I may be getting too old for this.
Yesterday, I finished up teaching at 1 in the afternoon, then had to leap into the Pharyngulamobile and drive, drive, drive to Minneapolis. I got together with Lynn Fellman and Greg Laden for a hasty dinner before I had to go move my car and park prior to Richard Dawkins' talk. This was almost a disaster; it turns out that last night, at the same time as the talk, there was a basketball game scheduled. The streets were packed, parking was a nightmare, and I only got to Northrop Auditorium with a whisker of time to spare. Many of the attendees seem to have run into the same problem, as I noticed that people were dribbling in well into the middle of the talk. (No, not dribbling large orange balls…dribbling as in trickling, and looking a little stressed from the struggle to get into the parking garages.)
I introduced Dawkins almost on time, though. I got applauded, even though I only spent less than a minute talking — or maybe because I spent less than a minute talking.
Dawkins' talk was good. He's trying to make a strong distinction with a word that's already greatly overloaded in the English language: "purpose". His point was clear, that we really can mean a lot of very different things when we describe the purpose of something, and that especially when we're talking about biology, "purpose" does not imply "designed with intent". One excellent example of the way "purpose" is abused was shown: Ray Comfort's infamous banana rationalization. It made the bit even more hilarious to see after Dawkins had warned us of the habit of too many people to use "purpose" too freely to imply intent — Comfort was the perfect bad example. I'm a bit dubious that Dawkins' word coinages — "archi-purpose" for describing the function of an evolved structure, like a bird's wings, and "neo-purpose" for novelties produced as a consequence of prior innovations, and which are often subverted to undermine a Darwinian function — but that's always the problem with attempts to introduce new terms. Language is a slippery beast that will twist beneath your efforts to tame it.
Dawkins did do a book-signing afterwards, at which a huge crowd appeared. I was very impressed at the man's well-practiced signing technique — he got through everyone quickly, and he didn't seem to suffer the slightest crippling of the wrist for his trouble.
We then had a pub night, at the Campus Club in Coffman Memorial Union. As you know, we'd kept it a bit mum so we wouldn't be overwhelmed by a swarm descending on the place, but just by word of mouth we had well over a hundred people in attendance. Richard got his beer, I had non-alcoholic stuff (no fun, but I had a long drive ahead of me), and there was a buffet of good food that vanished amazingly fast. All thanks to Rick Schauer who set up and hosted the event! We had more mobs of people swarming Richard and getting photos taken with him; look for them to bloom all over Facebook today. It was a good opportunity to make a more informal acquaintance with the famous Dr Dawkins than the usual lecture followed by departure, so if you didn't get the super-semi-secret directions to the party, you missed out on a splendid evening.
We wrapped up and left about 11pm. I know, the night was still young! Alas, I had a three hour drive home ahead of me. I survived it, got home, passed out…briefly. Now I'm up getting ready for my 8am class. Fortunately, it's student presentations today, so I just have to be awake enough to listen attentively. Have pity on one of my students in that class (Hi, Levi!) who was also in attendance last night, and has to describe frequency shifting in bat calls this morning. It's good practice for the madcap life of the scientist!
Of course, I'm older than my students. I may just have to drag myself into a dark corner after class and fall into a coma for a few hours in order to recover. I hope you aren't expecting voluminous posting today…my exhausted brain needs to reboot, I think.
I don't know how Dawkins does it. He's just come off of a trip to Michigan, and will be in Oklahoma tomorrow. He is clearly made of tougher stuff than I am.
- Log in to post comments
Good thing you have student presentations scheduled today. That cuts you some slack, even if you do have to try to appear attentive. I'm giving an exam this morning. I get to sit there looking fierce.
Grr.
It was a wonderful evening and I hope Dawkins enjoyed the mass herd of people afterword at the secret meeting.
