Hitchens gets all the fun

PZ, you get your fair share of lunacy. Usually in your inbox.

Such is life of the D-list. Hell, I can't even get my wife to knit you an octopus. Sure, she'll knit a purse for our daughter, the queen of purses, but an octopus for our Atheist Octopus Overlord... Apparently not...

Bumber crop? Hmmmm - apologists as renewable fuel?

Speaking of octopedestrians - you owe us one.

I wouldn't call them a bumper crop, PZ, more like an infestation...

....but, but, but - god is real!! Really real!! Really!

Of course they have all of the arguments for God's existence that a five-year-old has for Santa's existence--if that (at least the 5-year-old has presents).

The only trouble is arguing so that people who think like five-year-olds (in this area) can understand the anti-theist arguments. That's not so easy, but Hitchens is pretty good at it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist, you can't jump to the conclusion that it does. Maybe, just maybe, it actually doesn't. They seem to not get that simple point.

By "all the fun", do you mean "waterboarded"?

Blake @ 8, did you watch that video?

Did anyone notice that the author calls Hitchens an "anti-deist", when he actually defines himself as an anti-theist. Maybe the author doesn't know the difference between deism and theism?

I was thinking of this (I don't remember whether I watched that particular video or not).

PZ, I don't usually disagree with you, but I'm gonna go ahead and say it - not only are you wrong that it's a good thing there's a bumper crop of them, but I will happily give up my share of these guys should there suddenly be a shortage.

Good link, Hitchens is pure gold, and glad to hear you're coming to Toronto, got my ticket already.

As much as I enjoy the debate and, of course, being on the winning side, it seems more or less pointless to continue. If you believe in magic, the card trick is marvelous, the whole performance memorable. If you don't believe in magic, you smile & shake your head. But if, like Hitchens, you don't believe and you know how all the tricks are done, there are no surprises and the game is up.

I guess you keep hoping to open a few more minds but even that seems less and less likely.

Following up on #11:

. . . which probably means I read that post at work and didn't watch the video.

Given that Hitchens is, on several subjects at least, severely addled, and continually has the air of a souse after a long weekend, the fact that an eminent theologian and speaker can't even wing the guy shows how vacant the ideas cupboard of religion is.

Shouldn't Hitchens' score against Gob be higher?
I mean, he only also trounced:

Hedges
McGrath
Sharpton
Olasky
(Douglas) Wilson
Kirsch
and many more!

Hm, I think there was a debate between Michael Shermer and John Lennox a while ago, on the topic of "Does God exist?". I wonder why I haven't seen any further mention of it? Or maybe I just happened to miss it. It was pretty hilarious, Lennox made absolutely no sense during the whole debate, as usual.

It's obvious to anyone who looks into the history of religion that the ancients, such as the Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamians, & Aryans who invaded India, all had similar gods. These gods had superhuman powers, bur also had human-like personalities. The ancients practised kathenotheism, (one-god-at-a-time-ism), when it suited them. The Hebrews made this monism permanent, although they left the spirit realm populated by the disenfranchised minor gods, which they called angels, etc.

That the Jewish/Christian/Moslem god should have human characteristics is risible. Anyone who believes this religious nonsense is ignorant, stupid, or crazy. Good luck to Hitchens, PZ, & the other rationalists for telling it like it is.

"...but, but, but - god is real!! Really real!! Really!"

Whenever I see an apologist spouting forth (such as John Knight on one of the interminable long threads recently), this is pretty much what I get out of it.

Any vid/audio links for this debate? I love Hitch vs. anyone. Always a good time.

In less happy news, another shit-for-brains loser decided to shoot a bunch of people in Finland. Greg Laden has some details.

Hitchens defines cognitive dissonance for me: brilliant when eviscerating religion, and a complete moron when justifying neo-conservatism.
____________________________________________

PZ, I keep thinking about the "knitting" comment you made for the Expelled piece of IDiots propaganda. I think that with knitting you at least get something useful at the end of your work while with religion.... *holds up empty hands*

My debates with theists are very short. Here's an example.

Me: "The idea there's a magic fairy hiding in the clouds is childish bullshit."

Theist: "Insert the usual god-of-the-gaps god-loves-you you're-going-to-hell stupidity here"

Me: "You're a brainwashed wacko. Go worship your dead Jebus, moron."

Yeah, the warm and fuzzy feelings you get from toques, scarves and mitts are far more valuable than those provided by wishful thinking.

Maybe lacking this experience is why the southern USAians can't seem to let go of religion.

