you get religion and philosophy mixed up? Its philosophy that uses logical argument to prove the questions that it asks. Yes, they may ask questions and not answer them, but so can everyone else, and last time I checked, the things that help us most in the long run are proven to be true. What use is the question, "What is the meaning of life?", if you do not at least attempt to answer the question? For a more practical example, what is the use of the question, "Is the death penalty morally wrong?", if you immediately turn around and ask another question. 1.2.1. Yes, there is a place for the askers of questions, but that does not mean that the question will help society without at least addressing them, and hopefully coming up with a conclusion. Oh, and speaking of sieves of inquiry, I thought that was the place of Christianity and Islam, they are the ones that on a larger scale than any other religion have been attempting to squash independent thought and only leave that which they approve of. I know that this isn't true of all people in these religions, but they have done so on a large scale, with a larger rate than can be excused for by their larger followings. 1.3. I'm sorry, but I thought that there was at least the appearance of free will, and I wasn't familiar with the idea that being a scientist kept you from choosing to abandon a pointless project and move onto something else. I must keep that in mind, and of course believe it without actually testing my hypothesis. As to atheists being lesser scientists than religious people, I'm an Atheist, and I am telling you to go F*** yourself. By the way, the reason why so many scientists have been religious is that the social and religious ideas at the time, and even now in many circles, make it so that you will be taken much less seriously or even shunned completely if you are an Atheist. Oh, and by the way, at least with the Atheists that I know, we don't give a shit about religion, as long as it leaves us alone and doesn't F*** with our lives, we don't go around trying to change everyone else. Also, we rely on science to prove that god doesn't exist, or at least prove that religion has no place telling everyone else what to do. Religion relies on what, the bible? Oh, and I'm sorry, wasn't it Jesus that said for people to be tolerant of others, and wasn't it Christianity that was based on his teachings and the bible? So I'm sorry, but even Christianity is going against its own basic set of rules. Sorry for being so irritated. I was rather insulted by quite a few things that you said.

See, guys? Is it that hard to be polite when you rip someone a new asshole? Is it really necessary to call someone an illiterate uneducated fool? It's going to be a pleasure to respond to this young man, once I read whatever the fuck he said.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 7:47 PM

Is it really necessary to call someone an illiterate uneducated fool?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 7:53 PM

Is it that hard to be polite when you rip someone a new asshole?

Yeah it is. Most of the time it's not worth it either.

Posted by: RednessAsSuch | July 9, 2010 7:57 PM

Kel OM:

Computer science doesn't not make you a scientist.

I create hypotheses, then perform experiments through which I collect data which I later analyze and draw conclusions from. So as much of a scientists as anyone else doing that I suppose.

For its time, maybe. But now it is an anachromism, bad philosophy and outdated dogma give an impoverished way to look at the world.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, only saying look at religion historically if you want to know why people still think it's a good idea instead of just blasting dogma from a scientific worldview. You have to comprehend a perspective before you can critique it.

Which would be just fine if it did not conjure up such devotion to the ideals, especially on the moral front that should have died the moment Greek philosophy began.

Have you read Greek philosophy? It's as religious as anything else when you get to core of it. Plato's Soul and the Forms, Aristotle's Prime Mover - different names for the same concepts.

Posted by: JackC | July 9, 2010 7:59 PM

dammit - headcold. #243 should be "... much different in it THAN you have received here."

Blah - head is filled with dark matter. Someone come over quick and identify it. I am sure there is a tonne in there.

JC

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 9, 2010 8:01 PM

appreciate religion, because it was truly brilliant for its time.

so was geocentrism, the flat earth, the aether hypothesis....

I'd be fucking ecstatic if we could actually treat religion as the failed idea it is and MOVE ON.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 8:04 PM

You have to comprehend a perspective before you can critique it.

It's as religious as anything else when you get to core of it. Plato's Soul and the Forms, Aristotle's Prime Mover - different names for the same concepts.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 9, 2010 8:07 PM

It gave us an ideal of love...

As a gay man, I'm quite familiar with Christian "ideal love" and I know it to be utterly without value.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 9, 2010 8:07 PM

I believe that P.T. Barnum came up with that theory independently.

In case you haven't been corrected on that technicality...

Barnum never said that.

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

Posted by: Rixaeton | July 9, 2010 8:08 PM

In #235:

The "utility" of religion has always been about power and control, and on that aspect it has worked very well. As for morality, we had that long before religion was even thought of, and a lot of other species on this planet also exhibit a sense of morality without any evidence of religion either.

Besides, even if it is later found that a god exists (evidence, please) it is highly likely that it is not your god, as there is no evidence for god so far; your god is purely based on speculation, imagination, fiction and the aforementioned interpretation of fiction to maintain power.

The difference between science and religion is that religion requires belief. Science works whether you believe in it or not. Calling science faith is silly, in that faith is based on working without knowledge. If a scientific theory or hypothesis is found to be incorrect due to new data or an updated understanding, the theory changes or is rejected. This never seems to happen in religion.

BTW: Please, please, please provide the insight that PZ has asked for.

Posted by: MrFire | July 9, 2010 8:16 PM

I respect religion and faith and it's role in human affairs because I know for a fact that people are willing to kill for it and to die for it.

Wait. Did you mean to say that you acknowledge its impact in the world? Or do you actually respect it?

Poor choice of words if the former; I don't even know what to say if the latter.

Posted by: Rixaeton | July 9, 2010 8:24 PM

I respect religion and faith and it's role in human affairs because I know for a fact that people are willing to kill for it and to die for it.

Didn't Richard Dawkins address this quite well when he said that in the face of homicidal fanaticism we fear it, but don't confuse fear with respect. In fact, any organisation or society that uses violence or the threat of harm (excommunication etc) in order to suppress dissent and to maintain its position automatically excludes itself from the ability to reason.

Posted by: JackC | July 9, 2010 8:32 PM

MAJeff - that is probably going to go a LONG way toward understanding why I probably don't much care for it ;-)

JC

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 9, 2010 8:36 PM

Ol' Greg @#221 sums it up quite nicely.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 8:37 PM

That's why I don't understand the motivation for the atheist/agnostic position,

Coming out as an atheist kind of makes you irrelevant to the other 99.9% of us.

Posted by: Alex Malecki | July 9, 2010 8:39 PM

Yeah, terrible interview. My response is on my blog:

http://alexmalecki.blogspot.com/

Posted by: legistech | July 9, 2010 8:40 PM

Fuck it. I will say this though; I respect religion and faith and it's role in human affairs because I know for a fact that people are willing to kill for it and to die for it. Compared to religious zealots, scientists are pussies.