Come PZ, it is just conditioning, you use to do it as University Student yourself,... oh so many years ago,... but you have gotten use to lazy life ;-)
Take a nap, but be here extra early tomorrow morning! I needs my Friday Cethalopod hit.
Dawkins is headed to Oklahoma? Willingly? He's made of tougher stuff than I am too.
Is it just me picturing PZ screaming down the highway on a motorized and many-wheeled squid?
It is?
Yeah, I figured as much. Guess I need more coffee.
Thanks for the get-together PZ. I had never been to the campus club before. I missed the food but they pour some *stiff* drinks. Around 6 pm, I parked in the East River Road garage behind Coffman and it was a breeze, though I had to crawl along with the traffic on the Washington Ave bridge first.
I thoroughly enjoyed laughing at the banana rationalization video along with a crowded auditorium... Dawkins' presentation was as entertaining as it was educational.
If your student is wise (or drunk) enough, he'll give his presentation by opening and closing his mouth silently for five minutes. If pressed, he can claim that his talk has been delivered at bat-audible frequencies.
Dawkins is probably really a robot from Planet Sagan, sent to cool-up our world. That's how he does it.
I know the feeling. Youth is truly wasted on the young.
Oooooklahoma -- where the stupid's sweeping down the plaaaaains!!!
;-)
There are a few of us, together, who can make this sort of thing easier for you. You just have to let us know. We can probably house you in the city, we can certainly drive you from convenient distant parking areas to target venues. For instance, I have a free parking spot two blocks from Northrup. I know at least one person in town with a spare room. (I myself live way out in the sticks and have no spare room, but I do have a couch or two!)
Of course, the game is always going to be a problem.
Glad you made it home safely PZ. I would have to say a few people from MNA would disagree on how mum you were about the secret meeting. :P
I wish I could have attended, but I was feeling a bit under the weather; nothing contagious, mind you... and I only had to bus it from Maplewood... yes, I am a colossal wuss.
Since PZ is going to be busy today, I offer the following poke at Bill Donohue:
Oh, Lord, make me good!
While Donohue and PZ may be pen-pals, Donohue shares his Christian love with many other people, too. Like anyone foolish enough to sign up for press releases from the Catholic League. I just got one of his bizarre e-mails. It seems that Bill wants credit for the Catholic Church because it didn't persecute a dead man. I couldn't resist commenting on it.
Just one question - what is a religious blog doing on scienceblogs.com? I would appreciate links to the peer-reviewed literature proving His non-existence. And no, not proof that the Earth is very old or of evolution/common descent (both of which I believe). And no, I don't have scientific proof that God exists or that Jesus rose from the dead. But then again I wouldn't want to militantly blog about it as "science", because it is not. It is philosophy, which is what the vast majority of this blog (and Richard Dawkins' public speaking and publication) is.
No, it's not just you.
Hey PZ, last night was super fun! We had no idea you were driving home and waking up so early, you really are a trooper... We stayed the night in a nearby hotel to make things easier. It was great seeing you again, and of course, Dawkins as well. Thanks!
No one seems to be making any serious attempt to question Dawkin's ideas on purpose and whether or not there is really a fully Darwinian explanation beneath the myriad of behaviors that that humans engage in - which don't at least on the surface always seem particularly adaptive - or lead to anything remotely related to making sure one's gene's are passed along. Why does every human behavior have to be shoe horned to fit Darwin's theory anyway?
I first read "frequency shifting in bat calls" as "frequency shifting in cat balls" and was all "buh?"
I was there, and it was a great time! It was very cool to be sitting in Northrop with an auditorium full of godless heathens. No after party for me, though. I had to finish revising some papers.
Get Dawkins to come back here soon! :D
PZ is being modest; he was swarmed at the pub event. Dawkins clearly has learned to zone out at such post-lecture gatherings. I've met him twice, and both times he clearly is trying to just get through the pictures, pen work, and small talk as fast as possible. I don't blame him though.