It sure didn't take the fundies long to start trolling up that article. What are they doing reading a Discover blog anyway, do they like being proven wrong? :D

@#20 - There is a comment on the link that the Templeton twerps filmed it and will be releasing the video at some point.

What a coincidence, I just checked Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" out of the library.

Also, @ #20: "I love Hitch vs. anyone. Always a good time."
You'd love the Four Horsemen videos which are up for free at Richard Dawkins' site, then. It's Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris and Dan Dennett sitting around a table drinking and discussing religion and atheism. Excellent video.

I would like to see or listen to that thing. Has anyone found something yet? On Faith didn't have it yet, as far as I could tell...

problem with the bumper crop is, that the same mentality also produces a never-ending supply of suicide bombers :-((

Someone fill me in: PZ is coming to Toronto? When and where? How are tickets obtained?

I guess it's a good thing we've got a bumper crop of these guys, or I'd worry that there wasn't going to be any left for the rest of us.

Bravo PZ! You have hit a solution on the head. Due to the bumper crop in wackaloon-batshittery, you sir, have just stumbled upon the cheapest and most abundant renewable biofuel in our time! Think of all the milage we could get out of the hot air each one of these wooers has!

#20 checking back in.
I see the comment for the video, thanks for pointing that out.

I've watched the four horsemen video; good times.

I've been an atheist since the days when Hitchins was eating porridge out of a bowl with a picture of the queen in the bottom, and I still think the man is a drunken pompous neocon ass.

Hell, I think we are the ones with the bumper crop on this site, and we are willing to share them after softening them up for further evisceration.
Now there is a contradiction in terms; half physicist, half theologian, half-wit in the end run. What a joke. Does he apply physics to his freaking religion, or the other way around? We all know that his interpretation of physics is that his god directs it all and there the matter ends. A slap in the face for the true meaning and application of science. My utter contempt for these clowns who think that science and bullshit are compatible. Send this clown also to Gannymede so he can observe one of it's moons, Jupiter, playing tag with the other planets of Io, Calisto and Europa. Lucas gives new meaning to the study of Astronomy, and with the phony so-called "scientist" godshit, science will be set back for a spell until these morons are drummed out of the ranks of legitimate science.

It will be interesting to see if Hitchens really was off having some beauty treatments and his teeth done. Watching him have a go at Donahue is great comedy.

Reading the comments, I was wondering where I'd heard the name "Charlie Wagner". Boy why did I try to find out!

Oh come on, guys. Jump on the Charlie Wagner gravy train and sear that shit with a flamethrower -- just for old time's sake.

Man, if you guys think defenses of religious belief are limited to 'the god of the gaps' and 'believe or you'll go to hell,' then you're as well read with respect to the philosophy of religion as the young earth creationist is with respect to geology, biology, chemistry, etc. Honestly, you sound *that* bad. Try, for example, working your way through Plantinga's trilogy "Warrant: The Current Debate," "Warrant and Proper Function" and "Warranted Christian Belief" some time. Such an exercise will prevent you from coming across as practically illiterate when it comes to the philosophy of religion. (If you're tempted simply to dismiss the philosophy of religion itself, then you don't understand just what it is: when an atheist presents an argument to show that god's existence is impossible -- say, because the very notion is incoherent; or when an atheist presents an argument to show that god's existence is unlikely -- say, because of the evidential problem of evil; or when an atheist presents arguments showing that theistic arguments fail; in each case, the atheist is doing philosophy of religion. In short, if you want to take part in, or intelligently follow and evaluate, debates such as the one between Albacete and Hitchens, you cannot escape the subject.)

Yay, eric's back. Time for more mediocrity, long-winded mediocrity.

eric:

The person claiming the existence of [Thor, Zeus, Allah, God, Vishnu, Xenu] has the burden of proof.

Evidence or GTFO.

Eric - What is wrong with the source book, the Bible? Don't you think we should take the evidence of God's holy word?

Such an exercise will prevent you from coming across as practically illiterate when it comes to the philosophy of religion.

*yawn*

it's good you read books on philosophy that make you think you know something.

it's the first step in ACTUALLY knowing something.

What are they doing reading a Discover blog anyway, do they like being proven wrong?

Actually, there's more depth to that question than you likely intended.

I've often wondered if much of the creationist approach is just that: A nearly subconscious cry for help to be proven wrong, over and over again, so they can finally get rid of that massive dissonance that's giving them such a headache.

Kind of a form of mental suicide.

oh, and for eric:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

So Eric, I'm curious, are you a John 3:16 Christian or an Acts 1:8 Pentecostal?
Just my opinion, but if you don't hold Acts 1:8 foremost in your heart, you are going to hell. As all True Christians know.

