Bill Dembski seems to be a bit peeved at those theistic evolutionists — they keep siding with the evolutionary biologists, whether they're Christian or atheist or whatever! And all that despite the fact that the atheists often roll their eyes and laugh when the theistic evolutionists start babbling their vague claims about a guiding deity. The "biggest detractors" of ID have been his fellow Christians. How can that be?
I've got two answers for that. One: selection. When someone in an embattled school district wants a speaker to come in and explain evolution to them, they're going to pick someone who isn't also notoriously godless, out of a reasonable fear that it will start more fires than it will put out.
Two: knowledge. Those theistic evolutionists may not like us mean atheists much, but we both agree 100% on the evidence for evolution. Dembski is baffled by the fact that theistic evolutionists "shaft the ID community," but he shouldn't be — it's because the ID community abandons common standards of evidence and wants to redefine all of science. Scientists, both atheist and Christian, easily find common cause in opposing IDiocy.
We're also still happy to argue. For instance, here's a little exchange that Dembski had with Ken Miller, and I think they're both wrong.
A year or so ago, when Richard Dawkins's website posted a blasphemy challenge (reported at UD here -- the challenge urged people to post a YouTube video of themselves blaspheming the Holy Spirit), I asked Ken Miller for his reaction. He pooh-poohed it as "a clumsy attempt to trivialize important issues." The obvious question this raises is whether systematic efforts by atheists to trivialize (and indeed denigrate) important issues is itself an important issue.
Hmmm. Miller says the blasphemy challenge trivializes important issues. Dembski agrees and talks about important issues, too.
What are they?
Is the concept of Hell an "important issue"?
Is it the idea that you can be damned for disbelief in a bit of dogma, or the whole idea of damnation itself?
Is the Holy Spirit an important issue?
How about the concept of an afterlife?
Maybe the important issue is the defense of a patriarchal Semitic sky god with a host of psychiatric issues, like low self-esteem, outbursts of destructive anger, and an obsession with genitalia and diet?
Both Dembski and Miller miss the point. Those are trivial issues, relics of foolish old mythologies, and the purpose of the blasphemy challenge was to appropriately trivialize the trivial. I think the challenge was an excellent idea — we need to demystify and desanctify the tired and falsified beliefs that parasitize our culture. The only important issue in the challenge was the promotion of irreverence about ideas to which some people in society still cling in futile trust.
So, see, I can picture both Miller and Dembski as being in the same boat with religious foolishness, but Miller has several saving graces that Dembski lacks: Miller is not trying to poison public education in this country, he's actually very knowledgeable about biology, and he can give a coherent and accurate talk about real important issues. He can share some goals with a militant atheist like me, where neither of us have much sympathy for a militant creationist like Dembski.
- Log in to post comments
ew, a direct link to UD! You should warn people--I almost clicked it and besmirched my browser!
Where's the damn tribe when you want loyalty?
I think Dembski forgot something important about those he hoped would be fellow tribalists--Miller and Collins actually wish to do science.
Collins is all soft and squishy non-science (nonsense) where it comes to the cosmos (even Miller leans that way, but more cautiously). But he couldn't do a single thing with his scientific knowledge if he adopted ID instead of biology. He'd never guillotine his career by preferring useless pseudoscience to working science.
So sure, Jesus on the cross, walking on water, whatever harmless tribal customs are required. But hands off of the truth that matters, and just let Dembski weep that he's been betrayed.
If he could let go of his ego, Miller and Collins might even let him join with competent Christian scientists. As it is, Dembski's just a silly old fool telling the same debunked war story about how he was a hero, no matter that no one he cares about respects such BS, and complaining about persecution because he's been exposed as a fraud.
IDiot boy, the Galileos always win, and no matter how tough it is for religious believers, they learn to adapt. Someday the ignorant may indeed win out and return us to the dark ages, but that will be long after Dembski has died in utter defeat and humiliation.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
As a "theistic evolutionist" myself (though I don't think the term is really necessary), I am certainly no fan of Behe or Dembski. Religious people need not always stick together. Although my understanding of biology is limited, I am very much opposed to ID and creationism in all its forms; as I've said elsewhere, it seems to me to be both bad science and bad theology. It tries to reduce and constrain God to a primitive, pre-scientific conception of the divine, and tries to mix religion and science in an area where the two ought to be separate.
I call myself a theistic evolutionist here (and have always viewed myself as such), but in reality I'm increasingly leaning towards agnosticism, at least as regards the Judeo-Christian conception of God. I'd like to be a true believer, and I do believe in the general idea of God, but I'm finding that several areas of orthodox religious belief make little logical sense in and of themselves.
But I am quite sure that I don't believe in a God who created the Earth in six literal days in 4004 BC, designed the natural world with all kinds of deliberate flaws for some unexplained reason of his own, laid down a fake fossil record and layers of rock representing millions of years of natural and geologic history simply in order to confuse us, and then revealed this information word-for-word to one small, obscure Near Eastern tribe. However, this leaves me with some doubt and confusion as to what I do, in fact, believe.
There's a third reason: ID advocates are very happy to try to slime and slander anyone who supports reason in science, Christian or not. I think they reserve the insults they consider meanest for us.
And a fourth reason: Science is based very much on an honor system. One reports one's results fairly and accurately, and your mis-steps, too. When disagreeing with a finding of someone else, that disagreement may politely state why there is a disagreement about intepretation, or better, should provide contrary data. "Theistic evolutionists" share with the rest of science a commitment to this honor system and its methodological honesty.
Of course, that pisses off ID advocates no end. How can they make a point if they have to be honest about it? So, they have to poison the well against ideas that scientists should be honest, and they use any poison they can get against theists who practice science.
More precisely, the Galileos always eventually win. And they will inevitably win again at some future point even if Dembski et al. manage to spark a new dark age in a few decades.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I'll have to say, as much as I didn't agree with the last part of his book Finding Darwin's God, Miller is one hell of a speaker on the topic. He's very charismatic and gives no quarter to the creationists. I waited around after a talk he gave in Raleigh a while back and there were plenty of Creationists waiting to argue with him during the meet and greet after the scheduled time. He doesn't take any shit, but is still very polite and to the point while givng very detailed and honest answers to their attacks. The same could not be said for the creationists.
Once again, God is simply the unnecessary hypothesis. The real work that Ken Miller and Francis Collins do in science has nothing to do with God and the supernatural. (What they do while testifying to their faith is quite something else again.) No wonder it drives a stubborn believer like Dembski to distraction. His faith-filled fellows won't lift a finger to help him undermine actual science.
Perhaps most Christians take the whole "thou shalt not bear false witness" thing more seriously than Bill. Or, maybe they're just real scientists who prefer to accept evidence over Truth.
Shorter Dembski: All christians must ignore what they know to be true in order to join me in fighting for the greater truth.
On a different note, funny how Walton just has to interject with his confused take on the matter.
I was very disappointed with Ed at Dispatches today, when he said:
I thought it was a great idea. It provoked the reaction I expected. Religious people were concerned about "taking advantage of the youth" (how hypocritical) and it highlighted how inane parts of the Bible are. There were discussions on Fox News about these poor kids, kids who made their own rational decision to say a dumb line from a 1,700 year old book. As if doing the challenge was polluting their minds.
Damnitt, comment held for moderation, I'm posting with no link this time.
I was very disappointed with Ed at Dispatches from the Culture Wars today, when he said:
I thought it was a great idea. It provoked the reaction I expected. Religious people were concerned about "taking advantage of the youth" (how hypocritical) and it highlighted how inane parts of the Bible are. There were discussions on Fox News about these poor kids, kids who made their own rational decision to say a dumb line from a 1,700 year old book. As if doing the challenge was polluting their minds.
Occasionally the IDiots try to play nice with theists such as Collins, even sometimes trying to use theistic evolutionists against "those atheists".
But the fact is that to Dembski and most of his cohorts, people like Miller and Collins are worse than apostates, they are heretics. The IDiots are bound to eventually attack them as being the most evil--particularly because the theistic evolutionists always show up the necessary lie of ID, the claim that it isn't accepted simply because atheists won't allow non-atheistic ideas to be considered.
Our arguments that Expelled and the CSC are fundamentally dishonest in making that claim won't convince anybody who already believes IDiot propaganda. But they can't do anything about Miller, Collins, and George Coyne, who simply disagree with respect to the evidence. Like Slimy Sal noted once at UD, Collins doesn't have a vested interest in seeing ID fail.