What an age to live in, where biology professors become veritable intellectual celebrities. I got my picture with PZ though - ha!
Wow, you drove back! You so crazy. The get together was fun, though. Felt sorry that Richard couldn't sit back and relax a bit more.
uoflcard > a) not everything PZ posts is science, and not everything is religion.
b) The burden of proof lies with the theist... they (or you?) are the one making the extraordinary claim.
c)You state that the vast majority of Dawkins's work is philosophy? Have you bothered to read much of it? (read: any of it?) The majority of his work is on Ev. Theory and the ilk... TGD was only one of many publications.
The bottom line is that you're offended that an atheist talks about godlessness on his "science blog"? Get the fuck over it... SB knew what they were syndicating. Incidentally, stating that a man who was dead for 3 days came to life and ascended bodily into the sky is certainly a scientific claim, despite its apparent insanity. You make a claim about the material world which can be falsified, thus it is science.
"Just one question - what is a religious blog doing on scienceblogs.com? I would appreciate links to the peer-reviewed literature proving His non-existence." -uoflcard
You must be new here. Since the religious tirelessly attack science and reason, religion is a perfectly appropriate subject for a science blog.
You can't prove non-existence of anything. We aren't the ones making a claim for the existance of magical overlords. The burden of proof is on you. Got any proof that He exists? Please share it. We're waiting.
uoflcard @ #15: Given the body of evidence to suggest that the existence of magical beings is utterly unnecessary, it is not at all unreasonable to suppose a priori that there are no magical beings. The onus is then upon the person who claims the existence of magical beings to produce some evidence -- or shut their cake-hole
Squiddhartha @ #19: Not just you. Not just you.
I really want to know what a "Pharyngulamobile" looks like! I'm imagining a Volkswagen Beetle with tentacles.
I was talking to a colleague some years ago who had been at some dinner in London that Dawkins was also at. My colleague, being replete and well oiled was looking forward to his bed, Dawkins announced he was off to do some writing . . .
I, too, had a great time at the talk and reception last night, and I was happy to get to ask a question during Q&A (I asked Dawkins how he'd respond to the charge "Okay, he's not a fundamentalist atheist; he's a fundamentalist empiricist").
The Campus Club event afterward was fabulous. Good food (possibly it helped that I hadn't gotten any dinner between work and Dawkins' talk, so I was ravenously hungry), fun crowds of people to gab with, P.Z. in a pinstriped suit (snazzy!), and Dawkins receiving throngs.
DonRocko @ #21:
Same here. Last night makes twice for me as well, and both times I have failed pathetically to have a meaningful conversation with him. Augh!
P.Z. is a much better (less exhausted?) small-talker.
Thanks to everyone who helped make last night happen--it was an especially proud night (I think) for Minnesota Atheists and the U of M student group Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (CASH). Well done, all!
JDHarrison> To what would you attribute human behaviour if not an evolutionary explanation, or a corruption thereof?
Since the religious tirelessly attack science and reason, religion is a perfectly appropriate subject for a science blog.
As an ex-religionist, I used to devote all my time to attacking science and reason. Yup. I went around town every day beating the crap out of anyone who looked vaguely scientific and reasonable - if they were wearing glasses or a pocket protector, this was a good indication - whenever I had time to spare from my usual day-to-day campaign of disseminating lies and ignorance via psychic mind waves and subliminal messages.
And then there are those pesky "scientists" who profess a belief in God - yup, their degrees and research are all part of the religious conspiracy. Everyone knows real scientists are atheists.
In case you can't tell, the above is sarcastic.
Are the supernatural claims made by the various religions true? No, probably not. Or at least they adduce no evidence to that effect. Hence why I'm a reluctant agnostic.
But do all religious believers go around "tirelessly attack[ing] science and reason"? No. And if you think so, you're a prejudiced moron. Get some perspective.
I don't know how Dawkins does it. He's just come off of a trip to Michigan, and will be in Oklahoma tomorrow. He is clearly made of tougher stuff than I am.