You were begging for politeness on internet forums a post ago, and now you're calling scientists pussies? Why don't you grow a skin?

And...you respect religion because people are willing to kill and die for it? "Respect" as in "approve of"? Willingness to die over a fantasy is somehow admirable to you?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 9, 2010 8:46 PM

You can't talk to them, can't argue with them, can't ever hope to understand them (because they won't talk to you).

Yeah, you're being fucking ignored here, huh?

It might be different if atheists were charming and witty about poo-pooing others' ideas

You obviously haven't been reading enough of me.

honestly, you guys come across as insufferable douche-bags more than anything.

Because we don't swoon with supportive "Go, man, go!" every time one of you blathers some pot-fogged "Woah, dude, what if the universe were like, alive, man? Can you dig on that?" Sorry. Buy me a drink and maybe I'll give you a reach-around.

Go talk to mommy if you want a cookie every time you bleat out some bullshit freshman obfuscatory philosophy.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 9, 2010 8:47 PM

Coming out as an atheist kind of makes you irrelevant to the other 99.9% of us.

Just like coming out as gay made me irrelevant to the other 99.9% of you.

Posted by: MrFire | July 9, 2010 8:51 PM

let's not split hairs here.

Then stop writing poorly-worded sentences. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking you to clarify yourself.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 8:53 PM

How did life on this planet (and as far as we have knowledge of for that matter, the entirety of the universe) begin? The actual spark, where did that come from, what were its elements, can it be recreated in a lab. Just leavin this here ...

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 9, 2010 8:54 PM

Man, I hate to miss a good troll-swatting, but I done went and made plans.

Have fun, the rest of you.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 9, 2010 8:56 PM

Posted by: namdlogd | July 9, 2010 8:48 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

@MAJeff
That's pretty messed up what's been happening to the BGLT community. It's a slog towards universal rights, but I'm sure we'll get there.

But coming out as a member of a small minority group that calls into question how society is organized....we're worth ignoring.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 9, 2010 8:58 PM

You poindexters are a laugh riot. I am sooooooooo subscribing to your blog.

You obviously haven't been reading me.

Or much else, by the strength of your reasoning.

Have fun playing internet tough guy.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 9, 2010 9:00 PM

That you think I somehow endorse 'God' or any particular religion or theology shows me just how much situational/contextual/communicational awareness you lack. Are you autistic?

Fuck it. I will say this though; I respect religion and faith and it's role in human affairs because I know for a fact that people are willing to kill for it and to die for it. Compared to religious zealots, scientists are pussies.

Posted by: salgadoce | July 9, 2010 9:03 PM

Well, all I can do at this point is pray for your souls...

[wakka wakka]

Warmest regards, you sycophantic wackjobs,

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 9:07 PM

Salgadoce makes more sense this way. This:

Fuck it. I will say this though; I respect religion and faith and it's role in human affairs because I know for a fact that people are willing to kill for it and to die for it. Compared to religious zealots, scientists are pussies.

Sounds more likely to reflect Salgadoce's real level of discourse, just had to let all the hot air escape. Now here's something to work with.

Why don't you be honest about what you really mean, call us douchebags all you want but we still see through the bullshit you were spewing. Without getting out of your fucking depth now tell a crass motherfucker like me why science needs religion.

Or is it just that pussies are in need of a good dicking.

Why do you think religion is so great?

But no pseudo-intellectual crap.

Posted by: Peter H | July 9, 2010 9:11 PM

"I know for a fact that people are willing to kill for it and to die for it."

Good criteria for blind loyalty & blind fanaticism. Poor criteria for rational thought.

"Well, all I can do at this point is pray for your souls..."

And your motive in that would be . . . ?

Posted by: RednessAsSuch | July 9, 2010 9:13 PM

That is not dualism.

It's objectification and dualism - By understanding ourselves as products of lumps of matter we've created a dualism in that our consciousness can now be viewed from the perspective of our mind or the matter it resides in.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 9:23 PM

By understanding ourselves as products of lumps of matter we've created a dualism

LOL. We can't "create" dualism. Either mind is separate from matter or it isn't. If it isn't (it isn't, btw) then yeah, we can't view it from outside of consciousness while being conscious but that doesn't create anything and it's not really a flaw anyway.

You really think that because our brains have evolved to create the experience of consciousness for us that we are bound to limit our understanding of that process to conform to that illusion?

And you blame science for "creating" that "problem"?

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2010 9:26 PM

RednessAsSuch:

mind-body dualism = I'm a mind in a body.

No. You seem confused — minds and bodies are ontologically different categories, but the former are an epiphenomenon of the latter.

You should be aware that 'dualism' in this context can refer to either substance dualism or property dualism.

Do you claim science promotes the former?

Posted by: salgadoce | July 9, 2010 9:28 PM

ooooh, I love it when you gals start talking dirty.

I'm not Christian, don't be ridiculous. I don't give a shit what you princesses believe, really. You wanna spend your life growing yeast in a petri dish? Fucking great. Have at it.

One more question: isn't an atheist just an EMO? I fail to see the differences betwixt the two.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 9, 2010 9:32 PM

I'm not Christian, don't be ridiculous.

Didn't say you were, fuckwit. I said you play the role well. That's the whole "I'll pray for you"="fuck you" thing. We've all figured that already; apparently you haven't. Then again, violent christians are superior to scientists growing yeast in a petri dish......

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 9, 2010 9:34 PM

salgadoce: I will say this though; I respect religion and faith and it's role in human affairs because I know for a fact that people are willing to kill for it and to die for it. Compared to religious zealots, scientists are pussies.

...

I'm a rational pacifist. (I just made that phrase up, btw, but you get the idea). As a pacifist, I reject violence

No, you're just an idiot who can't keep his story straight for one single trolling session. And you're calling folks douche-bags??

Interesting though, how your insults apparently all fall into the "evil vagina" category. Not surprising, but another data point. Are you still pissed that your Mommy took you off the titty?

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2010 9:38 PM

salgadoce:

I don't give a shit what you princesses believe, really.

This assertion is belied by your numerous comments on this thread.

Posted by: RednessAsSuch | July 9, 2010 9:42 PM

John Morales,

Gah thanks for not tearing my head off. I'm still a little hazy in my thought on this, but more or less it seems to me that if you can think of yourself in two ontological categories you're engaged in a dualism.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 9, 2010 9:44 PM

salgadouche wrote:

I fail to see the differences betwixt the two.

