This Is Exactly What I'm Talking About

And he is 100% correct.

What is it that the Dawkins/Myer/Moran crowd doesn't understand about religion that negates the positions/opinions they express?

What is there to understand about theology except that it is a great excercise in twisted logic wrapped in a taco-shell of pretty rhetorics? Trying to save face by using big words. If that is nuance...

"you can think whatever the hell you like about religion, but if you don't know what you're talking about (and I've yet to meet a Dawkinsian rationalist who does), you'd do well to keep your mouth shut about it."

Sorry Chris, Dr. Meyers is right.

And BTW - the above quote is a two-edged sword. I would adapt your quote, and change the parenthetical expression to read: (and I've yet to meet a religionist who does)...

So who enlightened you? Was it a burning bush? Lore learned at your Mommy's knee? 3,00 year old parchment remnants written by bronze-age sheep-herders? You see the point I am sure. If you *can* take an objective view of a very subjective topic, you have to admit that religion is all just a little bit silly. And who's version is the correct one? Even sillier, IMO I know. Opinions are like noses, everybodys got one, so meh, my $.02, and worth every penny of it. But please don't dis my fellow religion- dissers. We JUST MIGHT be Tthe Annointed Ones, sent by The One to make the world safe.

Ah! But that's the beauty of living in America - freedom of expression [translation = the rosy view of a new citizen]
Cheers

Dr. Myers is certainly free to tout his ignorance of religion and theology on his blog, of course, but I'm free to call him on it.

Indeed you are. Anytime you'd like to get started, go ahead.

Simple contradiction, though, does not make an argument.

Simple contradiction, though, does not make an argument.

{montypython}
Yes, it does.
{/montypython}

Well, I checked out the list that you linked to above, hoping that I would see something new, some writer that was unknown to the average university graduate. Are you trying to suggest that Dawkins, and Myers, et.al. are unfamiliar with those philosophers? Come on. You just revealed that there's nothing that they're missing.

While I don't like Myers' attitude, his statement is fair -- religious practice is often shallow and overly fervent. How many American Christians have read Thomas Aquinas? I'd wager not many. Myers' crime isn't in calling out the believers, it's in feeling as strongly about their beliefs as they do.

I'm all for science, but when deriding simple-minded religious types, let us not forget that a great number of scientists believe in their guts in the existence of an external, independent reality which is the same for any observer. Not far from believing in angels or the devil and his arrow-pointed tail...

"...but if you don't know what you're talking about (and I've yet to meet a Dawkinsian rationalist who does), you'd do well to keep your mouth shut about it."

But how is it that we get to know anything that we talk about? Through rational (and often scientific) inquiry...and we all know how well religious experience lends itself to that exercise.

The only reasonable theist I've ever heard of is slacktivist, and it's not like I don't have exposure. I've got to say PZ is right on this one; slacktivist is the exception that proves the rule.

Honestly, you'd be hard-pressed to find a believer who's had exposure to the apologia on that "Top Twenty" list. Most Christians don't even known about Pascal's Wager (though they probably at some point came to it independently anyway), much less St. Anselm's ontological argument or the works of Augustine or Aquinas. Most of them haven't even read C.S. Lewis' apologia, though they might be familiar with his fiction. Hell, most Christians haven't even read the Bible, aside from maybe hearing a few selected quotations in church.

The fact is, apologia has absolutely no connection with the real practice of religion and belief. It exists in its own world, disconnected from the real world -- both the world of science and logic as well as the lives of the believers. I've never heard a good argument for why anybody should take it seriously. If somebody has one, I'd love to hear it.

And lest you think I don't have experience, I was raised a fundamentalist Baptist. Later in life, I attended a Foursquare church with my dad. I went to Baptist grade school and an Episcopal high school. In high school, I took a required class on Biblical scholarship.

In short, I was surrounded by theists for most of my life. None of them ever mentioned Aquinas.

"if you don't know what you're talking about (and I've yet to meet a Dawkinsian rationalist who does), you'd do well to keep your mouth shut about it."

Dude, calm down and stop saying stuff like this. I'm just going to keep calling you out over it. Last time you said people "didn't know jack" about religion, we had to pester you over and over again for specifics, and finally all you could give us was a link to another blog where your friend pokes a couple of holes in Dawkins' book. There are probably just as many errors in Roger Penrose's new book, but I think you'll admit that he knows a little more than jack about physics. And I'm a Dawkinsian rationalist, and I do know about religion, and I don't need to keep my mouth shut. You, on the other hand, don't seem to know what you're talking about when you talk about what other people know or don't know, and you'd do very well to calm down and shut up about it. I agree with you that some people on the hard core atheist side are being difficult. Don't be the same way by saying that Dawkinsians don't know about religion, which seems to be your mantra. It's not true. Deal with it!

We have a saying down here in bibleland: "The hit dog howls."

PZ states it pretty well. In the US (so far), a person is free to believe anything he wants, however stupid. But people are also free to criticize that belief, however harshly they want. Respect is not mandated, and, in any event, must be earned. You are demanding that PZ respect religious belief but at the same time you are not willing to respect his beliefs.

And, by the way, an argument in support of a stupid belief, however pretty the argument may be, is still an argument supporting a stupid belief.

I have to disagree, Chris. I spent 18 years growing up in the American Christian religion (many flavors--pick one and I've probably been there, including Southern Baptist, Episcopalian, and speaking-in-tongues-and-dancing-in-the-aisles Pentecostal) and another ten years afterward studying everything outside of the Protestant and Catholic movements. After nearly 30 years of delving into faiths of all kinds while continuing to pursue my love of science and math, I agree wholeheartedly with PZ. Why must anyone refrain from calling out sacred beliefs in mythologies? If someone states a belief in leprechauns or fairies, are we to refrain from negative comments? And what makes one god different from another? Do we need to show respect for numerology and astrology as well? Whether it is Vishnu or Allah or Jesus or the Buddha or who-/whatever, blind obedience to any religion is at best brainwashed ignorance--and something responsible for the vast majority of violent tragedies to befall humankind throughout all of history. I guess I'm confused on why it's wrong to point out the fallacies and obliviousness of such peoples and beliefs.

Despite his radical fundamentalism for the cause of science and against religion, something that makes him as much a believer as they are, his points are accurate and his fervency well placed. It is better to be a fanatic for truth than a zealot for lies. I tire of superstitious voices being the only vehement shouts heard in a sea of thought. The time is long past for skepticism and critical thinking to rise above the sheer witlessness of religion. If we happen to know the real truth, what makes it wrong to say so with the same spittle-flinging passion and enthusiasm churches have used for millennia?

I suppose what I see is someone taking PZ's statements personally, someone who believes in a god or gods and very much dislikes being called to the carpet on it. Perhaps that impression is wrong; perhaps nothing more complicated than a personal rivalry is to blame. In either case, the only real truth to be found is that the approach of Dawkins and PZ et al. results not in enlightenment of the seething mass of spoon-fed religionists, but instead it generally makes them angry and turns them further toward their reclusive and respective mythologies. But that still fails to justify any opinion that states they are wrong for pointing out the unending list of problems with religion. Besides, something comes to mind when I see rational people use irrational tirades against creeds . . . What's good for the goose, I think, is how it begins, and I wonder how the faithful feel when they receive the same bludgeoning they've been handing out for far too long.

So I think we're still all waiting...where is the nuanced and sophisticated religion?

Whenever I ask this question, all I get is indignation, and maybe some handwaving at some convoluted bit of sophistry, like Anselm's ontological argument, but nothing at all persuasive, and nothing that deals with the reality. Theology has nothing to do with religion, near as I can tell -- it's a collection of post hoc rationalizations for the superstitions that people are brought up with. Reality is the assembly of ancient, ossified rituals and traditions (the Catholic church) or the codification and celebration of ignorance (just about every evangelical church in the country) or sheer soul-purging emotionalism (charismatics of various stripes). If one wanted to argue that religion was primal, that it was incorporated into the skeleton of culture and impossible to remove, that it was burned into the personalities of people raised in it, I'd probably agree with you...but this constant deferral to some intangible, unreachable ideal of a sophisticated faith? Baloney. It's part of the advancement of rationalism that the religious feel a need to pretend to a nuance they lack.

I'll second the mention of Slacktivist, and raise you a Spong.

There are great theists out there, but I think what happens when you look at them closely is that you discover that their religion is the framework through which they express humanist ideals...and it's the humanism, not the religion, that makes them appealing.

Joshua, I think you need to check your links...

The only reasonable theist I've ever heard of is slacktivist, and it's not like I don't have exposure. I've got to say PZ is right on this one; slacktivist is the exception that proves the rule.

The link you gave was to my own blog, not the correct link to this other person.

Although it's flattering to know I'm on your mind.

