At Ken Miller's request

To me this sort of thing is very sad. It's all too reminiscent of a toddler being unable to give up his pacifier or his security blanket.

You've had commenters here in the past who have defended the notion that since miracles suspend the natural laws of the universe, and therefore that science and theology (or whatever you want to call it) are "perfectly" compatible. The stuff which is obviously explainable is handled by science, and God takes the rest. It's like the God of the gaps argument, writ large.

Not that I'm defending it or anything. Just hardly new.

Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense.

Indeed. On the other hand, when I've suggested various compelling 'miracles' to folks like David Heddle, he invoked another requirement: miracles can't be "ridiculous."

(head explodes merely remembering that conversation)

It's better than the insistance that certain aspects of sceintific query (such as origin of life, humanity,etc.) are out of bounds as is the case pushed by the creationists and that whole ID lot.

Give me Miller over Wells or Behe any day. The world has to be converted one little heresy at a time!

We would never have uncovered the laws describing those phenomena if we had accepted divine providence as their 'cause'.

Miller wishes to deny that rational inquiry can be used to examine his cherished beliefs, yet he also wishes to claim that those beliefs are about real entities and events. He ignores this incompatibility, and in the process he works to create and spread a false understanding of what science is.

I won't even discuss the foolishness of trying to use quantum mechanics to permit forces 'external' to the universe to interact with it; even the most ignorant student of the sciences knows about the Law of Large Numbers.

He is an advocate of anti-science. He's not as honest about it as the IDists, that's all.

As I have asked before, why doesn't Ken Miller explain the Trinity to us?

Ken Miller stepped in a little bit of doo-doo and he should simply wipe his feet off and try not to track the shit on the atheists' floors. My bigger beef with Miller is his tendency to publically express his "respect" for the professional creationism peddlers (out of some notion of civility). Maybe he's stopped doing that in the last year or two, I don't know.

I have noted in the past that some atheists who post here and elsewhere are somewhat hypocritical in their approach to other subjects. For example, take the Ivory Billed Woodpecker? Does any atheist here want to argue that there is any evidence supporting the existence of this bird? Or that the Cornell Lab of Ornithology didn't pull a fast one on the scientific community?

You may want to check out this website before answering:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

"Miracles, no miracles, you can read into it what you want. This is an objection I have to this entire section of the book--in theology, anything goes."
"That's a very handy excuse--they don't need to make sense!"

You are treating this the wrong way: as if these were arguments meant to convince non-believers. If they were, then maybe saying "oh, how convienient: and supremely unconvincing" might make sense.

But on the contrary: they are exactly the opposite: they are arguments meant to convince believers that they do not need to give up belief in god or miracles in order to accept that science is a valid methodology. Remember: Miller is arguing against people that not only get science wrong, but also have a very rigid theology that claims to be the only valid theology. What he's arguing is that there are theologies which do not explicitly contradict science.

From your perspective, of COURSE that all looks convienient: it avoids contradictions with science at all costs. But remember: that's EXACTLY what Miller is explicitly trying to do! His whole appeal rests on the idea that there is a viable theology that fits scientific findings.

To be fair, I think most believers don't find his theology very compelling, and he's in serious trouble with some Catholics in that Catholicism is committed to the idea that reason and evidence must be acknowledged to demonstrate the existence of God.

There's no independently-verifiable and convincing evidence that the bird exists. To say that there is NO evidence for it confuses this possibly spurious orinthological case with, say, theology.

I'll apologize for claiming that miracles don't happen when even one supposed miracle manages to live up to Hume's maxim.

If God wants to impress me, he can start by giving Pope Rat's-ass the finger and wiping Africa clean of HIV. That would be a miracle.

No, Dustin, that would be an unexplained event that we could not account for. Miracles, by definition, cannot happen.

The clause "make sense" and the clause "make scientific sense" are NOT equivilent. Scientific thought is a subset of all rational thought which is iteself a subset of all human thought. It is perfectly possible to state a view of miracles which is rational (i.e. makes sense) but which is unscientific because it cannot be empirically falsified.

"The stuff which is obviously explainable is handled by science, and God takes the rest. It's like the God of the gaps argument, writ large."

The very big difference is that Miller, unlike the ID folks, is not claiming that his arguements should be accepted as science or published in journals.

There's no independently-verifiable and convincing evidence that the bird exists.

Glad to see there's at least one other rational person around here besides me.

I mean, a Science paper stating the contrary was published with much hoopla and the paper has not been retracted.

Is that not odd?

"No, Dustin, that would be an unexplained event that we could not account for. Miracles, by definition, cannot happen."

You seem incredibly eager to assume a burden of proof that you 1) have no hope of meeting and that 2) you had no reason or obligation to assume in the first place. What's the POINT of saying such things, considering that?

I think Beyonce is a miracle.

You seem incredibly eager to assume a burden of proof that you 1) have no hope of meeting and that 2) you had no reason or obligation to assume in the first place. What's the POINT of saying such things, considering that?

You are either 1) profoundly ignorant, 2) a fool, or 3) a combination of the previous two.

When confronted with phenomena that its current understanding of nature does not permit, science expands its understanding. No real phenomena are ever considered to be 'outside' or 'beyond' nature, because we have no grounds to set arbitrary boundaries or restrictions on nature. We determine what is included in our concept by making observations, not a priori rules.

Thus, science not only does not acknowledge the possibility of 'miracles', it denies their existence completely.

What is the point of exposing your lack of philosophical sophistication like that?

Miller: "Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense."

Myers: "That's a very handy excuse--they don't need to make sense!"

Myers' objection to Miller depends on the assumption that the only kind of sense available to us is "scientific sense" (whatever that is). But that doesn't look right to me.

Mozart's music makes sense to me. Mahler does not; I simply don't have the ear for Mahler. Maybe that means I'm emotionally crippled, I don't know. But when I say that Mozart's music does make sense to me, and Mahler's does not, it seems clear that I'm not using "sense" to mean "scientific sense." I'm not making the sort of claim that's intended a candidate for empirical verification and analysis.

(Nevertheless, a fMRI study on listener's brains as they listen to different kinds of music or to different composers would be fascinating.)

"Unkown" is clearly not enough to qualify as a miracle. A miracle strictly CANNOT make scientific sense. If not, it is not a clear cut out miracle. Resurrection of a badly mistreated corpse, walking on water, that is just straight out incompatible with what we know about science. That's what would make them clearly miraculous. No?

"When confronted with phenomena that its current understanding of nature does not permit, science expands its understanding. No real phenomena are ever considered to be 'outside' or 'beyond' nature, because we have no grounds to set arbitrary boundaries or restrictions on nature. We determine what is included in our concept by making observations, not a priori rules."

You are simply defining your position to true rather than arguing for it. You can use that definition of natural if you'd like, but that doesn't help you advance your argument. In that case, God, miracles and the like would all be "natural" (by your definition) phenomena that do not follow the same regularities and laws at everything else we know of. That doesn't advance your position that no miracles occur at all: it just redefines them arbitrarily.

"Thus, science not only does not acknowledge the possibility of 'miracles', it denies their existence completely."

No, it doesn't. It doesn't need to do any such thing. It has no need of such metaphysical burdens.

Poor Ken. It's hard to tell who squawks louder, the atheists or the fundies. He may take that as a sign that he is in the right place.

Ken obviously finds religious belief useful, although not for explaining the physical world. One can speculate on why any believer finds it useful, and snark when they they do, and post incessantly how foolish they are for doing so. But ultimately it comes down to "they find it useful and you don't."

OK, now what? The same could be said for music or art, or any other human activity, even science. Perhaps we could give this topic a deserved rest.

You are simply defining your position to true rather than arguing for it.

These principles were established long, long before either of us were born. They define the nature of the thing we call 'science'. Don't like it? Tough - we're not going to move the goalposts just so that you feel better.

In that case, God, miracles and the like would all be "natural" (by your definition) phenomena that do not follow the same regularities and laws at everything else we know of. That doesn't advance your position that no miracles occur at all: it just redefines them arbitrarily.

Idiot! The definition of 'miracle' requires that they not be based on any laws, not just laws that we're aware of. They are *inherently* self-contradictory, like a four-sided triangle.

Person who doesn't know much about science believing in miracles: there is hope.

Person who knows a ton of science believing in miracles: Irresponsible.

Dawkins: "A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising."

Miller: "Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense."

We have a choice, be surprised by miracles, with Dawkins, or be mystified with Miller.

Surprise leads to lots of "who, what, where, why, when" questions.

But if miracles don't have to make sense, we can just marvel at them dumbly, and accept whatever the Church says whenever it chooses to recognize one.

I'll take Dawkins.

Frank, when anything in music or art threatens human lives the way, say, Islamic suicide bombers or our homegrown Christian Reconstructionist terrorists do, or threatens freedom (and sometimes even lives) the way "Christian" homophobes in the US do, etc., etc., then I'll concede your point. Until then, though, you're totally out to lunch. Religion is not an exercise of creativity like art, or a harmless eccentricity. It's harmful stuff with dire consequences in the real world. Sam Harris did a very nice job of explaining why relgious "moderates" are in a very real way the enablers of all that bad stuff.

Ken obviously finds religious belief useful, although not for explaining the physical world. One can speculate on why any believer finds it useful, and snark when they they do, and post incessantly how foolish they are for doing so. But ultimately it comes down to "they find it useful and you don't."

Agreed. If only religious folks would simply admit that they hold their beliefs because they are useful to them (in a self-help mental therapy sort of way) then it would be so much easier to dialogue with them.

But most religious folks don't do this. Instead, they really seem to enjoy pretending that there is "more to it."

But there isn't.

That is why when talking with religious folks, I sometimes "convert" to their religion (POP!!!) so their bogus "worldview" argument can be easily destroyed. Of course, I de-convert immediately after typing the comment (POP!!!).

That is Ken Miller's claim to fame, to some extent. He's "deeply religious" (or claims to be) and yet he's a well-spoken scientist who isn't afraid of evolution!!! WOW!!! That's so impressive and comforting to the rubes (or so we're led to believe by the theists)!!!

I think maybe I saw Doug Henning perform a miracle once.

Religion is not an exercise of creativity like art, or a harmless eccentricity. It's harmful stuff with dire consequences in the real world.

Organized religion is very annoying, I'll grant you, because they invariably get exploited for political purposes.

Ten dudes sitting around a fire once a month eating peyote and "communing with the spirits" doesn't bother me.

Some of the people commenting on this topic seem to think there is a theory of science which provides a defensible demarcation criterion. If so, why don't philosphers of science know about it?

Resurrection of a badly mistreated corpse, walking on water, that is just straight out incompatible with what we know about science.

Yes.

That's what would make them clearly miraculous. No?

No.

That's what would make them clearly made-up stories.

I think maybe I saw Doug Henning perform a miracle once.

Magic is an illusion; it's the illusion of magic.

No demarcation criterion is needed; Christian dogma is intellectually offensive on purely philosophical grounds. Hume, among others, took care of that issue long ago.

"These principles were established long, long before either of us were born. They define the nature of the thing we call 'science'."

No, they are what you made up for the purposes of this argument.

"Don't like it? Tough - we're not going to move the goalposts just so that you feel better."

You don't define the goalposts. You've defined "natural" in such a way that it has no semantic meaning in precisely the same way that a theologian who defines "good" as "what God wants" has emptied the statement "God is good" of any meaning. Anyone who thinks that they can prove real things by redefining words is highly confused as to the nature of semantics and logic.

"Idiot! The definition of 'miracle' requires that they not be based on any laws, not just laws that we're aware of."

The definition of miracle is premised on a different definition of natural than you are using. You can't redefine one term and then not redefine another and then claim to have discovered something interesting.

"These principles were established long, long before either of us were born. They define the nature of the thing we call 'science'. Don't like it? Tough - we're not going to move the goalposts just so that you feel better."

Actually you are misusing them by conflating what science can show with all that there is. Science is an enormously useful tool for one thing and one thing only- the description of how physical systems work. That's no small thing and I say this as a physicist myself.

And yet there are huge areas of reality which science simply cannot enter without being perverted as both you and the IDiots try to pervert it. Art, spirituality, psychology, and so on are all simply outside of the domain of science (and I apologize to any psychologists who consider themselves scientists but they are mistaken).

Science does not describe what is. It describes what we determine experimentally. It should not take you too much effort to realize that a thing may be true and yet unverifiable.

"Some of the people commenting on this topic seem to think there is a theory of science which provides a defensible demarcation criterion. If so, why don't philosphers of science know about it?"

Indeed. The reality is that science is in a position of argumentative strength already purely on pragmatic grounds. People that try to claim some elaborate metaphysical absolutism are not only setting themselves up for a fall, but also just sort of fighting a battle we've already won.

Non-natural phenomena are not detectable by natural means. It they were, they would be interacting naturally and thus bound by natural laws, making the phenomena - natural.

Miracles, magic, etc. all suppose non-natural explanations of cause. Non-natural "things" are by definition are not real, not able to interact with natural things, making them irrelevant.

Science always supposes that only real (natural) events can trigger other real events. It's the very foundation of scientific inquiry.

On the day we encounter a certainly factual event that cannot be explained through natural phenomena, we should wholly embrace it as a miracle. Note that an event that merely lacks an explanation at this time will not be sufficient -- it will need to be an event that cannot be explained.

I am not holding my breath.

I'm starting to think that the disconnect here is that this Ken Miller guy understands something about tact, and maybe his critics do not.

The first paragraph quoted clearly says that the phenomena cited are not miracles, he's just trying to be tactful about it. He presents the question as if it's a valid question that he's willing to entertain, and then explains why he must reject the conclusion these events were miracles.

Tact: A strategy for getting people who are predisposed to disagree with you to at least entertain your point by not provoking their defenses. I know it's not the preferred approach around these parts, but some people know how to work it. And it's not the same thing as equivocation.

I've found this blog somewhat unsettling a lot of the time for a number of reasons. While I suspect that Meyers is a competent scientist (Biology isn't my field so I can;t really say personally) there is a distrubing undercurrent of religious veneration of science that makes me very queasy. That undercurrent often becomes explicit in the comments.

Look up a ways and you have people explicitly claiming that anything that cannot be scientifically proven does not exist. From a factual stand point this is terribly shoddy but what's more it is disturbingly fanatical. It is idolatry of science.

Science always- ALWAYS- must explicitly acknowedge its limitations. It is a process of incremental improvement in our models of the physical universe. That has tremendous value of course, but it is not the sum total of all that is. Science never will contain (capital T) Truth but it will slowly edge forward to better and better equations. We absolutely should cherish it for that. But there are people on this board (possibly including Dr. Meyers) who clearly wish to see science as the ultimate arbiter of truth in all matters whether the scientific method applies or not.

That is wrong. In fact were science a religion we'd have to call that blasphemous as a fundamental abuse of what science is and does.

The motivation is simple and precisely the same as the motivation of those who seek out organized religion- the desire for a simple understandable world view. This is the religious motivation and people have creatively applied it to science.

I hope they stop both because I find it personally offensive as a scientist and because it hands ammunition to the *other* religious fanatics who can honestly say that science is just another faith, at least to some.

I also hope Dr. Meyers will consider speaking out against this tendency and will revisit his own assertions that science mandates atheism, which is also untrue and pretty offensive.

"Non-natural phenomena are not detectable by natural means. It they were, they would be interacting naturally and thus bound by natural laws, making the phenomena - natural."

I can't believe you're making me argue for miracles here, but your arguments are just too lousy to go without comment. No: it something that does not obey any natural law or regularity affects something that does, that does not make the property of "naturalness" backwards transitive.

"Miracles, magic, etc. all suppose non-natural explanations of cause. Non-natural "things" are by definition are not real, not able to interact with natural things, making them irrelevant."

Again, this is just argument by definition. It doesn't fly. If you claim that only natural things are "real" then the word "natural" doesn't mean anything, or at least not anything relevant to the debate.

"Science always supposes that only real (natural) events can trigger other real events. It's the very foundation of scientific inquiry."

The very real foundation of scientific inquiry is that it limits itself only to that which is testible. It need not be more elaborate than that.

Miller on the origins of disbelief.

A different Miller of course.

http://botd.freethought.net/archives/143

180 minutes of disbelief
Around this time last year the BBC ran a three-part documentary called "A Brief History of Disbelief", described as follows on the documentary site:

"In this first ever television history of disbelief, Jonathan Miller goes on a journey exploring the origins of his own lack of belief and uncovering the hidden story of atheism."

If so, why don't philosphers of science know about it?

Philosophers of science are ticks sucking on the dingleberries in science's buttcrack.

Tlaloc, the absurdity of religious dogma is readily apparent to any careful thinker who need not be a scientist at all, Hume again being a good example. For this purpose the limitations of scientific knowledge are nothing to the point.

undercurrent of religious veneration of science

I typed your username into my Holy Calculator, entered some numbers including the ambient air temperature in my room measured to five significant digits (Celsius), took the square root and multiplied it by Saint Newton's and Saint Einstein's birthdates.

When I hold the calculator upside down, it says that you are "boobless." Isn't that interesting?

Look up a ways and you have people explicitly claiming that anything that cannot be scientifically proven does not exist.

OK, I'll bite. Name five things that exist, but cannot be scientifically proven. For each one, explain how you know it exists and why it cannot be scientifically proven.

I also hope Dr. Meyers will consider speaking out against this tendency and will revisit his own assertions that science mandates atheism

Yo, trollie, show me where PZ said that "science mandates atheism."

Plunge,

Please devise a test for something not real. If it's not testible, it is irrelevant.

Everything is natural. Everything else is irrelevant. Don't pretend to know what you are talking about. You don't.

...argument by definition....that's funny.

"Tlaloc, the absurdity of religious dogma is readily apparent to any careful thinker who need not be a scientist at all, Hume again being a good example."

Depends on what you mean. If Genesis is taken literally does it stand up to simple logic and jibe with what physical evidence we have? Absolutely not. But is it meant to be taken literally? Does it have symbolic power and influence and even merit as a parable? Sure it can.

However you may be misunderstanding my intent. I am not at all arguing for organized religion. I find it abhorent. But there is a difference between organized religion and individual spirituality. The former is the mass marketed commercialized version of the latter.

By their irrational arguing for some kind of reality outside of the "real" reality that is "off-limits" to scientific inquiry, it is looking pretty clear that plunge and tlaloc are meek trolls.

....or is that a "backwards transitive"?

If Genesis is taken literally does it stand up to simple logic and jibe with what physical evidence we have? Absolutely not. But is it meant to be taken literally? Does it have symbolic power and influence and even merit as a parable? Sure it can.

So can my farts. And they are more interesting.

"OK, I'll bite. Name five things that exist, but cannot be scientifically proven. For each one, explain how you know it exists and why it cannot be scientifically proven."

Are you joking?