I doubt any of us will consider what you fail to see to be especially revelatory; no doubt the list is very long indeed - and the breadth of the range of topics equally so.

Do anyone recall the name, or is this the first we've seen of this misogynist pissant? It must be; morons of this kind usually learn after the first time that woman-hating + rank stupidity leads to having the living shit kicked out of you by the regulars here.

Anyway, salgadouche, maybe you should just fuck off and save yourself any further embarrassment.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 9, 2010 9:45 PM

And we continue with the girl hating. You really should get a little therapy -- you appear to be a closet case.

I'd guess standard misogynist homophobe.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/honesty_about_sex_is_going_to.php#comment-2646731

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 9, 2010 9:51 PM

Salgadoce says, " New scientific theories and theoretical proposals can't be created without faith as an ingredient."

Not really. Belief in the Bayesian sense, but that is very different from faith. To advance a new theory, I need only "believe" based on past experience that the Univese will not behave in a way that is dramatically different from my past experience. I know that in some cases, things will be drastically different--e.g. when I see alpha particles recoiling from a gold foil and realize there must be a nucleus in there.

Salgadoce: " Compared to religious zealots, scientists are pussies."

And yet, isn't it amazing that in the thousands of years of religious zealots, they didn't manage to make any lasting change in the world that even begins to compare to the change scientists have made in 400 years. Same goes for philosophers. They've had thousands of years, but they never saved a life or built an engine or split an atom.

Perhaps, Sir, the limitations science places upon itself confer greater power. Did you ever think of that? Of course not. It's not the sort of question a philosopher would concern himself with.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 9:52 PM

oh, so now were playing the psychopathology game?

Nah... I don't really care why you're so misogynistic and have such screwy ideas about what is respectable. It's just another thing that sucks about you, that's all.

Seriously guys, you need to get a moderator.

Have you ever been to the intersection? Apologies if you have. I think you'd like it there though.

Posted by: John Morales | July 9, 2010 10:00 PM

RednessAsSuch @308,

I'm still a little hazy in my thought on this, but more or less it seems to me that if you can think of yourself in two ontological categories you're engaged in a dualism.

You might consider the analogy of a computer running a program.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 9, 2010 10:01 PM

The "intense homophobe" = "closet case" is too easy.

Yes, we have Rekers, Haggard, Craig, Foley, etc. But, there's no evidence for folks like Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, Popes JPII or Nazinger, Helms..... Sometimes religious hatred is simply religious hatred.

Many (most?) ain't conflicted, they're evil.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 9, 2010 10:04 PM

Nancies, even crossed out. Not even going for plain old misogyny, but homophobia too!

What a great guy!

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 9, 2010 10:05 PM

RednessAsSuch #281

the Courtier's Reply as a counterargument is deeply flawed. It's a direct attack on anything not established scientifically as much ado about nothing, but levels this criticism from ignorance.

I've never understood why knowing the minutiae of a specific religion is necessary to answer the question: "Is there evidence for gawd?" Why are we required to know if angels dancing on the heads of pins are waltzing or doing the macarena before we can say "there's no evidence The Big Guy In The Sky exists"?

I doubt RednessAsSuch knows how often a human heart has to be offered to Huitzilopochtli so the Sun will continue to rise. RednessAsSuch doesn't accept Huitzilopochtlism without knowing the tenets of Huitzilopochtlian theology. So why do atheists have to be intimately familiar with whatever cult RednessAsSuch likes before rejecting it yet he gets a free pass on his rejection of Huitzilopochtli?

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 9, 2010 10:08 PM

Salgadoce said:

oh, so now were playing the psychopathology game?

meh, I played that last week.

Oh, no. I bet you play that every week.

Posted by: co | July 9, 2010 10:13 PM

BTW critical self-examination is something that science does not countenance: when was the last time you saw a scientist critique his or her own work based on their interior state of mind when they were doing their research? Indeed, science contends that it is the method and results that matter, is that not so?

Today, when I suspected something was wrong with some computer-controlled equipment, and had to double-check everything I'd done. Turns out I'd mistakenly reset an oscilloscope coupling due to distraction.

Critical self-examination is *exactly* what Feynman was talking about when he said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Critical self-examination asks if individuals have been honest and thorough critics within themselves (which, if you are a scientist, SteveM, makes you a perfect specimen of the willfully unexamined life.

"Critics within themselves"? What does that even mean? Critical of one's thoughts without regard to external evidence? If that's being a critic within one's self, it's tantamount to philosophy, and therefore quite useless.

Please talk to some scientists. You're making a fool of yourself.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 9, 2010 10:16 PM

It's as religious as anything else when you get to core of it.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 10:21 PM

You nancies people are really complicated human beings, huh?

When all else fails I guess.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 10:25 PM

Gah thanks for not tearing my head off. I'm still a little hazy in my thought on this, but more or less it seems to me that if you can think of yourself in two ontological categories you're engaged in a dualism.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 9, 2010 10:30 PM

I suppose I'm angling for something like this, but the Courtier's Reply as a counterargument is deeply flawed. It's a direct attack on anything not established scientifically as much ado about nothing, but levels this criticism from ignorance.

Anyway, I wrote a lengthy defence of The Courtier's Reply here if you're interested.

Posted by: Peter H | July 9, 2010 10:41 PM

jeff, #337

You are in over your head & your mommy's calling.

Posted by: Anri | July 9, 2010 10:45 PM

It's objectification and dualism - By understanding ourselves as products of lumps of matter we've created a dualism in that our consciousness can now be viewed from the perspective of our mind or the matter it resides in.

Our mind is an emergent property of the matter of our brains - nothing more (in as far as we can tell). That's not dualism any more than a computer's operations are somehow dualistic to its hardware.

Unless, of course, you believe computers have souls as well...?

Have you read Greek philosophy? It's as religious as anything else when you get to core of it. Plato's Soul and the Forms, Aristotle's Prime Mover - different names for the same concepts.

It's also several thousand years old, and hasn't stood up well to modern investigative techniques. The people who cranked it out were undeniably brilliant and very well-informed for their day. By moderns standards, they would be hopelessly ignorant and just plain wrong about lots of stuff.

Science, in seeking to objectify our world and in promoting the mind-body dualism, forces people, eventually, to objectify themselves (view themselves as things separate and different from everything else - in other words as a separate part of the world rather than related to and ultimately never disconnected from the world).

"We are made of star stuff."
- Carl Sagan, scientist.