Well, few, if any of us, do, but the usual lied-to fundamentalist will never believe that. We simply accept the evidence. Unfortunately for Slimy, he can't conjure up any lies as to why Collins would be committed to lie about evolution (other IDiots have, however), nevertheless Collins remains firmly convinced by the evidence, and uses evolutionary theory to guide his work. It completely destroys Slimy's disgusting little world of lies for Collins to stick with evolution simply because the evidence favors it.
Still, we don't call Cordova "Slimy Sal" for nothing, nor do we note the endless dishonesty of ID's leadership for no reason at all. So while Collins and Miller make a total mockery of the fundamental lies of ID, and remain evolutionists simply because of the evidence, they just repeat their lies. The great thing is that Miller and Collins remain a constant witness to their dishonesty, and thus people like Dembski and O'Leary will always hate them for being honest scientists.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Yikes! I clicked on the link to Uncommon Descent and wallowed in the comment section for a while. Some poor fellow using the handle "Duncan" twitted the Dembskians for their uncharitable comments about Christians who scoff at ID:
Duncan was promptly taken to task by IDists who challenged him to prove the evolution bit. And who said ID had anything to do with God anyway? Duncan cited Dembski himself in rebuttal:
But Dembski did not appreciate being used in this manner. He invited Duncan to go away:
True believers only, please!
More bad news for Dembski - look who's on The Colbert Report tonight.
The reverse is also true. Expelled didn't dare interview Collins and Miller. I believe it is said that there is a slight mention of theistic evolutionists in the movie, but there's no way that their web of lies could hang together with Collins and Miller skewering everything from their "science" to their faux pleas for tolerance.
Come to think of it, using their standard for "expulsion", the theistic evolutionists were expelled from the film. They'd have to be, because honesty had to be either expelled from the film, or it had to be derided as Nazi propaganda, in the mouths of atheists.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
FWIW, even though Miller and I disagree about the sky-father thing -- I really enjoy his lectures. He's the first person I refer people to when I'm debating Creationists. It's much easier to win people over to real science when they don't think it's going to challenge their religious beliefs (no matter how irrational). I especially liked his mouse-trap counter-argument to Behe's I.C. faux-gument.
PZM wrote: "Both Dembski and Miller miss the point. Those are trivial issues, relics of foolish old mythologies, and the purpose of the blasphemy challenge was to appropriately trivialize the trivial. I think the challenge was an excellent idea..."
I was thinking of it more as trying to give *import* to trivial issues. Martin Willett at http://www.mwillett.org/ used to do blasphemy challenges. At first I was intrigued because of the "in your face" nature which appealed to the radical atheist in me but eventually I came to think that it was a case of choosing the wrong battle. If challenged by a believer to perform an act of blasphemy on penalty of being struck down by a bolt from the blue, I would have no fear but I wouldn't go out and violate some religious proscription just for demonstration purposes.
Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway.
Walton @ 3 wrote: "Religious people need not always stick together."
This is, perhaps, the understatement of the year.
If anything, the closer two theologies are, the more vicious the disagreements become.
Skipping a litany of modern examples that everyone here is probably familiar with, even during the Roman persecution of early Christianity, more Christians were killed by other Christians than by Romans (even if you count the mostly fake martyr stories).
Indeed, when Christians were punished by Romans it was very often due to real-world offenses (vandalism of pagan temples, violence against other Christians, massive contempt of court etc), rather than what we would call religious persecution: punishment simply for what you believe.
And what did early Christians fight over? Whether Jesus was made of "god stuff", or was fully human. Whether Jesus always existed in eternity as part of the trinity or began with his birth. Real number-of-angels-on-the-head-of--a-pin stuff, but worth fighting for, evidently, and often killing for.
Today, with tens of thousands of denominations vying for the title of One True Faith, it isn't surprising that religious moderates find the "I don't know, let's look and see" attitude of scientists a refreshing change from, literally, arguing over nothing with their fellow theists.
However, this leaves me with some doubt and confusion as to what I do, in fact, believe.
That's because you believe in belief, but the belief you believe in is increasingly unbelievable to you.
For example, you state, "I'd like to be a true believer". Why? Why is the belief in God (and all His attendant obfuscatory theology) more desirable than the belief that, for instance, the Oort cloud lies a thousand times further from the sun than the Kuiper belt? In fact, try repeating that phrase, but finish it with other, non-fantastical elements:
"I'd like to be a true believer in crocidolite asbestos."
"I'd like to be a true believer in force equals mass times acceleration."
"I'd like to be a true believer in the emulsification of ice cream."
"I'd like to be a true believer in Perth being the capital of Western Australia."
And finally:
"I'd like to be a true believer in God."
Why does it seem to you that the last sentence is sensible, whereas the first four are not?
Why would Dembski try to associate The Blasphemy Challenge with Dawkins' web site? I'm sure they ran an item on it, as they cover most atheist-relevant news. But The Blasphemy Challenge was originated and sponsored by the Rational Response Squad. Dembski fails again.
Excuse Me, I am the Great and Holy God over here! My Holy Psyche is by damn definitive and normative. It's all you mortals who have appalling and weird psychologies.
I mean, sheesh, who don't destroy things in anger? And foreskins are definitively wrong. And of course you have to be concerned about whether you're eating the food that I tell you that you can eat!
Maybe I should have stopped with E. coli. Except even those ungrateful freaks perform unholy and unblessed intercourse with each other (and even completely different bacteria!), mutate like crazy, and end up eating whatever they damn well please.
Bah. Maybe I should have stopped with rocks.
Why does it seem to you that the last sentence is sensible, whereas the first four are not?
Because a deeply-held belief in the Christian God and in Christian doctrine is something which affects every aspect and facet of one's life; it's not just an acceptance of a state of affairs, it's an emotional bond. An acceptance of the status of Perth as capital of Western Australia, or the existence of crocidolite asbestos, does not have that kind of effect. I used to have that kind of deep belief (I was raised as a Christian, albeit moderate), but I've basically lost it entirely, and am in a grey hinterland between theism and agnosticism; if all of my posts on religion seem rather incoherent and confused (as Janine ID correctly observed at #9 above), that's the reason why. Apologies if this is somewhat annoying.
Oh, and this is where I got that history lesson from (always good to cite, even if it's not a primary source):
http://www.amazon.com/God-Against-Gods-Monotheism-Polytheism/dp/0670032…
PS It's a good read.
#15, Aaron: I like Miller, too. Yes, the sky-god bit is an area where we disagree, but I get the sense that he's much less literal about that than his "Catholic" label would suggest. Finding Darwin's God reads like a Deistic work for the most part. I think to a degree Miller is involved in what I call "Splunge" theology: asked to explain his view of God, he says, "Splunge!" and when asked to explain that, "I believe that God launched the universe and then left it alone and doesn't intervene, but I'm NOT a Deist, and I don't accept NOMA, and I'm NOT being indecisive!" or something like that. But at bottom, it seems to me that he really is something close to a Deist, and I have a hard time arguing with a Deist, especially one who admits, as Miller readily does, that he cannot prove the existence of his god. At that point, it's pretty much a matter of personal preference whether one "chooses" to believe in such a god or not. There's not all that much to dislike.
I do think that he is wrong, of course, to say that the blasphemy challenge trivializes important issues. I think that when the very point is to trivialize, that's not really a valid criticism. If I were younger and a web-cam sort of personality, I would have blasphemed the holy spirit on YouTube, too; I certainly have done it enough in the ordinary course of things to secure a special place in the dark, the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
As for Miller as a spokesman: he is simply great. I saw a talk of his online which was really engaging. I think it is well to remember something about social change: it takes more than one kind of personality to bring it about. I think that while Malcolm X had a lot of good things to say, it took Martin Luther King to close the deal. Like it or not, many people see us nasty atheists as the "Malcolm X" of this situation and they're more likely to move toward our point of view because of people like Miller who take a more conciliatory, accommodating stance. We can argue all day that we are right and Miller is wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that he is moving people in the direction of accepting science--and it doesn't change the fact that the more people accept science, the more likely they are to share our atheism.
Mind you, I myself will continue being obnoxious and loud and telling people that their religion makes no sense; but there is a place in this world for a softer tone, too.