Survival of the fittest, man. Survival of the fittest.
Let's see, Walton. Religious believers in the USA (which is not England) DO constantly attack all they disagree with. Hence abortion battles, no alcohol sales on Sundays, churches with fucking tax exemptions. Not ALL believers, but a significant enough percentage to make my life a pain in the ass.
heh, Yeah I wasn't planning on going over to Coffman but I ended up helping some CASH people move boxes of T'shirts to the building so I wandered in and stood around like a moron. PZ defiantly had a crowd. Some people were standing in line just to see PZ. And as one girl said to Myers, "You are to me what Brittany Spears is to other people." That makes me happy to hear that some people are making celebrities of the right people.
Well Ive never been to heaven, but Ive been to Oklahoma.
uoflcard (#15) ... That topic did not come up in Dawkins Talk, though it was mentioned in the question and answer period.
Someone did not read my comment on parking in one of the first posts about this talk.
Perhaps you should have had some wine and crackers for a hemoglobin and protein boost. Perhaps 'ole Ricky is just more evolved than you.
Let's see, Walton. Religious believers in the USA (which is not England) DO constantly attack all they disagree with.
That is (a) another crass generalisation, and (b) completely irrelevant.
Tell me, when was the last time science and reason were viciously attacked by Katharine Jefferts Schori? Or Barry Lynn? Or Barack Obama?
And why do you equate abortion and Sunday booze sales with science and reason? Drinking on Sunday is a fine activity in which I frequently indulge (I can't say the same for abortion, never having had one), but it is neither necessary for, nor integral to, the exercise of science and reason.
And as one girl said to Myers, "You are to me what Brittany Spears is to other people."
Hahahahahaha..... I'm not sure I'd take that as a compliment, Professor...
uoflcard:
When you mentioned this 8 (or so) months ago on the American Atheists blog, I spent a week or so patiently explaining why this is a stupid thing to ask for (namely that "proving" the non-existence of whatever deity you're worshiping this week is both impossible and irrelevant given that you've provided no evidence that it exists in the first place). So why are you now asking for the same thing on a different blog? You're not that dense, you know you're just going to get the same answers here.
Either you failed to read any of the posts I spent hours writing, or you're simply here to waste the time of a different group of bloggers. Which is it?
To everyone else:
Go search through the American Atheists blog history, you'll find quite a few posts from uoflcard.
Well, duh.
Great lecture last night. It was wonderful seeing such a packed house for the event.
I do have to say that I was disappointed in the quality of the questions asked in the Q and A though. Some of them couldn't seem to figure out what their question was. I was amazed that Dawkins was able to respond to some of the 2 minute rambling questions. That whole portion seemed a bit of a waste. I would have liked to hear some of the professors (I'm sure there had to be a few in attendance) ask some hard questions (or even more interesting questions).
The night in total was pretty great though. Got to meet Dawkins and get a book signed. That's a win in my book. :)
It doesn't, of course, but it keeps the evolutionary psychologists employed.
@ uoflcard
I'm delighted to have found a fellow dissenter in you sir. Like you I came here not to bore people shitless with my own baseless drivel, but for the science.
I was shocked - shocked I tell you - by what I found.
There should be far less talk about famous biologists, much less discussion of the science curriculum and at least a 50% reduction in the time spent idolising cephalopods.
Are you listening PZ? No more of the unscientific stuff. More hard sums. And graphs.
Yours in Christ, etc.
uoflcard, you are now on science blogs. The burden of proof is different here. If you posit gawd, you must be the one to convince us of the existence of gawd (proof positive). We don't have to show your imaginary deity doesn't exist (proof negative). So, get busy showing physical evidence for gawd (proof positive) that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, not natural, origin. Or just fade into the bandwidth.
Walton,
Take a deep breath. I never said ALL religous people attack science. Perhaps YOU need to get some perspective.