Posted by: Commissar Claw | July 9, 2010 10:48 PM

I watched this last night and I was really disappointed in Stewart. Usually when some nut job with a book to push is on he at least gets in a few digs. But he was falling all over himself to agree with Robinson.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 9, 2010 10:54 PM

I also believe that there are far greater and more superior things than human knowledge.

What evidence do you need to believe in God?

I have a deep and meaningful relationship with a God that I truly believe in.

I just cannot stand idly by while people continue to think that there is no God or that He is dead or whatever.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 9, 2010 10:56 PM

(view themselves as things separate and different from everything else - in other words as a separate part of the world rather than related to and ultimately never disconnected from the world)

If I were to look at what ties us to nature and what doesn't, I'd say that science is what pulls us back in. Many of the religions out there try to make us something more, taking on vitalist, dualist, products of supernatural agents, separating us from nature. So many talk of morality as if its the whims of gods, something that can't possibly be natural. One objection to the scientific outlook that repeatedly comes up is "there must be something more than this".

Science doesn't separate us from nature, quite the opposite. It shows how we are connected to nature, the fact that many fear reductionism (that we are reduced to nature) should indicate where the separation between humanity and nature is really coming from...

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 9, 2010 11:00 PM

johnsonr3 (#188)

You just don't get it, do you: science does not stand in splendid isolation among the domains of human knowledge (as so many here like to pretend it does). Instead, it is as human a discipline as any, and pretending that its pretensions to empiricism make it above question, or as a sufficient metanarrative to judge all other narratives is the problem.

Oh goody, an amateur postmodernist. Please do tell us what narrative we should use to judge the truth or falsity (or relative merit, if you're a committed anti-realist) of the claim that science is just another narrative with no epistemic privilege. Then explain either why that narrative, unlike science, has sufficient privilege to measure other narratives (or why, if not for privilege, those you're scolding should prefer your narrative over science).

~*~*~*~*~*~

hyperdeath (#227)

When did I say that science is anything other than a human discipline? Science isn't perfect, but do you have anything better?

He doesn't need anything better; he can claim that all disciplines/narratives/whatever are equal. However, this raises the questions of "equal relative to what" and "why, if he doesn't have something better to offer, would we accept his claims over our own?"

Posted by: Commissar Claw | July 9, 2010 11:03 PM

I have a deep and meaningful relationship with Tzeentch the Lord of Change. Tzeentch teaches that we should embrace mutation and sorcery. His wisdom shows that we can transform the universe into one more to our liking. In fact, when the will of the Architect of Fate is made manifest the chosen will fold the "laws of physics" into pretty hats and wear them to an endless party without form or causation in his endless crystal maze.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 9, 2010 11:06 PM

I am sharing these things because I just cannot stand idly by while people continue to think that there is no God or that He is dead or whatever. This is the least I can try to do for such an awesome and powerful God.

We can see the awesome power of nature, even harness it to turn it into electricity and computers and homes and all the other things we enjoy. Yet what do we have to show for God? Nothing that cannot be explained purely by the belief in God. Go beyond our cultures and similar stories emerge attesting to different gods and belief systems. How can you know its the Christian construct and not the Hindu or Greek or Norse? How can you distinguish between it and not being a God at all?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 9, 2010 11:09 PM

"I've never met the sexually successful male heterosexual who was also a raging misogynist homophobe."

Off the top of my head I have known two personally and absolutely enough to be confident they fit all listed criteria. This may be only an anecdote, but I do think this can happen easily. One was a textbook glib sociopath. Like NPD to the extreme, of course that is meant only to give an idea of the personality and not an actual attempt at diagnosing them. Superficial, dishonest, cruel, petty, very weird thought processes, highly clever though and very successful (often through lying, manipulating however), really dangerous human being to have contact with in any form and hell to work with. But he treated sex partners like prey, and targeted young girls with great ease, eventually hurting many of them much as he had his wife.

The other one was a homicidal person with untreated but often diagnosed bipolar disorder, although he often bragged that he only allowed himself to be diagnosed with that so he could use it as a cop out. Very similar to the above personality except lower functioning and not able to conform socially. More directly sadistic, especially sexually. Kind of like GG Allin. Very sexually successful though... at one point at least. And full of hate and contempt for those he sought out for sex. Not homosexual but openly considered homosexuals as appropriate targets for violence, as well as cops.

Both had complete contempt for homosexuals as well as women. The former would deny that, the latter would declare it loudly and then threaten you with a knife.

People... they will fuck you up.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 9, 2010 11:12 PM

Well for me, it is an individual experience. It is not something I have witnessed or read or been fed with. What evidence do you need to believe in God? Miracles? Fires from heaven? Graven images? An out of body experience? Suddenly walking limps? If all these happen, what would be the use and purpose of faith then?
I have a deep and meaningful relationship with a God that I truly believe in. I do not see it hindering me from doing the things that I need and have to do. As a matter of fact, it empowers me to believe in myself and to get to the things I want to achieve in my life. My God never failed me, EVER. I am experiencing His presence in my life and I'm sure He is moving through yours too, you just need to let Him in.
I am sharing these things because I just cannot stand idly by while people continue to think that there is no God or that He is dead or whatever. This is the least I can try to do for such an awesome and powerful God.

Shorter: I have no evidence but I want you to take my ridiculous claims seriously anyway. Therefore, please dedicate your life to my super-awesome imaginary friend.

Listen closely, you arrogant twit: Put up some evidence, or shut up.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 9, 2010 11:18 PM

Greg: Off the top of my head I have known two personally and absolutely enough to be confident they fit all listed criteria.

I guess I've been lucky enough to have avoided sociopaths. I guess that was my missing category -- the sociopath doesn't need to be conflicted to act in an evil manner, since they somehow manage to keep a distance from their own mental agents.

I guess if you can cleanly split yourself, anything is possible.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 9, 2010 11:23 PM

I have a deep and meaningful relationship with a God that I truly believe in.

Posted by: Bremsstrahlung | July 9, 2010 11:25 PM

I meant to say "your relationship with god"

Posted by: Peter H | July 9, 2010 11:30 PM

frog,

He was in uniform as a Deputy Sheriff and was a known philanderer through the region. While my wife was literally in labor w/ her 2nd child, he was literally putting the move on her best friend.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 9, 2010 11:34 PM

johnsonr3: "science does not stand in splendid isolation among the domains of human knowledge (as so many here like to pretend it does). Instead, it is as human a discipline as any,..."