Joshua wrote: "The fact is, apologia has absolutely no connection with the real practice of religion and belief. It exists in its own world, disconnected from the real world -- both the world of science and logic as well as the lives of the believers. I've never heard a good argument for why anybody should take it seriously"

Megadittos on that one. One can also point out just how horrible the bulk of apologetics are. If you think Pascal's wager and the assertion-laden babbling of CS Lewis are challenging arguments, you need to find another hobby. That these otherwise very intelligent men had to twist themselves into irrational pretzels trying to defend religion is one of the strongest points against it. They've got a lot of company. Look at Chris here, clearly a smart guy, and his post on religion can be summarized as:

"PZ thinks religous people are all dumb. Are NOT!! Nyah, Nyah!"

And how incredibly presmptuous of you to assume what we atheists have and have not read. Why not just ask me if I've ever read the Bible, like your knuckledragging pious brethren do? I've read much of your list, and found none of it compelling in the slightest. Much of it is nothing but word salad, and would be an embarrasment if presented on any other topic.

The most honest comment about religion I ever heard from a believer came from Martin Gardner, who said something along the lines of, and I paraphase from memory, "I, by a completely illogical leap of faith, believe there is a supreme being with whom my consciousness will spend eternity." To that I cannot argue, believe what you will, and hell, you might just be right. Frankly, I hope you are. Just don't try to tell me you got there logically, and for the sake of all the gods, large and small, keep it out of the science classes.

CS Lewis! CS Lewis! Please. I suppose if you want shallow, vapid arguments, you can read him, but serious? How many of the "religious" in this country have read any of those on the list? How many have read their own bible? How many get their theology from the pulpit, or the 700 club, or the Left Behind series? Wasn't there a survey taken recently that says most americans are biblically illiterate? What does that say about those individuals - should they be silent since they don't know their own religion?

Like many atheists I know, since I started looking into my beliefs, I have read more religious and philosophical works than I ever did as a christian.

Perhaps the list should include thinks like the Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad-Gita, the Dhammapada, the works of Sophocles, or Marcus Aurelius, DT Suzuki, Alan Watts, George Smith, Raymond Smullyan, Carl Sagan, Paul Kurtz - the list goes on and on. Why condemn yourself to knowledge of one small religious and philosophical tradition when the world is filled with them? To push my own writing, my bibliography page has a few books that might be of interest (some good, some bad, some horrible) even if I haven't updated it.

Re - Pascal's Wager. I'd disagree that it is relatively unknown. I've encountered it personally and have heard it on numerous freethought radio/podcasts from callers and guests, and I've heard it many times online. People may be unaware of its name or origin, but the argument is used my a lot of theists I've encountered (it may be one of the most popular in my experience, since it relies on fear - "what if you're wrong! You'll burn in hell!").

"Despite [PZ's] radical fundamentalism for the cause of science and against religion, something that makes him as much a believer as they are..."

Right, except for all those pesky facts, and that little detal about contingency of belief.

Put another way, put PZ alongside the average fundamentalist Christian and present to both of them concrete, undeniable evidence that one of their cherished views was incorrect. Will their reactions be the same? Will both, or neither, revise their views? We both know the answer. That's why this attempt to equate fervant support for science with the irrational rantings of fundamentalists is such an exercise in sophmoric equivocation.

Or as Hume might have put it, there is nothing wrong with strength of opinion when the evidence warrents it. It's when the evidence is lacking or contrary to one's confidently held views that we have the potential for a problem (cue Bush in Iraq).

I would venture a guess that the more people read of and about religion, the more likely they are to question the validity and reasonableness of religious belief - any religious belief. I suspect that in this case, familiarity will breed contempt. That's one reason I would wholeheartedly endorse the teaching of an unbiased comparative religion course in all public schools. You can bet the fundamentalist christians would blow their fuses at that one.

We're getting to the bottom of the matter. Someone in the above comments states (dead seriously!!):

"If we happen to know the *real* truth, what makes it wrong to say so with the same spittle-flinging passion and enthusiasm churches have used for millennia?"

I'll have to put this bluntly. The problem with the religion bashers around here is not that they don't know their religion (which I agree with Chris they mostly don't, as they merrily collapse the highly heterogeneous category of "religious people", among other blunders), but they don't know their epistemology. That's where the nuance you're asking for is. People studying theology at a high level are thinking at the same problem level as the guys who study modern philosophy. Religion bashers come in different varieties, but some are (epistemologically) surprisingly close to the object of their contempt (hate?). Also, let's remember the ridiculous beliefs (scientism, among others) held by many (otherwise very clever) scientists.

To the guy who wrote what I quote above, I recommend (beg?) that you check out this nice paper:

"REALITY: The Search for Objectivity or the Quest for a Compelling Argument" H. R. Maturana, The Irish Journal of Psychology Vol. 9 (1988), no. 1, pp. 25-82.

It has been kindly put online here: http://www.enolagaia.com/M88Reality.html

The link you gave was to my own blog, not the correct link to this other person.
Although it's flattering to know I'm on your mind.

How weird. That just happened to be in my clipboard at the time.

Slacktivist, of course, is here.

A quote from the paper I just mentioned:

"Whenever we want to compel somebody else to do something according to our wishes, and we cannot or do not want to use brutal force, we offer what we claim is an objective rational argument. [...] Indeed, we say that whoever does not yield to reason, that is, whoever does not yield to our rational arguments, is arbitrary, illogical or absurd, and we implicitly claim that we have a privileged access to the reality that makes our arguments objectively valid. Moreover, we also implicitly or explicitly claim that it is this privileged access to the real that allows us to make our rational arguments. However, is this attitude about reason and the rational rationally valid? Can we in fact claim that it is its connection with reality that gives reason the compelling power that we claim it has or should have? [...] Now, and in order to answer these questions, let us consider the operational foundations of rationality." ...

An analysis of cognition from an operational, biological point of view follows. Worth checking out.

Chris, I'm with those who think that PZ is on target with this one. I've read lots of theology, and there's nothing to it. It's simply not a field in which one can become "expert", or even learn new stuff by reading more (very much unlike developmental biology or even cognitive science). Some theologians are fun to read, because they write gracefully, or because they bring some wit to the old tired arguments. But believe me, the arguments are old and tired. When it comes to the existence of a god, there are only about half a dozen, and Dawkins disposes of those quite nicely.

Now, when it comes to the nature of God, there's a lot more variation, and that's where it gets positively entertaining at times. But the very fact of such wide variance, and the laboriousness with which even the graceful and witty theologians attempt to wrestle with God's misanthropy, His paranoia, His inconsistency, and His frequent deafness, argues powerfully for the delusory nature of the Entity Himself.

Richard

"That's why this attempt to equate fervant support for science with the irrational rantings of fundamentalists is such an exercise in sophmoric equivocation."

MarkP: That was hardly my point at all, and perhaps 'belief' was the wrong word--I should have used fundamentalism or evangelicalism or even radicalism, all of which more accurately describe my meaning than the one I used. For that linguistic faux pas, allow me to apologize and clarify. I meant rabid quarreling and brutish name-calling and other forms of uncivilized discussion. Yet I'm not pointing fingers at PZ for I'm as guilty of such as he and Dawkins are, and from my perspective, it wells up from a very personal experience from which it attains primal strength and vicious savagery. I am an atheist, after all, and a gay one no less, and I was raised in the church (well, many churches, but Christianity to be generically precise). My loathing of faith is subjective, intimate, and heartfelt. Knowing first-hand what can be found on both sides of this philosophical fence, my extremism gushes from decades of forced grazing in religion's fields. Perhaps I was questioning those who share my intensity without a comparable level of comprehension. Knowing one is correct does not necessarily justify zealous unpleasantness toward those who are wrong. Or so I think.

And Hume was wrong. Radicalism seldom accomplishes what its followers intend, and that truth covers both fact [PZ et al.] and fiction [religion]. If one wishes to convince another of invalid logic or lack of reason, one usually does not do so by way of visceral and dogged attacks. Nevertheless, so is the case on both sides of the debate, and so it will be until followers learn to think and apply critical analysis instead of blindly following that which they know so little about yet accept as absolute truth, a degree of ignorance most often attributed to childhood indoctrination--otherwise known as brainwashing. I enjoy reading PZ's diatribes about religion--and Dawkins and others--but I also accept they reach a concurring audience that shares their view already--or something close to it. Having both sides yelling at each other creates a stalemate. A few from this side will move to that side, and a few from that side will move to this side, but overall, a balance is created, one engendered by boorish invective spewed into a no-man's land betwixt the two. Does that make the truthful yelling equal to the dishonest preaching? Of course not. But it does validate what I said--extremism rarely converts anyone.