Here's 5 easy ones-

1) joy
2) creativity
3) imagination
4) dreams
5) loyalty

now prove any of those scientifically. You can;t because none of them are concrete nouns. Each of them is an abstract concept (for example you can prove REM exist but not the dreams themselves). Yet we both know that all five of those things are "real."

Tlaloc, with respect your comment is again beside the point. Miller, for example, is a Catholic, not a Unitarian Universalist. There are any number of patently absurd things in which he must profess more or less literal belief on pain of grave heresy.

Yet we both know that all five of those things are "real."

Absolutely hilarious.

there is a difference between organized religion and individual spirituality. The former is the mass marketed commercialized version of the latter.

Of course, when it comes to Christianity, any notion of "individual spirituality" is absurd. It's like basing one's happiness on one's imagined "special" relationship with McDonald's(TM) or Starbuck's(TM).

But I suppose that about half the human race is incapable of using their brains to come up with something with more substance. It's so much easier to say: Supersize Me!

"Please devise a test for something not real. If it's not testible, it is irrelevant."

To science, yes. That's good enough for me without having to jump into philosophy and do battle for the proposition that untestable things aren't real.

"Everything is natural. Everything else is irrelevant."

How can there be anything else if everything is natural? If everything is by definition natural, and you can say this even though we have no idea what exists or doesn't, then "natural" can include litterally anything at all. Ironically, that sort of sloppy thinking has exactly the same problem that the ID claims have in that they can "explain" litterally anything at all.

"By their irrational arguing for some kind of reality outside of the "real" reality that is "off-limits" to scientific inquiry, it is looking pretty clear that plunge and tlaloc are meek trolls."

I dunno what all these insults are supposed to prove, but I have to say that I've been posting here for years now. Forgive me if I don't recognize you.

I see that David Heddle is following this topic on his site
"He Lives" I will ask the same question,
I have often wondered how scientist such as Miller manage to maintain their"Cartesian dualism" in the light of modern revelation.
I also understand Christianity did not develop as a comprehensive religion encompassing all fields of life but more as a set of spiritual and moral values.
How do you maintain a religious ideology(original sin) that directly conflicts
with your scientific world view?

Tune in later this afternoon for a 10,000 word essay on the subject: Do Abstract Concepts "Exist"?

Allen MacNeill will be submitting a paper the Journal of Idling Darwinism discussing his theory of how the ability of primates to detect bullshit evolved over the past 5 million years.

Plunge

You truly have a dizzying intellect.

Insults? Do you read your own posts?

"How can there be anything else if everything is natural?" - I guess my humor was just a little too subtle for you. Thanks for stating the obvious.

It's my first time here Plunge that's why.

I guess Tlaloc is saying that God is just an idea a concept an intangible.

I agree. God only exists in the faithful's mind.

"Name five things that exist, but cannot be scientifically proven. For each one, explain how you know it exists and why it cannot be scientifically proven."

Your individual current state of being, physical laws relatively consistant throughout space, physical laws relatively consistant throughout time, physical laws remaining relatively consistant in the future, reality.

All can't be scientifically proven and must exist because they're basically required for science to hold to you, in your individual current state of being, in the first place in any really meaningful way.

"Yo, trollie, show me where PZ said that "science mandates atheism.""

If you want to ask me for something then don't insult me first. This one time I'll let it slide.

Here's an example of what you are looking for:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/what_should_a_scientist_thin…

and follow up here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/a_quick_reply_to_some_of_the…
(I suspect my email conversation with Dr. Meyers was one of the ones motivating the second post, but we'd have to ask himto be sure)

If its your first time here, then why are you calling other people trolls? I think I've been far more tactful with you than you've been with me.

"guess my humor was just a little too subtle for you. Thanks for stating the obvious."

In general, saying something nonsensical in a serious argument and then later going "ha ha, you didn't get my joke??!?" is considered bad form. I also don't believe you. I think it's pretty apparent that you haven't thought through the implications of insisting that "natural" applies to anything and everything that exists.

Although obviously I do think those five things exist, and that science is valid, but it is the case that it does have to be founded on assumptions about the world, even if said assumptions are almost certainly valid.

How do you maintain a religious ideology(original sin) that directly conflicts
with your scientific world view?

I see the world through my eyeballs and other senses.

I have no idea what a "scientific world view" is and I submit that the term is as meaningless and divisive as the bogus term, "Christian worldview."

I really like the music of the Rolling Stones, up to the end of the Mick Taylor years. I also prefer rigatoni to spaghetti. And I would argue that these sorts of preferences are what defines me as a person. And they have nothing to do with my unbridled appreciation for the utility of the scientific method.

So: please take the "scientific worldview" terminology and shove it down the nearest toilet and flush with extreme prejudice.

So why doesn't Miller just chalk up the existence of atheists to the work of a "miracle," too? According to his rules, we don't make any sense, either. Why shouldn't he just accept that we are beyond his explanations, and leave us be?

Shoe on the other foot. How does it fit?

How do you maintain a religious ideology(original sin) that directly conflicts
with your scientific world view?

Like this: I choose to believe in something that I have no evidence for because it makes me feel good today.

It's that easy.

Why is anybody confused about this?

The human mind is capable of holding all sorts of beliefs.

If Ken Miller ran around pretending to be the most consistent person on earth, then we could rightfullly claim to wonder what the fuck is up with the guy. But Ken Miller's not doing that. Joe Carter over at the Evangelical Outpost does that. Not Ken Miller.

He did not say that science mandates atheism.

Those posts were about him being an atheist and a scientist and not seperating the two.
He has his opinon on religion and has no intention of keeping quiet about it.

And the second post was his statement on how applying the scientific method to God one's most likely outcome is atheism. i.e. there is no evidence of a god or gods.

There's a difference.

I simply don't understand why I'm supposed to value anything that is "miraculous, beyond explanation, beyond our understanding, beyond science." Why is that good? What's good about it?

If you want to ask me for something then don't insult me first. This one time I'll let it slide.

I googled the links you sent me and nowhere does PZ say that "science mandates atheism."

If you want to lie to me and waste my time, then expect to be called an asshole. I won't let it slide. Asshole.

"He did not say that science mandates atheism."

No he doesn't explicitly state it but it is an obvious conclusion from what he does say. Hence why I said in the first place that the treatment of science as religion has been an *undercurrent* in his writings and sometimes become explicit in the posts of commentors.

"Those posts were about him being an atheist and a scientist and not seperating the two."

Exactly! Which is why it is bunk. What would you say to someone who is a "christian scientist?" That they are hopelessly muddling two things that are incompatible, hopefully.

It's not that you can't be christian and a scientist or atheist and a scientist, you can. But an "atheist scientist" is really neither, just as with a "christian scientist."

The two realms do not mix except as a perversion of both.

now prove any of those scientifically. You can;t because none of them are concrete nouns.

Well, let's look at "joy".

Suppose there were someone who was unable to experience joy and thought the whole thing was a big hoax. We could run the experiment where we hook up a switch to the pleasure center of a rat's brain, and show him that it'll keep pushing the switch until it starves to death. Then we could show him that the corresponding part of his own brain was missing or damaged.

Or maybe you're distinguishing between "joy" and "pleasure"? Neuroscience isn't up to making that fine a distinction, but we could still do a crude proof by showing that most people act in a "joyous" manner when they're in the appropriate situation.

That tends to break down with religion, though. We can find a lot of people who claim to talk to God, but we don't see the same kind of commonality...they all have different stories and a lot of them want to get paid for telling them.

Plunge,

Thanks for the lesson on blog etiquette.

I apologize for using subtle humor. If I understand them correctly, it's just hard to take your assertions seriously. It seems like you're assertions are contradictory.

"...and you can say this even though we have no idea what exists or doesn't, then "natural" can include literally anything at all" - Not only can, but does - by definition.

"Ironically, that sort of sloppy thinking has exactly the same problem that the ID claims have in that they can "explain" literally anything at all."

Sloppy thinking? I thought I was just stating facts.

PS It's not my first time here. That should not matter anyway.

He meant personally.

That he will not shut up about being an atheist because he's a scientist.
That his opinion is valid.

Also there is no problem in conflating Atheism and Science...

can you guess why?

Chaos,

All the emotions (1-4) are testable empirically. The last one is demonstrable behavior - by definition. The feeling of loyalty however, is also testable empirically.

"Not only can, but does - by definition."

If you want to claim that the term natural is all-encompassing, then you have to admit that:

a) the term "natural" has no real useful meaning (aside from in contrast to human vs. nature). If there is no way a thing can not be natural, then by saying that something is, you aren't really saying anything anything about it or limiting it's possible properties in any way.

b) you are using a different definition of the word than the definition of "miracle" uses, and hence you cannot combine the two in an argument without causing an equivocation fallacy. Equivocation is when you switch definitions of a word mid-argument.

...emotions and feelings are empirically testable?

Surely you mean that there are theories about emotions and feelings according to which they correlate with certain parameters that are measurable, or at least observable.

There's never been a miracle... ever.

So of course anything that happens "miraculously" can be studied and defined in the natural world.

Unless you have an example of a miracle we don't know about.

"Or maybe you're distinguishing between "joy" and "pleasure"? "

Indeed, or at the very least I can in no way prove that "joy" and "pleasure" are the same.

Here's 5 easy ones-

1) joy
2) creativity
3) imagination
4) dreams
5) loyalty

now prove any of those scientifically. You can;t because none of them are concrete nouns. Each of them is an abstract concept (for example you can prove REM exist but not the dreams themselves). Yet we both know that all five of those things are "real."

I think you're suffering from a severe case of equivocation, which in a scientist, is pretty irresponsible. There's a big difference between proving that something exists, which is a trivial matter, and explaining how it works. I can't tell which one you're trying to get at, and honestly, I don't think you really know which one you mean, either.

In short, I can prove that joy exists, and I think we've got a pretty decent explanation for how it works neurochemically, but I don't know what the context-less imperiative "prove joy scientifically" is supposed to mean.

there is the matter of Jesus's Y-chromosome to account for

The obvious conclusion is that the modern interpretation is simply wrong, and Jesus in fact had 2 X chromosomes, and was therefor a woman.

...emotions and feelings are empirically testable?

Surely you mean that there are theories about emotions and feelings according to which they correlate with certain parameters that are measurable, or at least observable.

How would that be interestingly different from saying that they are empirically testable directly?

Indeed, or at the very least I can in no way prove that "joy" and "pleasure" are the same.

In that case, you're making a semantic argument, not a scientific one.

Do you guys think PZ does not WANT to say that science mandates atheism? Haha.
If you go for extremism ( which always turns out to be false, in the end), you will want to say things that, wel... you juts cannot. It's always the same. Read Dawkins. He fits in all the pieces but wants you to fill out the one missing. Because he knows that last piece is kinda silly, and does not want to spell it out himself.. yet that piece is the fulfillment of his thinking!!!
We can call it... "be extreme, then chicken-out".
I think Great White wonder is being as fake as a 3 dollar bill. Asides from, of course, "helping the cause" by trying some intimidatory hooting (insults). But despite their chest-beating, the monkeys I see do not seem very frightening.
Boy wouldn't GWW and many on this blog just WISH science mandated atheism. But it does not. So there, heeeheee

Plunge,

a.) Saying that something "Is" is saying a lot about something. How is that not useful?
b.) Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up "equivocation". When did I do that?

llewelly: Whoa! So how did she have facial hair?

Bob,

Yes to your clarification. Clearly with this thread it's not good to gloss over the obvious.

Cheers,

Vargas you create your anit-PZ blog yet?

BMurray - If you know that measuring a proxy is not the same as measuring what it is a proxy for, then you know the answer to your question.

The obvious conclusion is that the modern interpretation is simply wrong, and Jesus in fact had 2 X chromosomes, and was therefor a woman.

Wouldn't "he" have had Turner syndrome?

Why? All the insulting and misbeahviour is right at this blog. As an atheist and evolutionsist, lots of bad thing I do not want on my side are going on right here.
Or would you visit any blog I put up? Hahaha C'mon. You just don't appreciate cristicism.

I don't appreciate your idea of criticism.
Also, you seem to have no sense of humor.

I've listened to another radio show with Ken Miller.

There's just not much to what he is saying. Paraphrasing: he suggests scientists don't explain science well enough to appeal to the fundamental need we have to see purpose and meaning in our lives. I.D. fill the vacuum.

He says: "We haven't popularized science properly."

He recommends reading Sean Carroll (U. Wisc.): Endless Forms Most Wonderful.

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2000/01/20000106_b_main.asp

BMurray - If you know that measuring a proxy is not the same as measuring what it is a proxy for, then you know the answer to your question.

Yeah I just want to know how you think the two would be interestingly different. I mean, everything measurable is in some sense a proxy. Is it not sufficient? Why not? Not ever? Not in this case?

But an "atheist scientist" is really neither, just as with a "christian scientist."

The two realms do not mix except as a perversion of both.

Poppycock.

A scientist who doesn't believe in sky fairies is not a "perversion" of anything.

And a "Christian scientist" is not a "perversion" of anything either unless you are requiring that anybody who calls himself a "scientist" must function like a hypothesis testing robot 24 hours of the day.

This is the rub, folks: as a "scientist" I KNOW from prior experience that I can experience pleasure right here and right now by CHOOSING TO BELIEVE in things that DO NOT EXIST.

There is nothing "perverted" about doing so. And let me tell you: getting serviced by Beyonce in the shower is everything I thought it would be and more!!!!

That some people choose to waste their mental juices fantasizing about some bloody dude nailed to a cross is, in my opinion, really really sad. But it's not "hypocritical" if it brings them pleasure in the here and now AND if they don't deny that they are simply choosing to fantasize about bloody cross dude instead of oral sex with a hot human being.

But it's not "hypocritical" if it brings them pleasure in the here and now AND if they don't deny that they are simply choosing to fantasize about bloody cross dude instead of oral sex with a hot human being.

What? I can't have both at the same time?

Never mind I just squicked myself.

"Also there is no problem in conflating Atheism and Science...

can you guess why?"

I can't guess why because the statement is false to begin with. Conflating science with atheism is every bit as wrong as conflating it with christianity. Or hinduism, or Islam, or whatever. Science is strictly agnostic on matters of spirtuality, neither religious or atheistic.

"In short, I can prove that joy exists, and I think we've got a pretty decent explanation for how it works neurochemically,"

You are confusing pleasure and joy. It should not exactly be a difficult bit of reasoning that abstract nouns cannot be proven, only mutually agreed upon.

Great White Wonder,
Perhaps my posting was a little vauge,so let me
be more succinct.
One of the fundamental teachings of Xianity is the original sin of Adam.The bible clearly states that we all are being punished for this sin.Jesus was sent to redeeme us from our sins.If you deny the literal concept of Adam,
you deny the need for a redeemer(Jesus)
I fully understand that any individual can foster any type
of belief structure that they desire,however if you claim to belong to a particular religious denomination (Catholic)
should you not adhere to it,s doctrins?

"In that case, you're making a semantic argument, not a scientific one."

huh? You really think that being able to prove A means you have proven B without proving that A=B? That's not semantics it's pretty basic logic.

Science is based on reason.
So is Atheism.

Science is also agnostic on Unicorns and Gnomes.
There's nothing rational about believing in an imaginary god.

Boy wouldn't GWW and many on this blog just WISH science mandated atheism. But it does not. So there, heeeheee

Your problem Vargas (or one of them) is that the phrase "science mandates atheism" is nonsensical. Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. Science can not study the imaginary gods that I dream up, nor the imaginary gods that Christians and Muslims and Jews and Egyptians and Mayans and Greeks and Romans or whoever else dreams up.

So nobody really "wants" to say that "science mandates atheism." Why would I "want" to say that when I can simply say this: "Other than for personal pleasure and mental self-therapy, there is no evidence for a sky fairy or an afterlife so why the fuck should I choose to believe in that shit if I do NOT derive personal pleasure or therapeutic benefit from it?"

Now, the proper PRACTICE of science does require that the practicioner at least temporarily abandon any recourse to explanations involving imaginary deities. But that practice does not make one an "atheist" any more than enjoying Allegri's "Misere" makes me a deist.

Get it? I sure fucking hope so.

I fully understand that any individual can foster any type of belief structure that they desire,however if you claim to belong to a particular religious denomination (Catholic) should you not adhere to it,s doctrins?

Only if you go around claiming how great Catholicism and all its doctrines are. Otherwise, why not pick and choose and take what you want from the church and leave the rest behind? Catholics do this routinely, by the way. I am not going to judge whether such behavior is "right" or "wrong," which is what is implied by the term "should". That is for Catholics and their leaders to decide for themselves.

"Science is based on reason.
So is Atheism."

No, atheism is based on a form of faith, or a lack of faith but not on reason. There is no logical argument for the nonexistence of spirituality. There are merely those who choose to believe it, those who chose to believe the opposite, and those who decide they don't know.

Agnosticism is by far the most "reasoned" approach to questions of spirituality, that of course doesn't make it the right answer, but highlights the limitations of reason in dealing with things that cannot be independently verified.

"Science is also agnostic on Unicorns and Gnomes."

Freudian slip? You said agnostic wihich is my point rather than atheistic which would seem to be yours.

Boy wouldn't GWW and many on this blog just WISH science mandated atheism. But it does not

Science has had great success in pragmatically excluding religious explanations and miracles.

Is not saying that science does not mandate atheism, the same as saying that theism is not proscribed by the scientific method? Show me where anybody claims there is no role for theists in science. Please be explicit about the varieties of theism you would claim are permitted in science.

Where is the appropriate role for theism in the practice of science? Whose theism? What variety of theism? How is one to distinguish between one flavor of theism and another in the practice of science?

Science is atheistic. Scientists need not be atheists, but when they advocate theism, they have not, cannot and will not be doing so as scientists. Any scientist who advocated religion did not do so as a scientist. For any atheist, theist, or scientist to point this out in no way mandates atheism.

"a.) Saying that something "Is" is saying a lot about something. How is that not useful?"

There is already a word for "is." It's "is." "Natural" isn't a synonym for it, and even if you define it to be, you've still ended up with a situation in which saying "this apple is natural" is totally meaningless/redundant. You haven't gained anything by it, you've simply eradicated a once useful word/concept from sensible usage. I don't believe in the non-natural, for instance, but I still find the concept useful in distinguishing what I don't believe from what I do. Your definition doesn't allow that. All it means is that if God exists, God is "natural." What's the point of that?

"b.) Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up "equivocation". When did I do that?"

When you tried to use two different definitions of the concept "natural" in the same argument. You can't discount miracles by pointing out that they require non-natural causes by claiming that all existing things are natural. The definition of miracle that you reference does not define natural that way.

Aaaah, good. So now that we are so crispy clear, GWW... do you agree with this quote from PZ?