Here's what you don't get. YES, science is a human endeavor, but it yields reliable understanding despite being practiced by fallible humans. THAT is the remarkable thing.

johnsonr3: "...and pretending that its pretensions to empiricism make it above question, or as a sufficient metanarrative to judge all other narratives is the problem."

Great, find me another human endeavor that is as successful in what it tries to do as science. Hell, even half as successful. Science has utterly changed the way people live--and for the better. Religion didn't do that, nor philosophy. So maybe you ought to try to learn how it actually works.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 9, 2010 11:40 PM

PeterH:

Yeah, I forget the sociopaths. They're an entirely different kind of beast from other human beings.

What must it be like to have models of other peoples minds -- good working models -- in your own mind, and yet it's like watching a movie with no overlap. You're so completely split into multiple agents that you feel no conflict; yet you have total control over those models.

It's surprising that their minds work at all -- yet they are some of the most successful people on the planet. Amazing -- it's not a disease, it's a monstrous functioning.

I'd bet it's a recent development in the human race. You can't have that kind of mind and function in a small-scale society, 'cause you'd be a cancer that would quickly kill your host.

Civilization is required for sociopathology to be adaptive -- then it's not a pathology at all.

Posted by: oakwind | July 9, 2010 11:47 PM

http://forums.thedailyshow.com/?page=ThreadView&thread_id=28826

I did my part, now do yours.

Posted by: Morse | July 9, 2010 11:54 PM

I am sharing these things because I just cannot stand idly by while people continue to think that there is no God or that He is dead or whatever. This is the least I can try to do for such an awesome and powerful God.

I am sharing these things because I just cannot stand idly by while people continue to make important life decisions based on unsupported beliefs or use their belief to inflict or justify cruelty to others. This is the least I can try to do against such an fearsome and powerful delusion.

Well, that and groundless smug prattering about faith annoys the fuck out of me. I think it's because it implicitly denies that I lack the empathy to understand or appreciate the comforting certainties provided by Faith.

Posted by: olganair | July 10, 2010 12:00 AM

It's not surprising that you guys only attacked parts of my comment on which I have claimed my faith in God - much of which were nonsense and irrelevant comments. I just have to clarify - I never said people make up God. People make up religion. Please read thoroughly before making an absurd comment, thank you.

I've said what I have wanted to say already. I respect what you guys had to say about it and if you have anything more to add, please be my guest. I probably wouldn't be even able to read them anyway. Much of my time has already been wasted on this... blog post.

Please, keep up the insults. My faith just keeps getting stronger.

By the way, I just have to ask: is there any empirical/physical evidence that God doesn't exist?

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 10, 2010 12:05 AM

parts of my comment on which I have claimed my faith in God - much of which were nonsense

I probably wouldn't be even able to read them anyway.

Fuck off, you useless, deluded sycophant.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 10, 2010 12:09 AM

Kiwimac, there is a search engine here. Look up BP oil spill and see what you find. Next time, do not act like a lazy asshole.

I never said people make up God. People make up religion. Please read thoroughly before making an absurd comment, thank you.

This is where you run into some problems, olganair, most of the regulars think that the big sky daddy is made up. And you offered no evidence for the existence of such a being. All you done is emit a long whine about how you think there is a deity and you feel the need to let us know that you believe.

I am going to assume that I am speaking for the majority here when I say that we have heard this thousands of times before.

By the way, I just have to ask: is there any empirical/physical evidence that God doesn't exist?

Tell you what, sport. I will get to that as soon as you provide physical evidence that a fairy does not live in the bottom of my near by lake.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 10, 2010 12:12 AM

never said people make up God.

My faithdelusions just keeps getting stronger.

I just have to ask: is there any empirical/physical evidence that God doesn't exist?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 10, 2010 12:21 AM

"I apologize for my primitive understanding of agnosticism/atheism. I shouldn't have even gone there; I had never encountered an agnostic atheist before (at least not one who took himself so seriously, geez)."

YES YOU HAVE. MOST OF US ARE!

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 10, 2010 12:24 AM

Please, keep up the insults. My faith just keeps getting stronger.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 10, 2010 12:26 AM

Please, keep up the insults. My faith just keeps getting stronger.

I really don't give a fuck about you. Unlike you I feel no compulsion to pressure others into a belief system.

Now leave me the fuck alone.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 12:30 AM

I never said people make up God.

Unless you believe in every deity ever dreamed up, you believe that people make up gods. Ask yourself what is the difference between Yahweh and the Babylonian deity Baal? What is the difference between Yahweh and Brahman? Why preference do you have for the Judeo-Christian construct?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 10, 2010 12:33 AM

Wowbagger, now is the time we really miss Silver Fox. He would point out that Zeus, Thor, Athena, Marduk, Quetzalcoatl, Yog-Sothoth and the big sky daddy are really the same thing.

Who am I shitting? I do not miss that dumb ass.

Posted by: justinak87 | July 10, 2010 12:44 AM

I was shaking my head as I watched that interview. I still like Stewart, I'm not going to stop watching his show because he talked about this kind of mumbo jumbo once. If I stopped watching every program where religion v science came up and no one really criticized or attacked the idea the two aren't mutually exclusive, I'd probably have to stop watching TV altogether.

I wish Stewart would have been a little more inquisitive in the interview instead of just nodding and agreeing though.

Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2010 12:46 AM

olganair:

Please, keep up the insults. My faith just keeps getting stronger.

You do realise you're not being persecuted, but rather being laughed at?

I have a deep and meaningful relationship with a God that I truly believe in.

Drop Dead Fred.

Isn't it time you grew up?

Posted by: Rixaeton | July 10, 2010 12:51 AM

Umm... Anri #395. I don't think I undestand your evidence, can you give a specific example?

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 10, 2010 12:53 AM

Ing (#385)

Somehow with faith people criticizing==i am right.

It's a variant of the "struck a nerve" gambit. (Or perhaps it's the original.)

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 10, 2010 12:55 AM

@frog, Inc,
I do find that really disturbing. But I think I might be spectrum, a little, not only but partly because the idea of having models of other people's minds sounds bafflingly, frighteningly foreign to me (and yes, I realize it's not like having model cars or something). When I do try to understand what another person is thinking, I have to go through step by step placing myself in the person's circumstances, then trying to figure out what the effect of every individual major emotional/personality/values difference between us would be. It's pretty thought-intensive and I tend to get it wrong, except under unusually obvious circumstances. ("Your best friend died recently. If my best friend died I would feel very sad. You must feel very sad.") Or is that how that normally works?