And JJ: Yes, I stated it "dead seriously!!" and stick by it. Oh, and I read that paper in 1990. I was not debating the science of debate. Unlike your assumption, I know a great many religions, most of them first-hand, and I rather enjoy the bashing. I've been in the churches where they're laying on hands, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, dancing 'in the spirit,' and otherwise wielding faith like a club meant to squash all dissent. Hearing similar polemics from the opposite side proves why it's popular and why I said what I said. Comprehension and context aside, I need not explain why fire should be met with fire, and why such action stokes followers. Although the confusion was undoubtedly my doing, hopefully I've now given you some clarification.

Flippant hand waving at the ontological argument or Pascal's wager is exactly what I would expect. It says, "I haven't really engaged these things on a deep level, but I'm dismissing them anyway." If I were to say, "The illogic of evolutionary reasoning from the facts given is obvious," and stop at that, what would you say? Likely, that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

It's true, as I've said on this blog in posts about religious cognition, that theology and everyday religion are two different things. But when the question is whether people are rational/sane for believing something, and you dismiss all belief and practice as insane and irrational, you've dismissed serious religion (which people tend to adhere to when they think about it, but which they deviate from in systematic ways when they are just going about their everyday business) as well as fundamentalism. And it's not surprising that every example everyone gives is of fundamentalism, because it's exactly what I and others are criticizing you for.

But let's get down to brass tacks. It's quite clear that PZ is committed to a belief set, and that the religious are as well. PZ's belief set (I'm using PZ as an example, but obviously, his view is not uncommon around here) revolves largely around the dismissal of religion. One way of justifying that belief, which, as I've said, is likely a result of personal biases rather than facts or arguments, is to make the other side look ridiculous. To do that, PZ repeatedly gives examples of fundamentalist evangelicals. Why not some examples from Catholic or Coptic behavior? How 'bout discussing Vedic hinduism or mainstream Shi'a Islam? (And dismissing things like, say, transubstatiation as insane, don't count, because they're more examples of not taking the ideas and arguments seriously).

How 'bout then actually looking at the psychological and cultural reality of religion? The of how religion not only works within , but is almost inherent in, in human cognitive and perceptual makeup (think agent detectors, schematicity, and "Descarte's Baby"). One could argue that in many ways, it's more rational to be religious, because of the benefits (social connections, altruism, commitment, etc.).

All I'm saying is that you should take religion seriously, and to do that, you have to know about religion. I've been reading PZ's blog, and his commenters, for at least two years now, and I've yet to see anything more than glib dismissals and wise cracks about religion. He and the other Dawkinsians (including, in every context in which I've read or heard him, Dawkins) don't engage religion on a serious level. If, after you do so, you still think it's insane and irrational, at least you'll have something more than "the loopy people at the coffee shop" anecdotes to back it up.

Chris, you continue to beg the question.

And, I repeat, no matter how elegant the argument for a falsehood, the falsehood remains false.

Jason: "Nevertheless, so is the case on both sides of the debate, and so it will be until followers learn to think and apply critical analysis instead of blindly following that which they know so little about yet accept as absolute truth."

I see no evidence that this is anywhere near equal on either side of the debate. Where is the evidence that atheists "blindly follow" as fundamentalists do? Where is the evidence supporting your claim that "Having both sides yelling at each other creates a stalemate"? These seem unwarrented assumptions, an example of Compulsive Centrist Disorder if I ever saw one. Just because the creationists and the scientists have been arguing for a long time doesn't mean each are equally right.

Put another way, it doesn't take two stubborn fools to have a long argument. It only takes one.

i call takfir^takfir upon you!

Which question am I begging? That religion should be taken seriously? I'm not going to get into a long theological discussion, because it's not something I'm an expert in (though, having been raised Catholic, I've had enough Catholic theology drummed into me to know the classics pretty well, and I know some contemporary stuff, like Malcolm). That's work you're going to have to do yourself, and so far, I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence that he or she has done that work. And since my point is this: to criticize something, you've got to do the work to get to know it, beyond its most grotesque and simplistic forms, I can't figure out what question I'm begging. Is it simply whether religion is worth taking seriously? If that's the question, then the answer can only be arrived at after learning a bit about religion. Again, change the question around. "Is biology worth taking seriously?" If you don't know about biology -- its history, its applications, and its arguments, how can you answer that question? If I said, "Well, the previous editor of Environmental Biology of Fishes is a quack, and I've spent enough time around him to know that, therefore all biology isn't worth taking seriously," you'd think I was dense. Since that's what you're all doing with religion, then yes, I think you're dense.

Chris said: Flippant hand waving at the ontological argument or Pascal's wager is exactly what I would expect. It says, "I haven't really engaged these things on a deep level, but I'm dismissing them anyway."

Again you make unwarrented assumptions Chris. Many of us out here are not hand waving at these sad arguments. We have taken them apart, bit by little bit, and have found them wanting in a serious way. Many of us did this fairly early in life, and expect (obviously wrongly) that others who also claim to have taken the issue of religion seriously have done so as well.

We dismiss these things, not for lack of seriousness, but rather as a result of the seriousness with which we take the subject. Those are beginners arguments, the sorts of things that people only think have value until they take the issue seriously and study them. They have as much value as the creationist canard against evolution using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If you don't understand this, then get thine own arse to study, and lay off the unwarranted insults for those of us who already have merely because we reached a conclusion you'd rather we didn't. There's a darn good reason for it.

Chris,

Your essential claim is that some kind of "serious" religion exists. Despite being immersed directly in religion (having grown up Christian) as well as indirectly exposed to a very religious culture, I've never seen any evidence that religion is in any way worthy of respect. You're going to have to explain what you mean by "taking religion seriously", because if actually being religious, as I was, doesn't fit the bill, then I don't know what does.

Furthermore, whatever utilitarian purpose religion serves can be better handled by a value system not based on superstition, which is one of the fundamental points atheists and secular humanists have made for the entire history of the movement, and they have written many, many philosophical and popular works describing this. Just for one example, there's Michael Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil, and there must be hundreds of examples on a higher intellectual plane (Since, after all, that's in the category of the popular works.). In light of the arguments that superstition and religion aren't necessary for the supposed adaptive benefits they give, why should religion and superstition still be taken seriously? Especially when they so often come at odds with science and, yes, basic human decency.

MarkP: I accept the stubborn fool label if so meant. I've never been one to deny the various cubbyholes into which I've been placed.

As for my statement, look at PZ's blog and his commenters. Can you find a reason to apply the word "followers"? Better yet, see Chris' comment above where he says, "I've been reading PZ's blog, and his commenters, for at least two years now, and I've yet to see anything more than glib dismissals and wise cracks about religion." That is precisely my point. Followers exist where there is belief (even in science). I was not addressing truth; I was addressing the radical elements in the discussion. When a debate consists of shrieking harpies declaring the invalidity of whatever opponents are faced, little is heard and even less is understood. This is nothing more than high school debate class information. I'm afraid I lack the peer-reviewed papers referencing that premise. Blame my teachers for not providing that information.

Ultimately, followers, whether they be atheists, theists, deists, pagans, or other flavors, are just that: followers. Do read PZ's commenters for a plethora of examples. You see ample quantities of "Hear, hear!" and the atheist version of "Amen!" and plenty of empty agreement. The same is true from church pews, mosque carpets, and anyplace else you find those willing to follow.

Again, I was not attempting to detail equality in the argument. I was merely drawing the parallel between those who yell from opposite sides of the fence. Who listens? Who learns? Who converts? Such vituperation generally thrills those who already support the speaker; it rarely converts those who don't. As one who stood and listened to it from preachers aplenty, I'm speaking from experience. I'm also speaking as an atheist with a litany of friends who are Christian and Muslim. We bellow at each other in cordial debate, yet we all walk away unchanged. Perhaps what I've seen in that regard is unusual. I doubt it, but perhaps . . .

And again, I never said each side of the debate was right--especially that they were equally right, something I do not believe and would never propose.

Like I said, if you take it seriously and still conclude that religion is irrational or insane, that's fine with me. Given the facts, people will come to different conclusions.

But as I've said, I've yet to see any evidence that the Dawkinsians, including Dawkins and Myers, have actually considered the "facts" of religion. When, in the comments to this post, Myers flippantly dismisses those two arguments (which are hardly "beginners" arguments; they're quite complex -- Pascal's wager, for example, says a lot more than "It's a better bet to believe because if you don't, the eternal consequences could be much worse than the finite consequences of believing in this life"). I've yet to see Dawkins do anything more than that. Myers doesn't seem to address the psychological, historical, and cultural realities of religion, either, and when Dawkins does so, it's generally in an attempt to do one of two things: 1.) give a story of the origin of religious impulses to undermine them or 2.) say we don't need religion to get its effects. Neither is an argument against religion (and the second one is probably contrary to the facts).