Yeah, one kid in particular sounded like he had smoked too much pot before launching into a rambling question in the Q&A about the rationality of believing in love and such. It was ironic, considering Richard's point early in the program that some questions are simply silly. Yes, they certainly are.
But as always, Richard has an eloquent answer to even those bombs.
I don't know how he does it, either.
Thanks for the summary - I was one that sat in traffic for an hour trying to get to a parking garage, only to find it full and be diverted across the river, and it would have taken me another hour to get to another lot. I was very disappointed that I couldn't get there, even after planning ahead. It sounds like you showed Dawkins a good time, so maybe he will come back to Minnesota.
I'm giving an exam right now! Trying to peer over the screen and look fierce.
Well, I always look fierce. ;)
Yeah, the happy hour at the CC was friggin' awesome. Thanks to PZ, the University of Minnesota CASH, and Rick Schauer!
I asked Dr. Dawkins to sign my Free Inquiry magazine right on ol' Chuck Darwin's beard, and he said "I refuse to desecrate that, I'll sign next to it." Now I know he was just kidding, but that sounds something like DOGMA! From Dawkins! Hah!
I almost want to drive to Oklahoma for that.
I wish he were coming to Texas.
Walton, you're using a foolish stereotype to help focus an attack on a statement that you appear to be desperately trying to morph into a straw man?
This might require some popcorn.
I got the wonderful opportunity to see Richard do this speech in Oxford when he gave up his Charles Simony seat last October, reading PZ's account brought back a lot of memories indeed.
It was an excellent lecture and I thoroughly enjoyed it, I would heartily recommend it to anyone fortunate enough to be in a State that Richard is visiting on his tour.
@Rieux
Good job on your question, you had people squirming in their seats all around me. As for the other questions, I don't know how Dawkins can stand answering them over and over and over again.
"But do all religious believers go around "tirelessly attack[ing] science and reason"?".....
I see you still have the persecution complex firmly intact. I don't think the poster claimed ALL deluded theists attack Science, but the vocal minority certainly ruins it for the semi-rational crowd. Your statement is quite silly. Academic freedom and scientific inquiry have come under sustained assault from religious loons who are so insecure they need constant reinforcement of their specious beliefs. To quote Ingersoll, that godless heathen responsible for the eight hour workday, "If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need not waste our energies in his defense." and "I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."
Pharyngulamobile? Does it have a "There probably is no god" bumper sticker?
Dawkins goes to Oklahoma just after I get back from there, no fair! It would have definitely made the experience of funerals, culture shock, and being subjected to a pastor's monologue about how his coreligionists were all going deist a little less unnerving.
IST:
b) We're both making extraordinary claims, which neither one of us can scientifically prove. Hence it is not science and should not be on scienceblogs.com, where most blogs are fascinating and informative.
c) I overstated Dawkins' public work (overall) as mainly a foray into philosophy. He is a brilliant biologist and has published and spoken many times on this. But it seems that most of his popular work now (TGD, bus ads, lectures on the meaning of the word "purpose") are almost entirely philosophical.
It is your opinion that I am offended that an atheist talks about godlessness on a "science" blog, but it is incorrect. I'm just challenging the fact that it is not science and hence should not be on a science blog.
Perhaps Jesus' resurrection could be scientifically falsified, but it would probably require something like traveling back in time and monitoring his body in the tomb 24 hours per day for several days. But what Christianity believes (and what I claim) happened is not naturally repeatable, so could not be systematically studied like most natural phenomena.
Father Nature -
I agree that some religious people attack science by trying to have their beliefs (which are not scientifically verified, and in many cases falsified) taught in classrooms, etc. But the generalization that all of religion is the enemy of science and reason is nothing but an emotional appeal by militant atheists. Once you believe that, the only honorable position is that of pro-reason, pro-science and hence pro-atheist.