@olganair,
Just in honor of this celebration of empathy, do try to see this from our perspective. Someone just strolled into your favorite living area and claimed to have a close relationship with a mythical, fictional character - a fairy or a dragon or Yog-Sothoth. And told you that having any evidence would ruin their experience of it. And that you, too, should have such a relationship.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 10, 2010 1:01 AM

"Creationism must surely be just a hyper-advanced form of mental laziness. Not wanting to delve into scientific mysteries with observation and experimentation is a sign of an apathetic desire for real knowledge."

At the very least, it's the desire to be spoonfed knowledge. That's what it tells me when they conflate biology and cosmology, which they so often do. "Evolutionists believe life came from the Big Bang" and all that. It means that if you don't answer their "where did everything come from" question with a ten-second sound bite, they'll wander off. Like the guy I responded to did (and let the record show that I was being very polite).

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 10, 2010 1:03 AM

Wowbagger, now is the time we really miss Silver Fox. He would point out that Zeus, Thor, Athena, Marduk, Quetzalcoatl, Yog-Sothoth and the big sky daddy are really the same thing.

Yeah, what an idiot. I swear he helped turn more religious people to atheism than PZ and Dawkins combined with the poorly-thought-out nonsense he used to post here.

I came across a thread (can't remember which, one of the SBs)where he'd posted the same sort of drivel, accusing atheists of only wanting to live half their lives because they exclude 'other ways of knowing' as a source of information. If it'd been fresh I'd have taken the time to tear him a new ass, but it was way old so I didn't bother.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 10, 2010 1:18 AM

@John Morales,
No, but they seem really interesting :) Thanks for that.

Posted by: Anri | July 10, 2010 1:45 AM

Umm... Anri #395. I don't think I undestand your evidence, can you give a specific example?

At Lourdes, you witness (I am told) a large number of abandoned crutches, but no artificial limbs, glass eyes, or toupees.

(I'm stealing that quote, but I don't recall the source... possibly James Randi, but I can't find the reference.)

To be a bit less tongue-in-cheek, every single time faith-healing (for example) is attempted, in effect an experiment is being run. So far, god's not scoring very many hits at all - this is evidence.

As I noted above, it's not at all conclusive, but it's not inconsequential. It tells us that either:
- God does not exist,
- God cannot cure the sick (lame, dead, etc.), or
- God does not wish to cure the sick.

Likewise, every time someone prays for any other specific event to happen (or not to happen).

We can reasonably infer, merely from prior experience, that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
We can reasonably infer, merely from prior experience, that god will not act at the request of the faithful.
Over time, this again suggests strongly that god is either impotent, indifferent, or nonexistent.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 2:05 AM

Please read thoroughly before making an absurd comment, thank you.

It's comments like that, coming from a religionaut, that have caused me to stop wasting money replacing my irony meters.

Posted by: CButter | July 10, 2010 2:41 AM

- God does not exist,
- God cannot cure the sick (lame, dead, etc.), or
- God does not wish to cure the sick.

I'd add to this list the possibility that God does not wish to be detected, and so instead sprinkles miracles sparsely and unpredictably hither and yon at a rate indistinguishable from the expected background noise of spontaneous remissions and the like.

Of course, for such a God to expect us to believe in it, let alone to worship its type-II-error-inducing ass, is frightfully unreasonable. For a believer to defend its decision to torture us forever and ever for not liking it is some sort of Stockholm Syndrome that's truly out of my league.

Though maybe if I say his name in a mirror a few times heddle will come along and set me straight on why Big Brother is awright after all.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 10, 2010 2:56 AM

Though maybe if I say his name in a mirror a few times heddle will come along and set me straight on why Big Brother is awright after all.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 10, 2010 3:31 AM

next you'll be critiquing PZ's lack of coverage of the World Cup.

Which is indeed scandalous and shows the typical USamerican cultural elitist tendencies, the ignorance and disinterest of everything "unamerican", that have made the world such a terrible place.
Shame on you Mr Miers.

Posted by: articulett | July 10, 2010 4:25 AM

Olganair: Jerry Coyne just had a column where atheists wrote in what would make them believe in god... http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/what-would-convince-you-that-god-exists/#comment-33238

Theists were invited to comment too, but apparently no amount of evidence will change their minds. They are closed minded.

So what sort of evidence would it take for you to believe in Xenu? Why shouldn't we require that kind of evidence to believe in your invisible friend? I would say the evidence that god doesn't exist is identical to the evidence that Xenu doesn't exist.

Posted by: Marella | July 10, 2010 4:29 AM

"By the way, I just have to ask: is there any empirical/physical evidence that God does exist? (If so, please list an example or two.)"

How about the general state of the planet? Does this LOOK like a world run by an omnipotent and caring god to you? It certainly doesn't to me. Whatever god is in charge of our puny little rock clearly hasn't been paying attention, a quick look around Africa proves that.

It doesn't prove some kind of deistic god doesn't exist but it certainly proves that your silly christian god is a figment of the ancient imagination.

Why don't you do an experiment and pray for a bicycle, see if one shows up.

Off topicish, I have just received my copy of "Jesus, Neither God Nor Man" by Earl Doherty. It's fascinating, why don't you read it and find out where your god really came from?

Posted by: hyperdeath | July 10, 2010 4:35 AM

salgadoce:

...shows me just how much situational/contextual/communicational awareness you lack. Are you autistic?

...but, honestly, you guys come across as insufferable douche-bags more than anything.

salgadoce later on:

...You poindexters are a laugh riot...

...sycophantic wackjobs...

...I don't give a shit what you princesses believe, really. You wanna spend your life growing yeast in a petri dish? Fucking great. Have at it...

salgadoce later on still:

...People can say the ugliest things when hiding behind their keyboards.

I love the smell of self awareness failure in the morning.

What are the odds that he'll be on "The Intersection" later, whining and wailing and whinging about how mean and nasty the Pharyngula commenters are?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 5:22 AM

ooh, thanks for the link to that post by Jerry.

I missed that one.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 10, 2010 6:50 AM

Feynmaniac, you made me chuckle. His comment is akin to someone saying, 'Keep punching, my ability to will away internal hemorrhaging just keeps getting stronger.' Never give yourself false hope while playing the role of punching bag.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 10, 2010 7:33 AM

Are we sure Feynmaniac is not a poe? AFter all Fenyn said out loud== feign so the name is feign maniac as in pretend to be crazy.

Does anyone have any proof he isn't a poe?