Barry
"...it's not just an acceptance of a state of affairs, it's an emotional bond. "
A bond based on the belief that a falsehood is true. You're in love with a lie.
Awww - diddums?
Also: The Holy Ghost is a prick. (Sadly, I can't find the relevant Nukees link.)
So you think Ken Miller is wrong, PZ?
So what? Hes ten times the man you are, smarter, better looking, and more balanced.
Plus, he acutually has PUBLICATIONS...unless of course you are counting the "Science" blog as a peer reviewed publication! LOL!
and more balanced
Please, for the sake of all that is good, take your advice to heart. Next time you walk down the sidewalk, consider that there's an equally important sidewalk on the other side of the street, and thus a 'balanced' person should walk right down the middle of the road.
Seriously Diana, make the world a better place and take a bumper to the noggin for the sake of balance.
Diana,
No Publications?
Google Scholar + 2 seconds of effort=
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla…
I've been reading a great deal about Medieval History (in Britain) recently as part of my research for a novel. What has particularly impressed me has been the degree of chance involved in which details of Christianity have become accepted by believers as true.
Most of the arguments (about the nature of God, Jesus of Nazareth, the status of Mary Magdalen, the various Gnostic sects) have come down to arguments about who is the earthly boss. Purely monkey motivations for deciding the Alpha male (and it normally is the male). This happens in other religions too.
So Dr Dr Dembski is particularly ticked by theistic evolutionists because they argue as if their God is better than his God (a true challenge for ascendancy in the troop) whereas the atheists are just not interested in playing that particular game.
Not true; God is notoriously silent on the usage of asbestos and doesn't even hint at Australia, let alone the capital of its westernmost state.
All kidding aside Walton, I didn't mean for you to take that question so literally. I was also raised Christian and worked damn hard at being one. In fact, I was a few years older than you are now when I reached the 'grey hinterland' you're in now. But the question remains: why does emotional appeal have anything to do with what is true and what is not.
Anyways, I don't think you need to apologise for not having it all figured out just yet.
I don't think I've seen a theistic evolution troll in a very long time.
hehe... Diana "acutually" is the founder of the Ken Miller fan club... look out!
There, there Diana. Your point about PZ not having publications--though completely unsupported by the evidence--is just as valid as Jason's, as without it we wouldn't have 'balance'.
Ah, BS. A typical day in my life goes: get up, bathe, dress, take the boy to school, take the train to work, read Paryn-- uh, work, think about what to have for lunch, eat lunch, read Pharyn-- uh, work some more, take the train home, spend some time with the boy, fix supper, get the boy in bed, spend an hour or two relaxing at home with the missus, go to bed, [redacted for purposes of domestic security]. Sleep, repeat.
What aspects and facets of that would be so totally different if I were a Christian, other than unnecessary time shoehorned in there somewhere reading the bible, or praying, or thinking about Jeezus, or stuffing my son's brain full of woo? In other words, you can add religion to your life, but you can add tae-kwon-do or knitting also. I just don't see how it's any different than a hobby.
Now, granted, I might encounter an ethical question or a mild moral dilemma at some point in my day, and I know most religious folks are convinced that their divinely-ordained moral code instructs them in such matters, but provided I behave ethically and aspire to the Golden Rule, how would applying any more specific Christian doctrine cause my behavior to differ?
I am of the opinion that it's only the fanatics and wing-nuts that truly allow their beliefs to "affect every aspect and facet of life." The result is social isolation into extremist sects, and generally appearing deranged to everyone else, moderate co-religionists included.
So what do Ken Miller's biology publications have to do with a disagreement over religion? PZ already said he agrees 100% with Miller on the biology.
How many peer-reviewed publications does Miller have on theology, anyway? How does one measure who's more qualified to judge whether a god exists, anyway?
That doesn't make such a belief any more sensible, which was the criterion in question. I don't think anyone denies that religious belief can permeate an individual's life -- the issue is whether it is sensible for it to do so.
And we all know that physical attractiveness is highly correlated with Truth!
She's just being a little twit because PZ disagrees with Miller. Her point is irrelevant.
Guess she's never heard of SEED magazine too.
Brownian at #31:
But the question remains: why does emotional appeal have anything to do with what is true and what is not. - Nothing whatsoever, of course. I was just answering your query as to why I want to believe in God. Whether or not such a belief is rationally justified is another matter entirely.
Walton, you actually sound like someone who is in the process of her/his faith crumbing around her/him. It's quite special to meet you then, because usually this process is very brief comparatively. You seem to have seen the illogicality of faith and it is now only being held up by your emotional bond to it as it has been part of your world view for so long, it is traumatic leaving it, however, faith usually needs distorted reason to hold, so, no predictions guaranteed but it will probably be gone soon. Yeah, it sound condescending but there's no way to say that without it sounding condescending.
Walton, you're at a place I (apparently like many others) was at a long time ago. You're full of confusion because what you held so dear is turning out to be little more than a mirage and wishful thinking. Not a happy place, is it? It's almost as if your entire sense of meaning and purpose is gone. Yeah, I've been there.
But you should congratulate yourself; right now you're standing on a road that will eventually take you to understand the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Few people get this chance, as they're held down by dogma and senseless ideologies. You've got a hell of an opportunity to see the world for what it really is, not what you wish it to be. It's not easy starting down this road; some people turn around and run back. But once you get going, the momentum will carry you to places you've never imagined.
I recommend you check out Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". It can help quite a bit. Just google for it as if I post a link I'm likely to get stuck in moderation :)
Good luck, you'll find there are quite a few of us out here who can help. It wasn't easy for me, I was raised Baptist. It was a years-long struggle, but I can tell you that I've never felt more alive.
every time is see bill dumbski a word pops into my head - douchebag.
i don't know why. its like i have this sixth sense, everytime i read something written by him and i don't know it, my mind is going, this totally douchebaggy, was this written by that dumbasski guy, and sure enough....
Those theistic evolutionists may not like us mean atheists much, but we both agree 100% on the evidence for evolution
Theistic evolutionists do often agree with secular evolutionists 100% on the evidence, don't assume they do not like one because he or she is an atheist.
I personally base my opinion of people on a case by case basis, not because they belong to group A (say, atheists)or group B (say, Christians), if for nothing else, for the knowledge that most groups like this have an enormous variety of personalities and views.
Yes looks are an important characteristic to weigh when considering the validity of a persons point.
I bet you looked to the cheerleaders and football jocks for everything too.
Walton at #39.
I know you know that 'want to believe' doesn't necessarily equal 'true'. But it's really that idea that's at the crux of losing one's religion. The 'wanting to believe' is probably the last thing to go: the apologetics become less convincing; once familiar and comforting, rituals and ceremonies become increasingly exotic and foreign-seeming; dogma becomes quaint as one's definition of God shifts in a desperate, frantic bid to salvage something from the faith. And that term 'atheist' just sounds so damn elitist and cold--surely one can be 'spiritual' while not religious, no? How about agnosticism? Isn't that a way of saying 'I don't believe' while protecting the want to believe?
Slowly though, one begins to realise that all that's left is the want. I want to believe one says, as if it were a mantra to ward away the evil spirits of reasonable doubt. And finally, one day, though the thought has been thought so many times before, it sinks in, irrevocably: the universe doesn't give a fig leaf for what I want. And that's the moment you realise you're an atheist, a full-fledged, grown-up citizen of the universe. And really, it's the best citizenship exam you'll ever pass.
Walton, I don't know whether you'll ever fully be an atheist or agnostic, but I would suggest, since you feel you agree with the "general idea" of God, that you figure out what this "general idea" actually consists of.
Doing this happens to be what led me to atheism (which isn't to say it will necessarily lead you to the same place). I just found that once I started stripping down and questioning concepts of a deity that weren't required (since I didn't hold to an orthodoxy), I was eventually left with nothing that anyone would think of as a deity. And it was also certainly not something worth believing in just for the sake of belief (which sort of begs the question -- what IS worth believing in just for the sake of it?)
"I'd like to be a true believer in crocidolite asbestos."
Is that a kind of asbestos that keeps crocodiles from eating you?
I just read this in a NYTimes book review:
And you imply that Talmudic scholars concern themselves with unimportant issues?
I vote Diana as blog sky-god. She casts a single bolt and strikes dozens. I can imagine her smiling down at our shaking fists.
For Walton as various posts:
Keep thinking on it. No rush. You're doing well.