The belief that atheism is the default position until God is proven is a purely philosophical statement. There is no "burden of proof" on me. I have a relationship with God, as have billions of other people, which I do not need to (and cannot) scientifically prove. You probably rationalize all "relationships" with God as some type of meme, mental illness, evolutionary artifact, etc. You have your belief, I have mine. Check out Alvin Plantinga's work on religious belief as "properly basic" for more on that subject (although it is extremely deep and extensive - I don't contend to fully understand his literature on it, and would be quite impressed if you were able to in a short period of time)
AJS-
Body of evidence? Please expound (again, not proof of common descent, old Earth, etc., which only contradict some religious viewpoints, like YEC's). About the "onus" being upon believers, see my previous comment in this post
Greg Laden -
By "that topic" I'm assuming atheism/religion? Not directly (at least from what is reported in this blog post). But what is the scientific/biological purpose of discussing the use of the word "purpose"? None. My understanding is that all the discussion was meant to do is explain that when a biologist uses the word "purpose", he is not automatically invoking God or some other intelligent origin. The only use I see of this is defending the atheistic worldview, nothing truly scientific. As an example, when a doctor is discussing the "purpose" of kidneys, whether he believes it is "God's purpose" for them or just their "archi-purpose" after evolving naturally, it has absolutely no effect on his knowledge of their function and what treatments may be needed. Hence, this discussion is a defense of a worldview.
btw, when will blogs finally adapt a message board-style comment section? Especially on blog like this with hundreds of commentors, it is truly a pain to try to have on-going conversations. it's like 20 conversations sharing the same phone line.
Don't be a dick Walton. That's clearly not what he said.
Sorry, I messed up the quote from Father Nature in my previous comment. The paragraph immediately following his quote should also have been included in the blockquote
You didn't mention if you had a relationship with Odin. Do you?
Helfrick -
Maybe that's not what he meant, but I challenge the fact that that is "clear". Maybe that's also not what Dawkins means when he writes books about the "enemies of reason", but it usually is not clear there, as well, especially when he contends that the world would be better without any religion (which seems to suggest that you can't have reason and religion)
uoflcard, you don't make policy decisions here, PZ does. So quit trying to play the authority here.
Show us positive physical evidence for your deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, not natural, origin. Until you do so, shut up about gawd and jebus. Welcome to science.
uoflcard, you seem to think you can tell PZ what to write about. Well, you can't. Don't get huffy, just skip the posts that aren't about science (however you define it). But somehow I suspect that is not your point. You just want to stir up a fruitless discussion by positing something that you know will get a rise out of people here. That makes you a troll and thus undeserving of serious answers to your questions.
Walton are you drunk again? I said that the religious were responsible for anti-abortionism and making it illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays. I'm sorry if it's not clear enough. Stupid Religious People Shove Their Crap Down My Throat Every Fucking Day In THIS Country DO YOU GET IT?
You should read the top of the page again. Better yet, why don't you provide your email address so PZ can get his posts approved by you before he posts them.
Maybe not to you because you read the same thing into it in what looks like an attempt at a straw man argument.
Ouchimoo @ #53--thanks for the kind words!
Really? Was it nonbelievers I was making uncomfortable, or believers, or what? I'm curious.
In the past, when I've asked questions at Q&A sessions (including at P.Z. and Greg Laden's debate against the Framing Science boys at the U of M - Twin Cities several months ago), I've done a bunch of stammering and "uh"-ing, which certainly would annoy me as an audience member. So this time I wrote myself a script before I showed up:
Dawkins didn't quite respond to the accusation that he's a "fundamentalist empiricist," though he did beat up on the notion that there are parallel useful ways to decide what's true about the world around you. (Truth be told, I think Dawkins' conception of what "fundamentalism" means is fairly misleading. I don't think that doggedly refusing to change one's mind about something--say, empiricism--makes one a fundamentalist. It seems to me that fundamentalism is not quite equivalent to dogmatism. Or to passion, for that matter.)