Posted by: nina00i | July 10, 2010 7:42 AM

I'm an agnostic and I can't believe the level of willful ignorance militant atheists possess. Its amazing.

PZ should go on the Daily Show so Jon can hand him his ass. People seem to be leaving out the statement Jon made when he said that there is a limit to the capacity of human understanding of the universe. Its true. If we know exactly how things are we could understand it, accept it and most importantly, prove it. We all possess the capacity for ignorance, so until we evolve into somrthing less ignorant you'll have to deal with the fact that EVERYONE possess the capacity for delusion.

What atheists seem to miss the point of is that humanity is inherently irrational and emotionally volatile. Its what makes us human. You can present all the facts and figures you like but you can't force people to believe it, even it is true.

Y'know, unless you guys start a church or something.

DID YOU KNOW: cruel and unusual torture, paedophillia, war, etc. would still exist even if religion didn't?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | July 10, 2010 8:16 AM

Carlie #429

But then, the god of the Bible never does have any respect for people, does he? He likes to drown them all when they don't bow down to him enough, and destroy people in a hail of fire, and turn people into pillars of salt, and dislocate their legs if they fight back, and command them to kill each other, and so on.

This may be a good reason to believe in Yahweh. The guy's a total asshole who'll smite folks just because he can. Just like giving the bully your lunch money so you won't be beaten up, believing in Yahweh keeps you from being smote (unless Yahweh is feeling extra cranky today).

Hey, I think I just reinvented Pascal's Wager.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2010 8:30 AM

DID YOU KNOW: cruel and unusual torture, paedophillia, war, etc. would still exist even if religion didn't?

Did you know that no once claims those to be the exclusive propoerty of the religious, Mr. Scarecrow?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 8:41 AM

Imagine a corollary of a society where literacy rates are lower. There are a group of people who are pro-education who want other people to partake in the benefit of reading. But I hear the objections already, that humans just aren't meant for reading - so few people can do it!

This is where the IS / OUGHT distinction cuts in. The appeals to the irrationality of humanity doesn't mean we should strive to leave it that way. Critical thinking can be taught, even if we weren't evolved for it. There are parallels with other human disciplines that are entirely cultural, reading being one of them. Just because humans can be irrational, it doesn't mean we OUGHT to think that way. Meanwhile, there are good reasons we OUGHT to push rational thinking. If you don't agree then get off the computer, because without rational thinking you wouldn't be here to complain about those who want irrational thinking to go away.

Posted by: MrFire | July 10, 2010 9:13 AM

I'm an agnostic

No, you're a fence-sitting god-of-the-gaps apologist who thinks that lack of knowledge is the same as 50-50 chance of god existing.

People seem to be leaving out the statement Jon made when he said that there is a limit to the capacity of human understanding of the universe.

Therefore 'god is beyond that limit' is just as likely as 'god is not beyond that limit'? Why are you giving the two equal time?

you'll have to deal with the fact that EVERYONE possess the capacity for delusion.

Erm, yes, but religious people have indulged one particular delusion that atheists haven't.

What atheists seem to miss the point of is that humanity is inherently irrational and emotionally volatile.

No, I get that. The point you miss is that it doesn't justify any of our delusions.

You can present all the facts and figures you like but you can't force people to believe it,

NO-ONE here advocates forcing anyone to believe anything. Jesus Christ!

DID YOU KNOW: cruel and unusual torture, paedophillia, war, etc. would still exist even if religion didn't?

Yes, and...?

Religion infallibly ends up providing a system for justifying and enforcing the horrors you have mentioned above.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 9:26 AM

Yes, and...?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 10, 2010 9:47 AM

Sorry for the OT!

Moving on:

I'm an agnostic

Me too. I seem to have a better grasp on what that means though.

Posted by: sqlrob | July 10, 2010 10:16 AM

At Lourdes, you witness (I am told) a large number of abandoned crutches, but no artificial limbs, glass eyes, or toupees.

(I'm stealing that quote, but I don't recall the source... possibly James Randi, but I can't find the reference.)

There's something I remember, I wish I remembered the source that I got it from, I haven't seen it since.

Rate of spontaneous healing at Lourdes: 1/75,000

Rate of spontaneous healing: 1/50,000

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 10, 2010 11:47 AM

AMW (#443)

Robinson, for her part, would not state her own positions outright, leaving Stewart to mouth them for her, which must have made it difficult for him to try and then dispute them.

I don't see why. One can always say "so you believe X, correct?" and then, after the interviewee agrees, go on to criticize X.

~*~*~*~*~*~

Rey Fox (#447)

I hereby propose that we replace the word "agnostic" with "know-nothing".

I propose we keep the word "agnostic" for its proper use and find a term for the militant fence-straddlers that actually defines them.

Posted by: blindfaithiness | July 10, 2010 11:51 AM

I'm sure its been said over and over but they{stewart and guest} tried to compare *faith in the supernatural* to *dark matter* by way of neither being visible.

What!?!?!

Dark matter is becoming detectable and its forces are quantifiable!! The supernatural isn't and can't be detectable by definition.

Posted by: JackC | July 10, 2010 12:09 PM

nigel beat me to it. What he said.

JC

Posted by: Peter H | July 10, 2010 12:15 PM

Rey,

That's fine so long as you also replace "believer" with "proven-to-know-noting."

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 10, 2010 12:45 PM

I propose we keep the word "agnostic" for its proper use and find a term for the militant fence-straddlers that actually defines them.

"Militant fence-straddlers." I like it. I like it a lot. It is a phrase I shall use defensively anytime someone proclaiming in their most strident tone, "Oh, I am an agnostic, and you militant atheists are just as bad as the fundamentalists!"

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawku4h56OW5kxCH6BWuPABmbLsKsspw1GzY | July 10, 2010 1:06 PM

Ms. Robinson,

Prayer requires faith. Science requires calculations and expected results.

When someone can compose a formula for prayer that has to be followed to the letter, and this prayer works without fail, please let a newspaper know so that all scientists can apologise.

If this cannot be done, what is the difference between it and wishful thinking? Scientists do not dream, they hypothesize. (

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 10, 2010 1:16 PM

This thread is so totally reminding me of this.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 10, 2010 1:26 PM

The weak mind seems to not grasp the difference between "vanishing probability" and "proof". The latter word is simpler, therefore demanded in all cases.

Yep. A decent reading of Hume clears that all right up. Popper makes it explicit.

If you can't tell, those are my two favorite philosophers. I would marry them both if I could. I can't, obviously -- Ohio doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.