"Religion IS anti-science; it invokes a way of 'knowing' something that is antithetical to the method of science. Similarly, science is anti-religion because it rejects revealed knowledge and faith as a legitimate way to understand the world. Those are the battle-lines, not disagreements on the conclusions, but different ways of figuring things out."

You guys should untangle your muddles, seriously...

Freudian slip? You said agnostic wihich is my point rather than atheistic which would seem to be yours.

The term "agnostic" has broader meaning than "atheistic" having application well outside religious contexts. It is often used to imply a topic is "out of scope", though perhaps colloquially.

For example, to claim that a software design is "operating system agnostic" is to claim that the design makes no assumptions about operating system and is intended to function regardless of operating system selection. It apears that this is the sense in which it was intended, though that is less fun to poke at.

Vargas, you are so full of yourself that you imagine the rest of us know what you are talking about.

What is your point with the PZ quote?

"Is not saying that science does not mandate atheism, the same as saying that theism is not proscribed by the scientific method?"

No it is not. There are more than two choices, specifically there are three- belief, disbelif, or neither. The third choice, neither, is agnosticism, and that's what science is. Science cannot say yea or nay to god. It is a question outside of science's purview. So science is agnostic- it has no answer to the question and never can.

"Science is atheistic."

No it is not. Atheism is a positive position- a declaration that there definitively is not something. Science cannot prove such a position and so does not take such a position. It can only say that there is insufficient physical proof of spiritual matters.

Now when a religion makes a claim that is physically verifiable (i.e creationists saying the earth is some few tens of thousands of years old) then science can certainly evaluate whether that claim fits with physical evidence. But that process doesn't remotely touch the question of whether a god or gods exist, merely the question of what they may or may not have done if they did exist.

Please please please stop trying to use science to support your particular spiritual views. It really is a vulgar abuse of the field.

No I meant to say agnostic. I was equating Unicorns with God. Same thing.
It's completely logical to not believe in anything "spiritual".

There is no evidence of a god. Thus not believing in one is rational.
There's no faith involved.

"The term "agnostic" has broader meaning than "atheistic" having application well outside religious contexts. It is often used to imply a topic is "out of scope", though perhaps colloquially."

Which is precisely what I have been saying about science and spirituality. Science regards the latter as outside of it's scope and is hence agnostic on the matter- saying neither yes nor no.

Maybe the poster suddenly wheeled around 180 degrees to agree with me but if so the context was very confusing.

For our less well-educated commentators I have some suggestions.

The science of emotions and feelings see "Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain" by Antonio Damasio http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Spinoza-Sorrow-Feeling-Brain/dp/015602871…

The science of dreaming see "Dreaming: An Introduction to the Science of Sleep" by J. Allan Hobson http://www.amazon.com/Dreaming-Introduction-J-Allan-Hobson/dp/019280304…

Why everything is physical see "Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?" by Nancey Murphy http://www.amazon.com/Bodies-Spirited-Current-Issues-Theology/dp/052167… or

"Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" by Bede Rundle http://www.amazon.com/There-Something-Rather-than-Nothing/dp/0199288666…

Try reading some David Hume; Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume http://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Concerning-Natural-Religion-David/dp/14…

Also try these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Science cannot measure or be applied to something that does not exist.

C'mon, GWW. Don't be a soapy sam. Do you agree with PZ, or not. Its a simple question.
PZ is being quite plain; science is "anti-religion", religion is antiscience. How is it therefore possible for science not to mandate atheism?
C'mon, GWW. I got you more nailed down than jesus

Tlaloc, I am a Vulgarian, and jokes are beyond me. So, please tell me, where theism is properly incorporated in the practice of science. When I say science is atheistic, I say it is practiced without theism, whether practiced by theists, atheists, or agnostics.

If you disagree, if you think you're talking science when you write "then a miracle occurs," then "I think you need to be more explicit here in step two."

"Here's 5 easy ones
1) joy
2) creativity
3) imagination
4) dreams
5) loyalty"

What are the units of measure on those items?

"There is no evidence of a god. Thus not believing in one is rational.
There's no faith involved."

Really? I certainly agree with the first sentence, but then you lose all logical cohesion. In the absence of evidence the rational position is the statement "I don't know" not "there is not." Surely you get that, right?

Are you really going to claim that a thing rationally does not exist unless you have proof of it? Are you familiar with the concept of theoretical science which proposes ideas which are then experimentally tested for? By your logic no idea has merit or can be rationally considered without apriori evidence in favor.

Do you see why I use the term fanatical, now? You have let your personal belief in atheism (which is just fine) lead you to abuse science and tie yourself in the most astounding logical knots all in the name of "reason!"

Science does not support atheism, neither does it detract from it. Your personal beliefs are just that- beliefs. Beliefs have no place in science.

plunge

Knowing something is real is very useful. Defining everything that is real to be natural is again, by definition. I didn't make it. Barrier tunneling is real. Gnomes are not. Your point about being redundant or a synonym is confusing. That's not what is implied. Just go look up the definition of Natural.

God is not natural, by definition, therefore his existence is not testable, and insignificant to natural things.

"All it means is that if God exists, God is "natural." What's the point of that?" If god is natural, then "he" is not god. You don't see the point in that?

b.) I certainly can discount miracles. They can't exist. If something occurs by natural means it is not a miracle.

It seems you're having difficulty with basic concepts of reality. Real things are in nature. If you find it in nature, you can bet it's real. If you can't find it in nature, it's not real. That's all. Why is that so difficult for you? Do you want to change these definitions?

Now when a religion makes a claim that is physically verifiable (i.e creationists saying the earth is some few tens of thousands of years old) then science can certainly evaluate whether that claim fits with physical evidence. But that process doesn't remotely touch the question of whether a god or gods exist

LOL!!!!!!!!

"Exist" in what sense, you stupid idiot?

Yes, the god or gods "exist" in the imaginations of the believers. Sure. No doubt. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

But they simply do NOT exist as far as the practicioner of science is concerned. Contrast with: gravitational forces, heat, oxygen, etc., which certainly do "exist" and which scientists do need to take account of.

If you are aware of a potential EXISTING phenomenon that could alter the course of your experiment, you CONTROL for that phenomenon.

Gods could certainly alter the course of experiments (at least, mine could). Yet scientists do not control their experiments for the intervention of gods.

That doesn't sound like the behavior of an "agnostic" to me, Tlrac. That sounds like the behavior of someone who assumes that gods do not exist because there is no evidence for their existence. In short, an atheist.

Can someone behave like an atheist while doing a job and then behave like a deist on Sunday morning and engage in a bizarre pseudo-cannibalistic ritual?

Of course they fucking can. As I already said, the human mind is capable of entertaining all sorts of inconsistent notions as pleasure dicates.

"Really? I certainly agree with the first sentence, but then you lose all logical cohesion. In the absence of evidence the rational position is the statement "I don't know" not "there is not." Surely you get that, right?

So can I keep worshipping the flying spaghetti monster?

"Tlaloc, I am a Vulgarian, and jokes are beyond me. So, please tell me, where theism is properly incorporated in the practice of science. When I say science is atheistic, I say it is practiced without theism, whether practiced by theists, atheists, or agnostics."

Well if that is how you are choosing to define the term then yes science is atheistic. However that isn't the topic, really, which is whether science supports religion(s) or atheism or neither.

I absolutely agree that science should be conducted without consideration of any religious belief (and yes that includes atheism). Belief simply isn't a factor. You call that atheistic, I'd call it agnostic because that seems much less likely to mislead people.

Vargas, as I said on the other thread, I think PZ is overstating things with:

"Religion IS anti-science; it invokes a way of 'knowing' something that is antithetical to the method of science. Similarly, science is anti-religion because it rejects revealed knowledge and faith as a legitimate way to understand the world."

These sentences portray science as an all-encompassing ideology in which practicing or using a different standard at another time is somehow a violation of science. Religion when posing AS science, is anti-science. And science is anti using the methods of religion as science. But that's not the same thing as saying that science is really itself "anti-religion" in an absolute sense. It isn't.

Tlaloc

Beliefs have no place in science.

Uh yeah, that's pretty much what we've been trying to get through your head, bro'.

No belief = no gods = atheism.

Duh.

Keith Miller wrote:
"To the nonbeliever, there is no spiritual reality, and hence no miracles. To a person of faith, miracles display the greater purposes of God, giving them a meaning that transcends physical reality."
PZ, please would you ask him to expand on what this means? To me, the word "spiritual" is, all too often, a signal of of wishful thinking or nonsense. However, the non-believer can experience, for example, reverence for those that have gone before, or awe at a sunset, or joy at a baby's smile. In Keith Miller's usage, does that sort of thing count as "spiritual"? If it does, how can he assert that to nonbelievers there is no "spiritual reality"?
If we consider a simple alleged miracle, such as an alleged miracle cure at Lourdes, how precisely does this "display the greater purposes of God?" Why does Miller's God cure people, or not, depending on whether they undertake a journey to Lourdes?

Correction:

Link I provided above to Ken miller on radio should be:

http://www.bringyou.to/KennethMillerOpenSource2005.mp3

It's a Radio Open Source show from 2005.

Miler mentions the book: Endless Forms Most Wonderful. The actual title is Endless Forms Most Beautiful (Sean Carroll).

However that isn't the topic, really, which is whether science supports religion(s) or atheism or neither.

Dipshit, can we at least have a topic that doesn't sound like it was phrased by a ten year old? What the fuck does "support" mean in this context?

If the issue is whether the practice of science is more religious than atheistic, then it's more atheistic because (surprise!!) the invocation of deities to explain phenomenon is unscientific.

If the issue is whether the practice of science has led to the discovery of evidence supporting the truth of matters asserted in the holy books of the world's religions, then the answer is: it sure the fuck hasn't done that.

If the issue is whether the demonstrated utility of science has led increasing numbers of educated people to abandon religion, the answer is: yes it certainly has fucking done that.

If the issue is whether the scientific method is capable of wiping out the ability of the human mind to create and worship imaginary gods, the answer is: no, that will never happen.

Now, Tlaloc, please go find yourself a nice fat rolling donut.

You are confusing pleasure and joy. It should not exactly be a difficult bit of reasoning that abstract nouns cannot be proven, only mutually agreed upon.

"Joy" is defined as "a feeling of great pleasure and happiness." If the two words differ at all, it's a difference of degree, not of kind, much like the difference between "rage" and "anger."

And you're still refusing to define what you mean by "prove."

Besides, what exactly does it mean to "prove an abstract noun"? I can prove that it's expressed in speech as a discrete sequence of phonemes, I can prove that it's expressed in writing as a discrete sequence of graphemes, and I can prove that it has a generally agreed upon meaning (all of which, of course, is true of all words, not just of abstract nouns). Beyond that, what am I supposed to be "proving" about it, if anything, and of what possible relevance is this to the neurochemistry of emotions?

"In that case, you're making a semantic argument, not a scientific one."

huh? You really think that being able to prove A means you have proven B without proving that A=B? That's not semantics it's pretty basic logic.

Bullshit. You're trying to claim that the difference in spelling and pronunciation between the words "joy" and "pleasure" has objective scientific meaning. If that's not a semantic argument, then nothing is.

And you're still refusing to define what you mean by "prove."

Man, there are a lot of people here who would benefit from some basic philosophy. This thread has just run on and on with people who apparently don't need to do any work today.

Based on the arguments I've seen (not here, of course), I have to side with Tlaloc on this one. The scientific method would not be able to falsify the existence of a 'spiritual' or 'supernatural' realm. That, of course, is also an argument from definition. If the supernatural realm is beyond nature, then means of inquiry bound to a natural realm could not disprove it.

Of course, we could disprove or prove all sorts of physical claims made by religions about the supernatural's intervention in the natural world (miracles).

After surveying various claims about the supernatural and disproving them, reading and contemplating arguments, etc, one could come to a reasonable conclusion that there is not a supernatural realm. It may not be perfectly provable because of the 'nature' of the supernatural, but given the various pieces of information that is available, it would not necessarily be an unreasonable conclusion.

Science is atheist following the "weak atheism" definition of the concept.

Oops, Ken, not Keith. (It is late at night here in the UK, but I still should have proofread better!)

"Agnosticism" is just "atheism" tarted up with a feather boa by Huxley in Darwin's day. Easily misled people think "agnosticism" means, "a fence-sitter who hasn't thought about the question and who is ripe for proselytizing."

The intellectually satisfied atheist can say, "Science does not contradict my views." Show me the theist who can say the same, who can support his theism scientifically.

Science has so far supported no religion(s). If it pleases you to keep the question open, I'll be interested to hear any breaking news on the science front, but I won't hold my breath.

JoeB you have just described a something about which we can know nothing...how is that different from nothing?

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
[Delos McKown]

Religion when posing AS science, is anti-science. And science is anti using the methods of religion as science. But that's not the same thing as saying that science is really itself "anti-religion" in an absolute sense.

Maybe not, but as a practical matter it's a distinction without much of a difference to "devout" people.

I'm with you, JJP. It may exist, but if it produces no effects on our being, who cares? If you can falsify the claims of any supernatural intervention in our world, it doesn't matter whether or not it exists.

That's my stance on my personal belief. I'd call it atheistic because I don't believe that any of the supernatural explanations offered for events in our world are true. There could be things of which I could acquire no knowledge, it's not beyond the realm of possibility, but it makes no difference to me if they exist or not.

Tlaloc stated:

"And yet there are huge areas of reality which science simply cannot enter without being perverted as both you and the IDiots try to pervert it. Art, spirituality, psychology, and so on are all simply outside of the domain of science (and I apologize to any psychologists who consider themselves scientists but they are mistaken)."

No need to apologise, just stick to your physics and we'll worry about psychological science.

JoeB I suggest you try reading some Wittgenstein

Sorry JoeB hadn't seen your latest comments; I thought you were defending mumbo-jumbo, but you're not :)

PZ, please would you ask him to expand on what this means?

I have no idea, and I don't think he'd tell me. He's told me he is now circulating a letter to his friends condemning me. To what end, and who is in this network of his, I don't know; I'm hoping it means I'm going to get excommunicated.

I know he's reading this stuff, so I also don't know why he doesn't just comment. Heck, I'd even post his letter here on the site without any editorializing and let everyone read it and say what they want.

""Joy" is defined as "a feeling of great pleasure and happiness.""

Dan, you don't use a dictionary definition as a scientific argument. Pleasure is a physical sensation caused by the release of certain chemicals in the brain. Joy is an abstract emotion that people feel and define radically differently.

"And you're still refusing to define what you mean by "prove.""

I am? I thought prove was pretty well established in meaning- to demonstrate something by evaluation of the evidence. Is there some other meaning of prove I'm not aware of?

"Besides, what exactly does it mean to "prove an abstract noun"?"

It means to prove that the abstract concept represented by the word actually exists. The reason this came up is I was asked for a list of five things that exist but can't be scientifically proven.
If you agree that there are things which cannot be proven but do seem for all intents and purposes to exist then we needn't bother with this line of thought any longer. If you disagree then I guess we'll have to.

"You're trying to claim that the difference in spelling and pronunciation between the words "joy" and "pleasure" has objective scientific meaning. If that's not a semantic argument, then nothing is."

Uh, no. I;m trying to point out to you the difference between the "spelling and pronunciation" between "joy" and "pleasure" is due to the fact that they are two different things. See the first paragraph above for a stark comparison of the differences.

He's told me he is now circulating a letter to his friends condemning me. To what end, and who is in this network of his, I don't know; I'm hoping it means I'm going to get excommunicated.

Probably you will not be asked to testify in the next big creationism court case. ;)

"If you agree that there are things which cannot be proven but do seem for all intents and purposes to exist..."

How can something "seem" to exist and not be testable? Easy, it's your imagination. Things that seem to exist and are testable are real. That's not to say that your imagination is not real....we can test for that too. Just your imaginings are not reality based.

Heck, I'd even post his letter here on the site without any editorializing and let everyone read it and say what they want.

Why even bother to threaten the action? Just go ahead and do it already.

Hi PZ

Really is that true about Miller? Confirms what I guessed he's a slimeball and a bully (a la his preformance on an NPR debate on science and religion on the "Speaking of Faith" show). It's funny how the religious get very angry with anyone questioning their particular fairy tale. Perhaps they know at some level it's all fantasy and a comfort blanket.

Now Ken if you are reading this come on let's debate. I'm a professional biologist (a behavioral ecologist). PZ is a professional biologist and you are too. How would you respond to this thought?

Theistic evolution, the idea that an omnipotent God would need to use random mutations and natural selection to produce life is as about as meaningful of a concept as that of a square circle. Natural selection necessarily means that nothing outside of nature is necessary to explain it. Darwin's theory was and is revolutionary in part because it shows that humanity is not at the center of creation, and not its purpose either.

Ken you appears to offer the strongest corroboration for the biologist William Provine's infamous rule: if you want to marry Christian doctrine with modern evolutionary biology, "you have to check your brains at the church-house door."

As for C.S. Lewis I'll be happy to destroy the forth rate nonsense that Lewis produced. Up for it?

Probably you will not be asked to testify in the next big creationism court case.

As if.

I am? I thought prove was pretty well established in meaning- to demonstrate something by evaluation of the evidence. Is there some other meaning of prove I'm not aware of?

Well, theres the meaning resistent to (water proof), and as a measurement of alcoholic strength to name two.

"The intellectually satisfied atheist can say, "Science does not contradict my views." Show me the theist who can say the same, who can support his theism scientifically."

But that's not "the same" at all. The same would be "science does not contradict my views." That's what Miller is saying. I don't think he would say that he can support his beliefs scientifically in the sense that science proves his faith correct in a way even non-believers would recognize.

Lest people misunderstand me, I'm not say that we should stay out of philosophy and metaphysics and religion because I have so much respect for those things I don't. I think they are huge tar babies of pointless argument that has no clear resolution. Anyone trying to cite some philosophical view as a "final word" on any subject is fooling themselves. Hell, we're still debating virtually every single philosophical view from the time of the Greeks. We're not going to get ANYWHERE debating philosophy.

Science isn't just better at delivering results, its less annoying. At least when scientists scream at each other over this or that scientific claim, there is some hope that all the rancor will produce useful viable answers to interesting questions at the end. Not so with philosophy.

I think Hume is just about the final word on 'miracles'. But then again I think Hume is pretty groovy :)

"Theistic evolution, the idea that an omnipotent God would need to use random mutations and natural selection to produce life is as about as meaningful of a concept as that of a square circle."

About as meaningful as that TO YOU, you mean? Are you really going to argue that MEANING is some sort fo objective measure of something.

"Natural selection necessarily means that nothing outside of nature is necessary to explain it."

True, but that doesn't rule other things out. Natural selection doesn't mean that artificial selection is impossible or never happened, for instance.

"Darwin's theory was and is revolutionary in part because it shows that humanity is not at the center of creation, and not its purpose either."