Chris is right; the rest of you haterz are wrong. ;) PZ, the point you simply aren't getting is that you're an ass (symbolically pissing on things you don't agree with being just one piece of evidence for that). Great swaths of religious traditions are concerned with teaching people how not to be asses. It's not surprising that you don't get it. There's nothing scientific (much less noble or courageous) in being an ass. If you want to point out that people raised in various religious traditions throughout history have often been complete asses (indeed, often about their very religions), go ahead, but it doesn't change anything; it turns out that it's quite hard not to be an ass, which is why it shouldn't be surprising that we humans are still working on it.

You have this point right under your nose and then miss it when you claim that the only thing appealing about sensible theists is "their humanism, not their religion." It's convenient, isn't it, to define the problem out of existence? But there's nothing scientific or rational about it. It doesn't require cognitive nuance to get the difference, but a nuance in character, which is evidently and sorely lacking in your case.

Look, if you find Stephen Colbert funny, consider the bits he's done in the past few shows about how Jesus was definitely a Republican. What makes the comedy in that? Is it Colbert's mockery of arcane theology or Judeo-Christian cosmology? No. It's the (to us fans) outrageously obvious mismatch between the moral teachings of that guy and the war-mongering, xenophobia, and rapacious greed that people have tried to hang on his name (a situation that one can only consider deeply, deeply sad). That's the thing people here are trying to protect, and the thing that no amount of pissing in people's creationist cornflakes is going to fix.

In sum, you're sharing in the moral delusions of the worst of the "godbags" when you behave as though "religion" were primarily some kind of theory of _physical_ reality instead of a theory about who we are as moral beings.

Jason, you're exactly right, and your point supports my larger point about religion. These people aren't adopting positions because of rational arguments, because it's quite clear that, in the vast majority of cases, atheists and theists aren't going to be convinced by any argument, no matter how rational, from the other side (at least not for very long -- there are famous examples of atheists finding theological arguments convincing, for a moment). They're doing what people always do when reasoning: making decisions based on pre-existing biases and representations, and then checking to see what they've got in working memory and building post hoc stories to justify their decisions. Scientists argue against religion with science, because that's what they've got, no matter how irrelevant science is to the metaphysical claims of religion. Theists argue against science with metaphysics, because that's what they've got, no matter how irrelevant their metaphysics is to the empirical claims of science.

My point, in this post and the previous ones, is simply that they should at least try to educate themselves, so that when they come up with your post hoc justifications, and their "They're all insane" rationalizations, they've got some data to back it up. And if they have that data, but are still just yelling, "They're all insane," without presenting it, I'm going to continue to act as though they don't know what the hell you're talking about, because they've given me no reason to believe otherwise.

I think it's safe to say that Myers, Dawkins, Moran, and many others have shown their ignorance beyond the point of question, but I can be convinced otherwise if they would just show their work. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

"He and the other Dawkinsians (including, in every context in which I've read or heard him, Dawkins) don't engage religion on a serious level. If, after you do so, you still think it's insane and irrational, at least you'll have something more than "the loopy people at the coffee shop" anecdotes to back it up."

Stop it! I'm a Dawkinsian who knows a lot about religion. You criticize PZ for focusing on extremists, but you're doing the same thing here: looking at some extreme cases, and then rashly concluding that Dawkinsians don't know about religion. It's quite possible for well-informed people to disagree with you. Look, you should read Dawkins' book instead of referring to your buddy Siris all the time. Why do you take his word for it? Reminds me of a religious kid I know who refuses to look into evolution. He knows it's wrong, because his really "smart" cousin has read Darwin and informed him that Darwin was wrong, with a few examples of Darwin's mistakes. I know about religion, and I know about evolution, and I've read Dawkins and think he makes a very sound argument against religion for the most part. If you have any intellectual honesty you will stop throwing the blanket impugnments around. It's insulting.

Grigory, I don't mean to lump non-extremist Dawkinsians with exteremist Dawkinsians. I pretty much coined the term (I'm sure other people use it, but I'm using it in a specific way) to refer to the extremists, because Dawkins is an extremist ("Religion is child abuse" is about as extreme as it gets). Perhaps I should just go back to calling them fundamentalist atheists.

By the way, I'm not just referring to Brandon about Dawkins' book. When I refer to what Dawkins says, I'm referring to articles, interviews, and talks he's given that I've read and heard. I couldn't care less about what he says in the book, unless it's radically different from what he's said everywhere else. It's because I've heard enough from him that I have no desire to read his book.

Which is it? Am I picking on extremists, or "loopy people at the coffee shop"?

Those "loopy people" are quite ordinary folks, representative of the majority of religious people in this country, and some of them I like quite well. The point is that their religious beliefs are simply nutty, and you haven't provided any counter-argument to that. Telling me Pascal's Wager is somehow secretly profound (not that I believe that) does not say a thing about a whole lot of people in this country who are willing to believe Noah literally loaded a boat with representatives of every genus on the planet.

Oh, I think the everyday beliefs of people are actually pretty non-loopy. They're minimally counterfactual, and that works really well both practically and cognitively. You might check out Scott Atran's work on religion, from which he based his own remarks.

But when you talk about the truth of Noah's ark (an example you gave in the quoted comment), you're inevitably talking about fundamentalists, and fundamentalism is a.) historically new, and b.) pretty extreme, theologically.

"How 'bout then actually looking at the psychological and cultural reality of religion? The of how religion not only works within , but is almost inherent in, in human cognitive and perceptual makeup (think agent detectors, schematicity, and "Descarte's Baby"). One could argue that in many ways, it's more rational to be religious, because of the benefits (social connections, altruism, commitment, etc.)."

This is how you are begging the question. You state various opinions about religion to justify your opinions abour religion, but you still do not state any of the nuances about a belief in god. If there any specific aspect that we are to consider other than belief in a god? Or is your belief not about god but instead about ethical (moral as you might say) behavior? Or is it about some objective benefit of religion, if there be any?

Simply stating that there are some transcendant truths in religion does not further the debate. Let's hear some of them.

So you're "not going to get into a long theological discussion, because it's not something I'm an expert in," but you're enough of an expert to determine who is and isn't enough of an expert to diss religion? I wonder how much expertise one must have to rightfully go Churchill. Do you have to study each and every denomination of christianity before deciding? And by study, you can't mean read one book. You'd have to really devote years just to understanding the nuances of methodism. Maybe in a lifetime you could gather enough knowledge to dismiss the majority of the protestant denominations. You can never become a Churchill atheist because you simply won't have the time. Forget learning about vedic this and shia that, what about native american or aboriginal religions or the greek pantheon for that matter? Do you really know enough about the greek pantheon to dismiss the idea that Zeus might smack you with a thunderbolt? Geez, I really wanted to ask the question seriously, but it turned snarky. Could you maybe just subtract out the snark mentally for me? It's blurry where it actually starts.

Who has time to become so educated about religion that they can rebut every theological crampon? Why isn't the onus on the religious to rebut the atheists? You can always write a long and complicated counter-argument to any given theological or atheistic point. I presume many atheists have rebutted Pascal's wager in the past. Do we need to look these up and then declare that you can't diss atheism until you've rebutted those? I'm sure there are plenty of theologians who have done just that. Back and forth. back and forth. who has time for it? Aren't there any shortcuts? Any way to generalize? Some bright line between atheism and religion that we can do a single or just a few tests on and see if we can all agree? One way might be for the atheists and religious to make predictions about real world events and see which one comes out right more often. I dunno. Maybe religion doesn't make predictions until afterlife.

One thing to consider, Chris, is the historical role of religion in the development of humanity. Whether considering the Crusades or the Inquisition or Hitler, not to mention a troubling majority of our species' many battles against ourselves, much of what religion has offered has been divisive, cruel, murderous, counter-progressive, and generally ill advised. There is no lack of evidence to suggest religion has played a role of indifference, if not outright harm. Even recent studies have concluded that such mythologies offer nothing more than apathetic roles in society. The more faith a nation has the more crime and suffering it endures. There is no irrefutable conclusion stating religion is evil, but history provides enough reference to infer that much based on what we see in modern times. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with science or the battle over evolution, both cases where superstition bashes truth repeatedly in an attempt to quell knowledgeable dissent. Critical thinking is religion's enemy, and that makes religion the enemy of humanity. I hate to ride the fence on this one, but again, let me say you are right in that PZ's general tone accomplishes little, but PZ is equally right to state the truth of religion's uselessness, no matter how venomous he might be when discussing it. (Also, I'll reiterate that I enjoy that fiercely ruthless tongue of his. I rather enjoy seeing someone take faith to task even though I know it accomplishes little if anything.)

