Disagreeing with Wilkins

In the end what you are doing is taking away a security blanket. For many, looking into an eternity of non-existence is too overwhelming to contemplate. They need the assurance of something more to ease the certainty of death.

You've said it before, of course, but let's say it again: If all the "uppity atheists" have done is debunk the "most stupid" versions of religion, then what are the other versions (the more "sophisticated" ones?)which remain?

There are two other categories: 7) Those who wonder why they and the laser are here in the first place (the nifty laser doesn't seem to help with that), and 8) Those who "worship" the people, their art, and their culture, and not the laser.

Hmm, interesting that you refute Fox Mulder in there as well.

("I want to believe")

I believe they say and mean "uppity Atheists" with the same meaning as "uppity n*ggers".

I totally agree, it is impossible to get anyone to actually say what they believe. I think that they know that the bible is so absurd that they distance themselves from it, but they also know that anything more nebulous can be argued against, so they don't want to describe it. You can't argue against something that's never defined, and most people don't believe in the wishy-washy god anyway, making the "intellectuals" even more annoying than the true believers (at least in some ways).

In the end what you are doing is taking away a security blanket. For many, looking into an eternity of non-existence is too overwhelming to contemplate. They need the assurance of something more to ease the certainty of death.

Truth is more important than somebody else's supernatural security blanket, especially in an age when people are still killing each other over whose blankie is better. Anyway, security blankets and imaginary friends are for children--it's about time for humanity to grow up a little.

PZ speaks of cultural inertia in point #6. I would add there's another powerful manifestation of inertia: career inertia. Giving up a comfortable, familiar income stream can be very daunting. What's an ex-theologian going to do for a living?

I guess the only answer is to argue against the 'moderately' stupid versions of religion. Are there any non-stupid religions?

If Wilkins thinks Toronto is the Canadian wasteland then I can't really take him too seriously.

As a courtesy to Wilkins and to those that participated in his discussion, I believe it might be appropriate to include a link to his post and the discussion which ensued...

Disagreeing with PZ
Category: Logic and philosophy
Posted on: April 5, 2007 11:26 PM, by John S. Wilkins
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/04/disagreeing_with_pz.php

Mr. Chase: The link you supplied is identical to the one supplied by Dr. Myers in his post, which he called "I ought to take Pagels more seriously."

Dualists are always going to have problems grocking materialism.

I am an atheist, but there have been a number of times when I have watched Dawkins on TV or heard him on the radio, and I cringed at how he came off.

I have a few friends who are religious. I tell them I disagree with them, and every now and then if they want to discuss my views, we do, and I manage to do it in a manner which doesn't directly insult them. Unless they insult me.

I could be wrong. A friend has watched more recent Dawkins' appearances and thought he was a lot pubicly smoother than I had remembered.

Hey that's great. I was just thinking about all this crap that we are seeing more and more recently, about the nebulous Mr Ineffable. By the way, the catholic brothers I used to talk with, they love that word, ineffable.

So since someone first said that of Dawkins's book, it seems more and more religious apologists are repeating the talking points in hope that it will be drilled by force in people's heads, fox news-style.

Your post and your letter to Orr are great, by the way. Right to the point.

I've often wondered: when a vaccine for dental caries becomes available, the impact on the toothbrush/toothpaste/dentist industry could be dramatic and significant. Sure, it'll be wonderful, but that's a whole lot of people who are gonna need new jobs.

Similarly, think of the massive institutional inertia behind admitting it's all a lie and a swindle for all of the millions of priests, rabbis, theological apologists, etc. etc. None of them have any actual, useful skills! How will they put food on their families once the truth about the Sky God becomes accepted?

Anyone who is going to regard Christianity as legitimate cannot be taken seriously, ultimately.

Would I take someone who believes in Jove seriously? No.

Pagels chooses to believe a bunch of crap. She's uncritically wedded to it through her numerous books. Too bad.

If she doesn't want people to jump down her throat, she should stop drinking the kool-aid.

It's that simple.

I never thought I'd convince you Paul, but that's what blogs are for. But then I'm an uppity agnostic...

You know how I've been trying to argue that scientists are good communicators, that all this teaching is great training for public speaking? Another profession that is excellent for that is religion, and they have an additional skill that we lack: they can talk endlessly about nothing at all. I think they could get great jobs in business, in pr and ad departments.

Also, the philosophical component of their educations is training in how to think. Once they've removed that weird shunt that channels logic and rhetoric into crafting apologetics, I think those are very useful skills to have. Theologians aren't necessarily stupid and useless, except when they're defending stupid and useless ideas with their well-honed craft.

I had a teacher who said, in front of the class, that he worked over 38 years proving there is something more behind belief besides simple belief itself. I asked for some of his evidence, and he told me it was not the time or place, but maybe we would talk about it over coffee someday (I am still waiting). This all started when he made some comments on "Alpha waves," and how they work in women, and I asked him for evidence for his claims. He told me about "Silva Mind Control," and by the next week I had written out a several page report on why SMC was scam with no scientific evidence behind it...

Later on in the same class on another day, he started to talk about "empiricists" and said, "They believe things are real only if they can measure, or weigh them". He then pointed towards me and said to the class, "Like Pat there. He believes, if you cannot weigh, or measure it etc... that it cannot be real". I interrupted immediately and said, "I never said that." What I did in fact say was that one should not claim science backs their position when it does not. I went on to tell them I have no problem with people believing in ghosts, flying monkey aliens, or cigar smoking clowns under their bed. I just get a bit upset when they claim sciences back their position to attempt to gain an authority from science, or that they place simple unsupported belief of something on the same level as something that does have large amounts of evidence behind it.