You are simply overreaching. Conclusions about purpose and so forth go way way beyond both what science can support as well as requiring a level of knowledge of historical events that you simply do not have and no one can have.

Let the facts speak for themselves. Miller finds need, because of his beliefs, to embellish them with unprovable beliefs. That's his bag. But declarations about "no purpose" overreach too. It's enough to simply say that natural selection explains how life developed without requiring reference to any sort of design or purpose.

"We're not going to get ANYWHERE debating philosophy"

Philosophy without science cannot go to far. But we ain't gonna get anywhere WITHOUT philosophy, either.

To quote "But declarations about "no purpose" overreach too. It's enough to simply say that natural selection explains how life developed without requiring reference to any sort of design or purpose."

You have just contradicted yourself - you buffoon.

"The intellectually satisfied atheist can say, "Science does not contradict my views." Show me the theist who can say the same, who can support his theism scientifically."

But that's not "the same" at all. The same would be "science does not contradict my views."

I should have written: "Show me the theist who can say "science does not contradict my views." Show me the theist who can support his theism scientifically."

Miller cannot say science has not contradicted his views. He holds that certain supposedly historical events famed in song and lore are actual miracles exempt from science, specifically, those miracles that he believes as part of his religious faith. His science gets religious holidays, and with a liturgical calendar, one whole heck of a lot of them.

That's what Miller is saying. I don't think he would say that he can support his beliefs scientifically in the sense that science proves his faith correct in a way even non-believers would recognize.

I don't think he's stupid either.

"How can something "seem" to exist and not be testable? Easy, it's your imagination."

That's hardly the only possibility. There are all manner of subatomic particles that seemed to be real due to the mathematical models but were undetectable due to the limits of technology at the time. However that's a less fundamental issue than things like Joy and dreams which cannot be tested because they exist within our consciousness. Perhaps you regard all human emotion as a function of imagination, in which case your statemente was fairly correct, for you.

"That's not to say that your imagination is not real....we can test for that too."

How would you test for it exactly?

"You have just contradicted yourself - you buffoon."

You certainly are in a big rush to call everyone under the sun a buffoon. But I didn't contradict myself. The operative phrasing is between saying that evolution shows that life is without purpose, and saying that evolution can explain life without need of a mind or a design or a purpose. You statement makes a declaration about what THE purpose is. Mine doesn't.

The same would be "science does not contradict my views." That's what Miller is saying.

Well, if his views include stuff about people dying on a cross, getting stabbed for good measure, then being buried in a cave, then coming back to life and walking around with holes in his hands, then "ascending" into nowhere/everywhere, then at least some of his views are contradicted by present day (and even contemporaneous) understanding of the realities of human biology.

If anything, Miller is saying that his imaginary beliefs (i.e., his "faith") in the majestic supertude of Jesus are unshaken, at least as of yesterday, and are immune from scientific challenge because (drum roll) he says so.

Now if only Ken would just say that he believes all this stuff because it makes him feel good to do so and for no other objective rational reason, we could all just move along. I could listen to the Stones "Aftermath" (the American version, of course, because I prefer the song order and track listing) for the 100th time and Miller could listen to the Lord's Prayer for the 10,000th time.

But religious people have a hard time admitting such things. I guess it sort of spoils the pleasure of religion to do so.

Imagine that.

"Miller cannot say science has not contradicted his views."

Why not?

"He holds that certain supposedly historical events famed in song and lore are actual miracles exempt from science, specifically, those miracles that he believes as part of his religious faith."

Sure, but luckily for him, those particular events are too cryptic and removed from testibility to come up against direct inquiry or evidential refutation. Certainly that is very cheap and convienient if his point is to argue that non-beleivers should accept his beliefs, but I've never felt that he was or is doing that.

Philosophy as subject beyond "this stuff seems to work and we can sort of agree that there is some sort of reality that is common and consistent to us all that we can debate about" pretty much all seems like the following link to me:

http://manwatchesbooty.ytmnd.com/

It's addicting and endlessly mesmerizing, but in the end, you realize that you've just been staring at someone's ass for three hours and its time to go make tacos for dinner or get some actual research done.

Plunge sorry you are simply not on speaking terms with logic. The scientific 'purpose' of life is in the reproducing of replicators which randomly vary yet survive in a non-random way.

Life and philosophy for adults begins in disappointment. And there are two forms of disappointment that interest me: religious and political disappointment. Religious disappointment flows from the realization that religious belief is not an option for us. Political disappointment flows from the fact that there is injustice--that we live in a world that is radically unjust and violent, where might seems to equal right, where the poor are exploited by the rich, etc. So for me philosophy begins with these experiences of disappointment: a disappointment at the level of what I would think of as "meaning," namely that, given that there is no God, what is the meaning of life? And, given that we live in an unjust world, how are we to bring about justice?

But the only meaning for life is the one we construct for ourselves as human beings aware of our true place in the universe.

God or other universal or absolute ideas cannot offer answers to the question of the meaning of life, and thus any answer has to come from within human life, which is finite and capable of error. Once we've accepted that the meaning of life is ours to make, we make meaning. Then we accept that we live in a situation, or, rather, that we inherit a situation of meaninglessness, and out of that meaninglessness we create meaning in relationship to the ordinariness of our common existence.

For me, there is a radical separation between philosophy and science (indeed rational investigation)--the activity of being a philosopher, scientist etc., as someone who reflects--and a religious point of view. The philosopher or scientist is someone who doesn't know, but who wants to find out. This is why Socrates was declared the wisest man in Greece. The inscription over the oracle at Delphi reads: Know Thyself. The truth is, we do not know ourselves fully. The wisest of us accept that we do not know ourselves. Philosophy is the inquiry into that situation. But the religious person knows what the meaning of life is. And they tend to have very cheap and easy 'answers'.

""Joy" is defined as "a feeling of great pleasure and happiness.""

Dan, you don't use a dictionary definition as a scientific argument.

It's better than using no definition at all, which is what you've been doing up to this point.

Pleasure is a physical sensation caused by the release of certain chemicals in the brain. Joy is an abstract emotion that people feel and define radically differently.

Oops. I spoke too soon.

Defining "joy" only as "something that people, like, totally define differently from pleasure" so you can pretend that they're completely unrelated concepts is about the most self-serving load of mental masturbation I've ever seen coming from anyone, including every creationist I've ever encountered.

Petitio principii. Your conclusion and your premise are identical.

"And you're still refusing to define what you mean by "prove.""

I am? I thought prove was pretty well established in meaning- to demonstrate something by evaluation of the evidence. Is there some other meaning of prove I'm not aware of?

Obviously. Are you asking me to prove something's existence, or are you asking me to prove how something works? Those are two quite different requests, and you're steadfastly (and at this point, I believe, intentionally) refusing to make the distinction.

"Besides, what exactly does it mean to "prove an abstract noun"?"

It means to prove that the abstract concept represented by the word actually exists. The reason this came up is I was asked for a list of five things that exist but can't be scientifically proven.

If you agree that there are things which cannot be proven but do seem for all intents and purposes to exist then we needn't bother with this line of thought any longer. If you disagree then I guess we'll have to.

If something can't be scientifically proven (i.e., "demonstrated by evaluation of evidence"), how do you even know it exists/happens in the first place? Argument by assertion? Just saying "joy exists, but I can't prove it" is not evidence either that joy exists or that it is non-falsifiable.

But even by your own rather superficial definition, the existence of joy is trivially easy to prove. Have you felt the emotion known as "joy" yourself, or failing that, can you establish that anyone else has? If so, then it exists, at least inasmuch as any abstract concept can be said to exist. If not, then no, it doesn't exist in any meaningful way, and this whole discussion is academic.

"You're trying to claim that the difference in spelling and pronunciation between the words "joy" and "pleasure" has objective scientific meaning. If that's not a semantic argument, then nothing is."

Uh, no. I;m trying to point out to you the difference between the "spelling and pronunciation" between "joy" and "pleasure" is due to the fact that they are two different things. See the first paragraph above for a stark comparison of the differences.

Given the fact that you can't establish a meaningful difference between "joy" and "pleasure" other than "no, really, they're different, I totally pinky-swear," I don't see any reason accept the validity of your assertions.

Sure, but luckily for him, those particular events are too cryptic and removed from testibility to come up against direct inquiry or evidential refutation.

Sure, people never make magical stories up to impress the rubes, and the tales of J the C are the only ones of their kind, constituting the entirety of the region's era of the virgin-born miraculously dead and resurrected god motif. /snark.

I suppose the argument from Judy Tenuta: "ItcouldHAPpen!" is not unscientific in circles Ken Miller would like to see widening.

If Miller is so good at debating big 'C' creationists, I'm amazed that he doesn't see the analog nature between his miracle argument and ID's irreducible complexity argument.

Seemingly IC have a natural explanation by scaffolding et cetera. Seemingly miracles have a natural explanation by physics.

Particular IC systems have been shown to have natural explanations. Particular miracles, for example, shroud of Turin, have been shown to have natural explanations.

Theoretical IC have been shown to be illdefined: simplicity is globally illdefined, so local simplicity is too - and IC is to ask for local simplicity. Theoretical miracles are illdefined by construction (lack of definition).

I agree that there is a qualitative difference between big 'C* and small 'c' creationists, but Miller is pushing the envelope.

http://godisimaginary.com/

Deal with it motherfuckers. That is grow up and become an emotionally mature adult that doesn't need a parent in the sky looking out for them/or to give false meaning to your life.

GWW:
"I think Beyonce is a miracle."

Sure, but she has a natural explanation, no virgin birth or mythical powers. And she is eminently observable. :-)

Turnip:
All of these, assuming reality means the usual thing ie observations, seems to be theories or general concepts that have been verified or well supported by observations. If you don't trust established theories, you don't understand that the term means. "Your individual current state of being" is locally covered by either quantum indeterminacy or classical separability, and globally (in Tegmark's multiverse) probably covered by the no cloning theorem.

"There are all manner of subatomic particles that seemed to be real due to the mathematical models but were undetectable due to the limits of technology at the time..."

But they were and are testable, whether or not we possess the technology. Just because human technology is not capable of testing for something doesn't make it not real.

Certainly at one time witches seemed to exist, and so did epicycles. They were imagined. No amount of testing could ever make them real simply because they are not reality based notions.

So you want me to devise a test for imagination? It really seems intangible to you to measure? Interesting.

Well, here's something basic. I'm sure there must be more elaborate studies on human imagination.
http://www.meditationiseasy.com/mCorner/techniques/imagination_test.htm

Tlaloc:
"The third choice, neither, is agnosticism, and that's what science is."

Science is secular. You can't conflate that with agnosticism. One can discuss this at length, but there is a good case to make that even if science apriori was consistent with agnosticism it has aposteriori supported atheism to the detriment of agnosticism. It kills dualisms by its method and there aren't any large gaps for gods to hide in any more. Science definitely detracts from theistic assumptions.

It is also openended, so even if you succeed in demarcate its methods, already a decidedly difficult matter, it doesn't seem possible to demarcate its results. You seem to be conflating these two separate things.

Theories that are falsifiably supported by observations also covers unobserved objects indirectly. We weren't there when big bang occurred, nor can we our observations probe back to the very moment. But no one denies that it happened.

So how can we state with confidence what science may ultimately imply regarding atheism?

"Plunge sorry you are simply not on speaking terms with logic."

And your mom is so fat that... oh wait, right, you were talking about logic again?

"The scientific 'purpose' of life is in the reproducing of replicators which randomly vary yet survive in a non-random way."

Yes. So? What? That's not what you said. You said that this demonstrates that human beings are not the purpose of creation. That's not a scientific statement. And have you abandoned the claim that I contradicted myself by objecting to that statement while agreeing that evolution shows that purpose is unnecessary to explain life. Necessity and actuality are different logical constructs.

"But the only meaning for life is the one we construct for ourselves as human beings aware of our true place in the universe."

The amusing thing is that I agree with this. All meaning is subjective. Even if there were a God, this wouldn't change a whit. Talking about a meaning without talking about whose is to express an incomplete thought.

However, what I don't agree is your insistence that this position is some sort of settled fact in philosophy or theology or metaphysics, etc.

"But the religious person knows what the meaning of life is. And they tend to have very cheap and easy 'answers'."

This is just yet another glib generalization of the beliefs and nature of ones opponents. Surprise! When YOU get to tell the story of what THEY believe, it turns out that it's bad! Who could have predicted that!

bob koepp: I would argue that with a slight tweak Bunge's demarcation criteria (note the plural) jointly solve the problem as much as can be hoped. Like many things in science, though, there is room for some disagreement around the edges. (Consensus is not the mark of science; ability to make consensus increase in a rational manner is.)

Tlaloc: Er, why is psychology not capable of being a science? (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and counterfactually assume it isn't largely now.)

Great White Wonder: Ahem. (re: dingleberries.)

Kristine: In fact, it is worse than that. If it is truly (completely) incomprensible, one cannot even claim consistently that it is good. (Or anything else, for that matter.)

Life and philosophy for adults begins in disappointment.

Yup. We have these big brains but most of us do not enough time on earth to do all the things we would love to do if we had more time.

See Ozu, Tokyo Story.

What to do about this disappointment?

a) Accept it and move on.
b) Kill yourself.
c) Choose to believe in reincarnation or an eternal life after death.

Every time I start reading such convoluted language and sophistry causes me great suspicion. There have been some very cogent posts, refuted only by a couple here using cumbersome language and winding thoughts that seem to be concealing some other motive. I wonder.

I so sorry to everyone I let the boy without taking his pills. Please forgive me.

This debate tactic is more generally known as the Chewbacca Defense.

Gerald Broflovski: Dammit!
Chef: What?
Gerald: He's using the Chewbacca Defense!
Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
The defense rests.

lol roflcopter ur so fu-knee. Look: I pwned science!
http://mathpwned.ytmnd.com/

Thanks Melior. Got it.

Read Professor J. McFadden's book "Quantum Evolution" (2003)

Over at PT I just read this comment from Gary Hurd:

I found fairly little objectionable in Miller's talk, at least the first 50 minutes or so. From 52:10 to 55:30, I was irritated that he was oblivious or dismissive of the efforts of Nick Matzke, and Barbra Forrest in the Dover trial, particularly as they were central in exposing the creationist antecedents for "Of Pandas and People." He did admit in passing that he had opposed attempting subpoena for early manuscripts of "Pandas." Happily his advice was ignored

Just out of curiosity: 1) did Miller really say that he opposed attempting subpoena for early manuscripts of Pandas??? And if so, can anyone explain why?

That baffles me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk

Dawkins at his best

Jeez, when did this blog get so hostile to agnostics?

1: On topic, I think that being a scientist and believing in the tenets of an organised religion involves some sort of logical disconnect, since organised religions all posit an interventionist god whose interventions should be the subject of scientific investigation.

2: I think that science can and should be applied to claims of intervention by a god or gods in the universe, such as alleged miracles. Saying its miraculous because its miraculous doesn't cut the mustard.

3: On the other hand, if you want to stick a god outside the universe and beyond the reach of the physical world, then if you're being scientifically rigorous, you've got to say you don't and can't know whether god exists or not. You have no way to refute it, so saying god doesn't exist is making an assumption that puts the burden of proof on you to make - proof you can never have. It's not an unreasonable assumption - but strictly it is an assumption. It's ok to say "I don't and can't know (though I have a pretty good guess,and even if there is a god there, where ever there is, it's not like it affects me in any way)"

Of course, this cuts the other way too - if someone claims their god is beyond the reach of the physical world, they've got to come up with the proof that they can never have.
And all bets are off though, if they cheat and start ascribing stuff that does happen in the physical world, water -> wine, virgin births, revelations of moral laws etc to said hitherto unknown and unknowable god.

4: So why are we beating up agnostics, philosophers of science and fellow scientists who defend either? This is a good blog, but shit, guys, it's getting so it's a verbal broken bottle in the face over any sort of disagreement. I don't think Tlaloc or Plunger were trolling. Arguing, yes; trolling, no. There's a difference, especially in this case where, relative to arguments with IDers and jebus-freaks, breaking bottles over the heads of poor old philosophers of science is approaching the end of that Emo Phillips "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912" joke.

I mean, if that's the done thing to add an random insult to a comment in an argument, then fine, when in Rome: feck yez all (ironymeters please, gentlemen). But, why can't we godless all just get along, you ornery bastards? :)

I don't think Tlaloc or Plunger were trolling.

I hope no one is suggesting that. They are engaging in the give-and-take of a conversation, not buzzing by and dropping insupportable nonsense that they won't support.

Of course, they're still wrong. They're just sincere about it.

Oh, I would also hope people could be more tolerant of agnostics and philosophers. I've got nothing against them, and think the latter have much to offer. Philosopher≠theologian, you know. You can piss on theologians as much as you want.

I would pretty much agree with what Paul just said. Science is really not compatible with any full-blooded form of religion but certainly can accomodate some weak version of Deism, if that's your cup of tea. (How defensible the latter is in philosophical terms is another question...)

On the other hand I can't really get worked up about the "atheism vs. agnosticism" debate. I can't prove the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I ought to treat the "possibility" seriously as a genuine open question. The Christian God, Allah, etc. don't really deserve any more respect, they get it merely because of tradition and vox populi. I myself am quite willing to answer to either of the terms "atheist" or "agnostic".

Miller also rejects deism. He seems to think that the fact that "the three leading Western religions generally agree on the existence of an active, personal, involved Creator" is somehow significant...never mind that all three are branches of the same Abrahamic stock. Amusingly, he also rejects it because it is scientifically flawed.

I know. Irony.

Of course he rejects Deism; there could hardly be a more serious heresy for a professing catholic.

Miller also rejects deism. He seems to think that the fact that "the three leading Western religions generally agree on the existence of an active, personal, involved Creator" is somehow significant...never mind that all three are branches of the same Abrahamic stock. Amusingly, he also rejects it because it is scientifically flawed.

I know. Irony.

I don't know how a man as smart as Miller can have such nonsense bouncing around inside his head. It is just so obvious. He, at least to me, was indoctrinated very strongly as a child and as Shermers book showed smart people are better at defending reasons they arrived at for non smart reasons.

Here's 5 easy ones-
1) joy
2) creativity
3) imagination
4) dreams
5) loyalty

Wait! Tlaloc! What if the color blue to you isn't the same as the color blue to me? Whoaaaaaaaaah. Trippy, no? Does blue exist? Does color? Does vision?

Believe it or not, we have ways of connecting phenomenal conscious experience to concrete biology. And as for imagination... well, that's a pretty clear type of cognitive function, right? So does "observation" exist? Does "planning" exist? Does "sexual attraction" exist? Does "cooperation" exist?

Am I tripping even your bullshit detector yet?

Hey all.

I know I don't post here often, but I'm in need of some help, and you've proven yourselves time and time again.