Furthermore, you said: "One could argue that in many ways, it's more rational to be religious, because of the benefits (social connections, altruism, commitment, etc.)." That inference is troubling. In fact, it's disingenuous and insulting. What of the anti-gay movement striving to make people like me less than human, working to strip away our rights, and putting us in line for the ovens? I need not draw the parallels to the Nazi "Final Solution," right? What of the suffering homeless, poor, infirm, sick, and hungry in America alone who battle against religious indifference? So much energy and time is poured into fighting for a chance to legislate morality and control the nation, and yet so many suffer and die. Commitment? Would that be divorce that is so readily supported while at the same time gay marriage is fought against tooth and nail? In addition, infidelity and child abuse are provably more common in households of faith than in those without (see Japan, see Carolyn Holderread Heggen's Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches, see the Catholic Church, see divorce rates, etc.). Even the previous study I linked to shows clearly that nations with greater populations of religious people suffer from greater amounts of crime. Dare I touch social connections in that context? And I don't just mean on the surface of the claim, which is probably false in modern times.

Religion teaches a morality of subjugation. Whether it be based on religious faith, gender, sexual orientation, practices, food eaten, clothes worn, or whatever you can find, there are few religions that do not teach intolerance, hate, violence, and overall viciousness against anyone who does not fall in line with the perceived majority (Buddhism being the exception, but it's more a philosophy than a religion IMHO). Along those lines, why not support a bit of the same medicine on the side of truth. I hate to be childish, but if they can dish it out . . .

One could argue that in many ways, it's more rational to be religious, because of the benefits (social connections, altruism, commitment, etc.)."

Mark, I feel that it is necessary to point this out. Now, I see that you have only listed three benefits to being religious (and I'm sure if I asked, you could provide me with more), but even considering these three benefits, I can't help but ask how these really have any valid tie to religion. These benefits can easily be achieved without religion. In addition, making that statement suggests that religious people inherently benefit from these items. I know you didn't come out and shout that, but it comes through (to me at least).

Basically, PZ says religionoids are loopy. You say hey, there are some goods to religion. I say yes, those goods may exist within religious people, but religion is not required as part of the equation to obtain them.

Is this really so damned complicated?

The only reason Dawkins gives a damn about religion is because of all those "creationism vs. evolution" debates.

If you want to think about stuff like what would really happen if religion suddenly disappeared (hmm, would we suddenly enter a golden age of reason) or about how well many evolutionists really understand the theory of evolution (I remember Chris had some interesting posts about that a while back), Dawkins is not your man. To the extent you care about the nature of religious experience, or about how humans come to "know" about the world, Dawkins might not be very helpful -- in fact, he might be a distraction.

I guess it all depends on what you're interested in, hm? No one is debating the merits of anything in these comment threads, it's all about the appropriate amount of focus and posturing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticisms_of_Pascal.27s_wa…
Dawkins effectively uses heading 2.4 there when he makes his "Atheists just take it one god further" argument.
Are there rebuttals to the criticisms? Sure. Are there criticisms to the rebuttals? sure.
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ vs. http://infidels.org/
Go waste a few hours.

But when you talk about the truth of Noah's ark (an example you gave in the quoted comment), you're inevitably talking about fundamentalists, and fundamentalism is a.) historically new, and b.) pretty extreme, theologically.

Then fundamentalists are the majority of Christians, because most religious people I've ever heard of accept stories like Noah's Ark without even considering the possibility that they might be metaphorical and not literal. When pressed, they might waver and relent, but left to their devices they'll just accept it and move on. That's why folks like PZ and Dawkins think it's so important to press them on beliefs like that.

I think you're trying too hard to make religion fit your preconceived notion as something basically reasonable that suffers from a parasitic infliction of extremists. That's partly true, but you underestimate the degree to which the extreme views overpower the mainstream ones. Frankly, the theologians are stodgy and irrelevant, while the fundamentalists are leaders of a popular movement that affects what huge numbers of people believe and think and do. That's why your admonishment to "seriously engage" nuanced, sophisticated theology before confronting religion on the whole is so utterly risible. You may as well suggest that we defer to Queen Elizabeth in a discussion about chav culture.

The other thing you don't consider is why folks like myself brought up Pascal's Wager and the ontological argument when you suggested that we seriously engage nuaced, sophisticated theology. It's for the same reason that chemistry books start off discussing atomic theory: if you don't get that, then the rest is unintelligible. So it is with theology, which relies on the existence of God in the same way that chemistry relies on atomic theory. There's no point discussing the nature of God if we haven't even established that any such thing exists. The fact that people like me and PZ discuss evidence for the existence of God (specifically, the lack of it) is precisely because we're trying to seriously engage with religion and theology, so we need to examine the fundamental basis of it first. Two major claims are at the heart of Abrahamic religion: 1) God exists, 2) the Bible is at least partly inspired by God. If we haven't established 1 and we have pretty good reason to believe that 2 is false, then nothing else is worth looking at. It's a dead topic. You seem to assume that PZ and Dawkins haven't even made it that far, which frankly is completely unfair to them.

Amnesic, I'm not an expert, this much is true. But I am at least somewhat conversant, and if I wanted to talk about the naivete of theology, I could give actual examples, and make real points, rather than just dismissing theology out of hand.

With the psychology of religion, I'm about as close to being an expert as one can come without the risk of being invited to places to talk about religion (I've blogged about religious cognition pretty extensively, so you can just go to my archives if you want some evidence that I know what I'm talking about), but I've yet to see anything resembling a serious discussion of the psychology of religion from any Dawkinsian but Dennett (whom I don't really think of as a Dawkinsian). Certainly not from Myers or any of his commenters. In fact, what I have seen (from Myers and Dawkins) is highly inconsistent with research on religion.

Jason, as I said in the atheism of suspicion post, I'm no fan of religion, largely on moral grounds.

Joshua, talk to some Catholics.

Eld, you may have no problem achieving them without religion, and that may be true of many of the people here (though to be fair to religion, you all grew up in a society that was largely built through and around religion), but the evidence is against you if you think that's true for most people.

Chris, I'm not assuming that the case I suggested (that social connections, altruism, etc. without religion) is the case for everyone. That, my friend, was a hasty generalization on your part. However, I insist that this is possible for anybody. Religion for social benefits is simply the quitters way out to synthesized peace, harmony, salvation, etc. It is the technical school for college drop-outs. It is the easy alternative for those with weak moral fortitude. It is the shoe in that says take this religion pill and you will be worthy again.

Great discussion. I just linked to it.

I admit, that was a bit harsh. That is how I feel, but I don't have a problem with people practicing it, much like PZ.

As did I.

Joshua, talk to some Catholics.

Sure thing, I'll just go and ask these guys.

On that page that Joshua linked to, one threader explains Noah's ability to fit all the animals on the Ark because he had the original animal, and from these originals there came all the different species. Now, I could TOTALLY seem stupid here, because maybe I don't understand what I'm talking about, but isn't that evolution, or no?

Catholic Answers forum guy says:

Ryan, what extreme liberals say notwithstanding, the Magisterium teaches that everything that is affirmed in Scripture is affirmed by the Holy Spirit Himself. Everything means everything. Since the Holy Spirit can neither deceive nor be deceived, this means that everything that is affirmed in Scripture is without error -- regardless of the subject matter.

For Pete's sake! And nobody even comments on this, it's just accepted as a given.

Same for this, from a thread about updated Biblical translations:

Such revising could be done WITHOUT inclusive language or liberal heresy.

One could argue that a forum like Catholic Answers necessarily self-selects for somewhat more fervent believers, but nobody even contests these extremist statements. (Seriously, the h-word?) "Liberal heresy" (which is to say recognising that maybe God should be labeled with something other than a masculine pronoun) is a minor part of that discussion, but it is brought up multiple times and never critically.

They have over 40k registered users, too. That's a fairly big chunk, so while there will inevitably be self-selection for the extreme believers, there should be some kind of sizeable moderate demographic represented, as well. Unless there's some explicit rule banning those who fail to reject "liberal heresy", then the moderates must simply be withholding comment... which is one of the criticisms Dawkinsians level against moderate theists.

Look, I'm not citing this as proof that all Catholics are evil extremists. It's really poor proof, especially without a greater context. I'm simply trying to cast doubt on your rosy view of mainstream theism by showing examples of a forum that is not explicitly extremist in any way where extremist views nonetheless dominate and go unchallenged by the moderates due to some twisted sense of religious solidarity.

Eld, I didn't mean to imply that you think that, just that if you do, you're wrong (covering the bases). I disagree that it's for quitters, though. It's an incredibly effective way of guiding behavior in a way that allows people to live together in relative harmony. Of course, as the post on Prosthesis notes, it's also easy to use the social network provided by religion to spread and perpetuate whatever ethos you want.