Re: Dembski: He's angry because theists who see the evidence for evolution and realize the truth in it, compared to himself , who sees the evidence for evolution and sees that he must deny it or deny god, with no middle ground.
Gah! that should have been:
"for Walton at various posts.
I'd like to be a true believer in crocidolite, too. Really I would!
But I can't.
I like Walton and think he is expessing himself well here for the most part. Let's cut him some slack. He seems a good chap.
Some (including me) disagree with him on other issues, but I'm with you JimC. I like CrypticLife's post #46 and DLC's succinct summary: "Keep thinking on it. No rush. You're doing well."
Sounds like the average democrat or republican that will "never" vote for any other party, because, well, being a Democrat or a Republican, affects every aspect and facet of their life. You can insert just about any other category of thing in there. Someone obsessed with fishing might be horrified at the thought that not only do other people not like it, but that they might not be able to do it ever again. Same with sports, sex, dancing, singing, reading, writing, etc. **Some** people even manage to become so horrified at the loss of those things at the center of their existence than they suicide over it. However, I think you will agree with me that this is insane and stupid. For most of us here, at some point, we either where in the same category as you, or we had a brush with, "Maybe something is out there, I wonder which faith, if any, got it right?". In general, you end up finding that most faiths all have *some* ideas that are worth examining, a *lot* of things that are just totally nuts and/or dead wrong, and that, in the end, none of those things "require" faith to find, understand or follow.
None of us that have managed to get stung by the cold darkness of ignorance, and are disinclined to go back into it without a heavy coat. Others, have been in the dark so long they have lost all ability to see, and light hurts their eyes. Its these people who get pictured in the cartoons, like the one with three people looking at a candle and saying, "What is it?", "It scares me!", and, "Maybe we should hit it?", the later suggestively holding a bible like a club. People are naturally cautious, but also curious. Some time, way far back, something that gave rise to us stepped out of the trees, looked around, and maybe 95% of the groups that did so got spooked and ran back into the cover of the trees. The ones that became us *chose* to walk out into the unknown world and brave the scary place they knew nothing about. Faith is like that forest canopy. Its safe, shady, most of the time is "seems" to provide everything you want, but.. sometimes it doesn't, and its the people that brave the savanna that define progress, even if they, like the Ken Millers of the world, do so only from the "edge" of the forest. And like those edge dwellers, the single scariest thing in the world is some other group wandering in out of the deep savanna, clothed oddly, and that think people unwilling to recognize the forest as a **forest**, and not as the "great earth mother", or, "the land of god", or some similar gibberish, are just a tad nuts and living on borrowed time, those distant travelers having possibly witnessed what can happen when an entire forest burns down.
SC,
I probably didn't want to know anything about drinking microscopic crabs.
Though, if there's anything I miss about religion, it's those sorts of simply surreal questions you get when dogma meets reality.
Things take time. Many people wonder why Oreo's taste so different today. They used to have a "lard" center. Sugar and guts, bones and waste. Perhaps eating the dead will become passe and jello won't be used to disgrace us any longer in the intergalactic community.
Oh, Lordy! "Militant atheist"? I don't know if I can get down with "militant atheism". Onward Atheist Soldiers, Marching as to War? I don't know.
Dembski, proud :
"You might want to compare Francis Collins' endorsment of Miller's book with Ann Coulter's endorsement of mine"
Yeah, right, the great scientific thinker Ann Coulter, who refers to him as "the Isaac Newton of intelligent design".
Tell me it's a joke !
Like two megalomaniacs reinforcing each other.
When I was 8 or 9, I desperately wanted to believe in Santa Claus.
I got better.
I'm also impressed with Dembski comparing Collins with Coulter.
Man, what a douchebag.
I just wanted to say Yea! The Mr. Gumby picture's back!
Seriously, Walton needs to be cut a little bit of slack here. I agree. I went from Christian (in my very early years) through many years of perpetual, angsty agnosticism and finally to atheist, and now I'm depressed out of my mind most of the time. It's not all sunshine and unlimited sweet knowledge on the other side of the veil. It seems a little obtuse to not even acknowledge the magnitude and type of issues one has to face on one hand, and a little self-serving to romanticize us atheists who do take up that "cross" unflinchingly on the other. There's nothing glamorous about it - I don't ask for epistemology to make anyone happy or ennobled. I ask for it to make sense.
If you've ever had an unrequited crush on someone and had to go through the work of taming all those impulses and longings that were completely out of tune with anything that's actually a part of your material life for the sake of getting on with your real life, then realizing that the check from God isn't in the mail after all is kind of like that.
So here's hoping for good friends for us all in the mean time.
Evolution is hardly proof that God doesn't exist.
I mean we know evolution is real and we can run lab tests on how diseases evolve and I believe all that. That can be tested and verified.
What I have a problem with is going from one type of animal to a entirely different animal.
I just have a hard time believing in fairies and how man evolved from apes. Not that I don't want to believe it, I just don't see evidence of it.
Yes there are the same DNA signatures in all of life, but that alone does not convince me. That could just mean that the same creator created everything.
So on one hand I do believe in Evolution and we can see a lot of things happening. On the other hand, I think it is a fantasy to say that evolution is happening between species.
Remember, there is evidence. However, did the evidence happen the way we think it happened? You can take evidence and draw a conclusion because you cannot test it scientifically.
Killroy@64
Evolution is hardly proof that God doesn't exist.
AFAIK, nobody says it is.
What I have a problem with is going from one type of animal to a entirely different animal.
What you have a problem with is irrelevant; what matters is the evidence. There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that the theory of common descent (all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor) is true. It is as certain as any statement about the past can be.
I just have a hard time believing in fairies and how man evolved from apes. Not that I don't want to believe it, I just don't see evidence of it.
When you find a fossil fairy, or sequence fairy DNA, let us know. Your comparison is absurd, and I think you know it.
Why should anybody give a shit what you see? The evidence is there, in droves. That you are blind, or willfully ignorant, or stupid, or, most likely, all three, has no bearing on the matter.
Kilroy @ 64
"Evolution is hardly proof that God doesn't exist."
It's up to those who say deity's are real to show the evidence. You have it backwards. Evolution's role is not to disprove the existence of deities.
"What I have a problem with is going from one type of animal to a entirely different animal."
This is far too general of an assertion. What do you mean "problem with"? Specifically, how are you defining "types"? How are you defining "entirely different". The vagueness of your language shows that you have not spent much time seriously critically analyzing the question.
"I just have a hard time believing in fairies"
Evolution does not assert the existence of fairies.
"man evolved from apes"
Humans are primates, as are apes. We both evolved from a common ancestor. Again, your statement shows the level of ignorance contained in your understanding of the actual material things Evolution shows us.
"but that alone does not convince me"
So because YOU do understand it means that it is not understandable? Hmmm. Seems like an arrogant thing to say.
"That could just mean that the same creator created everything."
I agree this is logical. Nature, as the creator, created everything.
"I think it is a fantasy to say that evolution is happening between species."
On what evidence do you base this EXTRAORDINARILY HUGE assertion?
"You can take evidence and draw a conclusion because you cannot test it scientifically."
This is where logic and reason step in. It makes no sense to assert the existence of a deity where there is no exemplar, no parallel in Nature. Natural explanations however, have an enormous history of explaining things that were once thought magical and mysterious. Trying to explain a mystery by introducing another mystery is self-serving and answers nothing.
It's pretty clear that killroy doesn't understand how evolution works and that he's already been exposed to distortions about what evolution actually explains.
He's been exposed to Hovindian ideas.
He's gotta be deprogrammed before he'll learn anything. Let's see if he actually is interested in understanding it.
My guess - killroy is a drive-by troll. I'd be pleased to be proved wrong.
At least it was a chance to expose the common foolish thinking usually espoused by people like that. They love to cherry-pick the ideas science offers that support their world-view. The ideas that confound their world-view, simply must be wrong because THEY can't conceive of those ideas being true.
Killroy,
If I am wrong, and you are genuinely open-minded, read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
then come back and tell us what you thought of it - and in more detail than "I'm not convinced". If you're not, tell us why.
What about when Coulter compares Dembski with Isaac Newton !?! What the f**k ?!?
Hm.
"Killroy"'s style looks very similar to "Kenny"/"Planet Killer".
Note also the death-oriented moniker. And the recurrence of the "K".