Posted by: Rick L. | July 10, 2010 1:47 PM

Oh dear. I didn't expect this to go on. To try, probably pointlessly, to make myself clear:
(1) There are some negatives you can't prove, e.g. there is absolutely no mercury in this dirt.
(2) There are some you can.
(3) Allowing "you can't prove a negative" to go unchallenged is bad strategy.
Whether Ol'Greg is calling me an engineer or a philosopher I don't know, but when I figure it out, I'll be outraged.

Posted by: Snoof | July 10, 2010 2:07 PM

I'm an agnostic and I can't believe the level of willful ignorance militant atheists possess.

Remember, kids! Militant Christians blow up abortion clinics. Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings. Militant atheists comment on blogs on the internet.

Posted by: JackC | July 10, 2010 2:19 PM

NigelThgeBold: I actually used Popper last night. Right around the time of post #269 actually. It was unfortunate that the result was a bit unsatisfactory for reasons best explained in that post as well. I can say Popper is one of my favourites though. Being a bit Old School, I still prefer the more oil-based methods.

JC

Posted by: JackC | July 10, 2010 2:29 PM

timmrowledge: Don't need that - we have antimatter here on Earth - and as has already been pointed out, even in some food.

The article linked is not about the mystery of antimatter, but the mystery of why it is where it is. It also notes it was discovered in the 70s.

JC

Posted by: JackC | July 10, 2010 3:05 PM

Greetings and Welcome, mortal.

Wow. That kind of sounds .... weird.

JC

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | July 10, 2010 3:26 PM

Don't need that - we have antimatter here on Earth - and as has already been pointed out, even in some food.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 10, 2010 3:34 PM

Rick L. you are also missing the point that we here at Pharyngula are the ones using the "negatives can't be proven" line on the godbots when they ask us to show their deity doesn't exist. It is also a skeptical tool to make sure the burden of proof is where it needs to be. On those making the positive assertions. They are getting away with nothing, and we are telling the scientific truth.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 10, 2010 5:50 PM

People seem to be leaving out the statement Jon made when he said that there is a limit to the capacity of human understanding of the universe. Its true.

really? True? I had no idea you were omniscient!

The only thing that's true in that statement is that it's based on no evidence whatsoever.

Posted by: JackC | July 10, 2010 6:55 PM

Kel

Thanks to my head cold, I doubt I was as clear as I am usually not.

Definitely a misunderstanding, for sure, but I think the point remains that we don't know what dark matter is. We know it HAS to be there, we measure it and all that, but we can't see it even though there must be a hell of a lot of it - considerably more of it that "real" matter.

It is easier to see how dark matter could be seen to be a "faith" issue to some casual observer who just takes a momentary interest in these things.

It is easier to see what he may have meant (albeit still wrong) if he intended to say dark matter rather than anti-matter, the latter being so totally and completely wrong as to be inexcusable.

yes - wrong still with dark matter, but almost excusable.

Almost. But still not.

BTW: I tried to watch the show - but my browser wigged out and for some reason, I got double-transport, the time bar jumped to the middle and just whizzed along, and it was impossible to watch or hear, so I killed it. I may try again today later to see what he actually said.

JC

Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2010 7:42 PM

This seems like an appropriate place to refer to NonStampCollector's
The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker.

Posted by: Ofinfinitejest | July 10, 2010 7:48 PM

A couple of points prompted by the discussion above.

The position of the atheist is the logically correct one given the universe we find ourselves in, and given the nature of any typical god conception (at least one that has any utility at all in this kind of debate). This was well explained in philosopher N. R. Hanson's essay, "What I Do Not Believe."

If someone posits green rabbits on the planet Mercury one does not suspend judgment on the assertion, given no facts, logic or evidence to support it. One is not "agnostic" about these rabbits, one is convinced of their absence from a connectionist knowledge of reality until shown otherwise. This isn't "hostility" to the GRoM belief, and it isn't an overstepping assumption in any way; the de facto starting point is that strange assertions with Ockham's razor nightmare implications of this sort are not true. The only reason the god concept is not held to this standard is cultural convention of undue deference.

Secondly, and to me more importantly: the people above taking shots at philosophy, generally, are profoundly ignorant (a favorite oxymoron of mine, when I can use it). For most of its history, science was called Natural Philosophy. It still is that, in any kind of practical use. Philosophy is the working part of science, making sense of, and finding utility and meaning in the data and results. Science without philosophy not only does not and cannot exist, if it did it would be like a bunch of numbers with no math or calculations to use on them.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 7:59 PM

I assume you are referring to giving the perception to non-physicists that we know what it is and not that physicists themselves think they know.

Though in every popular treatment I have seen I thought it was pretty clear it is an open question.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 10, 2010 8:20 PM

The problem that I see with regards to a similarity between a god-concept and the use of dark matter to compare as a similarity is of course that one is observable and the other is not.

As we both say - it is still wrong, but it is maybe at least understandable that the casual observer would think this way about it?

Posted by: Escuerd | July 10, 2010 10:30 PM

Snoof @ 466:

Remember, kids! Militant Christians blow up abortion clinics. Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings. Militant atheists comment on blogs on the internet.

But following the logic of one of the more dimwitted posters above, it's this very willingness to kill and die for superstitions that makes them so respectable.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2010 12:57 AM

now do we have a equitable statement from an secular viewpoint?

George Bush's "Roadmap to Peace"?

Posted by: Tim_Danaher | July 11, 2010 5:59 AM

@ tdcourtney (#4) Sorry I'm a bit late to this one...

"When does John Oliver get his own show? A daily half-hour of him arguing with people on the street? I'd watch it.

He already has one (well, half of one, anyway): search for 'The Bugle' podcast on iTunes.

Posted by: ossicle | July 11, 2010 11:17 AM

As Feynmaniac notes, Stewart's father is (was?) a physicist. Stewart has/had a terrible relationship with him. I wouldn't be surprised if he's pretty badly messed up about the whole broad area of "physics."

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 12, 2010 1:10 PM

...500 posts and no accurate answer to the original question:

Name one insight religion has ever given us that could not have been made by secular philosophers, that was also useful and true.

The idea that religion provides unique insight into ANYTHING is pretty well debunked, AFAICT.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn0DzDXhYkoPCJftyNTgHK9Nbw61ovPx3E | December 16, 2011 9:17 PM

I am curious to find out what blog system you're using? I'm having some minor security problems with my latest website and I'd like to find something more safeguarded. Do you have any recommendations?ice machine