Joshua, you'll notice a lot of the people commenting on that thread explicitly say that the story of Noah is not literal, or even that it can't possibly be literal. While that may not be the official position of the Catholic church, in my experience, it's pretty common among Catholics (it's what I was taught, even, as a Catholic youth).

Chris, I read through and only saw one reference to Noah being non-literal, and somebody else immediately shrugged it off, but I'm going to drop the whole topic as a non sequitur anyway. It always was a non sequitur, so I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

" It's an incredibly effective way of guiding behavior in a way that allows people to live together in relative harmony."

First treating Pascal's famous logical-fallacy-masquerading-as-serious-philosophy Wager with some degree of respect, now this? Has the real Chris secretly been replaced by Folger's Crystals or something, or was this always there, just unnoticed behind the awesome psych posts?

(That whole 'oh, so you say you're all moral and shit, but you're really just leaching off of societal religiousity' argument is also rather special - not that it's wrong, just that it's so trivial. Everything we do is like that. It's like calling what I see on my computer screen a "desktop".

Dan,

To whom was that directed?

Regardless, you claim that the oh, so you say you're all moral and shit, but you're really just leaching off of societal religiousity argument is trivial, but then you stop, offering no support, evidence, examples, or anything. I appreciate that you said that it's not wrong, but honestly, I have no idea how or why you made that conclusion. You then follow that with Everything we do is like that. It's like calling what I see on my computer screen a "desktop". Everything we do is like that? Is like what? And what is everything?

Finally, I request that you reach your hand down to those intellectually below you (namely me), and pull me up to your level to help me understand what on Earth that last simile meant.

The examples of bad behavior of certain religious groups are given not to help explain the case against god, but to show how "risky" it can be for a society to maintain the idea of religion.

The argument against monotheism is certainly not solely based on some absurd behavior of some religious groups.

But when you talk about the truth of Noah's ark (an example you gave in the quoted comment), you're inevitably talking about fundamentalists, and fundamentalism is a.) historically new, and b.) pretty extreme, theologically.

You know, you tell me to get serious about religion, and then you say something like that...No. Biblical literalism in the sense of saying Noah's Ark was real is the traditional Christianity, the one that's been around for centuries. Go down to your local church (not the UUs!) and talk to people, and you'll find lots who will tell you that they have no problem believing the events described in the bible are historically accurate.I think you've got a serious disconnect here. Religion is not this rarefied fantasy that you're trying to insert into the argument.

Regardless, you claim that the oh, so you say you're all moral and shit, but you're really just leaching off of societal religiousity argument is trivial, but then you stop, offering no support, evidence, examples, or anything.

Probably because it is such a silly, indefensible line of claptrap that he thought he didn't have to bother. Take you question, for example:

Everything we do is like that? Is like what? And what is everything?

I think his example was pretty clear. There are far more norms than religion that are defined by society, and morals are separate from it as many societies nominally share the same religion but differ in what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior by their individual members (contrast the examples of the overwhelmingly Christian US with predominantly Christian societies in Africa). To use it as an argument against atheism or for religion is rather silly, because the fact that our morals are largely determined by our social upbringing tells us nothing about whether they are valid, or whether they are needed.

That whole 'oh, so you say you're all moral and shit, but you're really just leaching off of societal religiousity' argument is also rather special - not that it's wrong, just that it's so trivial.

Wait, hang on. I don't recall Chris or anybody else actually saying this in this thread. Yes, I'll grant that is has been said, and it is trivial, but it's not really germane to the current discussion.

Religion is not this rarefied fantasy that you're trying to insert into the argument.

Exactly the point I've been making for a while now. Chris and many other SBers try to shoehorn their own abstract ideas on religion into the broader landscape as if anyone aside from ivory-tower theologians even talked about them. And furthermore, he's engaging in the rather Lakoffian tactic of saying that "subconscious cognitive thing-a-ma-gig X causes you to believe Y, therefore I don't have to deal with Y." It's a pretty cheap justification for intellectual laziness.

While it may have been simple for you guys, it wasn't as clear to me, so I asked. Secondly, I was simply pushing Dan to provide some evidence or at least some clarification for me, which I didn't think was there.

While it may have been simple for you guys, it wasn't as clear to me, so I asked. Secondly, I was simply pushing Dan to provide some evidence or at least some clarification for me, which I didn't think was there.

Well, I'm sorry if my tone was a bit harsh, but I don't think what you asked for required evidence or examples. As a logical argument, it was pretty flawed in it's own right.

Chris:

It's an incredibly effective way of guiding behavior...

...it's also easy to use the social network provided by religion to spread and perpetuate whatever ethos you want.

Yes, I edited the first one, but the main statement that I pulled out is what's important. These phrases simply scream brainwashing to me. Anybody else?

"Wait, hang on. I don't recall Chris or anybody else actually saying this in this thread. "

Chris @7:12 pm: "(though to be fair to religion, you all grew up in a society that was largely built through and around religion)" - which I took to be referencing this argument, though presented more as a possible source of error.

And I agree with Eld - my comment was lacking both clarity and evidence. Also - and less a matter of reaching my hand down than bothering to pull my thoughts together and climb up - in that last simile, I was going for an example of skeumorphism, but that's both a fairly bad example and not really relevant to the argument.

And since I'm falling asleep at the keyboard, that's about all I can contribute 'til morning
. . .

Well, except to note that fundamentalism and (some degree) of biblical literalism aren't identical (although one includes the other). Flood geology originally was mainstream geo, remember, into the early 19th century . . .

But PZ, your reply suffers from the same response it has all along.

1.) Biblical literalism in its current form is new, and there's no historically accurate way to argue that it isn't.
2.) Even if some degree of literalism is most common among the volk, that doesn't permit you to dismiss all religion by dismissing literalism/fundamentalism. It still leaves a large, if not majority segment of religion that you haven't even touched.

Eld, it is a lot like brainwashing, but it's a form of brainwashing called culture, and you're as much a "victim" of it as any religious person. It's just led you, and me for that matter, somewhere else.

Analyzing the content of religion as the content of one's study of religion isn't very scientific itself. It's a science versus theology dichotomy that's really orthogonal to the matter at hand. This technique says little about the relation of religions to humans. It's a very Freudian approach really. It's not what anthropologists do. One never hears an anthropologist refering to the subjects of his/her study as 'idiots.' That would never get published in an objective journal. Nor would the lack of patterns or systematic thinking in Myers' comments ("nonsense" is not a very specific pattern, or even an accurate hypothesis, as not all nonsense is religiously viable content).

Criticizing the content of religion? Hmmm, it's like criticizing Bob Dylan for his meteorology ("Blowin' in the Wind", "Hurricane," "Before the Flood," "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall"). It would only be an argument against diehard Dylan fundies. Won't make it on the daily weather report, I'm afraid.

Further, can it not be said that science depends upon irrationality? Science, to me at least, is the process of moving the boundary of the known. A sphere of rationality expanding into the unknown. Yet, if one puts a boundary around irrationality -- the place where the mind freed of fully grounded, 100% evidence-based thought goes -- won't science too come to an end? How boring.

"It's not what anthropologists do."

And it's interesting to note that both Scott Atran (from the Sandwalk post linked above, referencing this) and Melvin Konner, apparently two cold-water voices (as in throwing on) re: the Beyond Belief conference, are both anthropologists, while many of the more . . . enthusiastic folks are non-social science people . . .

It is patently absurd to argue that biblical literalism is historically new.

All the pretty theological arguments are like trying to figure out what color god's eyes are, and they bear virtually zero relationship to religion. Most here have already acknowledged that religion as practiced is not the same as theology. I offer a question: what percentage of believers in god were convinced by some kind of rational argument? I suspect the percentage is vanishingly small. Most people who believe do so because their parents did or in a smaller percentage of cases, because they grew up in a society in which religion was an accepted part of the culture. In my area, you go to church because that's what everyone else does. Even people who are converted by evangelicals are converted by emotional arguements like, "God loves you and if you believe in him, he will solve your problems on earth and you will go to heaven when you die."

All theology is rationalization of a belief one holds for non-rational reasons.

what the hell, into the fray...

If the topic is "religion," then any specific examples--Catholics, say, or coffee-drinking Minnesotans, or cargo cultists, or Greek pantheonists, or snake-flinging charismatics, or whatever--just won't get to the heart of the matter.
Which is (as many have tried to point out above) that belief in the true existence of (a) supernatural entity/ies is just...simply...not...warranted by empirical evidence. Period. Pascal and Augustine and Anselm and their ilk can construct as many word-edifices as big and long as they want to, but the fact remains: if one adopts an empirical approach to building a world-view, there is no place in that world for Zeus, YHWH, or the ID folks's "Disembodied Telic Entity."
Sorry, all. Belief in the truth of existence of any invisible sky-daddy or -mommy is, in fact, insane. I do not doubt for a moment that there are many finely nuanced types of insanity out there...but still.