PZ Myers is sooooo bigoted for writing the Courtier's Reply. How dare he defend that bigot Dawkins, who won't even read up on sophisticated views of God? Also "the great and powerful oz" is so bigoted for comparing MY God to Thor. He's clearly giving a personal attack on all Catholics. Everyone here is so bigoted, and you are all attacking me. How dare you mock those with faith? You are all just like racists, hiding behind atheism as an excuse to be intolerant.
/eric

*sigh*
Is Eric the best they got?
*yawn*

Humbug!
There isn't a much more unsatisfactory thing than a flaccid troll.
Poor Eric can't defend his gawd, and his gawd won't defend him.

Is Eric the best they got?

One does wonder why the supremely theologically educated (I mean, he must have at least a Master's in theology, right?) Eric isn't jumping at the bit to debate Hitch.

Go, Man!
Save xianity's soul from the evil clutches of the rational!

I'm sure even you could do a better job than Albacete.
...but then, I think my dog could have done a better job.

That said, far better than Albacete have tried... and died.

Ichthyic - This is the way the lords cowards always fight. Dump and run. Troll poopies all over the place, smelling up the joint, and they run away.
Eric is filling his Pampers because he doesn't know the Bible verses I quiz him on. Poor little scared troll.
It's sad when the best they can do is trot out a troll not worth bearing your teeth to.

Eric might be better if he dropped the whole "I'm indignant" attitude and actually tried engaging in sensible conversation. The fact that he quotemined PZ Myers as his example of bigotry then continued with it long after it was pointed out how he took it out of context shows he can't get over his personal indignation.

Eric, can you lay out your exact beliefs and show how they are ignored by modern atheists? What exactly from your belief is not being addressed, or worse still misrepresented? Or is this just another opportunity to criticise particular atheists without actually showing how?

It is time for me to toddle off to bed. I do hope Eric will post a challenge to me. Eric you suck as a true christian.

Eric,
How can you possibly dismiss Scientology if you haven't read the complete works of L. Ron Hubbard?

Is it a strange coincidence that 'Albacete' comes rather close to meaning 'white whale'?

Hitchens not only rattles sabres, he also sharpens harpoons loudly...

I'm sorry, but this is something I found very difficult : judging the outcome of a debate, from the report from an obviously partial observer.

Eric: Why assume that none of us have read Plantinga? Several of us have and his arguments are quite frankly nonsense. He's still flogging the dead horse that is the ontological argument for FSM's sake!

eric (#39):

Try, for example, working your way through Plantinga's trilogy "Warrant: The Current Debate," "Warrant and Proper Function" and "Warranted Christian Belief" some time.

Hmm. Plantinga is often held up as an expounder of serious philosophical theism, but it's not always easy to see why. His Modal Ontological Argument is an exercise in misdirection which is easily defeated once you understand the trickery involved (even Plantinga admits that it is less than automatically persuasive). His "Reformed Epistemology" fails to provide any basis for regarding belief in the existence of God as being properly basic in any non-arbitrary fashion, and amounts to little more than special pleading. And his Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism is just as flawed (e.g., it relies on a strawman version of the relationship between cognition and evolutionary adaptation).

So while you are right that one should try and be familiar with arguments of one's opponents, holding up Plantinga as an exemplar does rather highlight the fact that even after you've examined those arguments, theism seems no more plausible than before.

MarkW,
Yup, that horse is not only dead, it's long been turned into pet food and glue! But some of Plantinga's other "ideas" are at least equally ridiculous. If you want a good laugh, have a look at his "evolutionary argument against naturalism". Basically, the claim is that because evolution would adapt us to acquire beliefs that would help us survive, rather than true beliefs, none of our beliefs (including those in evolution and naturalism) can be considered secure. Well, duh! The very point of scientific method, and the broader project of rational enquiry, is to find ways to avoid being fooled by our evolved (and culturally ingrained) dispositions to perceive, conceive and believe in certain ways. You've almost discovered "fallibilism" Alvin: that as a matter of methodological principle, no belief should be placed beyond question and the possibility of revision. Keep it up and you might get a B- for your next essay!

Interesting that the Discover writer Keasling seems to think that Albacete fell down on the job, hinting that there were some excellent arguments which the theist failed to make (but Keasling could have made them.) Re-readng the article, these seem to be what Albacete should have focused on, if he wanted to stump Hitchens:

1.) science and religion really CAN co-exist
2.) because religion and faith are separate entities
3.) Evidence for the truth of religion lies in experiencing its truth (tell a personal anecdote)

For someone who complains that the theologian was too vague and soft, Keasling seems to be pretty soft on these points as well. It's sort of a "boy, we coulda KILLED him with this" without any substance behind it. Every single one of those "defenses" for the existence of God are really just defenses for the personal utility of religious belief. The God hypothesis could be completely false and yet people capable and happy to use religion in benign ways after gutting it of all claims of truth, and resting only on its significance for the believer.