I keep running into an argument against evolution that I know is false, but have no response ready for.

It goes something like this. I'll mention the Rhodesian Ridgeback as an example, and someone will reply with, "but it's still a dog."

How do I explain the to them the problems with what they're saying?

PZ,

I don't think Tlaloc or Plunger were trolling.

I hope no one is suggesting that.

No one is suggesting it, they are quite explicit about it.

Great White Wonder: Yo, trollie, show me where PZ said that "science mandates atheism."
Alex: it is looking pretty clear that plunge and tlaloc are meek trolls

But Tlaloc or Plunger appear to be very capable of taking care of themselves -- although it is a bit funny that only "troll" gets attention among the voluminous insults that go flying, for instance, "motherfuckers".

For a blog that proports to stand for science and rationality, it is a little hard to ignore than every recent thread regarding religion and science gets filled with insulting speech by the science guys. What's really special, is that treatment is aimed at atheists who usually are focussed on the demarcation problem.

If you care about the public perception of science, scientists, and atheists you just gotta hope only folks who have the Pharyngulian view of the world find their way here. It's trending toward the worst PR we could wish for -- and it's not like we get that much good PR in the first place.

I mean, the Discovery Institute must love it. Think of some DI guy lobbying some local schoolboard member. "You really need to vote my way. Just look at the most popular science blog on the web. They aren't just anti-religious. They don't simply attack any scientist who expresses a religious belief. They even go after any of their own athiestic-materialists who try to discuss the limitations of science."

I disagree with the accusations against tlaloc and plunge. That's my opinion, and that's all I can say.

However, I do not give a good goddamn what the DI thinks of it. I am a fiercely godless proponent of uncompromising science who thinks the sheep who follow the rationalizations of the IDists are idiots -- of course I'm going to be a boogeyman that they will wave in front of their minions, no matter what I do. Don't try to suggest how I should run the site because I need to earn the DI's good opinion, because that is an argument that will set me running in the opposite direction from what you want.

How do I explain the to them the problems with what they're saying?

Don't. Tell them to read the posts at Talk Origins and if they have any creationist arguments which aren't debunked there, they should write a letter to Science magazine and collect their Nobel Prize.

Great White Wonder: Yo, trollie, show me where PZ said that "science mandates atheism."

Yup, I said it. And I said it for the simple reason that Tlaloc was posting nothing but goalpost-moving and strawman-attacking garbage. Did you read Tlaloc's response to my request? Pretty damn pathetic, if you ask me.

I'll also add that one reason you will see those angry responses from the godless science guys is simple enough: we're angry about some things. We've got some very good reasons to be angry, too. This is one of those places where that anger can be expressed, where there isn't a majority of sheeple who will shush them and tell them to stop making Jesus cry.

I'd like to see more considered comments, too. But I also don't want to discourage the well-earned and righteous express of atheist fury. This is a place where atheists and agnostics belong, and if they want to turn the music up loud and stomp, that's their right, this is their comments section. I give them ownership; let the responsibility be theirs, too, and I hope it leads to more constructive discussion, sometime.

AndyS, mind reader:

They even go after any of their own athiestic-materialists who try to discuss the limitations of science."

Who's going after whom, AndyS?

I think a real problem is that while the "science guys" here tend to stay the same, the people defending religion (or just arguing against some aspect of atheism) are in constant churn. Every day someone pops up and announces that science excludes the supernatural by definition, or that atheism is just another religion, or that there's this newfangled thing 'agnosticism' that's way more supportable, as if they're the first person to say it. After awhile it's difficult to be polite. Although, admittedly, some of us weren't trying that hard to begin with.

I've spent the last half hour scouring talk origins and can't find a good answer to it (I'm reasonably sure I missed something).

However, that IS the first thing I ask someone when they say evolution isn't true ("Can I see your Nobel prize?").

Thanks for the reponse, by the way.

AndyS

What's really special, is that treatment is aimed at atheists who usually are focussed on the demarcation problem.

The so-called "demarcation problem" is a red herring and, in my opinion, is currently being abused by theistic scientists for their own agenda(s), e.g., to cover their religious asses while they nestle with the scientifically illiterate religious rubes and try to "comfort" them and "assuage their fears."

This is not the sort of progress I am interested in making.

More and more pissed off atheists coming to the most popular science blog on the internet and keeping it real is closer to my own short-term goals. I certainly don't expect people to be as prickly as PZ or as unburdened by societal taboos as myself.

But I am in interested in ideas other than "can't we all just get along"? Because the answer to that question is "of course we can if we all agree to shut up about the stuff that irritates anybody else." That's the death of genuine communication, though, and the birth of a boring scripted ritual with all the emotional and intellectual depth of a Kinkade painting on Prozak.

PZ,

I don't care what the IDers think either. I do care about those people who haven't made up their minds yet and about fostering civility toward anyone who attempts to discuss serious issues seriously as Tlaloc and Plunger have.

Well, if I understand correctly the argument you're trying to make to your creationist interlocutor, you're making the point that a vast number of strikingly different breeds of dogs have emerged due to artificial selection, and this by extension shows that natural selection could presumably cause similar differences over time. The creationist response is of course that artificial selection creates new breeds, sure, but never new species. Only the hand of God can create new species (they might even add a "duh!"). The response to this argument is, quite simply, time. The time-scale over which new breeds of dogs have been created is perhaps 20,000 years. Humans in their current state have existed as a species for ten times that long, 200,000 years. Speciation (the transformation from one species to another) occurs over millions of years. Using lack of speciation in dogs as a creationist argument is like saying (to use a dog-related analogy) "You know, I bought this puppy several hours ago, and it hasn't grown at all. Obviously, it will never become a full-size dog." Try that one next time you're arguing. Of course, depending on the type of creationist you're debating, you might encounter trouble at the 20,000 years point. If that turns out to be the case, give up. They're too far gone, and argument is useless.

Nathan

I do care about those people who haven't made up their minds yet and about fostering civility toward anyone who attempts to discuss serious issues seriously as Tlaloc and Plunger have.

I care about Iraqi kids being killed or orphaned.

when the next bit of the miraculous is explained, we'll move on to the whatever else they come up with. the only thing the miracle-seekers will eventually have is angels carrying people around in ancient times and the middle ages.

I'm sure we could all find a thousand more reasons to discuss the philosophy Miller uses to maintain his personal compartmentalizations, but as a suggested future topic, there is a paper coming out this month in Public Library of Science Biology that I'd love PZ to address in a future thread:

http://www.physorg.com/news77211829.html

"We have provided the first evidence for a common role of BMPs in establishing the pattern of gene expression along the dorsal-ventral axis of the nervous system of vertebrates and invertebrates," said Ethan Bier, a professor of biology at UCSD and senior author on the study. "Our results suggest that this process has been conserved from a common ancestor rather than evolving separately as had been previously believed."

Is this correct? Is this really the first hard evidence supporting conservation of gene expression wrt neuronal tissue differentiation?

The impression is that the prevailing view was independent development, but I don't recall that being the case when I took developmental bio at UCB as a grad student (I don't recall a strong case being made one way or the other). Maybe PZ could expound on the history of this issue as well?

cheers

Like I said, I agree that they were discussing the issues seriously. However, I do not run the comments section too autocratically, so your complaints are pointless. I only step in now and then to delete spam and to disemvowel the real trolls...and please note, neither tlaloc or plunge are at any risk of that.

I will say, though, that trying to get flaming atheists to change their behavior by complaining that flaming atheism is bad PR or makes creationists happy is highly ineffective. Well, actually, it's kind of counterproductive, because it's likely to get a bar stool thrown at your head.

Bachalon:

The people making this argument are engaging in essentialism, or what Mayr has called 'typological' thinking:

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm

Mayr also makes the point that 'typological' thinking inevitably leads to racist conceptions of humankind, so you can point out that not only has this sort of thinking been discredited by biologists in any number of ways, but it also has unpleasant social consequences:

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm

Biblical literalists continue to employ this sort of thinking when they speak of the 'kinds' described in Genesis. When confronted with the facts of evolution, they try to redefine terms; they'll acknowledge 'microevolution' or 'evolution within a species' but they'll deny that evolution can produce anything new. Read Sean Carroll's book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" for the most up-to-date demonstration of how easily novelty is generated in biological systems from pre-existing "switches" and "tool kit genes".

I might add that creationists are not only guilty of a lack of imagination, they are also uninformed, but it's not entirely their fault. One of the scandals of evolutionary biology, in my opinion, is that there is so little discussion in the literature of speciation events. Talkorigins has a nice FAQ summarizing that, you can find it here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

This is a good one to know, since there are some (misleading) criticisms out there on the Net. Also, I have a document that I produced on the topic which directly addresses some of those critiques, and whose intended audience is the unpersuaded. If you're interested, I can send you a copy. My e-mail address is:

epigene13@hotmail.com

Good luck!

Huh. That is interesting, and I'll look the paper up when it comes out. I'll have to read the details to see if they're overstating the case -- there is conservation of D/V patterning genes, but they could be talking about something more direct, direct patterning within the NS rather than a more general specification of where the NS should form.

Bachalon,
Try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html (see esp. response #4).

Nathan

I did not intend to bag on agnosticism or agnostics (member, John Wilkins changed the way I think about this stuff club). But for the people who use agnostic in the Huxleyan sense, i.e. "an agnostic believes nothing for which there is no evidence," there is less difference between agnostic and atheist than its common usage would lead the believers to believe. As such, it feels like sugar-coated obfuscation to use agnostic where atheist fits just as well. Atheism is a fine word, I'd like to see more people use it, even if it does rub some the wrong way.

--

"What's a philosopher ?" said Brutha. "Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting," said a voice in his head.

-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

The demarcation problem concerns what is and isn't science. I haven't seen much interest in that here. The major issue seems to be the claim that certain (potential) aspects of reality are outside the scope of science; an entirely different problem. One that is, as far as I know, only current in lay philosophy. Considering the history of science is one of refuting unmoved movers, vital forces, etc, I find the position difficult to take seriously. The practise of science doesn't give much hope either; theories are supported by evidence, many aspects of a theory are not directly observed or tested (separating those that are from those that are not is in itself an open problem), and it would be difficult to argue that they all share some common property we could call "natural" vs. something else we could label "supernatural." (Calling one "causal" and the other "non-casual" is merely changing the labels.) These are all big problems and yet many people seem to think they're warranted in saying "x is outside science by definition" as if it were the most obvious thing in the world.

Nothing is or is not "science ... by definition"; there isn't a definition. People here talk as if there's a definition of science carved in granite somewhere or that all scientists are taught the scientific method as a set of enumerated principles. The only thing we have to go by is what science has and hasn't done in the past. And so far it's been pretty good at humiliating anybody who attaches aribitrary limitations to it, regardless of whether said limitation was considered theological or philosophical in nature.

...but they could be talking about something more direct, direct patterning within the NS rather than a more general specification of where the NS should form.

that seems to be the case, as they utilize a new(?) technique to measure the effects of BMP on further subdivisions, if I'm reading the paraphrasing of the article correctly.

...which of course brings up questions about the technique itself.

I'm basically a behavioral ecologist, but know enough developmental bio. and evolutionary theory to think this seems an interesting paper to explore in more detail.

this is so far off topic for this thread though, I'm just going to leave it at that. I just didn't see a good place to mention it, without going all the way back to your takedown of Well's "Idiot's guide: ch3"

funny enough, I knew Wells when I was a grad student in Zoology at Berkely (he was in the MCB dept.).

There's another paper in PLoS I've been meaning to get to -- on D/V BMP signaling in hemichordates. I'll move that one a notch higher on the list of priorities (unfortunately for the blog right now, this teaching #@&@!$ is on top for a while.)

You should have taken that opportunity to give Wells a solid kick in the ass.

Look people. I'm not an agnostic. I'm an atheist, and as a matter of fact, I spend a heck of a lot of time straight out rebutting apologia or pointing out the absurdity of religious arguments directly. I spend about half the year working to Democrats elected, and the other half lollygagging on the internet dreaming about someday going back to school, ditching all my wasted poli-sci education, and studying sea slugs for the rest of my life. Most of that I spend arguing with theists and creationists. I don't really think I need to present my bona fides, but that's who I am.

But none of that prevents me from finding things to criticize in the arguments that people make, even other atheists. Heck, in my time arguing with people I've made a lot of dumb arguments for my positions. I've learned from that.

And in general, I agree with PZ: I don't care what the DI thinks. I want more people to understand that atheists exist, we have our opinions (or not: a heck of a lot of atheists could care less about any of these debates!) we're as damn fine people as anyone else.

But bad arguments are bad, and if I think someone's argument is bad or unfair, I'm going to say so. I'm not defending Miller because I agree with Miller's beliefs or because I think it's good PR to play nice will Miller. I'm defending him because I think the arguments against him are ill thought out.

I just wish that someone who wants us all to believe in miricles would actually come up with a few. So far everything I've heard referred to as a miricle is either too poorly documented to be able to be believed, or has been sufficiently demonstrated to - without further evidence to the contrary - not be a miricle. If they want me to believe in miricles they need to show me at least one.

I do not use the term troll lightly. But when someone comes to a science blog and posts:

"Look up a ways and you have people explicitly claiming that anything that cannot be scientifically proven does not exist. From a factual stand point this is terribly shoddy but what's more it is disturbingly fanatical. It is idolatry of science."

And portrays themselves as a physicist, it smells fishy. A common canard is to paint science as a religion. Of course there is nothing of substance to support the "shoddy" assertion.

It went on for over 100 posts about how there is real stuff and then there is a mystical component of reality that science will never explain. Hooey. No examples. Just some crapolla about imagination and joy. Over and over.

He/they were espousing a duality of an empirically verifiable reality that contains some sort of magical component outside the reach of skeptical inquiry. He/they thought imagination and joy was a great example of that duality.

Ok, I'm starting to twitch. They were here to disrupt and foment hostility. Clearly, my opinion.

You should have taken that opportunity to give Wells a solid kick in the ass.

You are more right than you could possibly know! At the time, I rather thought I was actually giving him a bit of a "boot". He was however, an accomplished liar even then, and I had no clue he was a staunch anti-evolutionist let alone a friggin' Mooney. Suffice it to say, Wells was my first exposure to the anti-evolutionist movement, and if I knew over 15 years ago what I know now, my ass-kicking would have been a bit more intense, to say the least.

I have stories to tell, but they're not appropriate for this thread. If you're curious sometime, just shoot me an email.

wow... 209 posts and still going.

I think where the whole "miracle" line of argument has ratholed is this:

What we're talking about with regard to "miracles" can only reasonably cover phenomena which have been observed. Perhaps only once. Abstract nouns can't be considered phenomena (if they are indeed abstract nouns) and hence can't be considered "miracles" as such.

Maybe there's some other meaning of the term "miracle" being proposed, but my understanding of the term would limit such things to observations of phenomena not explained by any established theory. In that case, just as soon as we see it, what we have is a natural phenomenon, not a supernatural one. It may highlight a hole in established theory, but doesn't put it outside the scope of science.

Just my 2c, of course...

i think the real miracle is Minnesota winning a game. just sayin'.

go chargers! in the annals of misplaced-testosterone-raving is anything better than humiliating the raiders at home? i think not. i may eat those words, but so be it.

A. "We have provided the first evidence for a common role of BMPs in establishing the pattern of gene expression along the dorsal-ventral axis of the nervous system of vertebrates and invertebrates."

OK, I'll believe that. Cool.

B. "Our results suggest that this process has been conserved from a common ancestor rather than evolving separately as had been previously believed."

There better be some more data between A and B suggesting common origins for this process beyond the fact that they're shared. This is the point the I think Kirschner and Gerhart have tried to drive home in there book... robust modules that are weakly linked to one another and can be easily repurposed. BMP signaling operates in so many contexts it would hardly be surprising if this is a coincidence... I mean, there are only a handful of morphogen signaling pathways to choose from for diffusion gradient-based patterning.

This reminds me of the whole Notch signaling in spider segmentation issue...

Anyway, sounds like an interesting paper.

"I give them ownership; let the responsibility be theirs, too, and I hope it leads to more constructive discussion, sometime."

Well I hope it happens soon, because this place has become a bit tedious over the past couple of months. The comments section here is veering towards the unreadability of most of the big sites.

Perhaps its just inevitable beyond a readership of a certain size.

If Caledonian was suddenly convinced of the existence of God, I would consider that a miracle. ;-)

plunge wrote:

But bad arguments are bad, and if I think someone's argument is bad or unfair, I'm going to say so. I'm not defending Miller because I agree with Miller's beliefs or because I think it's good PR to play nice will Miller. I'm defending him because I think the arguments against him are ill thought out.

From the Lawrence Journal World article:

But Miller said the root of the portrayal of religion and evolution as opposites may come from scientists who have an "anti-theistic interpretation of evolution," a stance he disagrees with.

"People of faith are shooting at the wrong target. They should not be shooting at evolution itself," he said.

Miller, a Catholic, said evolution has been remarkably robust in answering criticism through fossil records, the fusing of human chromosomes and other examples.

Instead of attacking evolutionary theory, the argument should be against the anti-theistic interpretation of evolution, he said.

In his PowerPoint presentations, his book "Finding Darwin's God", and in the Kitzmiller trial transcripts, Miller is consistently "shooting" down arguments for special creation. To creationists, Miller's falsification of one of their core religious beliefs makes him just as anti-theistic as Dawkins. The ill thought out argument was Miller's attempt to placate creationists. But if in a couple of weeks from now, the Discovery Institute puts out a press release stating "We now admit that when Kenneth Miller says "The scientific community has not embraced the explanation of design because it is quite clear, on the basis of the evidence, that it is wrong..", he is right", I'll go become a Mormon.

as Great White Wonder i was caught by the quote from Miller's book

Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense.

okay. there is contingency, for sure. (to review my understanding of it) that's the idea that in any actual history there are "choice points" for things even if those choises are taken with completely random mechanisms.) is a "choice point" a venue for a "miracle"? examining a lineage it might be seen as so, but it sure doesn't look like one on the other side. retrospective examinations, like "prophesies" recorded in Torah of exiles and such, are anachronisms and, so, are quite unfair.

besides, the word "miracle" is loaded with connotations of (divine) purpose and deliberation. that one hits a royal flush is surely a rare event, but it can only be considered a "miracle" in the basest sense, not given the prototypes monotheism provides. the dispensing of a "miracle" also establishes a "special relationship" between the recipients of it and the divine, one that's incontrovertible, so the basis for people "having faith". if it's (only) a matter of perspective and viewpoint then i say there's nothing really special about it and so use of the word "miracle" is inappropriate.

Comment.

at 217 points in these discussions i often wish there were a tool available to generate an instant index of subjects, places, and who-said-what. figuring it all out when arriving in the middle of a discussion after a long day is, uh, challenging.