To my surprise, most of the front row of the class nodded in agreement with what I said, and the teacher quickly changed to another subject.

So, as you can see, the rules do not change. Make a claim their is something, or evidence for, and avoid giving the evidence for by misquoting your opponent, and attacking that strawman to make it appear you are in the right, while he is not. But never EVER, present your evidence for...

For some reason, ~90% of all things I write, I write after just gettin' up from a nap. As you can see, I do not recommend this...

I don't know, perhaps it all revolves around the word "worship". If I, as a finite being with limited and faulty knowledge, entertain the possibility that an extremely advanced being exists another universe somewhere / somewhen / somedimension, does that make me religious or theistic? Does it even make me agnostic? No, I think it just makes me speculative. However, if I feel a need to "worship" such a hypothetical being, then it then becomes a religious issue, and the hypothetical being becomes a "God". And that may be the biggest difference between Einstein's / Spinozas God and the gods of most religions.

"(alas, no great literature is emerging from this degenerate belief any more, unless you count the Left Behind books.)" I sure theres some grate lit based on religion someware. I liked Narnia when i was twelve, and im sure that there are some realy well writen rewrites of the bible out there.

The sum total of metaphysics, which I had figured out by the age of twelve or so:

1) We exist. (I'll take Descartes argument as good enough to establish this.)
2) It seems a reasonable conjecture to me that existence implies an origin.
3) I see no evidence whatsoever to indicate that any religious person has a clue what the origin is.

As for a deity, if an all-powerful being exists, then that proposition has no ethical implications at all: it does not follow that we owe it any duty of obedience, respect, or anything else. If it's all-powerful, then by definition it's completely beyond our influence.

The upshot is, superstition has nothing to offer me. The question of a deity's existence isn't even an interesting one, because it's unknowable.

-jcr

So I'm guessing Pagels is a christian? What brand?

I think the god Pagels believes in is perfectly innocuous and in the end pointless.

And in the end, completely besides the point.

Wow, I'm repeating myself in entirely duplicitous ways.

So I'm guessing Pagels is a christian? What brand?

A sort of pan-Christian Episcopalian. She loves 'em all.

Do you consider yourself a Christian?

Yes, I consider myself a Christian. I happen to go to an Episcopal church, but I love many of the forms of Christianity. And I could as easily be in another church or another religious tradition if I'd been brought up differently. Of course, that's what some people would call heresy. But the word "heresy" in Greek actually means "choice." And that's something that certain Christian leaders thought wasn't so good. They would say there is only one teaching. But the claim that if you don't believe the specific set of things we tell you -- whoever the "we" happens to be -- God will send you into eternal fire, strikes me as inconsistent with what I know about Christian tradition.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/04/02/findrelig.D…

I'm new to this blog and PZ's work. However, Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" seemed to confront the most popular religions. I saw it as an argument against the three religions that the most people ascribe to. It didn't seem like he was picking an easy target, just the most dangerous.

Great literature based on the Bible?
That's a great argument that religion is a spent force.
Paradise Lost vs. Left Behind?
The Last Supper Vs. The Passion of Christ?
Religious art now is either kitsch, S&M or satire.

I am willing to be proven wrong, of course...

Paul, don't say that scientists could be good at PR or advertising. I've worked in both - intelligence, and an appreciation for the issues is a positive disadvantage.

remy - Paul got stuck way outside Toronto. Some little town where he had to wait for car parts to arrive. I loved Toronto, and if Larry Moran could just swing me a position there (preferably in the philosophy department, but I'd be happy enough working as a janitor for the right salary) I'd be glad to be there.

What is this "new atheism" of which you speak? How is it different from the old atheism of say, d'Holbach?

This is what I reject about the Dawkins/Moran/PZ aggressive atheism - it takes the most stupid version of religion, argues against it, and then claims to have given reasons for not being religious. At best (and here I concur) they have given reasons not to be stupid theists. But a good argument takes on the best of the opposing view, not the worst.

The best of the opposing view:

Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, Benedict XVI said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to "admit blame and promise to sin no more", they risked "eternal damnation -- the Inferno".

Hell "really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more", he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1572646.ece

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle carried an article about Stephen Prothero's new book on religious literacy (which is really a book about religious illiteracy in the United States). As a nation, we are overwhelming religious and just as overwhelming ignorant about the basic tenets of the creeds we supposedly espouse. (That's one of the reasons I find it so interesting to argue with devout types -- they often know less about their religion than I do. Why the hell is that?) Prothero says religious revivalism in the U.S. led to a basically anti-intellectual culture that puts its trust in "feeling" rather than in "thinking". He could be right about that. Here's a link.

The Pagel christians like to skip the whole messy hell, satan demons and angels beliefs.

I mean no one believes in THOSE things anymore.

The thought experiment above uses "worship" in some slippery ways, making the use in #1 the standard for how it's understood. Humanists don't "worship" human logic in the same way that the fundamentalists in #1 worship the Man in the Sky. Nor do liberal religious people "worship" in that manner, either.

PZ says, "We don't need to displace religious feelings onto anything, because we don't have them, and the sooner the rest of your clowns get over this cultural inertia that's bogging you down in unnecessary piety, we can move on to much more interesting subjects"

This is, I think, unfortunate. The reason for these feelings is assumed (cultural inertia) ahead of the results of #5's explorations.