Thin, very thin.

eric #39:

Attacking atheism by trying to undermine reason itself doesn't work either. You don't just fall down on evidentialist arguments: if anything, the presupps are even lamer.

Well, duh! The very point of scientific method, and the broader project of rational enquiry, is to find ways to avoid being fooled by our evolved (and culturally ingrained) dispositions to perceive, conceive and believe in certain ways.

Exactly. Most people consider themselves better than average drivers. This clearly shows that our minds are not reliable: either some of those people are wrong or statistics is wrong. I think it also demonstrates that it's possible to beat our biases and judge driving skills more objectively. Now, how the heck does Plantinga explain this? God gave us reliable minds but Satan fools us about our driving skills?

windy (#61):

Now, how the heck does Plantinga explain this? God gave us reliable minds but Satan fools us about our driving skills?

Close. From what I remember, Plantinga's "explanation" for the problem of cognitive error is "sin". Not eating-from-the-tree-of-knowledge-style sin (since Plantinga isn't a biblical literalist), but a general human capacity for sinfulness. How this is supposed to work isn't very clear - for a supposedly respected philosopher, Plantinga has no apparent qualms for falling back on magical thinking.

#62:
"Plantinga has no apparent qualms for falling back on magical thinking."

Should read "qualms about", of course. D'oh.

windy posted:

but Satan fools us about our driving skills?

This is why I try to stay off I-35, 'specially downtown up to the 183 interchange. That deceptive sumbitch is really workin' overtime.

*dons crash helmet, polishes roll bar, glances around suspiciously*

No kings,

Robert

Looks like Eric bravely turned and ran away. So much for gawds champion.

Yeah, Eric seems to have a little trouble with people who know more than he does, and call him on his BS.

This is why I try to stay off I-35, 'specially downtown up to the 183 interchange.

So the M25 in London is not the only route that's evidence for the hidden hand of Satan in the affairs of Man?

"Looks like Eric bravely turned and ran away."

Um, no. I actually have a life, so I can't spend every waking hour on Pharyngula.

"So much for gawds champion."

Did I ever say I'm a theist? You must really learn a thing or two about the rules of inference.

Let me now address the responses that were both substantive and relevant.

"The person claiming the existence of [Thor, Zeus, Allah, God, Vishnu, Xenu] has the burden of proof."

This is the typical response of those who have never studied informal logic, but who have instead relied upon dubious websites for their debate points. If you're making a claim in a debate (i.e. that your reasons support your conclusion, or that your opponent's reasons don't support his conclusion), you're obligated to defend that claim. It's really that simple. Now, many intrepid atheists try to shirk this burden by claiming that their atheism is simply a 'lack of theistic belief.' Clearly, this move won't do. Either you're an atheist for some reason or set of reasons, or you're not. If you're an atheist for no reason, then your position is non-rational, arbitrary and not worth considering. If you're an atheist for a reason -- even if that reason is as basic as, 'There's no evidence for god's existence' -- then you *do* have a share of the burden of proof (understood not as the need to prove that god doesn't exist, which is of course absurd, but as the need to defend your position and its assumptions). So, take your pick: if you're a non-rational atheist, and have no reasons for your atheism, you can avoid your share of the burden of proof, but only by conceding that your position isn't rational; if you want to claim that your atheism is rational, then you're obligated to defend your reasoning, however basic it may be.

"PZ Myers is sooooo bigoted for writing the Courtier's Reply."

No, not bigoted, but perhaps a little dim. The Courtier's Reply *only* works as an imaginative, fun way of explicating or elucidating your position; it's completely useless, however, in a debate about god's existence. Think about this for a moment: the context is a debate about god's existence, and an atheist presents, say, the logical problem of evil to support the position that the Christian god cannot exist. The theist responds by pointing out that, for reasons x, y and z, philosophers -- both secular and religious (and there are far more atheists in philosophy departments thgan there are in the lab) -- no longer take the logical problem of evil seriously, that these reasons originated in number of works refuting it from the 70s (some of which, coincidentally, happen to have been written by Plantinga), and that the debate has shifted to the evidential problem of evil. The atheist, unfamiliar with this work and with the distintion between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil, responds with the Courtier's Reply. Now, isn't it obvious to every person with a normally functioning brain that this move (remember, the issue being debated is god's existence) is a textbook example of a petitio principii? And isn't this precisely the manner in which the Courtier's Reply is most frequently employed (atheist argues such-and-such; theist responds with work done on it, and brings up all the points the atheist is either ignoring or ignorant of; atheist pulls the Courtier's Reply out of his pocket)?