End of Comment.

I don't know whether plunge is a troll - I can't get a strong sense of his motivations - and frankly I don't care. What I *can* determine is that he's an idiot. For example:

You don't define the goalposts. You've defined "natural" in such a way that it has no semantic meaning in precisely the same way that a theologian who defines "good" as "what God wants" has emptied the statement "God is good" of any meaning.

That's just dumb. It's not even dumb like a moose. 'Natural' has a precise semantic meaning. It's just that the meaning is equivalent to the meaning of 'real', 'existent', and 'actual'. It's been that way for centuries - the world we observe, the real world, is 'nature' or 'Nature'. It's just that some of us understand the consequence of that naming.

I love science and I love theology. I hate when the two are confounded. Science doesn't deal with anything beyond the natural while religion begins with dealing with anything beyond the natural. They should certainly be in conversation with each other, but they're just not the same subject and deal with different areas/levels of truth

To use a very old example, that I may quote incorrectly, there are a number of true answers as to why the tea kettle is boiling.

1. I turned on the stove.
2. My friends coming over for tea.
3. There was an exchange of kinetic energy so that the level in the tea kettle increased.

Actions we take, relationships we nurture, scientific description - we're talking about different things

""What's a philosopher ?" said Brutha. "Someone who's bright enough to find a job with no heavy lifting," said a voice in his head."

I can't believe Pratchett said that!

Of course he meant to say "Someone who's bright enough to *invent* a job with no heavy lifting".

See, we do philosophy bashing too, to mix things up a little. :-)

To use a very old example, that I may quote incorrectly, there are a number of true answers as to why the tea kettle is boiling.

1. I turned on the stove.
2. My friends coming over for tea.
3. There was an exchange of kinetic energy so that the level in the tea kettle increased.

1 and 2 are adequate shorthand, but they're not literally true. Turning on the stove doesn't guarantee that a tea kettle placed on a burner will boil. Your friends coming over doesn't cause water to boil, either.

Technically 3 isn't specific enough either, but some degree of ambiguity in everyday speech is expected.

Icthyic:

This is a little embarrasing, but of all the creationists it's been my "pleasure" to know, I'm afraid the one who gets my goat the most is Wells, if only because his work constitutes a direct attempt to impeach my profession (high school science teacher). I don't care for his act.

So, at the risk of being like anyone else pining for gossip, as they say, do tell. If you've got some background on him that's not public knowledge, I'd love to hear it.

My e-mail (I'm afraid I don't know how to get yours) is:

epigene13@hotmail.com

"I love science and I love theology. I hate when the two are confounded. Science doesn't deal with anything beyond the natural while religion begins with dealing with anything beyond the natural."- Roger

I think poke wrote clearly that in practice there is no real boundary between natural and supernatural when it comes to scientific inquiry. As long as a scientific question can be formulated, and experiments conducted to test the hypothesis, yesterday's supernatural mystery can become tomorrow's natural mechanism.

Historically, areas were initially considered out of bounds to science (such as the human mind) have been successfully investigated by science anyway.

Another miracle for Ken to explain to us is the xian doctrine of redemption. Once again from Ambrose Bierce in his Devil's Dictionary.

"Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through the murder of the deity against which they have sinned. The doctrine of redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but have everlasting life in which to try to understand it."

It seems like many here lose track of some basic psychological principles. The most important one being that people tend to listen to people they like, and not to people they don't like, no matter how smart that person is. Numerous studies have found that people don't like the smartest person at work, but the nicest. Anybody remember high school? Carrots tend to work much better than sticks.

This is what psychological science shows, so unless a person thinks it's not a science, it would pay to remember this point.

Making whipsmart insulting replies that work on different levels shows that you probably have a high IQ, and that's great. You most likely will be right in your logical arguments more often than the average person. But, you're not convincing people. They won't like you, and you may not care, but when people don't like you, your arguments are ineffective, even if the arguments are logically correct.

This is what plunge and others are trying to get across. They want science to spread into the religious minds, but by being dicks, it's gives an easy out for those that disagree. I'm not saying you should change your behavior, but science says the carrot works better. Whether you use it is up to you.

Where then can we speak freely, without regard for the tender sensibiities of the religious, if not in the comments section of a blog awowedly dedicated to atheism as one of its main themes?

And before I get railed for agreeing with the whole 'things exist that are outside the realm of science argument,' I don't. Science just hasn't got there, yet. I just think whipsmart dickhead replies should be used in performances and shows, like Southpark and the Daily Show, where the point is to amuse the audience, versus winning an argument with someone.

"Avowedly", sorry. Bad boy, must use preview!

I didn't say you couldn't speak freely, merely that being a dick makes your arguments less effective. Once an insult is thrown, you end up just preaching to the choir.

When did this become a place for trying to convince anyone? It's not as though we're trolling in a religious blogger's comment section.

llewelly: Whoa! So how did she have facial hair?

Dwarf?

The arguments above strike me as athiests and agnostics disagreeing over minor issues, (by the way, the responses to minor issues tend to more vicious than responses to major ones, check out Animal Behavior, vol. 71, p.255-63) and it would seem each side is trying to convince the others. I just thought using psychology in the arguments would help with the convincing.

I'm with Plunge in favoring an equal opportunity approach to criticism. Even if I happen to share a position with someone, I don't think I should give a pass to bad arguments for that position. Concerning klevau's point about effective methods of persuasion, I agree that even if we're taking an argument apart at the seams, we don't need to go out our way to insult those we think are mistaken, nor to project onto them our own personal bogeymen.

klevau:

I forget who said it, but some wag once quipped something to the effect that academic disputes are often the most vicious, since there tends to be so little at stake :)

Everyone else, regarding arguments/approaches that work, versus those that don't:

This is a tough thing to talk about for many people here. You do get more flies with honey than with vinegar, especially in dealing with the general public, and I'm made that point before, and there's always the off chance that someone with an agenda will appropriate something they see here and use it against free-thinkers.

However, it seems that PZ views Pharyngula is like an oasis or 'safe zone' for atheists. If you're an atheist, this is really YOUR forum, and so PZ is not inclined to muzzle the more boisterous because that would reinforce the isolation and oppression that many atheists (I think correctly) feel.

Well, I'm OK with that personally. I feel I'm a guest here and I have to accept that some of you run with scissors or do other things that you find cathartic or liberating. My only caveat is when someone actually recommends using LOTS and LOTS of vinegar in some public setting, such as a high school classroom, I'll point out why I think that won't work.

Otherwise, fire away. As PZ says, it's your forum.

Peace....Scott

We don't want the flies. The flies are contaminated with the filth they feed on. If honey attracts more flies, then we need to abandon honey and move on to vinegar. If there are still flies, we need to consider something more potent - nitric acid, perhaps.

Caledonian - in saying we don't want flies, and suggesting a lethal response to them, you're also suggesting that you have no interest in persuading those with whom you disagree, just eliminating them. How enlightened... how enlightening.

"Flmng" thsts r mch wrs thn tht. Frst, thy r nt vry wll dctd n vltn. Thy slly jst pddl th dwksn jk f slfsh gns. Scnd, thy hndl nv nd chldsh crctr f "scnc wtht phlsphy" lk sm nstrmnt tht dlvrs trth n slvr plttr. nd f crs, thy r s kn n sng gd dd, thy pt gd wthn th rlm f scnc t cnsdr hm rftd, ths mkng gd n f scncs prccptns (yh, rght)
ND, f crs, thy nslt s sly s thy blnk. Ths s nt "rghts rg". D thy wk p s pssd vry mrnng? N. t s clr symptm f hw thy blv thmslvs sprr wnrs f trth tht dnt ND t b nc t nyn, cs "thy r rght" . r thy hv lw slf-stm, nd ths blv n hmltn bcs, hll, t wrkd fn n thm.
"Flmng thsts" r n ntllctls. Thy r smply crctrs f scnc.

[please get back on your meds, Vargas. You're obsessing again.]

The most important one being that people tend to listen to people they like, and not to people they don't like, no matter how smart that person is.

Assuming for the moment that that statement is true, and passing from the empirical to the normative, do you consider that a problem with the speaker or with the audience?

There are plenty of times in everyday life when it's necessary to pretend that you like some stupid person who just rejected your well-reasoned argument for no good reason. Some people seem to think this blog has value as a place to vent the resulting frustration.

It's nice to have a place where if you're right you can just *be right* and not have to apologize for being smarter or better-informed than your audience. And if you're wrong, someone will point it out *with logical reasoning and evidence*. (Although if you're wrong in a highly unoriginal way that's already been refuted dozens of times, they may just curtly point you at one of those refutations instead of writing a new one.) That's an experience that is rare in most people's everyday lives.

"Flaming atheists" are no intellectuals. They are simply caricatures of science.

I'm in the "flaming atheist" category. Don't know much about science. Don't know much about religion, but I do feel that religion is the biggest con job ever foisted on the world and that it should be stopped before it does even more damage than it has already done. It breed ignorance and superstition. I don't care how much good it has done. It's wrong to base all that goodness on a bunch of hokum and deceit. I see the Pope and I practically want to explode. He's a glorified con man and a fraud as far as I'm concerned. The fact that he makes pronouncements about evolution that people take seriously (and that scientists like Ken Miller try to guide his thinking!) is just plain absurd. I get exercised by the likes of Ken Miller because he has fallen for the b.s. and he should know better becasue he IS smart about the other stuff.

I'm glad PZ has this forum because the country is being overrun by ignorant god-intoxicated people who should be called out on their ignorance. Treated with respect, but also asked to account for their beliefs and shown, with every argument that can be mustered, why their beliefs don't hold water.

I don't think science has anything to do with religion or god.
I don't think it has anything to do with fairy tales and unicorns either.

Science is used to refute religious creationist/ID bullshit.
To whack down "miracles" and other religious "scientific" claims.

Evolution does not prove there is no god. It does show that every living
thing on this planet evolved. There's no room or need for a "designer".

"I just wish that someone who wants us all to believe in miricles would actually come up with a few"

Speaking for myself, I don't want you to believe in miracles. I don't believe in miracles. I argue against claims of miracles all the time.

What pisses me off are the people who want to _categorically_ handwave away all those who believe in miracles without confronting their specific arguments and by using crummy logic or semantic tricks. Calling everyone that believes in miracles deluded without being aware of the complexity of the philosophical issues you're getting into with such a categorical denounciation is just a bad idea.

I actually DON'T care that much if people are dicks from a PR standpoint. Being a dick is a lot of fun, and when I do it, I'm pretty good at it. Most believers aren't bigoted against atheists because some atheists are dicks: they're bigoted because their preacher tells them to be.

But being a dick all the time is often a sign that you take yourself so seriously that you've stopped being careful. Being considerate and thoughtful to the ideas of all comers isn't a good PR move, it keeps you from saying stupid shit. Being a dick is bad sometimes because no one like dicks. Making bad arguments is bad because they are wrong.

poke says,

Nothing is or is not "science ... by definition"; there isn't a definition. People here talk as if there's a definition of science carved in granite somewhere or that all scientists are taught the scientific method as a set of enumerated principles. The only thing we have to go by is what science has and hasn't done in the past. And so far it's been pretty good at humiliating anybody who attaches aribitrary limitations to it, regardless of whether said limitation was considered theological or philosophical in nature.

There is widespread agreement that science has to adhere to methodological naturalism. In other words, science proposes explanations that are natural. The supernatural is not allowed. If you try and explain the origin of humans by telling us that God did it then that may be good theology but it ain't science.

Intelligent Design Creationists propose to change the rules of science by allowing explanations that require the Christian God. So far philosophers, theologians, and scientists have done a pretty good job of insisting that science should be limited to naturalism. It's the Intelligent Design Creationists who have been humiliated.

Ken Miller tells us that science is perfectly compatible with the Roman Catholic religion. That's not correct. Science conflicts with much of Roman Catholic dogma. We know this because there's a consensus about what science is and what science isn't. You can't just make up your own rules about science in order to fit your religion.

Calling everyone that believes in miracles deluded without being aware of the complexity of the philosophical issues you're getting into with such a categorical denounciation is just a bad idea.

The vast majority of people don't believe in miracles for philosophical reasons, they believe because they don't know any better. They don't use the part of their brain that should be skeptical of the things they see printed on the cover of the supermarket tabloid or in that book people have been pouring over obsessively for two thousand years.

Kleyau says,

Making whipsmart insulting replies that work on different levels shows that you probably have a high IQ, and that's great. You most likely will be right in your logical arguments more often than the average person. But, you're not convincing people. They won't like you, and you may not care, but when people don't like you, your arguments are ineffective, even if the arguments are logically correct.

I'll make you a bet. Richard Dawkins is going to stimulate more people to examine their beliefs than Billy Graham did in his entire lifetime.

It's simply not true that one's arguments are ineffective if people don't like you. Look at Ann Coulter for example, or Rush Limbaugh, or Osama bin Laden. Lots of people don't like them very much but they still pay attention to what they have to say and respond. These people get a lot more attention than they would if they were nice people. More attention often translates into a more effective argument in the long run because it gets more people talking and discussing the issue. If your arguments are logical and make sense then this works to your advantage.

It's like training a donkey. You first have to get it's attention.

This is what plunge and others are trying to get across. They want science to spread into the religious minds, but by being dicks, it's gives an easy out for those that disagree. I'm not saying you should change your behavior, but science says the carrot works better. Whether you use it is up to you.

Can you give me some examples of significant social change where carrots worked and sticks didn't help? How about the abolition of slavery? Women's rights? Legalizing abortion? Gun control? The civil rights movement?
In almost all cases I can think of there were strong vocal advocates who started the movement. They weren't very well liked by the people whose minds they were trying to change. In some cases they were thrown in jail or otherwise persecuted. Sometimes there was even violence. Later on there were some carrots but that was after the blow to the head that got the public's attention.

Scott Hatfield says,

This is a tough thing to talk about for many people here. You do get more flies with honey than with vinegar, especially in dealing with the general public, and I'm made that point before ....

Lots of people say that but is it true? Honey alone hardly ever works. It's most effective when it's presented as a compromise between two extreme positions. Before you can advocate a compromise you first have to have the extremes. The "extremists" are just as important as the appeasers in driving social change. (In the end, public opinion will be much closer to the extreme than most people are willing to admit.)
Right now the general public isn't even aware of the fact that there are intelligent atheists out there who think that religion is silly. That's about to change and I think it will help provoke a serious debate. In any case, the so-called "militant" atheists don't have much to lose. In America, nothing much is happening to change people's minds by keeping quiet. From our perspective things can only get better. I'm pretty sure the tactic will work in the long run.
The goal is to make atheism respectable but first you have to make it visible. You don't do that by hiding your candle under a bushel.

Larry- hear, hear. I don't understand how people think one can fight a social evil- in this case, dogmatic religion- by temporizing with it.

My only caveat is when someone actually recommends using LOTS and LOTS of vinegar in some public setting, such as a high school classroom, I'll point out why I think that won't work.

But you won't provide any evidence to support your opinion because you haven't any.

Calling everyone that believes in miracles deluded without being aware of the complexity of the philosophical issues you're getting into with such a categorical denounciation is just a bad idea.

So you say. But you have no evidence to support your claim. Just a "feeling." Guess what? I'm not convinced and others here are also not convinced.

Instead of repeating your claim over and over and over again and whining and crying about this, that and the other thing, how about you try to find some persuasive evidence to actually support your claim that calling miracle-believers "deluded" in the comments section of a blog or elsewhere on a blog is a "bad idea" (whatever the hell "bad idea" is supposed to mean).

Does anyone here think that Pharyngula is (allegedly) the most popular science blog on the internets because of the handful of commenters who insist on whining about atheists exercising their right to speak freely about stupid religions and their adherents?

Anyone?

We don't want the flies. The flies are contaminated with the filth they feed on. If honey attracts more flies, then we need to abandon honey and move on to vinegar. If there are still flies, we need to consider something more potent - nitric acid, perhaps.

LOL, Caledonian!

The goal is to make atheism respectable but first you have to make it visible. You don't do that by hiding your candle under a bushel.

After having read so much from Wilkins my first impulse would be to say agnostic, but I'll say atheist now, especially here, where it can lead to hair splitting and chair throwing and accusations of strong positive atheism and cries of "negatives can't be proven." Anybody who hears the implied (Huxleyan) without my having to say it before "agnostic" knows how appropriate it is to use "atheist" more often, especially here.

Withholding my provisional assent to claims for which there is no evidence is closer to what a believer calls an atheist than to what they think an agnostic is. It's better to be out as an atheist than to pass as "normal" to those who hear "agnostic" and chuckle that they suppose we all worship the same god then...

Caledonian - in saying we don't want flies, and suggesting a lethal response to them, you're also suggesting that you have no interest in persuading those with whom you disagree, just eliminating them. How enlightened... how enlightening.

Posted by: bob koepp

Oh, yeah. I hadn't thought of that way. Maybe Caledonian is literally advocating dipping Christians into nitric acid as a means of ridding them from the face of the earth. Probably best to dip them as babies (to conserve the nitric acid).

Look, bob, it's like this: I do want to "eliminate" the number of bigmouthed theists walking on the face of the earth, preferably by half. There are two non-violent ways of doing this. The first is to convert them with "reason." The second is to shame them into keeping their irrational religious bullshit to themselves and out of politics and schools, i.e., "eliminate" their influence and ability to spread their mental virus.

Religious people understand shame. It's part of what keeps most religious racists from spouting off in public about their racist beliefs.

We can do the same with thing with the anti-scientific attitudes of religious people in this country. But it makes it a bit more difficult if certain religious scientists and bleeding heart atheists continue to attack those of us who do not hesitate to call a deluded dipshit a deluded dipshit.

There is in every village a torch: The schoolteacher
and an extinguisher: The priest.

Victor Hugo

"Miller cannot say science has not contradicted his views."

Why not?

"He holds that certain supposedly historical events famed in song and lore are actual miracles exempt from science, specifically, those miracles that he believes as part of his religious faith."

Sure, but luckily for him, those particular events are too cryptic and removed from testibility to come up against direct inquiry or evidential refutation.

So plunge, I agree, it would cheap and convenient for Ken Miller to rely on this dodge, since it sounds so sciency. With his position and all, he's be far more likely to say something like that. Miller can leave taunts like "Excuse me, were you there?" to his ally Ken Ham.

Scott Hatfield:

... it seems that PZ views Pharyngula is like an oasis or 'safe zone' for atheists. If you're an atheist, this is really YOUR forum, and so PZ is not inclined to muzzle the more boisterous because that would reinforce the isolation and oppression that many atheists (I think correctly) feel.

Great insight, Scott. Thanks. The only adjustment I'd make to your idea is that this forum belongs to some atheists. I'm an atheist yet I've never felt isolated or oppressed -- nor have I felt the "religious" ferver on display here to shout about my atheism to theists or anyone else for that matter.