A writer who I appreciate, as a humanist, is Ursula Goodenough. She certainly is not asking that everyone convert an innate sense of piety to naturalism, but arguing that such feelings can be explained in an evolutionary manner--and enjoyed, those of us who find ourselves with them.

As long as this sense of awe and reverence is coupled with rationality, I see no harm in it. It does not necessarily lead to theistic evolution, panentheism, or Deepak Chopra-like mangling of science for mysticism's sake.

The parallel Goodenough makes is with music. Is it required that, once we have a grasp of music theory, we leave behind any emotional resonance with Mozart in favor of analysis? No, the two can live together peaceably.

Paul, don't say that scientists could be good at PR or advertising. I've worked in both - intelligence, and an appreciation for the issues is a positive disadvantage.

I didn't. I said theologians would be good at it.Scientists suck at PR, as Nisbet/Mooney have been telling us.

I gotta admit "Worship the vapour" has a nice ring to it.

I have to disagree with Melior's contention that no religious professionals have any useful skills. Many of them worked other jobs before they became religious professionals, or have sideline jobs; I know of a monk who used to be a computer professional of some sort, and the man who taught me (modern) Hebrew was a rabbi, but had taught English in Jerusalem and worked as a translator there as well, and teaches modern Hebrew, Jewish theology, and some history of the Middle East courses at the local university when he's not acting in his rabbinical capacity now. A lot of clergy seem to be accomplished public speakers, and I'm given to understand that's a difficult skill for some people -- maybe they could give workshops?

What happened to all those skilled buggy-whip makers?

The practice of toggling between the traditional view and the abstract view sounds familiar.

I think this is a well-developed idea among the mainstream faithful. People will use the hardest language to describe their religious-based morals, but their views become pliable when they talk about real decisions they have made.

Forget about the "good" arguments for a moment. If Wilkins and Pagel say that Dawkins is attacking only the bad arguments for God, does that mean they agree that he's right about those? Are they conceding that an anthropomorphic God who thinks up body plans and answers prayers is almost certainly false? That would be progress. Let's start by agreeing on which arguments are bad and issue joint statements to the press, and then we'll get on to the so-called good arguments.

If someone says something scientifically ignorant like "Man is the pinnacle of evolution," biologists will be the first to rush in and say that's wrong. Gently with patience or harshly with ridicule after their own style, but always addressing the error with good science. Theologians never seem to do this. It's disingenuous for them to say we should look only at the good arguments if they themselves never correct the bad ones.

I'm also a fan of Goodenough.

My little list is not an enemies list. I think #1 could use a little education, or at least stop imposing their stupid excuses on my secular government, and #2 is a little freaky-weird, but otherwise, sure, go on doing whatever.

When the revolution comes, I really don't plan to line up everyone except the True #6s against the wall, OK?

Delurking for a moment here, since the apologists are a pet peeve of mine ...

Obviously I can't speak for all atheists or anything but as an atheist brought up in a batty Asian sect and tormented for 20+ years with fear and guilt and extreme cognitive dissonance I must say that I get really annoyed at the "oh, nobody believes THAT any more"-type apologist. When I first came out to my (otherwise lovely) parents about my disbelief, I mentioned all of the crazier things I was told as reasons for my skepticism, only to hear "Oh, that's all superstition, we don't believe that really."

Me: Yeah well you could have told me earlier ya think ?

(And besides I'm pretty sure that if I didn't call them on this stuff they would have gone on blithely making these claims in front of all and sundry. In fact I know all too well that the group as a whole still makes these nutty claims, and have a not unfounded suspicion that they change their tune depending on who they're talking to. Oh, it's all allegorical if they're talking to more sophisticated types, to be sure, but when they get their paws on the sweet but not all that sharp little old lady next door, believe me it's another story altogether.)

But that's not really my point. My point is that a lot of the loony stuff creates massive and often traumatic cognitive dissonance in the first place, and the apologists are actually inflicting more of it on us. One knows for a fact the loony stuff exists (hello Pat Robertson & Co.), but they scream desperately that it doesn't, hoping to guilt one into agreeing. In other words, they're messing with one's (accurate) perception of reality yet again, all of which leads me to think that apologetics essentially = major gaslighting.

P.S. to the security blanket argument above: yeah, so it provides comfort to some people. But dammit, won't someone think of the children (and the wars, and the Inquisition, etc. etc. etc.?) In all my years as a nominal conflicted believer I never once derived any real comfort from religion, only fear, fear, nothing but putrid, utterly unnecessary fear. I'm not sure that this famous "comfort" religion supposedly offers outweighs its considerable costs ... (Yes, I'm still somewhat bitter, can you tell ? lol.)

I used to talk about the incredibly shrinking God. At one point he was large and powerful, having created the universe and got personally involved in the lives of his creations. Over time he got smaller and more distant. Now his power is limited to making images of the Virgin Mary in pretzels, buns and grilled cheese sandwiches while he lives in the Planck space of atoms...

More of the best of the opposing view.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury:

"They say: 'Why as a Christian don't you condemn the Life of Brian?' I said: 'I love the film and I think it is good for religion to be knocked, to be criticised, to be challenged because we have done a lot of damage in the past'."

"We know religion is a force for good but I don't want to control a writer not to criticise me, because I may need that criticism."

If mockery is good enough for the former Archbishop, it's good enough for me.

"What's an ex-theologian going to do for a living?"

History, sociology, philosophy, literary analysis -- all the things they're already doing, but "framing" them (ha ha) in terms of religion.