I hope that mine wasn't one of the questions that faemorpheus @ #41 thought was sucky, though....
Sorry about all the caps, it's not my style, I got carried away.
uoflard>
Claiming that because there is no physical evidence for something, it is likely it doesn't exist is not at all extraordinary.. it's the baseline for rational thought. I'm sorry that your grasp of reason and logic is so poor, or you wouldn't attempt to pass your personal relationship with the non-existent as evidence for that being's existence. If you'd like to suggest that pure empiricism is philosophy, you can, but that rather ruins the claim that anything is outside the scope of science by deeming the very basis of science itself to be philosophical in nature.
If you truly fall into the category of religious, but choosing not to force that into other people's lives through the legal or education systems (ex Ken Miller), then you are one of the few religious people with whom I have no contention... (but one, you still enable the wackjobs by giving credence to their position).
What you and most Christians believe is still a statement about the natural world, and can be examined through the evidence of the time... likewise the numerous other things the constitute the Xian belief system. All you have to fall back on for evidence is the bible itself, as there is no corroborating evidence for the claims you make. That biblical evidence is scant and self-contradictory (try laying out all 4 of the gospels' stories side by side and examining them for consistency), therefore not sufficient. You're left with an unsupported irrational belief about the natural world, comparable to believing that ghosts stole your car keys while you were drunk, or that your garden grows better because you feed the faeries.
Dawkins had a wicked (apparently hand-painted) flamingo tie.
Dawkins said that he too thought the MPR interview was a bit combative. I was interested in his perspective as there's a lot that we don't "see" on the radio. So I guess I've lost a bit of respect for Kerri Miller.
Did anyone film or sound record the lecture? I couldn't be there and I'd love to watch/listen to it. It's different than his last series of lectures and I'm very curious to hear it.
Thanks!
Rieux: Nope, I remember you. You were one of the few that sounded like you actually wrote down what you wanted to say (wish some of the others had done that!!). Kudos to that. You were one of the few coherent ones. :)
what is a religious blog doing on scienceblogs.com?
BZZZT!
First sentence fail. This is, among other things, an anti-religious blog. And FYI the opposite of religious belief is not itself a religious belief, though you will argue that it is.
I, however, have a mystic seventh sense (yeah, prove I don't) and it is telling me that....you are going to become a tiresome troll, trotting out the same tired arguments that the other proselytizing christainaists always make. I further predict that you will have your ass handed you on a platter, regularly. You will complain of the rude tone here, and will become increasingly shrill as the gang here, who are, like an elephant with a philosophy degree, both big and clever, get to work. You will then be reamed here; I will personally see to it.
So, please prove my seventh sense wrong.
The entry level question is this - before you ask us to prove that your god doesn't exist, please prove to us that a god of your choice - there are many to chose from and if the choice is too narrow you can even make your own up (hint: in a sense you have already!). So take the silliest religious belief you can and demolish it. How hard can that be?
Once you've done that, please come back and tell us how you, presumably an intelligent person, came to belief in the one true god.
Further prediction: it will be a bumpy ride. Just don't complain if the atheist here are a little bit rude. Fucking rude, indeed, and with rather ornate knobs on - If you believe in such things, or even if you don't.
uoflcard
"But the generalization that all of religion is the enemy of science and reason is nothing but an emotional appeal by militant atheists."
Again, I never used the word ALL. Nor did I use the word ENEMY. Don't put words in my mouth. In the spirit of bipartisanship, let me now modify and clarify my statement for the trolls.
SOME religious people attack science and reason.
All religions are inconsistent with science and reason.
Is that better? As to your other points - Yes, the burden of proof is on you. Until evidence is presented, I will remain unconvinced that the supernatural exists.
As an Arkansasan Free Thinker ( who knew such a thing existed), I am happy that Dawkins in coming to Oklahoma. The four hour drive will be worth it!