I guess I need to suck it up and admit that, while I was orginially attracted to this blog because of its themes of science and atheism, it is just foolish of me to expect the discussion to be engaging, informed, and mostly civil. You see, I was so naive I thought we atheists tended to be more intelligent and mentally healthy than others since we hold a position contrary to the vast majority, one that exculdes us from a host of social organizations. I had thought we all came from a position of strength and empowerment, and generally handled ourselves with grace, wit, and civility in public forums.

Well, clearly that's not the case for many of the atheists commenting here. Your thought that the juvenile, verbal lashing out might come from feeling of isolation and oppression is new to me but seems like a good working hypothesis. It's rather like the kid whose always getting pushed around by the schoolyard bully finally getting up the nerve to stay "hey, asshole, stop that!" then, seeing that worked once, starts treating everyone that way.

I can only hope that I don't become a victim of guilt-by-association. Since this such a public place, some people are likely to come away with the idea that atheists are just rude, juvenile dicks -- failing to understand some atheists just need a place to work out their feelings of isolation and oppression.

Steve LaBonne: When did this become a place for trying to convince anyone? It's not as though we're trolling in a religious blogger's comment section.

Steve, now that I realize the humanitarian purpose of this blog, all I can say is I hope you are successful in enhancing your self-esteem here. I'll stop advocating for reasonable, rational, adult behavior.

[Okay, sorry, I can't keep this up. Scott, I am sincere in thanking you for your insight. The rest of my little essay is too snarky even in light of the nature many of the above comments. It does represent my honest opinions but in the end is an example of the sort thing I wish we could all stop.]

Andy, you'd do better to read and understand what Larry Moran posted above, rather than continuing to preen yourself on your entirely unearned sense of superiority. But hey, it's a free country (for a little while longer, at last.)

But I also don't want to discourage the well-earned and righteous express of atheist fury.

Well said, PZ, and I agree. Usually, I find these attacks on methodological naturalism interesting, if not exhausting...

To be honest due to the large number of people I meet who are stupid, ill-informed, ill-educated but religious I do sometimes want to scream IDIOT etc., as many of these people are ignorant about their own religion, let alone philosophy, history, science, logic etc.

Now I am all for nuanced debate within the circle of people already up to speed on the basics of logical thought (Bayesian epistemology and it's role in scientific reasoning or whatever), but for the sheeple I'm sure that a Dawkins style approach (that is extremely confrontational) is the only way to go. People have to walk before they can run. Trying to make peace with venal stupidity will all get us into a lot of trouble - we have to call people on their bullshit - including 'massive' intellects like Ken Miller.

As for those postulating another realm of reality well can you tell me about these non-physical things without using physical means - NO! So I guess physical reality must have ontological priority, moreover naturalism is parsimonious and coherent as a philosophical stance; all forms of dualism are incoherent drivel.

There is widespread agreement that science has to adhere to methodological naturalism. In other words, science proposes explanations that are natural. The supernatural is not allowed. If you try and explain the origin of humans by telling us that God did it then that may be good theology but it ain't science.

I don't think you have to rule out "God did it" by marking a line between "natural" and "supernatural" explanations; you can rule it out because "God did it" is a useless explanation. There's always two available and useless extremes when giving an explanation - "everything has an ultimate reason / god did it" and "nothing has a reason / shit happens." Note that "methodological naturalism" doesn't rule out the latter, you still have to appeal to it being a useless explanation, so why not do the same for "God did it"?

hv n d why y dsmvwld m, PZ. Th lttl bys cn tk t nd thnk, thy ndd t hr t.
ctlly, n n s whmprng. nly y flt mncd ths tm.

Is science unfairly biased against the idea of an intelligent designer or the idea that supernatural phenomena could account for various aspects of the universe in which we live? Is neo-Darwinism only a philosophical posture? The answer to both those questions is a resounding no!

When scientists dismiss the idea of creationism it is not out of arrogance, but rather because of the nature of legitimate scientific discourse. Consider the difference between "X is unexplained by science" and "X is unexplainable by science." The former expresses the notion
that science hasn't yet explained a particular phenomenon (but will with time and effort); whilst the latter asserts that under no circumstances could science offer a satisfactory explanation.

By definition, if genuinely supernatural phenomena exist they cannot be explained by natural processes. Science could not, in principle, offer us any insight about such "forces." This is because science distinguishes itself by the attempt to discover self-contained and coherent naturalistic explanations of empirically verifiable natural phenomena. Science is thus essentially naturalistic.

Supernatural explanations cannot be scientific ones, as in considering them, we move beyond the limits of empirical science into the realm of metaphysics. That is why intellectually honest scientists cannot accept "intelligent design" as a serious scientific hypothesis.

Science, like all complex concepts, ultimately makes philosophical assumptions. The real question is; are those philosophical premises rational, rigorous and reasonable? Science presumes that there is an empirically based reality that exists independently of humans and we can achieve objective knowledge of that reality. Not all philosophers agree that this is a reasonable position; Descartes insisted that nothing beyond knowledge of the self ("I exist") could be truly known (this is known as solipsism).

Even today, in our modern scientific age, post-modern philosophers insist upon the relativity of all truth, because they assert that knowledge is "constructed" and is always subjective at some level. Science rejects such ideas.

The foundation of science is the idea of falsification. This idea is very simple. If I make a prediction about an empirical phenomenon (e.g. all swans are white), anyone can test my hypothesis by looking at the objects that we define as swans. If a blue swan were observed, clearly my initial hypothesis would be rejected. A new hypothesis (all swans are either blue or white) is formulated and it, in turn, can be tested by anyone. Thus science is about the production of non-personal and explicitly public knowledge.

Theological questions (e.g., is there only one God or many?) cannot be tested in the same way because at root such "knowledge" or belief systems are private and profoundly personal. Intelligent design is a theological position not a scientific hypothesis. It cannot be scientifically tested. But we must be honest it is also incoherent from a scientific perspective.

Science is a determined effort to overcome our subjectivity. This is a taxing affair; it requires that our ideas are open to constant revision (demanding intellectual imagination, rigor and self-discipline). The systematic process of experimentation and observation rigorously tests
our thoughts about the material world, eventually eliminating incorrect ideas and concepts.

Science, because it is public knowledge, contains within itself the device of self-correction. That is its crowning glory. Many endeavors contain no such device; one might cite psychoanalysis as an example.Equally there is no such thing as experimental theology. Science is not private dogma; it is not validated by appeals to authority, but rather by appeals to the publicly available evidence. Science and religion cannot and do not 'mesh' in any real way. So Miller and his like are either stupid, deluded or dishonest.

Glad I got that of my chest - is that civil enough guys?

Larry Moran posted:
I'll make you a bet. Richard Dawkins is going to
stimulate more people to examine their beliefs than
Billy Graham did in his entire lifetime.

First off, I've never mentioned Billy Graham, but he doesn't strike me as a honey type, but more of the stick type. So the comparison is somewhat strained, not to mention that you're implying that I somehow am more supportive of Billy Graham than Dawkins. That would seem like posting up a 'straw' man, as I hear so much of these days. And how would you measure the results?

Larry Moran posted:
It's simply not true that one's arguments are ineffective
if people don't like you. Look at Ann Coulter for
example, or Rush Limbaugh, or Osama bin Laden. Lots of
people don't like them very much but they still pay
attention to what they have to say and respond. These
people get a lot more attention than they would if they
were nice people. More attention often translates into a
more effective argument in the long run because it gets
more people talking and discussing the issue. If your
arguments are logical and make sense then this works to
your advantage.

It doesn't seem like their critics agree with them afterwords. Not to mention the media in which they send their message is far removed from a forum on a scientific blog. And I didn't know it was the forum that everyone uses to get widespread attention. I thought it was so people could discuss issues. PZ's blog itself is more performance oriented, like my Daily Show example, than the forum. My point is that on this forum, if your goal is to win an argument, it is a psychologically sound to try to be congenial. If your goal is expressing frustration, or to try to create an ingroup outgroup bias for your ironclad memetic outlook, than by all means throw around as many insults as possible.

To reiterate, you're taking a specific example, and saying it doesn't apply to a more generalized application, as an excuse to be a dick. And I have nothing against you being a dick if you want to. Just don't expect to have people in a forum conversation that disagree with you come around to your point of view.

f y nsst n dsmvwlng ny cmmnt tht plcs vn th slghtst dgr f th glt n y nd yr fld, wll y r n bttr thn dgmtc prst t m.
T thnk tht thr s n flt n yr wys whtsvr, yh rght.
Ths s th RL prblm.

Just to be clear on my opinion of Richard Dawkins and Billy Graham, I chose to go into biology because of Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are wonderful books. And, they're written in a generally congenial style.

Vargas all you do is get on and blather about how stupid and shortsighted we "mean" atheists are. Make an argument, then we can have a conversation/arguement/debate.

Why don't you address the PZ post. Trying actually reading it.

Atheist (n)

A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

--Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic's Dictionary

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham.

Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

lrdy gv my pnn n mrcls.
Thr r sm dbts y gys shld hv, tht y r nt hvng.
Lk, ds bng rght mk nsltng K? r ds t jst stn th trth wh nncssry vlnc?
Smtms t sm tht wht y mst lk f scnc s tht y cncv t s fr pss fr bhvng lk tr jrks.
Flmng thsts spnd t mch tm prsng thmslvs n hw sprr nd brght thy r cmprd t th dmb rlgs...t mch t ntc rlly, rlly bsc mstks nd flts f yr wn.
Hnstly, gys. Tm t msr yrslvs gsnt nthr stck.

I have nothing against you being a dick if you want to. Just don't expect to have people in a forum conversation that disagree with you come around to your point of view.

Are you trying to persuade me of something, Klevau?

Because you're failing miserably. Now when I see your name or AndyS's name, two words pop into my brain: concern troll.

Well done.

AndyS

The only adjustment I'd make to your idea is that this forum belongs to some atheists.

Only one, actually. I'm shocked (shocked!) that a person as thoughtful as you would have difficulty with basic math.

There are some debates you guys should have, that you are not having.

Which is the best Frank Zappa LP?

You're a jerk all the time Vargas and it does seem to prevent you from having a conversation. You're insulting. So maybe you do have a point. Except you can't ever seem to make a point bigger than you're right.

GWW, I would never try to pursuade you. I have never seen you go more than two posts without insulting someone, and it is nearly impossible to persuade someone when the exchange deteriorates into insults that quickly.

But, are you trying to persuade me of something?
Because you're failing miserably.

I can say the exact same thing. But obviously, I'm just a concern troll, so my thoughts should be immediately discarded because they disagree with yours. Because insults are the way, all the way. I mean, just look at Charles Darwin. Oh, right, he went out of his way to avoid insulting people, and came up with perhaps the best idea ever. What a concern troll he was, placing so much emphasis on being civl.

No Zappa is shit; listen to Morrissey, Radiohead or Beck instead :)

Which is the best Frank Zappa LP?

Um, the entire catalog? (Nearly all of which I've purchased, over time; vinyl, CD, DVD, etc.)

Although, I am partial to Joe's Garage.

Civil

'
of course

Any fans of third wave ska out there?

A concern troll is someone whose posts conform to this model: "I'm a totally big fan of X, like all you here, but seriously, people who like X all suck because I'm cool."

I can't help being always right. ' IS the best zappa album.
Well, I guess am not a "concern troll". Cause I don't like you guys (weird-sounding , this "concern-troll" label. I guess its the result of attaching "troll" to anything you do not like)
I am far, far away from being a fan of anyone around here. But I have sympathy. I understand you guys. As human beings. I once was a flaming atheist myself...but I was not stuck in it for long.

obviously, I'm just a concern troll, so my thoughts should be immediately discarded because they disagree with yours.

Your thoughts are fucking noted, man. Loud and clear. You're concerned. Now stop the whining.

Because insults are the way, all the way. I mean, just look at Charles Darwin. Oh, right, he went out of his way to avoid insulting people, and came up with perhaps the best idea ever.

Geezus, dude, just listen to yourself.

Ach. Don't feed the trolls!

You really can't not insult people, can you GWW. But, dude, just listen yourself, and maybe you won't do it.

Ok, dude, I listened to myself. Was there another point to that last comment, or are you doing what you always do, which is make an insult, and avoid the argument?

GWW: I'm fond of 'Shut Up and Play Your Guitar', myself.

With respect to your post about my lack of evidence, I mean, what do you want? I've been down this road with your before, right? As I recall, we previously mixed it up on the basis of some rhetoric in one of your posts that seemed to recommend some hard-nosed realism for teaching in a high school science classroom. I actually do that for a living, and feel I do a pretty good job of it, and based on my experience I know that some of what you recommended won't work in that forum.

And so I offered that opinion, based upon my experience. I provided links which documented my experience, both as a high school teacher and as someone who has publicly debated creationists.

You've never acknowledged that, nor offered anything that would make me believe that your just some guy with an opinion, rather than someone who's actually down in the trenches, like me.

After all, I wasn't making claims behind some anonymous Internet persona, unlike some folk here. I walk the walk I talk. Have you ever taught science in the public schools? Have you ever publicly debated creationists? If so, what in that experience would lead you to believe that lots and lots of vinegar would be persuasive?

Curiously...Scott

With respect to your post about my lack of evidence, I mean, what do you want?

Uh ... evidence.

And no, your self-serving anecdotes aren't persuasive, Mr. Proud Teacher. Sorry to break the bad news.

Klevau

Ok, dude, I listened to myself.

Simon didn't say! You lose.

Again.

Kleyau says,

Just to be clear on my opinion of Richard Dawkins and Billy Graham, I chose to go into biology because of Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and Darwin's Dangerous Idea are wonderful books. And, they're written in a generally congenial style.

Hmmm ... you're one of the few people I've ever heard say that "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is written in a generally congenial style. I don't think Stephen Jay Gould agrees and neither do I. It was a hatchet job, the likes of which I have rarely seen in a book of this sort.
Here's an example of Dennett's congenial style from page 264.

Gould has gone from revolution to revolution. So far, his declarations of revolution have all been false alarms, but he has kept on trying, defying the moral of Aesop's fable about the boy who cried wolf. This has earned him not just a credibility problem (among scientists), but also the animosity of some of his colleagues who have felt the sting of what they consider to be undeserved public condemnation in the face of his influential campaigns. As Robert Wright puts it, Gould is "America's evolutionist laureate. If he has been systematically misleading Americans about what evolution is and what it means, that amounts to a lot of intellectual damage."

I'm so glad you find that sort of language acceptable. It means you will never again criticize PZ or me when we talk about Theistic Evolutionists.
Is this what you mean when you say that being nice is more persuasive than being nasty?

GWW, glad you proved the point that you only use this forum for insults, and avoid the arguments.

Larry, he dissects Gould wonderfully, he doesn't say something like "Simon says, you lose." And, again my whole point, which is in a forum, where the discourse is almost conversational, it pays to be congenial. PZ is generally posting his blog, which is not really conversational, and has slightly different objectives, than forum discourse. Different media have different objectives and effective ways to get the point across.

Let me try a different path. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the shows Southpark and Family Guy. Well there is a Southpark episode, where one the characters, Eric Cartman, keeps being hassled about why he doesn't like Family Guy, when it seems like his humor. And he responds that his jokes are integral to the plot, and not just random juxtapositions of words. Like Dennett responded to Gould as a side point to his main point. It wasn't a 'I can insult you so I can avoid the argument' dis, which is prevalent on this forum.

And again, I am talking about the forum, not the actual blog, which I've had to stress on numerous occasions. If someone starts spouting creationism in schools, by all means, arrest the motherfucker and throw him in jail. But, to blithely toss around insults and avoid arguments in a forum would see counterproductive to promoting the civilized discourse of ideas. That's it. Civil discourse in a forum. If you would like to analyze what is psychologically sound in each individual media, I'd would be glad to. But in a forum, it pays to be nice.

And I didn't follow my advice very well in this post, but seriously, is all GWW does is make insults? I mean really, is that it?

Caledonian - in saying we don't want flies, and suggesting a lethal response to them, you're also suggesting that you have no interest in persuading those with whom you disagree, just eliminating them. How enlightened... how enlightening -- posted by bob koepp

All of the people plaintively requesting a civil discourse are missing one very important fact: there are dozens of morons for every intelligent, reasonable person. If there is to be any attempt at civil discourse on the Internet, something must be done to filter out the perhaps well-intentioned but oblivious morons who would clog the debate with regurgitated pap. If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a discussion be ruined by some fool twittering that religion isn't subject to rational analysis or that negatives can't be proven, I could retire.

We don't want the flies. We don't need the flies. The flies are the source of most of our problems. We want to avoid attracting the flies at all cost, and drive them away if we can.

is all GWW does is make insults? I mean really, is that it?

If you look closely at who I've criticized and why, you might learn something.

Or, you can just keep whining, Kleavau: "whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, I'm civil, you're not, whine, whine, blah, blah, civil discourse, whine, whine, whine, honey not vinegar, whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, blah."

Go ahead. Whine some more, Kleavau. There might be a couple people out there who still aren't sure what you're whining about. Blind people, most likely. Get on the phone.

is all GWW does is make insults? I mean really, is that it?

Apparently so. Just do a search for "Great White" and have a look. If we could vote the weak guy off the team, it would be GWW hands down. This isn't an insult, the evidence is there for anyone to see. My guess is GWW won't see it -- or if he does will see it as a virtue -- and in any case his next post will be contain nothing more than insults and cursing.

Exactly. My experience is that most of the people who ask for a 'civil discourse' are really the ones who are upset when we criticize stupid arguments and/or people.

Tolerating nonsense isn't 'civil', it's just dumb.

What a coincidence. AndyS is one of the posters who's first on my list of people to dunk into steaming vats of nitric acid when the revolution comes.

Kleavua

And, again my whole point, which is in a forum, where the discourse is almost conversational

No more conversational than letter-writing, actually. The differences between a face-to-face conversation and discourse by back-and-forth editorial writing are profound.

I know that there are people on the Internet who believe that it is "good" to pretend that when we are writing comments on blogs we are actually talking face-to-face with people. That's a deeply misguided position to take because it ignores how people do in fact behave when they are talking face-to-face with one another.

Thank Gob PZ doesn't run this site that way.

is all GWW does is make insults? I mean really, is that it?

Apparently so. Just do a search for "Great White" and have a look.

Oooooh, Teacher is proposing a little experiment!

Let's just take this thread AndyS. Go through the thread, find my comments and tell me what percentage of the paragraphs contain insults.

Or perhaps you meant something different when you said, "all"?

And then you and Kleavau will apologize for lying about me, right? Right? That would be the "civil" thing to do.

Let's watch and see what happens.