I recently got into the classic debate with a Faith Head. The teenager is convinced his mother has seen demons and that a friend of the family was possesed by a demon.
He sees that a proof that god and exist. He also believe in hell and Satan of course. He's been so deeply programmed he couldn't see any of it as myth or delusion. It's reality for him. He kind of conceded that the earth was billions of years old but would not concede that we evolved from a primate ancestor. He basically told me that nothing science had could shake his faith. He was very articulate and seemingly educated.

It was baffling. I just told them he might see things differently when he got older.

He sees that a proof that god and exist. *damn it*

He sees it as proof that god exists.

The atheists here are crude and unrefined and prone to redundant statements.

The God I don't believe in is far more elusive, wispy, ineffable, unknowable and all-round classy than any of the Gods you're atheistic about.

Any fool can be an atheist about the God of the Bible. Well, I'm an atheist about the Taoist and Buddhist gods, and they don't even believe in God!

(satire)

"Truth is more important than somebody else's supernatural security blanket, especially in an age when people are still killing each other over whose blankie is better. Anyway, security blankets and imaginary friends are for children--it's about time for humanity to grow up a little."

I must say, I agree with the sentiment here. My only beef is that I don't think it is within your (or anyone's) 'rights' (for lack of a better word) to determine what's more important for others. If some feel they'd rather have the security blanket, so be it. Those holding thier security blankets securely over thier eyes are still welcome to all the benefits that come from those who cast thier security blankets aside. Ok..that's enough of that metaphor....

The converse of this is also true, those who hold onto their outdated beliefs have no right to insist that others share their belief.

Lest any here take me the wrong way, I do not advocate that one can not criticize other's beliefs, just that they should not attempt to force, by law or other means, their beliefs on others.

The tricky balancing act comes in politics, where we must try to govern and apply laws uniformly to all. There is no easy soltion, but I think a modicum of reasoning and tolerance (admittedly in short supply in some circles) should serve well.

Cheers.

For many, looking into an eternity of non-existence is too overwhelming to contemplate
Funny, these are mostly the same people that don't know what do do with themselves on a wet Sunday afternoon...and they want eternal life? Better hope there's eternal TV too.

The best of the opposition. Brigham Young's racism:

But the Lord cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the priesthood, that Abel and his progeny might yet come forward, and have their dominion, place, and blessings in their proper relationship with Cain and his race in the world to come.

http://www.carm.org/lds/quotes_misc.htm

I'm getting the idea that heads of churches do not represent the best of religious thought. Where am I supposed to look?

"alas, no great literature is emerging from this degenerate belief any more"

I'm looking forward to the Paradise Lost movie.
http://tinyurl.com/2t99ob

Satan's vitality as a pop culture figure, as evidenced by these upcoming films.
http://tinyurl.com/3xe27q

CalGeorge: I am not persuaded that comment #31 is "the best of the opposing view", or that the term 'opposing view' is apropos. At best it is merely authoritative, and (as seems typical of the present Pontiff) authoritarian.

CalGeorge: The letters, correspondence and biography of John XXIII might be a good place to start.

Also, I agree heartily with both the Archbishop's take on the 'Life of Brian' and your endorsement of same. Eddie Izzard has some really devastating bits on C of E that could easily apply to the liberal variety of Methodism in which I'm ensconced. "Tea or death?"

For many, looking into an eternity of non-existence is too overwhelming to contemplate.

Nothing too hard about not existing. I didn't exist before I was born and that wasn't too scary, as far as I can remember. An eternity of misery may be a much more grim prospect, tho.

If Wilkins thinks Toronto is the Canadian wasteland then I can't really take him too seriously.

John has already corrected your misunderstanding, but as a native son, I'll defend the thesis that Toronto is a wasteland ;-).

(Seriously: I'm just a bit allergic to large cities. Nice places to visit, many of them, but I prefer small-to-medium sized towns).

I've been a lurker for months and months..a bit shy to post but here goes: I am absolutely uppity and even arrogant, unappologetically when it comes to adults telling me I have to believe in a magical floaty thing in the sky, or any kind of supreme being, or that I need to dismiss my logic and rely on "faith". I am not as educated as most of you here seem to be, yet I am interested enough in nature and the cosmos to know a thing or two about it. Last week a woman tried to dispell the big bang theory. I asked her if she really wanted to "go there" with me. She had NEVER read any materials on the subject, (didn't even know what a photon was) just watched a 15 minute video given to her by her preacher that apparently dismissed the big bang and evolution in those 15 minutes. I probably made Dawkins look like a puppy dog in the minutes that ensued. I am arrogant in knowing that I have more logic than a good 90+% of the population at large. If theists want to call us arrogant, so be it. Insults mean nothing by those you can't respect. This is probably why I don't have any friends..lol. The world can be lonely for us atheists, but I think we would rather it be this way than to be a self-deluding, wishy-washy, shifty theist who can't even make up their mind regarding their beliefs.

I am not a scientist or an expert on religion. I am just a poor old farmboy living in the backwoods of Texas. I happened to read this blog for the first time today and got interested in this discussion. You can put me in your category #2.

I haven't read Dawkins actually but some atheists make me think of a guy in the mall at Christmas time rushing up to a line of moms and kids and yelling "there is no Santa Claus." And then they wonder why no one likes them or why no one got out of the line. I think this may be what Pagels meant by the "village atheist."

Yes we probably made it all up but I happen to like a good bit of it. I don't know why. Probably just because I grew up having good times with other kids in sunday school and enjoyed the after church socials. And still do. I also happen to like standing up and singing old hymns with my neighbors. Our church does some good things. It feeds the poor and offers comfort to the elderly.