"Eric: Why assume that none of us have read Plantinga? Several of us have and his arguments are quite frankly nonsense. He's still flogging the dead horse that is the ontological argument for FSM's sake!"

First, I didn't assume that 'none' of you have read Plantinga; rather, I was responding only to the previous remarks on this thread. Second, you may disagree with Plantinga's arguments, but they're hardly 'nonsense.' Since I don't know precisely what you're referring to, I'll limit myself to saying that they're taken very seriously by the philosophic community (which is, as I've said above, predominantly secular), and there is still a tremendous amount of debate being generated from many of his works. Finally, Plantinga's new version of the ontological argument is universally considered to be a substantial improvement on the versions of Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Not only that, but anyone who calls the ontological argument a 'dead horse' simply doesn't know much about the history of Western philosophy! It has consistently remained one of the hottest arguments in philosophy. Heck, even Bertrand Russell was once persuaded that it was sound, and Godel developed his own version of the argument. Plantinga isn't flogging a dead horse, but making a contribution to a lively debate that's been going on for about a thousand years (since at least Avicenna). You may not like the argument, and that's fine (as long as you have a better refutation than the typical -- and false -- 'Kant refuted it'); I'm not persuaded by it myself. I'm just chiding you for ignoring the fact that it has consistently captivated the best philosophers in the Western tradition, and the fact that 'I don't care for it' in no way supports the notion that it's a 'dead horse.'

The other remarks about Plantinga were a bit vague, so it's hard to develop a response. But defending Plantinga wasn't my initial point; rather, I was simply pointing out the fact that many theistic arguments are much more effective and sophisticated than the 'god-of-the-gaps' and the 'believe or burn' types.

many theistic arguments are much more effective and sophisticated than the 'god-of-the-gaps' and the 'believe or burn' types. - eric

So why not present one of them, instead of spewing this kind of pomposity all over the thread?

Eric,
I notice that your posts have remarkably little substantive content - they consist almost entirely of various forms of the argument from authority. Do you actually have anything intenresting to say, or are you just here to sneer at the uneducated rabble?

Eric - So now are you saying you're not a christian or god follower of some stripe?

Patricia,
I think eric's one of those trolls of the same variety as the unlamented salt - careful never to commit themselves to any clear statement of their own views, because they know they will be unable to defend them.

Nick,
You're probably right. Not worth snapping at.
I was busy making pumpkin pie filling, and potato soup. Back to the stove for me!

The troll hasn't seem to have picked on the fact that a less verbose argument is much stronger than one that appears to be a meandering bunch of BS. His MO is to try to move goalposts to match his warped view of the world. And try to pull an "argument from authority" at this site is just a hoot no matter who does it. Someone around here is always more expert than they are whatever the field.

eric,

I'll limit myself to saying that [Plantiga's arguments are] taken very seriously by the philosophic community (which is, as I've said above, predominantly secular)

Where did you get that idea?

My impression is quite the reverse. Plantinga has come up in discussions I've had with a half dozen philosophers from 4 well-regarded philosophy departments, and in every case his work was disparaged.

My impression is that he's generally regarded as an annoying crank who gets way too much press because he claims to have good arguments for things that people want to believe.

In three of the six cases I recall, the subject was "bad philosophers" or "things that give people the impression that philosophers are flakes," and Plantinga's name came up spontaneously. In the other three cases, there was some actual connection to the subject under discussion (trickiness of interpreting modal logic proofs, e.g.,) but the upshot was basically the same.

BTW, the philosophers disparaging Plantinga in my presence included a philosopher of religion and a logician, both Christian. (The other four were atheists.)

Nerd - How right you are, there's Paul W. with perfect timing. Hee-hee!
Just looked up Plantinga, looks like a nut case to me.

The Courtier's Reply *only* works as an imaginative, fun way of explicating or elucidating your position; it's completely useless, however, in a debate about god's existence.

Well duh, that's because it's not part of the debate for God's existence. It's a response to criticism of people who think that somehow reading modern interpretations of God makes God any more plausible, not an argument in itself.

"The person claiming the existence of [Thor, Zeus, Allah, God, Vishnu, Xenu] has the burden of proof."This is the typical response of those who have never studied informal logic, but who have instead relied upon dubious websites for their debate points

Okay, I'll explain this really simply. The reason why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim is that without any positive evidence, we get what we would call the null hypothesis. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the two look exactly alike. What would a Godless universe look like compared to a universe without any evidence for God? This is the reason why we can't prove the absence of anything. That's the whole point of the Russell's Teapot thought experiment. We can't disprove there's a teapot, but without any evidence there's no reason to believe there is one.