"if you don't know what you're talking about (and I've yet to meet a Dawkinsian rationalist who does), you'd do well to keep your mouth shut about it."

Many people have already posted that Dawkins, Myers, etc. all seem to be remarkably well read on the subject, more so than your average Joe Theist, and rightly so IMHO. For my part I studied Philosophy of Religion in depth at Edinburgh Uni during my Philosophy degree. During this time I spent a year sharing a flat with a theology student and even she agreed that theology is essentially as important as studying the wingspans of fairies or the average speed of unicorns. You can debate all you want but without a grounding in evidence it's all so much hot air.

I see no reason to respect the sort of thinking associated with belief in the actual existence of gods, no more so than I'd respect the beliefs of someone who genuinely and truly believed every HP Lovecraft book he'd read. That doesn't mean I don't respect his right to hold those beliefs but as soon as he makes them public then I'll make public with the ridicule. My reaction goes tenfold if that person is trying to influence government policy or anything else that affects me based on his utterly senseless delusions.

Do I stand alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury in opposing a replacement for the UK's Trident programme? Absolutely, I'll take allies where I can find them. Do I think he's delusional for believing in god(s)? Absolutely and given the chance I'd call him out on it.

Still don't understand why there's such a debate raging on this...

Sorry, all. Belief in the truth of existence of any invisible sky-daddy or -mommy is, in fact, insane. I do not doubt for a moment that there are many finely nuanced types of insanity out there...but still.

CCP, your argument is "patently" obselete. We're not talking about how insane people are if they believe in God. I might suggest at least reading the contents of this blog before adding nothing to the conversation.

Finally, your language is childish and pretentious. Even if your post were pertinent to the conversation, who do you intend ally with with blazingly polarized words such as those?

> All theology is rationalization of a belief one holds for non-rational reasons.

But there's nothing irrational about holding irrational thoughts, is there? Cognitive scientists keep bumping into perfectly explainable reasons for holding irrational thoughts in our heads all the time.

Find me a pure realist (a realist all the way down), and I'll show you a very depressed person. Find me a happy person (even a happy religion basher) and I'll show you someone who has at least some suspension of belief, some sources of meaning they accept at face value.

SK,

I'm not sure I agree with you that there is nothing irrational about holding irrational thoughts. That's a bit of a thinker. However, I agree that people are free to hold irrational thoughts, regardless of the actual rationality of said action. However, you have come to a hasty generalization in your second paragraph. Simply because you are a depressed realist and you prospect that happy people have suspended belief doesn't even come close to concluding that this is the case for all people. The sample is too small to support this inductive generalization. Counterexample: I too am a realist, yet I don't think I could be happier, more content, and more satisfied with my life if I were God himself!

Secondly, SK, not all people seek that quality of happiness that comes with suspended belief. In fact many find that quality of happiness to be false, empty, and unsatisfying.

Would you care to re-engineer your argument?

Hey guys, slightly related note. Someone earlier (or maybe in another blog) said that much like chemistry relies on the principle of atomic theory to work, religion relies on the principle of God to work. The only difference is that atomic theory has been proven, established, demonstrated, while the theory of God has not. I initially agree with this, but it seems like there might be a flaw to this argument that I don't see. I'm sure someone in this theological think tank would be able to come up with one. Any takers want to help me out?

Dr. Myers is certainly free to tout his ignorance of religion and theology on his blog, of course, but I'm free to call him on it.

Which definition of free is that? Is that the same as I am free to buy a luxury automobile that would put the Popemobile to shame, even though I don't have the money to actually pay for it? Can you actually demonstrate that Myers is ignorant? No. Therefore you're being free to do so doesn't amount to anything.

Most of them haven't even read C.S. Lewis' apologia, though they might be familiar with his fiction.

As though there's a distinction...

Flippant hand waving at the ontological argument or Pascal's wager is exactly what I would expect. It says, "I haven't really engaged these things on a deep level, but I'm dismissing them anyway."

If you take those arguments seriously, why not start threads about them? Prepare to have your lunch eaten.

One way of justifying that belief, which, as I've said, is likely a result of personal biases rather than facts or arguments, is to make the other side look ridiculous. To do that, PZ repeatedly gives examples of fundamentalist evangelicals.

And yet, you acknowledge that these people actually exist and that their beliefs actually are ridiculous.

How 'bout then actually looking at the psychological and cultural reality of religion?

How about not, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth claims of theology, either the populist kind or the so-phisticated philosophical kind?

I think it's safe to say that Myers, Dawkins, Moran, and many others have shown their ignorance beyond the point of question, but I can be convinced otherwise if they would just show their work.

Hypocrisy is so ugly. If you claim there is serious substance to theology, shouldn't you be able to demonstrate that?

Let me put it this way. My view is that you can think whatever the hell you like about religion, but if you don't know what you're talking about (and I've yet to meet a Dawkinsian rationalist who does), you'd do well to keep your mouth shut about it.

That's a remarkably bold claim. Are you seriously contending that people such as PZ, when discussing religion, have no idea as to what religion is, or how it is practiced? You have got to be joking!

When I've heard atheists talking about nuanced relion, I have to wonder what on Earth they were smoking when they came up with the concept. What we are talking about is how religion is actually practiced. And a lot of people who are now atheist were once theist, and have practiced religion with people who are religious, met an awful lot of religious people who practice religion both the same as theirs and different. The religion - as it is actually practiced - is precisely the religion being attacked.

Even if some degree of literalism is most common among the volk, that doesn't permit you to dismiss all religion by dismissing literalism/fundamentalism. It still leaves a large, if not majority segment of religion that you haven't even touched.

But it's not even a minority segment of religious practice: it's a non-existent segment. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate a religious practice that falls in to this category that is actively distinguishable from atheism.

Buddhism, particularly the form practiced in the Americas and Europe, has no belief in the supernatural, and yet is a religion. I am an atheist, a materialist, and a religious Buddhist. I'd really prefer to see people attacking the notion of supernatural rather than inappropriately generalizing and going after religion. This is one way in which the M&M position lacks nuance.

Chris,

2.) Even if some degree of literalism is most common among the volk, that doesn't permit you to dismiss all religion by dismissing literalism/fundamentalism. It still leaves a large, if not majority segment of religion that you haven't even touched.

Even if PZ is equating all religion with fundamentalism, it's still all based on superstition and mythology, is it not? What's wrong with calling it what it is?

If we were talking about paganism (Greek Mythology, for instance), would you still be arguing so strongly against PZ? Fundamentally, Greek and Judeo-Christian Mythologies aren't that different, afterall. The same goes for all of the religions in the world. And in each and every culture, superstition and mythology have their places, but the learned scholars among us recognize these things for what they are - beliefs, not facts.

True, there are a great many moderate Christians out there who recognize the discrepancy between belief and fact, and that's fine. In many ways that was my view while growing up. But I would argue that such people aren't theists at all - they might not even be deists.

Eld> not all people seek that quality of happiness that comes with suspended belief.

My claim is that happiness rests on some suspension of belief (though there are both varieties and standardizations of suspensions). Just like going to a horror flick requires a particular kind of suspension of belief - you know, that the heroine would walk up the creepy stairs by herself (art genres by definition are a standardization of this suspension). We can't enjoy the movie if we never enter the movie's scope, its stack.

That some people do not perceive their own suspended beliefs and believe they are following the true, 'authentic' and universal path to happiness is not my fault. They couldn't enjoy it if they didn't believe it.

Eld> Counterexample: I too am a realist, yet I don't think I could be happier,

Hmm, what is the meaning of your life? Why do you get up in the morning? To feed yourself and take a poop? To provide for your kids? To make love to your spouse? Do any of those mean anything besides scratching an itch?

As I said, I think, any sufficiently deep realist would realize they have to keep digging, it's turtles all the way down. If the digging itself is your happiness, that's cool (but then that there is value in digging is the suspended belief). If your goal isn't happiness at all, that's fine with me too. But I doubt the majority of a society's members would claim that.

Stupid greeks, fucking insane.

The meaning of my life is to devote myself to my inner passions and satisfy them. Do I have a belief? Is it suspended?

Eld: I'd think it was pretty clear that I was, in my childish and pretentious way, allying myself with Myers et al. To wit: if (as I believe) theism is just pretend (now THAT"S childish language), then the many intricate nuances of theology are meaningless verbal wankery.
It's pretty tough to add something new to a millenia-old "conversation" anyway.