I don't know how many of my neighbors actually believe there is a old guy with a beard standing on a cloud. Probably not many. But it doesn't really bother me if they do and I don't really understand why it bothers you. It doesn't bother me any more than it does when my kid starts talking about the Easter bunny.

Now, I AM concerned about some of those in the religion profession who want to take their religion into the political sphere, or want to impose their views on others. I think some of these leaders are quite dangerous. Unfortunately atheists actually play into these guys hands by giving them someone to attack.

Remember Hercules and the Hydra?

(NB: I mention this only for its allegorical value. I do not believe the account to be historically factual.)

Everyone (well, every Canadian) knows that Bloor & Yonge is the centre of the known universe, eh. And now that I live in a Dorset, UK, village with thatched cottages, the rest of the universe can stay there.

But seriously, TO is a great city.

The atheists here are crude and unrefined and prone to redundant statements.

The God I don't believe in is far more elusive, wispy, ineffable, unknowable and all-round classy than any of the Gods you're atheistic about.

... Hee hee. Perfect. Y'know, I'd say that deserves quote file status.

There certainly are more sophisticated ideas of God around; Rick Warren's version of God is far less sophisticated than, say, Bishop Spong's. It's probably worthwhile for atheists to acknowledge the difference.

And Yonge and Bloor is not the centre of the Universe, that distinction belongs to Portage and Main...

Now, I AM concerned about some of those in the religion profession who want to take their religion into the political sphere, or want to impose their views on others. I think some of these leaders are quite dangerous. Unfortunately atheists actually play into these guys hands by giving them someone to attack.

Oh, don't worry. They have plenty of people to attack: gay people, feminists, people of other religious denominations. They'll always find somebody. There was a great routine by Emo Phillips about two Baptists who meet on a bridge.

See, the great thing about religion is that it allows you to attack and vilify people for absolutely no sound, justifiable, respectable reason! All you have to say to justify bigotry is to say that it's part of your religious beliefs, and people are supposed to respect that.

I think that's a scam. It allows people to get away with too much. For example, fundamentalist Christians and many other religious people treat homosexuals with the same contempt they have for pedophiles. Now I happen share their contempt for pedophiles, and I can explain at great length why pedophilia is a bad thing because it victimizes defenseless people, but I can't for the life of me, see what's wrong with homosexuality. No matter though. All they have to do is proclaim that it comes out of their religion and we're supposed to be okay about the slander, discrimination, fear and hatred that gay people have to live with. Just because.

That's what sucks about religion. And if you're getting ready to tell me that your particular brand of religion doesn't justify bigotry, well bully for you and your religion! I can take that and $3.00 and buy a gallon of gas. Until you can get the rest of the religious world to accept your brand of religion, or a least the part about it not justifying bigotry, it doesn't mean shit!

I must say, I agree with the sentiment here. My only beef is that I don't think it is within your (or anyone's) 'rights' (for lack of a better word) to determine what's more important for others.

You won't find me or PZ or Dawkins or anybody in the uppity atheists movement who's interestedin taking away anybody's rights. We just want the blankie-holders to give up the extra privileges they have reserved only for themselves.

Religion is the ultimate form of narcissism and emotional infantilism.

The inability to accept your mortality is simply the inability to accept the fact that you aren't the center of the universe.

"Now, I AM concerned about some of those in the religion profession who want to take their religion into the political sphere, or want to impose their views on others. I think some of these leaders are quite dangerous. Unfortunately atheists actually play into these guys hands by giving them someone to attack."

How exactly do we do that? By saying there probably is no god?

Maybe you need to look at you and your fellow mild mannered theist for who to blame.
But introspection doesn't to seem to be high on your list of priorities.

"Unfortunately atheists actually play into these guys hands by giving them someone to attack."

Same with African-Americans. They wouldn't have such a problem with bigots if they would just stop being so non-white.

Who has had the best religious thought? Ever. Probobably Jesus? Okay, Let's attack Jesus.

"The kingdom of God is within you."

Bingo! We make God up in our imaginations.

"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Hmmmm. Not sure about that. Studies have disproven that idea.

The best religious thought comes from Jesus, and Jesus was pretty much embracing liberal hippie ideals, with some screwed up stoner hallucinations thrown in.

Dawkins pretty much said as much in his book, so I'm still with him.

It's all those uppity wimminz' fault. If they weren't demanding equal rights, we'd have no problems. Same with those uppity queers. If they weren't demanding freedom from gay-slaughter, we wouldn't have to beat them to death and life would be like the 50s.

Same shit, different minority.

If all the "uppity atheists" have done is debunk the "most stupid" versions of religion, then what are the other versions (the more "sophisticated" ones?) which remain?

Here's one:

His gods were simple and understandable; Crom was their chief, and he lived on a great mountain, whence he sent forth dooms and death. It was useless to call on Crom, because he was a gloomy, savage god, and he hated weaklings. But he gave a man courage at birth, and the will and might to kill his enemies, which, in the Cimmerian's mind, was all any god should be expected to do.

-Sophisticated gods are simple, not complex: check.
-Minimally interventionist: check
-Concerned mostly with spiritual and emotional matters: check
-Not swayed by prayer: check

Understandable: hmmm. Ideally sophisticated gods should be ineffable, so that is a bit of a problem. However, leading cromologians suggest that Crom can be both understandable and ineffable. Also, the bits about sitting on mountains and sending forth dooms are irrelevant, since only unsophisticated barbarians believe that.