Same goes for the Loch Ness Monster; we could drain the lake and even if there weren't a shred of evidence for a modern pleiosaur, it still wouldn't prove it's absence. That's why the burden on the one making the claim of Nessie's existence is the one who has to come up with the positive proof. Same goes for Bigfoot, for the dragon in my garage (which is totally there, you can see it on Google Earth [well you can see my garage, but there's a dragon in there I swear]) for God or Thor or any other mythic entity.

As someone on an episode of Bullshit! accurately said: there's a big difference between the giant squid and bigfoot; we've found the giant squid. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, it always has been, it always will be. Otherwise you can't ever move down from a state of ultimate ambivalence as you can't prove the absence.

"Well duh, that's because [the Courtier's Reply is] not part of the debate for God's existence."

Someone should get this message out. Here's a simple example: Dawkins was widely criticized for his blatant lack of scholarship (with respect to philosophy of religion) in 'The God Delusion,' a book that was certainly about god's existence. When Dawkins was criticized for not having shown any familiarity whatsoever with the scholarship relevant to the issue his book addresses, he made use of Myers' Courtier's Reply (which, if I remember correctly, was constructed by PZ to deal with precisely this criticism). Now, there's no way you can claim that this had nothing to do with the debate about god's existence. Dawkins presented an argument premised upon his understanding of what theists (primarily Christians) believe about god, and many pointed out that Dawkins's arguments completely failed to meet the sorts of theistic arguments, or deal with the kinds of objections, that even a first year theology student would be familiar with. Dawkins responded to this criticism with the Courtier's Reply, which can be summed up as "What does that matter? It's all nonsense anyway." Now, it's fine to believe that, *but not when it's presented in the context of an argument about god's existence*. Again, it's a blatant petitio, and, contrary to your assertion, it *is* used, and used frequently, in debates about god's existence. However, I'm certainly happy that you do agree with my claim that it's worthless in such debates.

"Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, it always has been, it always will be."

Indeed, but what you're missing is this: existence claims do not exhaust all claims. If you claim that your atheism is supported by a reason or set of reasons, *you're making a claim*. Let me use a typical example here. A theist claims that god exists, and an atheist disagrees because, he says, there's no evidence for god's existence. Now, no one would dispute the notion that the theist bears an onus in this debate, i.e. to defend the proposition, 'God exists.' However, the atheist is *also* making a claim, viz. 'If there's no evidence for X, one should either conclude that X doesn't exist, or remain agnostic about X's existence.' The atheist is also making the claim, 'There's no evidence for god's existence.' The conclusion is obvious: we should either conclude that god doesn't exist, or we should remain agnostic concerning god's existence. Clearly, these too are claims that must be defended, since they are not self evident; also, a moment's reflection will reveal the sundry undefended assumptions these two claims rest upon.

"The reason why the burden of proof is on the one making the claim is that without any positive evidence, we get what we would call the null hypothesis. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the two look exactly alike."

You've completely ignored what I wrote in #68 and have set up a straw man here. I explicitly said that the atheist doesn't have to prove that god doesn't exist ('prove the absence'), but that he must defend his argument (if he has one). Again, if you claim to be an atheist for a reason, and if you choose to debate god's existence, you must defend the notion that your reason supports your atheism. You cannot avoid this onus by hiding behind the 'you can't prove something doesn't exist' veil, since no one is asking you to prove something doesn't exist (unless you're foolhardy enough to make the claim), but simply to defend your argument.

I had a post responding to Paul but I lost it. I'll just recap it here:
I'm a philosophy student at a top ten PGR university, and I have a very different sense of Plantinga's reputation.
But rather than trade anecdotes, we can look at some objective measures:

1. Along with Oxford, Notre Dame is, according to the PGR (which uses faculty quality as its primary criterion) the top university in the English speaking world in the field of philosophy of religion, and Plantinga is obviously one of the most -- if not the most -- accomplished philosophers on the faculty.
2. Plantinga ranks higher than Searle, Dummett, Peacocke, McDowell, Nozick, Kim, Tye (and many others) in terms of citations on the SEP.
3. A cursory glance at the scholarship Plantinga's work has generated can be found with a quick search on 'google scholar,' along with the eminent names who have responded to his work.
4. Plantinga's work is listed among the most cited in the field of metaphysics in 'The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics.'
5. The 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy' lists Plantinga along with the likes of Dworkin, Fodor, Fogelin, Kaplan, Kim, Searle, Block, Dennett, Kripke, McDowell, Parfit, Wright and Peacocke as 'living philosophers you need to know.'