I'm sorry GWW, not all of your posts have insults. But, better than half do. ;)

Caledonian, GWW,

Sorry, I've been so hard on you. Although I don't actually think that's been the case apparently you do -- so I appologize in the hope we can have some sort of mutually benefitial discussion (or disagreement) in the future.

We know that every hurt or mistreatment, if not discharged (healed), will create a distress pattern (some form of rigid, destructive, or ineffective feeling and behavior) in the victim of this mistreatment. This distress pattern, when restimulated, will tend to push the victim through a re-enactment of the original distress experience either with someone else in the victim role or, when this is not possible, with the original victim being the object of her/his distress pattern.

I saw this here, http://www.rc.org/publications/journals/black_reemergence/br2/br2_5_sl… and thought the recommended program there might apply to atheists who feel oppressed and isolated.

As they say, "here's the money quote":

Because we have been the victims of attack, humiliation, and exploitation, the restimulated patterns draw us to play out these behaviors on others and to feel that we must do so in order to survive, or at least to prevent ourselves from again being the victim of the pattern.

I'll try to do my best to support your recovery.

Caledonian said,

All of the people plaintively requesting a civil discourse
are missing one very important fact: there are dozens of
morons for every intelligent, reasonable person. If there
is to be any attempt at civil discourse on the Internet,
something must be done to filter out the perhaps
well-intentioned but oblivious morons who would clog the
debate with regurgitated pap. If I had a nickel for every
time I've seen a discussion be ruined by some fool
twittering that religion isn't subject to rational analysis
or that negatives can't be proven, I could retire.

But I'm not saying religion can't be subject to rational analysis. I've got socked in the face before when I tried to rationally analyze a person's religion before. I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments. And the religious trolls get disemvolled, and the people left are almost all athiests and agnostics, but they're trying to be civil. You're not. GWW and yourself are more about one upmanship insulting responses.

I dislike that type of argument because I think that science, and evolution in particular, are extremely useful ideas and it would be good if they could spread more. People like yourself limit that spread because you love to trash talk those who are in basic agreement with you, but because they slightly disagree they should be dipped in acid.

I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments.

I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments.

I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments.

I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments.

I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments.

I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments.

I'm saying people act like dicks and use insults to avoid arguments.

Broken record players are one of those things that I don't like. The cardinal sin, and the hallmark of a troll, is that they bore me.

That said, the most effective way to handle people you don't like is to ignore them. There is that firefox killfile available.

The worst thing you can do is derail a thread with complaints about how wicked and nasty X is. It just keeps X going and going and going. Less meta, OK?

As pointed out on another thread, the Pope mentioned evolution today. He doesn't sound too bright:

"We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn't add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth - I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end. We rejoice that we can know God! And we try to let others see the reasonableness of our faith, as Saint Peter bids us do in his First Letter (cf. 3:15)!"
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=94805

From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives.

God already is "unnecessary," Pope.

But you and your followers are free to continue to pretend otherwise. The question is: why isn't pretending enough for you? Why do you insist on trying to claim that your bullcrap is "reasonable" half the time?

Jim Henson was able to take his hand out of Kermit's ass and act like a sincere human being. Why can't the Pope?

GWW:

I have to admit, that's a cute move. First you blast me for not having any evidence to support my claims, then you characterize my evidence as anecdotal. That would only fool someone who hadn't followed our previous exchange.

For, in that exchange I provided a link to my web site:

http://www.geocities.com/epigene13/bullard_natural_history.html

And I also provided a link to an atheist site that reviewed the debate that I participated in:

http://atheists.meetup.com/70/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1687479&las…

Anyone who bothers to check these out will see that the links demonstrate that I am in fact a high school teacher who has visibly defended the teaching of evolution. And, while I'm proud of what I've done, the purpose wasn't to toot my own horn, it was to establish that my views were well-informed, the product of years of professional experience.

Now, that doesn't make my views correct, certainly. But I would think at the very least you owe it to your readership to explain what, in your experience, qualifies you as to the correct pedagogical strategies when it comes to teaching evolution in the public schools.

So, how about it, GWW? I mean, your anecdotes are just as good as mine if you can document your claims, as I did here. Just what have you done in the public eye to support the teaching of evolution in the public schools, and why does this experience support your views?

I'm all ears. If you care to respond here, I promise not to dismiss your experience as anecdotal, but to take your claims seriously. Of, if you want to continue this discussion off-thread, you can reach me at:

epigene13@hotmail.com

Hoping to hear from you...Scott

People like yourself limit that spread because you love to trash talk those who are in basic agreement with you, but because they slightly disagree they should be dipped in acid

The people I attack are not in 'basic agreement' with me. More to the point, I don't attack people whose opinions differ from mine. I attack people who are too self-deluded to understand the difference between opinions and facts, who are grossly and obviously wrong about matters of fact but expect me to treat their error as simply a difference of opinion.

Those people's positions do not deserve respect. They do not deserve respect. And they're not going to receive any.

Religion is by its nature fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method. If you try to use the accomplishments of science to lend your delusions credibility, if you lie about the nature of science in order to make your delusions sound reasonable, I will point out your stupidity. If your delicate feelings are hurt, so much the better - they deserve to be hurt. Shame and rejection are emotions you'd best become well-acquainted with.

Rd th lngg. Thn fgr wh r th trlls.

Caledonian - You speak of the "nature of science," and claim that religion is "by its nature" incompatible with science. Could you provide at least a rough and ready account of the respective "natures" of science and religion so the rest of us can see just what incompatibilities so exercise you?

ddng bg hnk f vlnc s nt n rgmnt, nd s frthr ndmssbl, vn f y wr cmpltly rght. Whch, n my pnn, y r nt. thnk ppl lk y gt scnc tngld wth rlgn n frst plc, nd mk t wrs by gvng th mprssn tht ll thsts ct lk dgmtc nd rrgnt chvnsts.
Grw p. f y wr tlkng t fnds hr, t wld b brly ndrstndbl, bt stll wrng. Bt, y hppn t b tlkng t thsts. Mr s, rsnbl ppl wh d nt nfrc thr vws s "th nly rtnl" thng, n ld chstnt prtty mch qvlnt t rlgn's "trth rvld".
nd, w d nt s nslts, thgh y gys hv thm xcdngly wll dsrvd nd shld nt whn f y gt sm. Bt s, ddng nslts ds nt ncrs r dgr f trth. W ndrstnd tht. Y dn't. f y hv vr wn smn vr by nslt, y hv dn s fr th wrng rsns.
f y hv n rgmnts, dn't mk fl f yrslvs by mrly sttng, lk th prst, tht y hv th trth nd rntng nd nsltng bt t. Rmmbr. ny fl cnnt stp hs wrds. t lst sht p. t's mzng hw y kp gng nd gng. Yr vws r shky ndd.

Dsmvwl qck, PZ, dsmvvl... kp th chrch cln

Alexander Vargas the Energizer Bunny of concern trolls.

If you want less sarcasm and insult, tell the Catholic hierarchy to stop brainwashing millions of people every week. You are criticizing the wrong people.

crtcz ll prtncl dlsns, yrs t

Caledonian - You speak of the "nature of science," and claim that religion is "by its nature" incompatible with science. Could you provide at least a rough and ready account of the respective "natures" of science and religion so the rest of us can see just what incompatibilities so exercise you?

And then maybe I'll tell you how to count past twenty...

Seriously, the inconsistencies are SO basic that anyone who's completed grade school should immediately understand what I'm talking about. Since it would appear that you lack even that level of educational achievement, I will proceed.

Science rejects arguments from authority, arguments from tradition, and arguments from popularity. Scientific findings are based entirely on logic and evidence, and science has quite high standards for what kind of evidence is permitted. Science begins with observation, follows with the generation of hypotheses, continues with predictions about future observations, experimentation, and ends with observation again. It is not necessary only to look for confirming evidence, but scientists must actively seek out possible observations that would disprove their hypotheses. Science always remains open to new observations. Science is founded on rational thinking. Its models are always open to reform, and it makes as few a priori assumptions as possible. The concept of the 'supernatural' is incoherent in science.

Religion is founded on faith and credulity. Arbitrary restrictions are placed on the natural world, and then it is asserted that phenomena outside of those restrictions have taken place. Appeals to authority, tradition, and ritual predominate. No systematic attempt is made to verify or invalidate assertions. Many things are assumed to be true and are not permitted to be questioned, and these assumptions often involve complex, rather than simple, concepts.

That, I think, suffices as a rudimentary introduction to the differences between science and religion. Do you have any questions?

An unusually-detailed response from Caledonian, who often pronounces his imagined foes incapable of understanding his position, declining to explain further.

I found the post helpful, and I don't disagree with any part of it, actually. Science isn't religion, and there's no point in pretending you can completely harmonize these different modes of human experience. They conflict in attitude, method and (often) findings. I just don't draw moral or aesthetic conclusions from it, as some people do.

Peace...Scott

you owe it to your readership

Oh, please, give it a fucking rest.

Scott,

The only moral or aesthetic conclusions I can draw from religion is that it is appallingly bereft of both. Moral pronouncements from authority, exploiting the fear of eternal torture, or some tantalizing reward that you were supposedly created not to deserve?

The aesthetics of religion has more to do with culture, and the local religious authorities being the primary patrons commissioning the arts, until the state and private citizens could support a secular culture.

One has to ignore everything since the Enlightenment to find anything of value morally or aesthetically from religion. To hear anybody claim exclusive, even primary value for a religious brand of morality and aesthetics just makes me shudder.

I suppose in matters of taste, there can be no dispute, but... damn!

Scott said: Science isn't religion, and there's no point in pretending you can completely harmonize these different modes of human experience. They conflict in attitude, method and (often) findings. I just don't draw moral or aesthetic conclusions from it, as some people do.

I didn't know religion could have "methods" or "findings". What are they? Attitudes, yes. Those I understand.

Oh, wait, religion does indeed have a method: brainwashing.

And one incontrovertible finding: people are easily brainwashed.

I didn't know religion could have "methods" or "findings". What are they? Attitudes, yes. Those I understand.

He kinda lost me on that one too. Plus the "moral or aesthetic conclusions" part, too. I'm not sure why nobody is supposed to draw moral or aesthetic conclusions from stuff we can actually see, but hey whatever toots that whistle.

With respect to defending evolution education, let the record show that GWW has no personal experience that he wishes to share with the rest of us in this forum. Too bad. I'm sure I could've learned *something* from the man behind the mask. I mean, even if the fellow was just an anonymous poseur, I could've gotten some insight into what animates him. Oh, well---I tried.

Scott

Ken, George: I understand what you guys said, but I wasn't referring to drawing moral/aesthetic conclusions from religion per se, but rather from Caledonian's rather thorough breakdown of the differences between science and religion. I see absolutely nothing wrong with his critique, BTW, and (in fact) I copied it because I thought the way he put things was forceful and stylish.

Further, believers do have their methods. For example, a lot of religious people deliberately employ strategies in an attempt to alter their consciousness during prayer/meditation, and the reports of their subjective experience in employing such techniques are findings of a sort.

They're just not science, and shouldn't be dignified as such.

Ken, out of curiousity: do you see any moral or aesthetic value in reading Kierkeggard? Cutting things off at the Enlightenment feels a little arbitrary to me.

To be fair, if organized Christianity is good at anything, it is good at trying to get people to be nicer to each other and cooperate more often (Love your neighbor, etc.). At least that's the idea. Whether it succeeds is debatable.

Its method is to drill thoughts of love and niceness into people on a weekly basis.

Unless your gay.

And I think the evil of sin and fear of "satan! and damnation!" are prevalent too.

Christianity is not a peace and love hippie cult.

let the record show that GWW has no personal experience that he wishes to share with the rest of us in this forum

Do you masturbate in front of your students or just here, Scott?

Christianity is not a peace and love hippie cult.

Agreed. The Crusades, the Inquisition, massacres, religious wars. What was I thinking.

Some of their churches are nice, though. As architecture. We have to give them that.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with his critique, BTW, and (in fact) I copied it because I thought the way he put things was forceful and stylish.

Caledonian is articulate and doesn't waste everybody's time bragging about his "qualifications." Take a hint.

I understand what you guys said, but I wasn't referring to drawing moral/aesthetic conclusions from religion per se

Your gibberish was bogus to the extent it was comprehensible, Scott. Live and learn.

Oh, and I just farted. Please put that on the record, will you?

Just to test the limits of the anti-religious fervor here...

What about M K Gandhi who rather famously said "I am Hindu, I am a Muslim, I am a Christian" and talked about God a lot? In spite of his accomplishments would you like to demonize him too?

Or Martin Luther King, Jr., who is perhaps best remembered for his "I have a dream" speech which also mentioned God and who was after all a preacher.

What about M K Gandhi who rather famously said "I am Hindu, I am a Muslim, I am a Christian"

Googling uncovered this Ghandi anecdote:

Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most respected leaders of modern history. A Hindu, Ghandi nevertheless admired Jesus and often quoted from the Sermon on the Mount. Once when the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Ghandi he asked him, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"

Ghandi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

http://forum.physorg.com/Poll:-Evolution-rejected-by-most-in-survey_333…

They fought oppression and brutal laws and governments.
Now it seems religion wants power and is in collaboration with government.
More interested in coversion rather than helping the society at large.

h bllsht. Scntsts hv flld th wrld wth wpns f mss dstrctn. Thy prsttt thmslvs t ny pltcn wh wll fnd thr prjcts.

Gt ff yr slf rghts hgh hrs.

Only to punch you in the mouth.

s tht thrt, Stv?

ppnhmr sd th hd bld n hs hnds.

H dd.

Nw hs n hll.

Now he's in hell.

Ask him if Fatty Arbuckle is down there.

Scott, it's quite a relief that you don't seek moral or aesthetic value in religion either. For a minute there, I thought you were reserving to religion those attributes, and I had merely wanted to make sure you knew that the arts, drama, and literature, increasingly secular, informed by science and an abandonment of religious authority, has its own aesthetic appeal and moral contributions to make.

Religious people have criticized religion from within the culture of religion before and after the enlightenment. What's your point? Aesthetically, as for the Joy of Kierkegaard, I'll pass. You want to take his advice and transcend rationality as a religious act, please refrain from driving.

As for transcendental mastication as a method, you and all the other bliss ninnies can enjoy sniffing incense in a cathedral to the sounds of Organ Leroy, at his organ again, to your hearts' content. Whatever pronouncements you come back from nirvana with and share out here in the parking lot are still subject to peer review among not just the other cultists, but us godless unbelievers.

So, why not take psychedelic drugs as a religious act? What should be concluded from it? Atheist Oscar Janiger gave LSD to hundreds of artists, writers, theologians, publishers, poets and actors back in the 50s before any stigma was associated with the drug, and found that the most commonly reported experience was "a feeling of being at one with the universe." In conversation with him, I learned that he wouldn't want anybody to conclude that it was any sort of deeper reality his experimenters had tapped into at all. His research was focused on the extent to which chemical states in the brain are associated with emotional states, a radical position at the time, not so radical today, except among the religious.

Subjectivity is an atrocious guide to learning about the way things are. Science is an approach to finding out how best to avoid fooling ourselves; religion is its antithesis.

Just to test the limits of the anti-religious fervor here...

Sorry, I'm too busy raping this nun. I'll get back to you later about the Gandhi thing.

You mean the one with all the fire and lava?! Oh no!
I'm scared. Hell is so scary. I'll go back to church I swear.

h my , y gys R bd-ss

Subjectivity is an atrocious guide to learning about the way things are.

That's actually one of the benefits of taking a healthy dose of lysergic acid: you learn very quickly that your perception of the world while straight is just one way of seeing things. I can't think of a better way to appreciate how so-called "mentally ill" people might see the world.

And it gives the lie to the term "worldview" as bandied about by creationists and careless scientists. Most human beings see the world in more or less the same way, regardless of the degree to which they believe in imaginary bullshit. People on drugs and "mentally ill" people may indeed see the world differently. But as a society, we treat those people differently. Importantly, we tend not to treat the ideas of such people with a great deal of respect.

GWW, you mean to say that the universe may not actually be a vast conspiracy on my behalf? But then, Ken Miller and the guy in the Grand Wazoo hat notwithstanding, the forces of Chaos and Meaninglessness will have won, and I'll have to figure out how to nip off and kill myself as humanely as possible. There'd certainly be no point in getting out of bed in the morning.

I blame ravers and their paltry dosages. Darned kids these days...they see a few trails on 10 micrograms and think they've seen Clapton.

Sm mprtnt scntsts clm t hv hd grt ds n lsd.
Crppy, chrchy nlgy by th nrdy gww

Apparently, Pope John Paul II was okay with using nukes as a deterrent:

"In current conditions, "deterrence" based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way towards a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless, in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with the minimum,which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion."
http://www.gsinstitute.org/mpi/docs/Roche_CatholicBishopsNuclearWeapons…

Darned kids these days...they see a few trails on 10 micrograms and think they've seen Clapton.

LOL! :)

In fairness, Pope JPII did say "in current conditions". If the arms race had already occurred, and both sides had large stockpiles of nukes ready to go, a gradual and even reduction in weaponry does seem like the most plausible way to slowly eliminate the threat.

Ken:

Thanks for your reply. I wholeheartedly agree with your brief regarding the contributions of secular-minded artists to our culture.

I would go farther: someone like E.O. Wilson, conventionally thought of as a scientist, really is bridging the gap between the 'two cultures' using the repertoire of the sciences to examine the moral dimension of human life. For example, there is a passage at the end of his book "On Human Nature" that refers to the preservation of biodiversity as a 'cardinal value' justified not on the basis of arguments to authority or tradition, but from the empirical data.

Regarding the 'methods' and 'findings' of religion, where both the product and the desired experience are subjective, I hope you understand that I don't claim that any methods/findings merit any special standing. They are what they are, subjective reports that cry out for peer review. Indeed, as you point out, ongoing work suggests that much of what is 'religious experience' is explainable in terms of neurochemistry. I'm all for plumbing that well as deep as we can, no matter what might be at the bottom.

Having said that, what do you think about Dennett's idea that reports of subjective experience can be an important 'heterophenomenological' component of a scientific research programme?....Scott

Why do I suspect you bring this up because Dennett has debated Chalmers on the subject... read to: what do you think about Dennett's idea?

Actually, Ken, I don't know anything about that. I read some Dennett in a graduate seminar about ten years ago, but most of what I read was his evolution book ("Darwin's Dangerous Idea"). The main thing I've read by Chalmers was his Scientific American article from about the same time, but I don't recall any Dennett-Chalmers debate. I'd like to learn more about that, though.

As I've confessed elsewhere to Keith Douglas and others, I came to the conclusion that I didn't know enough about the topic in general. I have always been intrigued, though, by the notion of a 'heterophenomonology' and so I was interested in what you thought.