I said above:

"Dawkins pretty much said as much in his book, so I'm still with him."

That's not right. Please ignore.

I take this back too:

"The best religious thought comes from Jesus, and Jesus was pretty much embracing liberal hippie ideals, with some screwed up stoner hallucinations thrown in."

Jesus had a wicked authoritarian streak.

Hi PZ,

Jim Lazarus here. I set you up on "Live with the Infidel Guy" about awhile back. Anyway, I saw your entry discussed on Brian Flemming's blog. Flemming wrote:

"PZ has a simple request. If we uppity atheists are guilty arguing against the worst arguments on the other side, will someone please lay out clearly the alleged "best" arguments?"

I imagine someone like me, who's generally against the "uppity atheists" (it depends upon the particular uppity atheist's goal, viewpoint, or message), would tell you that the better arguments are the following:

(1) Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.
(2) Arguments Concerning the Nature of Abstract Entities as "Divine Ideas".
(3) Certain Varieties of Cosmological Arguments (Pruss, Gale, Craig).
(4) Plantinga's Epistemological Argument from Proper Function (this stems from Plantinga's understanding of what it means for one to have propositional knowledge).
(5) Arguments from Mind (e.g. Reppert's argument is semi-interesting, Moreland less so, Swinburne in the middle).

I imagine that not too many skeptics know about these arguments. The funny thing is that plenty of theists do. And the numbers of theists using these arguments continue to grow steadily.

- Jim

Oh, and I agree with Wilkins that Dawkins takes the more stupid characterizations/defenses of theism and concentrates on them, rather than the better ones. A good example is found in Dawkins's book, when he critiques Bayesian theistic arguments. Instead of finding a treatment of Swinburne, or Collins, or anyone else focusing on a Bayesian approach to evidential theistic arguments, you find that Dawkins has simply critiqued Unwin, where Unwin "concludes on the basis of moral arguments that the probability that God exists in 67%. But this isn't enough for Unwin, so he goes on and suggests that by the virtue of faith the probability raises to 95%." [rough quote from Dawkins's book]

Is Dawkins seriously paying attention to this Bayesian approach to apologetics and not Swinburne's or Collin's, et. al.? You've got to be kidding me. That's incredibly cheap and uncharitable. Either that, or Dawkins is pretty ignorant when it comes to evidential approaches to apologetics.

- Jim

Oh we've done Platinga. He claims that evolution is random so it can't produce reasoning beings. But this ignores the effects of natural selection on the creation of mental models so his argument fails. (2) looks like it's just equivocation. (3) Cosmological arguments are exercises in question-begging as no-one knows what the limits of the natural world are they can't claim to have evidence beyond the natural. (4) Religious epistemology is crap. (5) More question-begging. Minds are as natural as teeth.

Perhaps the reason that plenty of theists know these argument is precisely because many skeptics do not -- it's always handy to pop up with some unfamiliar argument that will hold the critic until the apologist escapes!

I am familiar with Plantinga, and his arguments are utter nonsense. His 'evolutionary argument' seems to rely on a bogus probability defense, a poor understanding of evolution, and a strangely charitable assumption of the reliability of the human mind. It's also a fundamentally negative argument -- he claims that evolution has a low probability of generating a mind, therefore, God. It's not at all persuasive.

Those aren't Bayesian arguments, they're just GIGO numbers.

"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

You mean Jesus wrote "The Secret"?? :-)

Don't you love it when "moderate" theists accuse us (atheists) of making things worse when we attack religious nuts? I don't see them waging that battle against fundamentalists, but when we do it, they engage in all the whining and hand-wringing that we're being so mean.
If their religion is so important to them (moderates), why aren't they out there battling those who supposedly give it a bad name?

(1) Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

It's a Catch-22. As long as most of the people on the planet don't accept or understand evolution, we are home free since it's unlikely that the correct conclusion would be reached by a majority of evolved brains! According to the EAAN, we should only begin to doubt evolution when most people accept it! ;-)

So, we have us abstract types at #6. However, we have a problem: types #1 to #5, who have a need for irrationality (not religion, per se), to have deep, non-logical, exuberant "worship." It used to be a shaman smacking you around with a willow while you ingest ergot, or a cannibalistic feast. But something intimate and extreme, which takes you out of yourself temporarily, and brings you in visceral sync with your neighbors. Groups #1-#5 will always be with us; in fact, they will be the majority of the human race. It's just part of our simian heritage.

What can fulfill this need? Something not dangerous to each other, not absurd except in context? Something more useful than Mardi Gras drunkenness, or rioting in the streets after the Final Four? Something that makes life "feel" meaningful, even if illusory (or maybe better yet, necessarily illusory)?

If you kill their God without giving them something better, they'll sooner or later turn on #6. Nietzche tried - can anyone implement?

What can fulfill this need? Something not dangerous to each other, not absurd except in context? Something more useful than Mardi Gras drunkenness, or rioting in the streets after the Final Four? Something that makes life "feel" meaningful, even if illusory (or maybe better yet, necessarily illusory)?

Dungeons & Dragons?

Although I almost always agree with you PZ, I think Wilkins is right here. Granted, it is important to blast idiotic creationists stifling science (given that they're 50% of our country, and our president). However, the debate would become much more interesting, and intellectually enlightening, if you chose a more difficult target. You can still attack those with the "fuzzy" view of god, its just not as funny, or easy. There is a lot of really good stuff out there that is still very theistic but doesn't attribute creation and control of events to that theos. However, it still must be attacked for its rejection of reason and its willingness to generate beliefs based on anything other than evidence.