(Note, the issue with Paul is Plantinga's reputation, so please, no irrelevant 'appeal to authority' charges; the issue precisely is what the authorities think.)

No Eric, you are again missing the point of the Courtiers Reply. But that's no surprise given the crap you spewed off about the burden of proof.

(which, if I remember correctly, was constructed by PZ to deal with precisely this criticism)

Yes, it was to deal with the criticism. It's not an argument on it's own.

If you claim that your atheism is supported by a reason or set of reasons, *you're making a claim*.

No, you are simply countering the positive claims of those who believe. I could ask why you don't believe in Ziltoid The Omniscient. He's a time travelling alien who travels across the omniverse in search of coffee. Now why don't you believe in him? The idea that there's no evidence comes to mind. So a theist would have to provide positive evidence "where did humans come from?" to which there is falsification of the positive claim. This is what I was talking about, you need to make positive claims in order for evidence to be falsifiable. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the positive claims. A sceptics burden is to show why those claims are wrong. In short, the concept cannot be falsified, but the claims made on the concept can.

To bring the argument down to complete mockery. The traditional view of Santa Claus is a fat man living on the north pole, making presents with his elves and using magical flying reindeer to take the presents to all the children at once. Now to say "I don't believe in Santa", would you need to take into account the view that Santa is an abstract concept that instead of affecting the direct events in Christmas instead worked by letting the parents know what they should get their children through telekenesis? Of course a character like that modern view of Santa is completely indistinguishable from there being nothing there.

You've completely ignored what I wrote in #68

It's just one big wall of text, just as your last post is. I suggest being a bit more mindful of using html tags to actually break it up. It's impossible to follow where you left off without proper paragraphing and formatting.

and have set up a straw man here

And what strawman is that?

Eric @#68 wrote

"The person claiming the existence of [Thor, Zeus, Allah, God, Vishnu, Xenu] has the burden of proof."This is the typical response of those who have never studied informal logic

Eric @ #78 wrote

"Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, it always has been, it always will be."Indeed

So basically you criticised "the great and powerful oz" for saying something you agree with. Talk about being a hypocrite. But The Great And Powerful Oz was being a bigot, so that's okay. He quite *clearly* launched an attack on all Catholics. Eric, you are full of shit.

Kel, thanks for making my job a bit easier. I was going to respond to #79, but #80 did much of my work for me. As I said earlier, you simply haven't yet grasped the distinction between 'claiming the existence of X' and 'making a claim' (if you did, you'd see the obvious, to wit that the two remarks of mine that you quoted are in no way contradictory). Let me educate you: existence claims are a subset of all possible claims; they do not exhaust all possible claims. Also, note something else I wrote earlier: a person who claims X exists is obligated to provide an argument defending that claim; I've in no way denied this. Yet again, let me educate you: it does not therefore follow from this that someone denying an existence claim has no burden to bear in the debate about X. If I claim that X doesn't exist, and if I present arguments A1, A2 and A3 to support that claim, *then I'm obligated to defend the premises of those arguments, the logic of those arguments, and my use of the terms in those arguments*. It's quite simple: if you present an argument during a debate, you're obligated to defend it.

Here's a simple example of how such a debate might unfold:

Theist: I believe that god exists.

Atheist: There's not a shred of evidence for god's existence, so your belief is irrational. You're claiming that god exists: show me the evidence.

Theist: I will certainly get to the evidence I'm obligated to provide, but first I must question a presupposition you've committed yourself to. I don't think it's at all clear that rationality requires evidence. There are a number of beliefs we all hold, and hold rationally, that are not in any way grounded in evidence.

Note, the atheist *is* obligated in this debate to defend his claim that evidence is a necessary condition for rationality. Now, this doesn't mean that the theist no longer bears the burden of his position; rather, it only means that both sides are presenting claims that need to be defended. There are shelves and shelves full of articles and books on the burden of proof, none of which you've ever read -- believe me, it's obvious -- and yet you come in to this debate, with third rate atheist website talking points, acting as if you know something non-trivial about the issue. Honestly, it's pathetic.

Let me educate you

Oh, lol. You serious? Mr. PZ Myers is quite clearly attacking all catholics". Mr. When a person believes in something really strongly, attacking the belief is attacking the person. Mr. I'll quotemine PZ to make him look like a bigot... you are going to educate me? Pull the other one Eric, you are still full of shit.

me. As I said earlier, you simply haven't yet grasped the distinction between 'claiming the existence of X' and 'making a claim' (if you did, you'd see the obvious, to wit that the two remarks of mine that you quoted are in no way contradictory).