Say, "Killroy", you don't believe in near-death experiences, do you?
if Killroy had been the real Kenny, there'd be already 10 more comments from him by now...
Poor Dempski, it's almost as if he subconsciously knows that his beliefs are incompatible with science so he tries to deride anyone who has similar beliefs who doesn't see that incompatibility. Of course the most stinging criticism is going to come from those you regard as your peers, just like when people like Dawkins or Dennett write a book criticising religion, the most potent comments come from fellow atheists. You expect criticism from the "other side", you don't from those who you think should be on yours.
Hi Killroy
If Nick Gotts' talkorigns link is all too much to you, here's a nice 10 minute explanation of the evidence for common descent of Humans:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc
Kenny, you gabbling limpet!
Please everyone, don't let Kenny hijack the thread... Please?
Walton,
re: wanting to believe. It's very powerful. And coming to recognise its power is probably the single biggest factor in my giving up my own former Christian beliefs (which were of a very mainstream moderate liberal protestant variety).
I wouldn't even say your desire is a bad thing. It would be wonderful if there really were a God of the sort I imagined. And I didn't (and don't) hate the church I used to belong to. Far from it; my former congregation are mostly very decent people whose religion is not about crushing others and who, all arguments about theology etc. to one side, do a lot of objectively good things in their community. No, it's just that I came to see that I had no good reason to believe in the God I used to believe in, however wonderful it might be if he were real. I suppose you might say that I really, really don't think much of Anselm's ontological proof.
Some people upthread are urging you to take that one small remaining step. I won't do that, even if I've taken that step (or nine tenths of it) myself. I will simply urge you not to let desire that something be the case guide your decision whether you believe it is the case. But you sound like you're asking yourself honest questions and demanding honest answers. And as long as you keep doing that, I don't think you'll do too badly.
Re: #78
Seconded. Kenny is banned. Please DNFTT.
CAUTION !
If you are tempted to respond to post #76, remember
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE KENNY !
This may cause severe thread derailment.
It is exactly because we have knowledge of the "real forms of stimulus" that we know that the best explanation is indeed a confabulation.
We know how the eye and visual system work, so the best explanation for the "bright light" is the eye and visual system failing due to lack of oxygen.
(By the way - the reason it looks "brighter than the sun" is simple: when you look at the sun, only a relatively small part of your field of vision is stimulated. When the cells involved start dying, it is all of them at about the same time, so the resulting simultaneous brightness appears to be everywhere)
We know how memory works, so the best explanation for the so-called "life review" is just memory activation.
We don't know exactly how dreams work, but they also include confabulation about various things, including the appearance of living and/or dead relatives in the dreams.
Science is about testable hypothesis and theories. The reason NDEs are not science is because there is nothing testable being offered.
Really, if any of these so-called angels or dead relatives or spirit guides or whatever that appeared to the people who undergo these experiences were real, they could easily demonstrate their reality by telling the person something that could be verified in the real world. And do it under controlled circumstances, too, because otherwise it's just a story.
But everything out there about NDEs implies that it is just a story.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
lol, I see the name David Mabus on that list. That lunatic keeps posting his delusional rants on the facebook atheist group. It's quite sad to see him go, but he doesn't help his cause by being completely incomprehensible, most people there don't have a clue what he's rambling about.
Kenny, you gabbling limpet!
Kenny, thou fobbing beef-witted measle!
Kenny, you damned unmuzzled bat-fowling hedge-pig!
Walton, I hate to say this, but anyone who declares "I'd like to be a true believer" is probably too intellectually honest to be one.
It really is a shame we can't consciously choose what to truly believe. You have my sympathy.
Walton, good luck with your journey wherever it leads. Stay with it and don't let the consequences scare you off (my mistake). Test and refine your beliefs relentlessly until you own them. You might experience some grief and conflict, but in the long run a life of being honest with yourself is well worth it.
Forgive my patronizing tone if this sounds trite, but I've been there and wasted too many years glossing over my doubts with lazy cop-outs about God's mystery, etc.
Kenny, you self-deluding Armageddon-yearning wackjob!
Kenny, you irrational, close-minded ignoramus!
Someone else isn't happy with Ken Miller:
A "re-run of his previous book?" *cough*projection*cough*
I intend to point to it the next time I want to explain the relationship between theistic and atheistic evolutionists. For some reason, many people just don't get the "agree on some issues, disagree on others" thing. Now I have a concrete example. Thanks!
*cough*projectionandtotalinsanity*cough*
Did someone tell Behe that Miller was made of straw? Miller must be "intelligently designed" to allow for Behe to kick him down.
Killroy @ 64:
The thing is, one type of animal doesn't become another animal. A cat doesn't suddenly wake up one morning and find that, whoops!, it's now a dog. Neither does a cat produce an offspring that is a dog. (In the first place, cats and dogs aren't that closely related, though I recently ran into someone who really-and-for-true thought that there was a real-live case, just here lately, where a dog and a cat mated and had offspring.) Nor did one apelike creature unexpectedly give birth to the First Human.
Evolution isn't that easily pinned down; differences that really make a difference may not fossilize well (internal organs, say, or details of metabolic function). What you get is a spectrum. I know it's only Wikipedia (*pause to out-wait shower of rotten fruit*), but here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolutionseveral someones -- will correct me. :) )
@Walton:
Yeah like others here I've been exactly where you are. It would have helped me at the time to know I wasn't alone. Seems kinda weird but knowing that others suffered as well shouldn't really be a relief. Anyways, some people here have been kinda harsh towards to you which I don't think is fair. Like many of them I disagree with alot of what you say, but you do seem interested in an exchange of ideas. Good luck!
@Kenny:
You on the other hand have overstayed your welcome. You have gone from mildly amusing to a masochistic annoyance. Your comments provide neither humour nor insight. PZ has banned you, many have asked you to leave and yet you return. What more do you need?
DUDE, SERIOUSLY, GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE!
Dembski and Ham also don't like the fact that evolutionary biology is being taught at evangelical colleges.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/07/question-wh…
What do you know. Ken Ham got something right! Speaking of Karl Giberson note his comment on the Dembski controversy here:
http://scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot.com/2008/06/lawyer-liar-or-luna…
Evolution does nothing to prove either way if God exists or not. It really has no say anything other than Fossils are real which everyone agrees with and there are some simularities in the DNA. Okay, well I agree with that as well.
To me this is not an emotional issue as much as an obvious one. The human brain is very complex and there had to be a creator for all of this somewhere. It is impossible for life to be this way without some intelligence starting it.
Yes, yes, I believe in Genesis I admit that. Why not? There were a lot of changes from the time of Adam and Eve up until now.
There are people who believe in Evolution but also believe in God and Genesis and all of that.
I have just seen too many things that show me it is real. I don't have any doubt about it. I don't really care that people on here can't grasp really simple concepts. That is their problem.
When people that were atheists tell me that they have died and they have seen God and that they saw what was going on down here and like I said above I just don't believe in what these people that try to use science and bend it using fables because we all know they have not done any scientific tests to prove their findings. I have to believe the people and when they meet relatives that they never knew only to come back and find out that they really existed that is not a false memory.
yes, this world is flawed and it decays and yes we don't have the best features (such as eye sight and hearing). It was ment to be that way on purpose.
This is a school and after this life we move on and we keep on learning new things. Life is not over when we die. People on here just don't want to admit that and use ignorance. However we have thousands of people that have told us what it is really like.
Anyway, I wish we could move on from this ignorance and have science find a way to change billions of people from oil to something else that will not polute our planet.
Global warming is going to help cause big problems for this planet and science really isn't going to be able to save us from our own ignorance. It has to be a planetary effort and we are focusing on things that don't even matter.
Because a deeply-held belief in the Christian God and in Christian doctrine is something which affects every aspect and facet of one's life
Sounds like the crush I had on Mokey Fraggle when I was a kid. I got over my feelings for that fictional being, too.
Well, mostly....oh, Mokey...!
The box says no
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/TheRealEdwin/jesus_zoidberg.jpg
Let the troll die. Starve it!
Can't we just mock the troll instead? If he won't listen to reason, surely he'll respond to ridicule.
I suspect there's only one way to change Kenny's mind, but for legal reasons I won't describe it with witnesses around.
Sigh. I'm probably going to regret this, but it's a good exercise.