The Unabomber had inner passions, too. How do you know your inner passions are correct to satisfy? How do you know they are satisfiable? How did the passions become selected? How do you measure progress? What measurement are you using? This measurement is outside the specific passions itself, no? It must be otherwise it can't be used. Etc. This is too easy.

SK, check it out. My one goal is life is to be able to lay down on my death bed and say "there is nothing else I wish to have done." We are granted one life to live on this Earth (as far as we know, at least). Knowing this, why would I EVER spend my time doing something that I don't enjoy? We go through life thinking that there are all these rules about what is right, what is wrong, what is correct, what is incorrect, but when you zoom out and look at the world from a universal (maybe Godly perspective), you realize that there are no rules. If it is your life's aspiration to be the Unabomber, then there is nothing that should stop you from doing so. Yes, this kind of philosophy may immediately spark criticism, suggesting that the world would turn into an animalistic wasteland (which could be), but to asnwer your questions, there is no such thing as "correct," I don't know that they are satisfiable (but I want to try anyway, just like religionoids), the passions simply arose in me based on my life experiences and preferences, I don't need to measure progress (my goal is to try, not necessarily to succeed), I am using a rectal thermometer for measurement.

Noah and his nuances aside, all Christians belive that Jesus was born of a virgin, was the human incarnation of a triumverate God, was executed to fulfill a prophecy and save mankind from Original Sin, arose from the Dead after a long weekend, and ascended to Heaven.

That is absolutely the most important tenet of Christianity, and all Christians, whether Fundamentalist Baptist, Methodist, or Evangelical believe it. The Catholics and Presbyterians who were murdering each other in Northern Ireland for the past four hundred years both believed it with equal, uh, vehemence. The Korean exchange students who prostelytize on my campus believe it as strongly as the Jews For Jesus who hand out pamphlets in the commons.

Every last Christian believes it - yourself included.

And it is entirely delusional. It was an invented story made up by the Apostles, just like the Revelations were made up entirely by John of Patmos. (Yes, I'm quite familiar with the nuances of Scripture. The knowledge only emboldens my position.)

I fail to understand the need to politely examine a theology that has at its base an entirely false and demonstrably invented premise.

I also contend that the reason we atheists are so vitriolic in our denial of the Christian myth and not, say, Shinto is the fact that Christians feel the need to either convert or condemn everyone else, where Shintoists don't. Nor do they actively inject their beliefs into science and government. The way Catholics and Presbyterians and Mormons and Evangelicals do, in their respectively nuanced ways.

Cheers-

Couldn't agree with you more, J. About the last part, that is. I just skimmed the rest.

From the list you linked: David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Praise the FSM, I finished reading that book just this morning. The three participants in the dialogue, Demea, Cleanthes and Philo, considered atheism too extreme a position to even consider properly. Whether Hume actually agreed with this, or whether he felt it necessary to say that in order to keep his head attached to his shoulders is of course open to question. This dialogue does a fine job of making mincemeat of the cosmological (first cause) argument and the ontological (necessary existence) argument. It also cast plenty of skepticism on the argument from design argument. Here's Philo from page 118 in my edition (Penguin Classic, 1990, introductory notes by Martin Bell):

In short, nature seems to have formed an exact calculation of the necessities of her creatures; and like a rigid master, has afforded them little more powers and endowments, than what are strictly sufficient to supply those necessities. An indulgent parent would have bestowed a large stock, in order to guard against accidents, and secure the happiness and welfare of the creature, in the most unfortunate concurrence of circumstances...

If you add Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection to the knowledge base, any remaining confidence in the argument from design sinks like a stone. Just prior to this, on page 117, Philo has said:

So well adjusted are the organs and capacities of all animals, and so well fitted to their preservation, that, as far as history or tradition reaches, there appears not to be any single species, which has yet been extinguished in the universe.

This was obviously written before paleontology took off as a field of scientific study, and obviously holds no water at all in the light of findings in that field since.

Hume will not save your theistic arguments. In his recent book, Dawkins highlights natural selection as a fatal counter-argument to the argument from design. Since he has the advantage of more than two centuries of scientific progress (Hume certainly can't be faulted for having been born too soon), Dawkins has a better understanding of the relevant arguments in this case, counter to your unbacked assertions.

Buddhism, particularly the form practiced in the Americas and Europe, has no belief in the supernatural, and yet is a religion.

That statement, without qualification, is meaningless. If you're discussing Buddhism then you're discussing karma, re-birth and so-forth, and you're discussing the supernatural. If you're not, then I'd be curious as to how you're discussing Buddhism - in the religious sense - as anything other than ritualised philosophy.

My view is that you can think whatever the hell you like about religion, but if you don't know what you're talking about (and I've yet to meet a Dawkinsian rationalist who does), you'd do well to keep your mouth shut about it.

I know a fair amount about Christianity but I don't know much about the other religions. Can you name me some expects who are qualified to open their mouths? Do you have to be an expert in atheism to criticize atheists?

P.S. I don't intend to keep my mouth shut.
P.P.S. I'm not a "Dawkinsian rationalist." I'm an atheist who happens to value rationalism over superstition.

Eld> I am using a rectal thermometer for measurement.

A true scientist at work. Always measuring. Good to see.

baldywilson,

If you're discussing Buddhism then you're discussing karma, re-birth and so-forth, and you're discussing the supernatural.

Why insist on literal readings of ancient (and modern) texts? The Buddhist teachers I know don't do that. Metaphor is a powerful and common means of communication.

If you're not, then I'd be curious as to how you're discussing Buddhism - in the religious sense - as anything other than ritualised philosophy.

I don't know why you try to force this choice, nor do I understand what "ritualised philosophy" might mean. Why does religion entail the supernatural?

I would never attempt to summarize Buddhism in a blog comment. There are some quidelines (or precepts) that Buddhist subscribe to having to do with not harming others or yourself and treating the world with care. For me those are religious as is taking time to sit quietly. It's not at all like doing philosophy.

There are some quidelines (or precepts) that [strike]Buddhist[/strike] nice people subscribe to having to do with not harming others or yourself and treating the world with care.

For me those [strike]are religious[/strike] really have nothing to do with the Buddhist religion specifically, nor does taking time to sit quietly. It's not at all like [strike]doing philosophy[/strike] religion.

And Chris: I don't know what to say, but you're off your rocker. PZ, in all his boastfull jack-ass glory, is pretty much right on target here. And don't try to tell me I don't know about that something special that makes up a real, nuanced, religion, cuz I don't think they were holding something back for those 30 years of formal and informal catholic and protestant teaching and upbringing. People believe in it because they haven't thought about it. And people don't think about it because (a) they just don't have the time or motivation or brainpower or whatever, (b) it is strongly frowned upon by society and family, (c) whenever they do think about they start to realize it is all bogus, but then feel lost not having someone dictating what they should think and believe, or (d) get scared of the consequences of no religion, not realizing that morality and compassion and kindness don't flow from religion.

The alternative to not thinking about it is thinking about it, realizing that it is all nonsense, and either (a) accepting that it is all nonsense or (b) coming up with complicated, implausible, contradictory, confusing, and you might even say "nuanced" arguments for how it somehow miraculously makes some kind of sense if you can squint just so.

There are some quidelines (or precepts) that [strike]Buddhist[/strike] nice people subscribe to having to do with not harming others or yourself and treating the world with care.

The re-write doesn't work, kev. Buddhism is not about being nice. In a sentence, it's about being free of one's cultural conditioning -- but of course that's just the most gross sort of summary. This is an example of the "lack of nuance" (or intellectual hubris) applied to understanding religion.

I don't see how your "30 years of formal and informal catholic and protestant teaching and upbringing" enlighten your understanding of Buddhism.

When I look at the list of recommended apologia, I see works I'm amply familiar with and view to be egregiously poorly argued. As far as I'm concerned, you could've listed a series of ID books to contradict the notion that creationist arguments lack nuance or sophistication. In one sense the material therein will have a veneer of sophistication, but the content of the arguments are still poor enough that it misses the oft intended meaning of the term. This causes me to wonder what's so off about PZ Myers comments, beyond the offensive tone he takes?

Chris--

I honor you for trying with these folks. I'm amazed by the flippant "all of this theology means nothing" blowing off I see here, coming from people who exhibit zero evidence of having any real familiarity with theological arguments and reasoning. I see lots of assertions: "these tired arguments were refuted long ago", etc, but no evidence whatsoever that these folks have actually wrestled with them. I happen to be re-reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis at present. It's an amazing work. Maybe it's wrong, but if it is, I surely couldn't count on finding out why from these people. Honestly, I think if half of these folks really gave it a close and open minded reading, they wouldn't be atheists anymore. At least not militant contemptuous atheists, at any rate. And that's probably why they won't give it a close reading. But, hey, what do I know.