You quite clearly missed the point of The Great And Powerful Oz in order to go on a rant about atheists. What he meant is exactly what I posted and you agreed on, that should be obvious to even the dimmest of dullards.

Also, note something else I wrote earlier: a person who claims X exists is obligated to provide an argument defending that claim

Well no shit Eric. The problem which others were talking about is the null hypothesis, this is another problem entirely.

Note, the atheist *is* obligated in this debate to defend his claim that evidence is a necessary condition for rationality.

Again, this is a different issue. Of course they have to defend the grounds for rationality, but that still doesn't stop the burden of proof being on the one making the claim, just as you pointed out, just as you chastised Oz for doing so.

Now, this doesn't mean that the theist no longer bears the burden of his position; rather, it only means that both sides are presenting claims that need to be defended.

Again, no shit.

But I'm quite *clearly* attacking all philosophers so my point is invalid. Just make sure to call me a bigot again and quotemine me in order to justify your own bias. Do you honestly not see how your reaction to Oz was over the top and looked like nothing more than a petty excuse to rant again atheists?

eric (#68):

You may not like the argument, and that's fine (as long as you have a better refutation than the typical -- and false -- 'Kant refuted it')

I don't seem to recall encountering anyone ever trying to refute Plantinga's MOA by citing Kant (the more typical charge is one of question-begging). But I'll grant you that someone unfamiliar with the argument might confuse it with earlier versions.

The weak link in Plantinga's MOA is the premise that it is possible that there is a maximally great being, i.e., that there is a possible world in which there is an entity that is maximally excellent - omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect - and exists in all possible worlds (from which it follows - trivially - that said entity exists in all possible worlds). The most direct way of defeating this premise is to posit a possible (i.e., non-self-contradictory) world in which the necessary conditions for the attributes of such a being do not obtain.

Hence, for example: There is a possible world in which there are no agents. If there are no agents, it follows that there is nothing in that world which is omnipotent, omniscient or morally perfect (agency being a necessary condition of all three attributes). Consequently, it is not the case that there is a possible world containing an entity that is maximally excellent and exists in all possible worlds, because you have already determined that this set of attributes is not instantiated in at least one possible world. Consequently, Plantinga's key premise is false (unless you want to come up with a new argument to show that agency is instantiated in all possible worlds, in which case, good luck).

There are other lines of attack, but I usually find the above to be the most straightforward.

Note, the issue with Paul is Plantinga's reputation, so please, no irrelevant 'appeal to authority' charges; the issue precisely is what the authorities think. - eric

Paul W. was of course replying to your original appeal to authority. What's actually at issue is whether any of the so-called "sophisticated" defences of theism contain anything that actually bears on whether God exists, and stands up to rational scrutiny. Suppose you settle on one issue of this kind, outline the claim you want to defend, and defend it? As a philosophy student at a top university, that shouldn't be beyond your capabilities.

"Well duh, that's because [the Courtier's Reply is] not part of the debate for God's existence."

Someone should get this message out. Here's a simple example: Dawkins was widely criticized for his blatant lack of scholarship (with respect to philosophy of religion) in 'The God Delusion,' a book that was certainly about god's existence. When Dawkins was criticized for not having shown any familiarity whatsoever with the scholarship relevant to the issue his book addresses, he made use of Myers' Courtier's Reply (which, if I remember correctly, was constructed by PZ to deal with precisely this criticism). Now, there's no way you can claim that this had nothing to do with the debate about god's existence.

Now you're twisting what Kel said. "Has to do with" is not the same as "is a part of". The Courtier's Reply is not meant as an ARGUMENT for or against God.

And you still haven't figured out what the point of the Courtier's Reply actually is. It's when a theist, in lieu of actual arguments, says that the atheist is not addressing much more sophisticated arguments by very sophisticated people to be found elsewhere. Exactly like you have been doing here.

Exactly, windy sees right through your bullshit Eric. You seem to be great at twisting people's words to rant on about things you claim to understand. But people here can see you are talking crap, so get of your fucking high horse already!

For those of you dying to see Hitchens in another takedown, Ms. Lafsky was kind enough to follow up this post with a link to the videos of the event described above:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/realitybase/2008/10/15/hitchens-v-alb…

Sadly, Mr. Albacete just seems a kind, misguided old man, so the schadenfreude coefficient is quite a bit lower than someone like D'Souza or Donohue.

Still, he is as articulate as ever.