The great idiocy of the world's fundamentalist biblical literalists is that they see everything in black and white, a simple "it is or it isn't" absolutism. Anyone with any experience knows that doesn't speak to actual life at all. Science often seeks to simplify, but by simplifying we do not have to remove complexity, nor do we have to forcibly categorize every piece of the world. PZ, your refusal to consider this fuzzy, unclear definition of God, and to only really recognize the fundies view of a bearded creator in the clouds, is, just like the fundies, refusing to see the world in its complexity, and refusing to recognize the infinite grey areas that define life. I know this is the worst thing one can say to you, but this black and white view of religion, that either it's a creator up above, or a phantom of nothingness, is a worldview reminiscent of just those same fundies. We must fight both wars: first and foremost to expose the clear and absolute idiocy of the absolutists, but also to get the moderately religious, somewhat intellectual types to recognize their meaningless irrationality.

Umm, I do not refuse to recognize that fuzzy, unclear definition of god. I say it's a useless myth.

Seriously, Pagels is the one refusing to recognize an ugly god concept because it makes her uncomfortable. I recognize all of the god concepts and will cheerfully categorize them on a continuum from idiotic to vacuous...and I won't make the silly claim that no one believes in god X.

The moderately religious may be irrational, granted: that's on them. The notion that such irrationality is 'meaningless', however, strikes me as an example of projection: that is, it's on the one making the claim.

It is precisely the search for meaning that animates a lot of seekers, including those who would describe themselves as religious. Do you need religion to find 'meaning' in one's personal life? Not at all. Do a lot of people turn to religion for 'meaning'? They absolutely do.

Jim Lazarus: I don't think you can safely infer ignorance of arguments or counter-arguments on either Dawkins' or PZ's part from the fact that the former tends to fulminate against fundamentalists, rather than (say) process theologians.

But, even if you did, ignorance of this or that argument advanced by theists against (for example) naturalism says nothing about the general correctness of arguments made about the pernicious effects of religion in general. The people in the pews might well believe in something that exists, but this does not relieve them of their obligation to address Dawkins' general argument.

Despite this, many 'defenders of the faith' appear to wish to avoid that larger discussion, and instead attempt to bring some weaker focus to Dawkins' theological credentials. It's obscurantist, to the point of cowardice.

It is very convenient for philosophers to think that since their god concepts are powerless, their ideas is equally harmless. Not so, as PZ shows.

Of course we should be able to discuss ideas. But why these ideas should be used to deflect moral criticisms such as Dawkins' is questionable. And as so many has pointed out by now pointless anyway, since they doesn't address Dawkins' concerns and results.

the best of the opposing view

A concept of non-anthropomorphic, perhaps non-interventionist, gods is weak. A weak concept is always best in a debate because it is harder to debunk. But that is precisely why it is the worst in an empirical, reductionist analysis, and why it has the least interesting philosophical consequences.

In Wilkins' species concept frame (since I hear framing is important ;-), we pick the useful concept for the problem.

And since the weak concepts are only best in an apologetic and sophistic sense, but worst for philosophical and science purposes, why should we care for the particular evaluation in the quote?

What can fulfill this need? Something not dangerous to each other, not absurd except in context? Something more useful than Mardi Gras drunkenness, or rioting in the streets after the Final Four? Something that makes life "feel" meaningful, even if illusory (or maybe better yet, necessarily illusory)?

I believe it's called culture. And what's the problem with "useless" drunkenness anyway? It's fun. And as the permaculturists say: fun is a yield.

Dunc,

Culture is a bit wider than what I was aiming at. Culture includes law, kinship,... in addition to the specific need here. No D&D won't satisfy it! Most people need something that connects them with others, an irrational something. And hitting the clubs, or debauchery isn't going to be sufficient - it has to be richer than that. What post-Roman folks have come up with is religion, specifically monotheism.

The problem with "useless" drunkenness is just that it's insufficient - even if it's fun. It can't replace "church". That's got to be replaced, and something irrational has to happen inside of "church".

Every culture has had something like that. You can't just dump it, because you personally don't need it. You can smugly look down on the shamans, priests, prophets and cantors. You can think all you want of the cannibals and metaphoric cannibals as simply irrational savages. You can imagine that dancing and speaking in tongues is just a bit of fun. That ritual is just OCD writ large.

But it's human. And we haven't replaced our tradition of it, monotheistic religion, with something better. Nothing produced by industry can replace it, as hard as they've tried. It's got to be personal, an atavistic response. You can kill God, but the replacements that have been developed can be just as deadly - the Volk, the proleteriat...

This is something that deserves some serious thinking, and not just glib jokes. And outsiders to it may be crucial in thinking about it.

PZ,

You wrote,
"I am familiar with Plantinga, and his arguments are utter nonsense. His 'evolutionary argument' seems to rely on a bogus probability defense, a poor understanding of evolution, and a strangely charitable assumption of the reliability of the human mind. It's also a fundamentally negative argument -- he claims that evolution has a low probability of generating a mind, therefore, God. It's not at all persuasive."

Several people have pointed out problems in Plantinga's use of probability in the argument, but he's since fixed these problems since the publication of Beilby's "Naturalism Defeated?".

Second, I don't think its at all clear that Plantinga uses a poor understanding of evolution in his argument. There are plenty of people, from the Churchlands to Darwin himself, who emphasized the understanding of natural selection that Plantinga puts to use in his argument. Recent criticisms, like Draper's (forthcoming) do not attack Plantinga's understanding of evolution, but instead insist that the probability of the development of reliable cognitive faculties must be inscrutable.