Kenny, even if NDEs did prove the existence of a god, how then do you know which god it is and what it is that god wants? The distinctions are very important, as evidenced by the incompatibility of religions and even sects within those religions - Protestant vs. Catholic and Sunni vs. Shia for example.
And he's done a pretty piss-poor job of making himself clear so far; how do NDEs supporting every religious belief (including faeries, which you conveniently ignore) help us know which religion he wants us to follow?
If all NDEs had people saying 'I saw God, he called himself Yahweh and said we should all embrace Judaism' then you might have a point. Since you don't you're basically just beating off into a hat.
You've got to wonder about delusional batshit-insane people. Is there ever that small glimpse of rationality long discarded by a drug more deadly that Substance D that tries to break though the broken neural network? i.e. would you think that people like Kenny one day wake up and think "holy shit, something isn't wired properly in by brain"? Obviously the reinforcement of the drug worse than substance D does wonders to mask the incredible neurological impairment, but surely there's got to be a scared little baby of rationality crying out for release.
"Help me, I'm trapped in a delusional fantasy where humans were made out of dirt then tricked by a talking snake into eating an apple that made us leave a garden where Tyrannosauruses ate plant matter"
CAUTION !
If you are tempted to respond to post #104,105 remember
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE KENNY !
This may cause severe thread derailment
Wowbagger, we already pointed to a beautiful example of a Hindu NDE:
http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html
Complete with an encounter with the Hindu God of Death, Yamraj, who was somewhat peeved that he didn't get a gardener. Apparently, Hindu heaven needs gardeners. Who knew?
You-know-who has refused to either agree to worship Yamraj or explain why he will not worship Yamraj.
Please, for the sake of all that is good, take your advice to heart. Next time you walk down the sidewalk, consider that there's an equally important sidewalk on the other side of the street, and thus a 'balanced' person should walk right down the middle of the road.
As I'm sure you're aware (and to use Taleb's language and comparisons), whether "balance" is appropriate depends upon whether we're in "Extremistan" or "Mediocristan." Put 100 people in a room and their average weight won't change much even by adding the world's heaviest man. That's Mediocristan. But the average wealth of 100 people is dramatically changed by adding the world's richest man to the mix. That's Extremistan. More to the point, balance in the sense of fairness is, quite obviously, another matter entirely.
Instead of feeding the troll, piss it off by celebrating these weddings and make it more pissed off by donating to make sure such weddings keep happening Make it even more miserable while it dies of starvation by keeping happy married gay people on its tv!
negentropyeater @ #108 - I think it's too late, I've already forgotten what this thread was about... damn you kenny!
I'm pretty sure it was about Dempski being a whining little maggot about Miller not supporting his views. Either that or both of them not getting the whole point of the blasphemy challenge.
# 110
Hey Jeff, look, it's the California Marriage Amendment theme song!
Not trying to troll but I will keep posting to provide some objectivity and common sense on these threads.
Posted by: Kennyisnotdead
That would be new and different.
I think, that for people who are looking for a rational reason to believe, it is already too late.
Kel #112 wrote:
What, that yet another 'fact' described in the bible is scientifically tested and found to be completely unsupportable? What other point is there?
JamesF,
Well, we are out to destroy everything.
NOW STARVE IT! Kill it dead; make it suffer.
CAUTION !
If you are tempted to respond to post #104,105 remember
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE KENNY !
1. The Kenny is not interested in listening to your arguments.
2. The Kenny is only interested in self gratification, repeating the same old tired pre-formatted lines over and over again.
3. Generally, he will derail the thread towards yet another fruitless discussion about his pet subject, NDEs.
PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE KENNY !
And, Dr. Myers asked us all to ignore Kenny. His blog, his house rules.
Good point. So back to the issue at hand...
Has anyone here actually done the blasphemy challenge yet?
Hey look, it's Sinbad. Hello, Sinbad!
Say... What country are we in when we have 100 people in a room and add Kenny? Does the average IQ drop, or rise?
It's a tough choice with Miller - he's woo, but he promotes real science, at least up to a point. That's got to make him the lesser of two evils.
And science slightly polluted with woo has to be better than 'goddidit', doesn't it? It gives children a fighting chance to understand and accept science and give Jebus the old heave-ho when they realise it's all a load of dingo's kidneys.
@#121 (Wowbagger)
Did you read Ken Miller's essay on "Does science make the belief in God obsolete?". It explains his position quite well on the matter.
Essay here:
http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf
The rest of the essays here (including Shermer and Hitchens)
http://www.templeton.org/belief/
You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas; you've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone Dumbfuckistan.
It sinks into the very bowels of the Earth...
Does the average IQ drop, or rise?
zero K(elvin) for temperature; zero K(enny) for intelligence.
Hey look, it's Sinbad. Hello, Sinbad!
Hi backatcha. Not that anyone cares, but my latest consulting job's web blocking program doesn't allow PZ so I haven't been around much.
Say... What country are we in when we have 100 people in a room and add Kenny? Does the average IQ drop, or rise?
It drops, of course. Theoretically, it's Mediocristan. But perhaps Kenny's case is the exception that proves the rule....
Huh.
Does it block all of scienceblogs, or just Pharyngula?
And does it offer an explanation why?
Kel wrote:
It does make his position clear, but it seems to push woo so far back into the background that it's almost negligible, except maybe in a Pascal's Wager kind of way. Which I guess I'm okay with, since it doesn't at any point make claims that if science doesn't agree with the bible then science is wrong.
Don't you just love how Kenny can say anything he wants to without even a slither of evidence to back himself up then calls himself the rational one? See, that is what idiot scientists like PZ Myers are doing wrong, they use the power of peer review. If scientists just asserted what they thought instead of looking for "evidence" then we'd have flying cars right now and no-one would ever die of cancer...
Wowbagger wrote:
that's the trouble I have with his position from a theological perspective. If you throw God completely out of the realms of the natural universe, then he is in effect synonymous with the unknown and a useless concept. I guess that's where faith comes in, but it would be odd to have faith in something being unknown which is entirely derived from natural processes.
But that's his belief so let him be. He's not a threat to scientific thought at all.
Well, FWIW, I notice when you're here, and notice when you're not. :-)
(And I assume your firewall blocks all of Sb, not just Pharyngula. That would be weird.) * * * * * * *I had a dream that Kenny was posting here again. Then I woke up, and saw Kenny posting here aga-
No... NO! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
[blood-curdling scream*]
I had a dream that Kenny was posting here again. Then I woke up, and saw Kenny posting here aga-
And in the naked light I saw,
ten thousand posts and maybe more.
Words all piled up saying nothing.
Words all twisted beyond meaning.
And the words
in to the light did go.
And echoed
with the dumb of Kenny.
[/Simon and Garfunkel]
Kseniya #129, wrote:
Maybe you're having a near-death experience...
I assume your firewall blocks all of Sb, not just Pharyngula.
Yup. I miss PZ and Two Minds and Ed B. and and and.
I did it already. No-one read it, therefore it's valid...
FFS kenny, you are worse than a CAM advocate.
What country are we in when we have 100 people in a room and add Kenny? Does the average IQ drop, or rise?
Posted by: Kseniya
Kenny's open mind is so dense, it's gravity pulls brains cell from all other who are in Kenny's gravitational field. So to answer the question, the average IQ does drop. But at the same time, everyone loses some intelligence.
Welcome to... The Thought Nebula
Ken Miller was on "The Colbert Report" tonight, and did a tolerably decent job explaining (in a rapid fire manner, given the time constraints) the difference between science and, well, other stuff (ID, etc). Now even tho' he has (in my opinion, anyway) an appallingly romantic view of the "business" of science (if you'll pardon the expression)...for example, the idea that the best science comes from people who don't care about what other scientists think (nullius in verba)(he apparently hasn't tried to get a grant proposal funded recently)...Miller nevertheless communicates the enthusiasm, and gives a feeling for why people go into it, and why we should listen to it.
Not too bad for a 5 min (or whatever) slot, esp facing Colbert.
Sinbad, I would be a lot more productive if my organisation blocked scienceblogs.
Well, it's good of you to drop by when you can, then.
>I did it already. No-one read it, therefore it's valid...
The fact that millions are dying and this is happening to them and they see things they possibly could not see unless they were dead.
Sinbad @ 107:
Totally off topic... but it's interesting to see someone reference Taleb's Black Swan, cos I just read it.
I'm interested to know if you enjoyed it. Personally, I thought that it could have done with considerably less self-aggrandizement, pompousness, and intellectual masturbation. Despite which, it raised a few interesting questions, even if it spectacularly failed to give any, you know, answers. So basicaly, I was massively dissappointed, and now have an incredibly low opinion of Taleb, who I think is a cranky narcisistic misanthrope, as well as a terrible writer.
Despite which, people are telling me to give his earlier book a go. I may.
Anyhoo - nice to meet you.
Did you read Ken Miller's essay on "Does science make the belief in God obsolete?". It explains his position quite well on the matter. - Kel
I just read it. What a pile of dingos' kidneys:
In this view [i.e. in Miller's version of what atheists think], God is an explanation for the weak, a
way out for those who cannot face the terrible
realities revealed by science.
That the world includes "terrible realities" was obvious long before science got going. Rabies? Guinea worm? Psychopathic sadists? Death by fire? Strangulated hernias? A great advantage of atheism is that we can concentrate on eliminating or ameliorating these terrible realities, without puzzling over why the big sky-fairy who loves us sooo much allows them to happen.
But science itself employs a kind of faith, a faith
all scientists share, whether they are religious in
the conventional sense or not. Science is built upon
a faith that the world is understandable,
Bilge. It is not a faith; it is a working assumption. If it turned out tomorrow that there are magic spells that really work, or if the stars rearranged themselves in the sky into a gigantic cross, or if fossil rabbits were discovered in Precambrian strata - the assumption would have to be dropped, and science transformed if not abandoned.
Miller's kind of "reasoning" here is on the same level of sophistication as Dumbski's. A fine demonstration that great intelligence and blithering idiocy are quite compatible.
CJO NAILED that fundamentalist mindset in #35. It's scary how many people let others do their thinking, deciding, and living for them.... and then have the gall to get upset when they are called drones or sheep.
MAJeff: And in the naked light I saw,
:-D
negentropyeater:
No no, the comparison is apt. Newton had the apple. Dembski had XVIVO land on his head.
PZ wrote:
I agree with you and I don't think this approach will work with the still-godded.I'm reading Miller's latest and am seriously intrigued by his approach (I'm only at chapter 3 but he's got me hooked!). Miller's style (IMHO) is: suck in the still-godded, then sneak up on them with logic and reason.
Miller's approach is: pretend to take ID seriously....then rip its nuts off. He was on Colbert last night. Miller is good (!!).
No wonder Dumbski and the rest of the IDiots are in a tiff about this book. Kinda undermines the latest scum attacks to "Teach the controversy" via legislation to "promote critical thinking skills"
"Miller's kind of "reasoning" here is on the same level of sophistication as Dumbski's."
Yes, but Miller, as a working scientist, puts science first and just feels the warm glow of faith while he does it.
Dembski puts faith first, and for him everything else must bend: reality, evidence, even the definition of science itself.
Philosophically (what they would call spiritually), they are very close, but when it comes to science, evolution, ID, education, and the culture wars, they are certainly working opposite sides of the border.
Totally off topic... but it's interesting to see someone reference Taleb's Black Swan, cos I just read it.
I'm interested to know if you enjoyed it.
I think it's brilliant.
Personally, I thought that it could have done with considerably less self-aggrandizement, pompousness, and intellectual masturbation.
All true.
Despite which, it raised a few interesting questions, even if it spectacularly failed to give any, you know, answers.
That's precisely his point. We claim far too many answers due to the narrative fallacy. Induction works in Mediocristan but fails miserably in Extremistan. Unfortunately, we regularly fail even to comprehend the difference much less recognize which is which. In his view, we aren't nearly skeptical enough.
So basicaly, I was massively dissappointed, and now have an incredibly low opinion of Taleb, who I think is a cranky narcisistic misanthrope, as well as a terrible writer.
Shoot the messenger if you want (even though I think there is merit to your criticism).
Despite which, people are telling me to give his earlier book a go. I may.
Fooled by Randomness is much narrower -- markets focused -- which is why many like it better.
Interestingly, the narrative fallacy is largely why so many struggle with the concepts behind evolution -- we want things orderly and regular. It has never happened that way before so it can't happen now. It's why the markets seem to have a "thousand-year flood" every few years and why LTCM failed so spectacularly despite all those Nobel winners. Extremistan exists in far more places than we recognize or want to recognize (example from #140 below).
To make a connection Taleb does not (though he may in his next book and mocks people like Dawkins mercilessly -- what he calls "f*ck you money" gives him the freedom to do that), I think God lives in Extremistan.
Anyhoo - nice to meet you.
And you.
It is not a faith [Miller's comment re the belief that the world is orderly]; it is a working assumption. If it turned out tomorrow that there are magic spells that really work, or if the stars rearranged themselves in the sky into a gigantic cross, or if fossil rabbits were discovered in Precambrian strata - the assumption would have to be dropped, and science transformed if not abandoned.
Dawkins concedes otherwise. Re-read the end of TGD. He concedes that even if a madonna waved at him he would deny the miraculous and rest upon his preconceived philosophical notions. No matter the existance of Extremistan, Dawkins insists on living a credulous life (insufficiently skeptical) in Mediocristan.
Which means what, exactly?
I'm very suspicious of glib jargon like that.
Oh?
So if Krishna or Shiva or Vishnu waved at you, you would drop everything you believe in now and become a Hindu?
How about if Huitzilopochtli demands a human sacrifice from you to stave off the end of the world?
At what point would you say "If I am perceiving this, there is something very wrong with my perceptions; either I am hallucinating or being deceived." ?
More jargon. What does this mean?
Owlmirror, I suspect (from reading a few comments on some other recent posts) that Sinbad is a 'regular' who hasn't been here for a while, and the expressions he/she is using are known to the other 'regulars'.
That being said I wouldn't mind some clarification...
Which means what, exactly?
Short of reading the book, look here.
So if Krishna or Shiva or Vishnu waved at you, you would drop everything you believe in now and become a Hindu?
Not necessarily.
At what point would you say "If I am perceiving this, there is something very wrong with my perceptions; either I am hallucinating or being deceived." ?
Never, at least exclusively. You have offered two explanations, both of which deserve to be explored. But a third, less likely alternative also deserves to be explored -- that something miraculous has taken place. Dawkins rejects that alternative as being possible. By his own admission, rationality philosophically precludes the possibility of the miraculous irrespective of the evidence.
That doesn't clarify your comment at all. I grant that random shit happens; that control is ephemeral. What. Ever.
But what does any of that have to do with what you wrote, and with God?
OK, so how are you different from Dawkins?
How would you be able to tell?
"Miraculous" implies that said event is a violation of all laws of nature. What criteria would you be able to use to determine that such a violation had taken place — as opposed to something natural that you had no physical way to evaluate?
I just checked the text of tGD, and that doesn't appear to be what he wrote. He talks about a madonna waving its hand, and discusses the improbability of all of the atoms in its hand moving at once. At no point does he write that he "rejects the possibility of the miraculous irrespective of the evidence".
It looks to me like he simply means that he has standards of evidence that are pretty high.
Would simply seeing a statue waving its hand in and of itself enough to convince you that a miracle had occurred? Again, if not, how are you different from Dawkins?
That doesn't clarify your comment at all.
Then I suggest you read more carefully.
OK, so how are you different from Dawkins?
I have already explained how.
"Miraculous" implies that said event is a violation of all laws of nature. What criteria would you be able to use to determine that such a violation had taken place -- as opposed to something natural that you had no physical way to evaluate?
Sufficient technological advancement may be practically indistinguishable from the miraculous, I grant. But difficulty is making the evaluation doesn't preclude the possibility or mitigate the prerogative to try.
I just checked the text of tGD, and that doesn't appear to be what he wrote.
I don't have my copy here, but I suggest you read it again. He grants the theoretical possibility that evidence could change his mind about the miraculous, but his carrying on about the madonna's molecules moving just so blah blah blah shows that it's lip service only.
It looks to me like he simply means that he has standards of evidence that are pretty high.
Only if "pretty high" and "impossible to meet" are synonymous.
He's talking about economics. You're talking about theology. Could you do me a simple favor and explicate the connection? Is this too much to ask of you?
Oh? Have you tried to evaluate all of the miracles claimed by all of the religions that are not your own?
It's precisely because he's discussing the calculations of theoretical probabilities that he brings the waving statue up at all.