Last, with respect to your comment that Plantinga's argument is purely negative and consequently unconvincing, he tests two metaphysical theories in his argument: naturalism v. theism. He concludes on the basis of his argument that, given theism, there's no improbability that evolution will eventually give rise to reliable cognitive faculties, while, according to Plantinga, there *is* such an improbability given naturalism. So the scope of Plantinga's argument is legitimate given that he's putting two competing metaphysical theses to the test when it comes to this particular sort of phenomena (reliable cognitive faculties).

Don't take my playing Devil's Advocate to mean that I support Plantinga's argument. I do not. But I think credit should be given where credit is due, and I think his argument is clever and brings up a legitimate puzzle for naturalists to inquire into. Given all of the work currently going on the philosophy of mind, could we legitimately be condescending toward people who emphasize the particular phenomena that Plantinga and Reppert point out as difficulties for naturalism? I don't think we can. I think we can be confident that naturalism will not be defeated by these sort of arguments, but I'm not going to look down on someone for having skeptical doubts about it. ("Look down" in the sense that we can just shrug off these things as "utter nonsense".)

- Jim

Eamon Knight: And I'm from Montreal and don't like Toronto much either. I love Vancouver, so it isn't just the usual parochialism. (I think.)

I agree with the shifting goal posts problem PZ points out. I also get claims I don't know how to evaluate. Metaphors, for example, and uses of words with several meanings, like "is".

A Hermit: But eventually some of these concepts just use the word "god" - Spinoza, for example, and his followers, like Einstein, really are just equivocating.

Jim Lazarus: Being a philosopher like Wilkins (the subject of the thread) I have run into those arguments. They are bad, and in the case of the Plantinga argument against naturalism, not even novel. (I forget, though, where it comes from, but there is even echoes of it in Aristotle.)

Good drugs in a good setting will give you that universal, transcendant feeling. I'm partial to beaches myself.

Keith,

You wrote, "Jim Lazarus: Being a philosopher like Wilkins (the subject of the thread) I have run into those arguments. They are bad, and in the case of the Plantinga argument against naturalism, not even novel. (I forget, though, where it comes from, but there is even echoes of it in Aristotle.)"

Being a philosopher like Wilkins, you should've pointed out problems with the argument rather than merely given me your personal assurances that its a bad argument. The point here has not been to say that the argument is incredible. The point is to make clear that there *are* more sophisticated approaches to apologetics and theology than the stuff that Dawkins, et. al., concentrate on. Whether Plantinga's argument *works* or not is a red-herring (though, again, it should be pointed out that there was nothing at all of substance in your post that would rebut the argument). The issue here is that some uppity atheists may be condescending toward believers, when in fact this is done out of shallowness, ignorance, or what have you. There is an increasingly popular group of believers who practice a much more sophisticated approach to apologetics and theology. Shrugging them off as "utter nonsense" in the same vein as we have with Kent Hovind or Duane Gish is absolutely ridiculous - arisen out of either ignorance or discharity.

- Jim

People believe in the existence of all kinds of crazy things that do not exist. They believe in meritocracy, democracy, and the free market; in culture, family, freedom, and community; in right and wrong, beauty and true love; in prime numbers, non-prime numbers, Lie sets, and gods.

I'm not sure why I should find belief in the last any more contemptible or problematic than belief in any of the others.

The most compelling argument seems to be that gods lead to worship and worship necessarily* propels one ontology into a dominant position over others. I don't really think that's true, but certainly the appropriate response seems to be to reject the dominance of any particular metaphysics, rather than to say, "but our dominant ontology is better, see?"

Some religious people do harmful things, and have necessarily harmful--misogynist, homophobic, racist--ideas. But for them, saying, "your faith is stupid" does no useful work. It's vanishingly unlikely that they will reject their faith, and even they do, they'll still be misogynist, homophobic, racist bastards. To fix that, you need to directly address the problem, which is those beliefs.

(And yeah, sometimes people believe in really goofy shit. But I don't spend a lot of time telling everyone how Star Wars is actually super-goofy, and they shouldn't like it. Likewise Jesus. Mockery is sometimes appropriate, but not when it is apparently the only possible response.)

(And now, somewhere in my mind, is this: Faith (untestable belief) leads to Superstition leads to Worship leads to Priesthood leads to Religion leads to Dogma leads to Hate and Murder. Someone here will get this.)

Jim Lazarus: Well, okay. But why do you consider Plantinga's argument more sophisticated? It is structured like a reductio, but it is a very informal one so weak on that ground. It ignores massive consilience against the viewpoint, for another, including the conservation laws which have been known for hundreds of years.

It is very convenient for philosophers to think that since their god concepts are powerless, their ideas is equally harmless. Not so, as PZ shows.

Of course we should be able to discuss ideas. But why these ideas should be used to deflect moral criticisms such as Dawkins' is questionable. And as so many has pointed out by now pointless anyway, since they doesn't address Dawkins' concerns and results.

the best of the opposing view

A concept of non-anthropomorphic, perhaps non-interventionist, gods is weak. A weak concept is always best in a debate because it is harder to debunk. But that is precisely why it is the worst in an empirical, reductionist analysis, and why it has the least interesting philosophical consequences.

In Wilkins' species concept frame (since I hear framing is important ;-), we pick the useful concept for the problem.

And since the weak concepts are only best in an apologetic and sophistic sense, but worst for philosophical and science purposes, why should we care for the particular evaluation in the quote?