Impossible for you, perhaps. But you're a mere mortal. It looks like you don't believe that even God could know what evidence a hardened skeptic would accept, and provide it.
Interesting limit on your faith, there.
He's talking about economics. You're talking about theology. Could you do me a simple favor and explicate the connection?
Taleb's point is that the apparently impossible (the highly improbable) happens much more than we think -- the problem of induction is much bigger than we suppose. Thus the absence of evidence really isn't evidence of absence. The idea that (for example) a resurrection couldn't have happened (because it never happens) is misplaced. Another element of such a "black swan" is that even though it can't be predicted or even really foreseen, it makes sense in hindsight. That's similar to a believer's perception of God. Unbelievers see it as an impossible black swan and crazy-talk. Believers think it makes sense.
Oh? Have you tried to evaluate all of the miracles claimed by all of the religions that are not your own?
You're moving the goalposts. Your question related to a statue waving at me.
It's precisely because he's discussing the calculations of theoretical probabilities that he brings the waving statue up at all.
With the caveat that I don't have my copy with me, that he even mentions his view that the madonna's molecules would have had to have just happened to move in such a way as to "move" the statue's hand suggests otherwise.
Impossible for you, perhaps. But you're a mere mortal. It looks like you don't believe that even God could know what evidence a hardened skeptic would accept, and provide it.
You're moving the goalposts again. We aren't talking about what God could or might do; we're talking about evidence Dawkins might accept. He implies strongly that there isn't any.
No, no, no! You have it entirely back-to-front!
It is precisely because humans are so very, very bad at figuring out what is going on in rapidly changing complex situations — whether those complex systems be markets or organisms or cells or consciousness — that they all too often superstitiously attribute the behavior or existence of those complex things to the supernatural. It is precisely an argument against magical thinking, against inferring God or gods or angels or demons or fairies.
You told me to read the article — did you even read it yourself? Here...
See? That which everyone else thought was "a black swan" — a magical, induction-breaking event — was actually something that could be predicted by rational analysis and understanding. When the proper knowledge exists, it can be seen as something natural. That's why it makes sense in hindsight — not because it's magical!
Heck, the line "They live in a fantasy world in which the future can be controlled by sophisticated mathematical models and elaborate risk-management systems." could just as easily be reworded as: "[Theists] live in a fantasy world in which the future can be controlled by sophisticated prayers and elaborate rituals, all in the service of an all-powerful, all-knowing benevolent God.".
It is believers who see or hear or something strange, like a resurrection, and infer the impossible black swan, the magical event. It is skeptics who look at it and say that it is probably actually a white swan dyed black; something that can be explained as something natural — a coma or a trance, or perhaps an elaborate trick, and when related without evidence, merely a story.
Sheesh. No wonder I was confused about how you got from Taleb to God...
Miracles are indeed what are under discussion. And isn't a miracle kind of defined as something "God could or might do"?
No, no, no! You have it entirely back-to-front!
I would expect atheists to see it that way.
It is precisely because humans are so very, very bad at figuring out what is going on in rapidly changing complex situations....
We are bad at it. That's why I don't advocate an assumption of the miraculous or even the ready acceptance of it. You are starting with the typically correct assumption that where believers see a black swan it's really white and concluding from that that no supernatural black swans are possible. That's taking induction too far.
It is believers who see or hear or something strange, like a resurrection, and infer the impossible black swan, the magical event. It is skeptics who look at it and say that it is probably actually a white swan dyed black....
I acknowledge your probability assumptions and suspect that the vast majority of miracle claims are indeed false. That isn't to say that the truly unique (say, the Incarnation) cannot happen or did not happen.
...and when related without evidence, merely a story.
When related by those with first-hand knowledge, stories are evidence. If your mother has her purse snatched and she goes to the police and asks them to investigate, they will (as they should) do so based upon the testimonial evidence she supplies. I suppose you would have the police claim they can't do anything because there's no evidence to back your mother's claim that she was robbed?
When related by those with first-hand knowledge, stories are evidence.
What relevance does that have to anything about Jesus in the NT?
Besides which, if my mother had claimed to see someone who had died three days ago, I would have concluded that she had had a hallucination. Not at all rare in the recently bereaved. Hell, Konrad Lorenz describes, in Man Meets Dog, how he repeatedly hallucinated hearing a favourite dog following him for months after its death. Did God perhaps resurrect his dog, then snatch it up to heaven months later?
sorry to be a fool, but I just love the idea of Jesus being equated to a purse-snatcher, even if it is just for the sake of argument.
reuben@158
1 Thessalonians 5:2-4 (NIV) "for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."!
Dawkins concedes otherwise.,/I> - Sinbad
Then I disagree with Dawkins. It happens.
Sinbad said:
However if she claims that this happened in a crowded street full of witnesses and not one of said witnesses backs her story up do you not think that the police might be justified in treating her story with a degree of scepticism?
Also (and this is very important in miracle tales) claiming to have first-hand knowledge and actually having it are two different things - faking miracles and lying about them are not exactly unheard of in religious history.
Sathya Sai Baba has millions of living followers, many of whom claim to have seen him perform miracles: curing the sick, raising the dead, materialising valuable objects, and (curiously) producing eggs from his mouth.
I suggest you might like to worship him since there's plenty of "evidence" of his godhood by your standard.
You won't be interested in the videotapes of his "miracles", I expect.
He truly is a miracle-worker. I hear he even produced a nickel from behind the ear of one of his nephews!
There's still something wrong with how you phrase this. Let me see if I can make it clear why this is an incoherent argument...
The problem with the white swan - black swan analogy is that there is nothing inherently impossible about a black swan existing, even if all that you are aware of is white swans; feathers being of a different pigment are not inherently contradictory. Black swans are simply a previously unknown variation on the known.
But does "supernatural" actually have any real, non-contradictory meaning?
This does actually tie back in to what Dawkins was talking about with the statue waving: We know from the study of quantum mechanics that spontaneous events do occur on the subatomic level. Yet at the macroscopic level, all of those spontaneous events add up to the statistical behaviors of the properties of matter as we know them. So solids are solid and unmoving unless something macroscopic causes them to move; that is, that there's an natural energy transfer.
So regarding a statue waving, we can calculate the amount of energy necessary to cause that physical state changes that would be necessary for that to actually happen, and the probability of that energy resulting from the spontaneous quantum mechanical actions of all of the particles involved. So, setting aside the "trickery" and "hallucination" explanations, we are then left with a very highly improbable event.
Given that, we still can pose the question: Did this happen as something spontaneous and random and natural, or, as you say we should not rule out, did it happen as the result of some supernatural cause?
If God is real, does it mean anything to say that God not part of nature at all? In the example above, God is supposedly acting on nature. Even if God does not usually act on nature, at that point in time, God is acting on nature, causing the forces that appear that act on the atoms of the statue. In this instance, "supernatural" does not mean "non-natural"; it means "natural, but of a rare and unusual nature that we cannot investigate". Yet how does that differ from the "spontaneous and random and natural" explanation above?
As you acknowledge above, our own ignorance about probabilities means that we cannot distinguish between "natural, but of a rare and unusual nature that we cannot investigate" and "spontaneous and random and natural". In other words, they are both equally good explanations, and in the absence of other evidence (that is, the statue waves its hand, and that's all that happens), rejecting the "supernatural" is the correct one.
Or to put it another way: It is not Dawkins who is setting "impossible" standards of evidence. The very idea of the supernatural is to assert that any natural standard of evidence is useless!
Well, I can't speak for other atheists, but I reject Christianity — that is, I assert that a unique event where God incarnated as man (and all the rest of the Nicaene creed) did not happen and cannot have happened — not merely because there's a lack of evidence, but because of the contradictory premises. It it against the much weaker claims of a distant and indifferent Deism that I have to resort to the correspondingly weaker response of absence of evidence.
It depends on the story, now doesn't it?
If your mother claims that she was robbed by a human, there's nothing extraordinary going on. Humans can and do steal from each other, and the police would probably be willing to take her at her word.
If your mother claims that her purse was snatched by Jesus Christ coming out of the sky on a cloud and disappearing into thin air, I think most police forces would rightly consider the claim to be sufficiently extraordinary to be either an insane delusion or a confabulation, and in either case, merely a story.
You might also want to look into the known unreliability of witnesses.
This subject of theistic evolutionists is current affairs.