"I've lost a bit of respect for Kerri Miller"
Well, her job is to provoke a reaction from her guests. She did lay it on a bit thick on the "conversion" sentence from TGD and the "certainty gods don't exits" bits. She usually does these kind of things. Part of the interviewer shtick.
I'm not a huge Kerri Miller fan (I like Gary Eichten much better) but she does a better job than most, most of the time, is well-prepared, has read the pertinent books, etc. She's smart. She feels the need (it seems) to stir the pot a bit more than most MPR/NPR people. Seems to be a drift in that direction. And towards the on-air staff being more "personalities", with the absurd faux-repartee that goes with it, like local TV "news." It's pressure from the dumbed-down commercial junk.
I haven't watched TV since 1987. When I am dragged into watching some now, I find I can't tolerate the packaging of the junk for those with the shortest common attention span. Eevrything has to move (watch those local TV people wiggle on the screen!) have bright flashing colors, annoying music (very loud) on top of it, with extremely loud punctuating noises (hey, lookee, lookee, here's something new coming!) Arrghh! I just can't stand it. It insults me and irrates my eyes and ears, all in one happy package. Total garbage.
Not that I have a strong opinion. ;^(
It was a marvelous evening...except for that one person who got a little too jacked-up and forgot their laptop at the Campus Club reception.
But don't worry...it is safe!
If they wish, they can call Jessica at the Campus Club @ 612-625-8494 and lay claim it.
Many thanks to Dr. Dawkins and PZ for their time, patience, leadership, photogenics and penmenship. The many, many autographs they signed including the birthday card for my son's 21st birthday next week are greatly appreciated by all. My deepest thanks again, Doctors, for a wonderful evening!
Oh, and ufocard, or whatever your monnicker is, no nested threads here, get over it. I like ganging up as part of a gang - it makes me feel part of a gang. And there aren't any avatars either - just pure atheist intolerance, black on white. Don't like it? Well, try praying for the answer. Your god won't help you here, death cult boy.
Rieux @ # 66
Judging by the people's reaction to Dawkins speech and "the banana man" I would say they were probably leaning towards non-belief. They started groaning once "You are sometimes accused of being a “fundamentalist atheist”" was mentioned, and then I think we were thrown for a little bit of a loop with 'fundamentalist empiricist'. As for the bad questions, Om'gz there was some bad ones. Most sounded like they were plants, or so horribly redundant we can't comprehend how they are still being asked, and a others were 'some guy' rambling on for what seemed like forever because he's offended love doesn't equate god.
@Rieux
I must say I can't see what is so terribly wrong with being flexible enough to adopt any position as long as there's good evidence for it: the worst thing you can accuse a fundamentalist empiricist of is a lack of imagination.
@KI
Exactly right.
@uoflard
Right. I'm to understand that the exclusively religiously motivated Prop 8 - which denies equal rights to people based on their sexuality on the strength of what it says in the bible - is entirely reasonable. OK. I thought it was just a piece of stupid hatemongering fostered and enabled by bigots on the "authority" of what some bronze-age goatherds allegedly thought. My bad.
Atheism is not a religion, although believers will sometimes assert that it is (there seem to be some leaning in that direction here today.)
Atheism fails to possess the key characteristics of religion:
1. It is not a system of beliefs (which is the reason why it's almost impossible to get atheists to agree.) One factor alone determines atheism: lack of belief in any God or gods. Disbelief in any gods doesn't constitute a religion any more than disbelief in fairies or trolls does. Of course, you may have some very vociferous and outspoken atheists who exhibit the metaphorical sense of religion: "he was religious in his rejection of all things supernatural." Everyone understands this sense of the word to be a metaphor: derived from the fervor and ritual conformity exhibited by many religious people throughout time for long enough for the characteristic to become recognizable and memorable to all.
2. Atheism does not include belief in anything supernatural ("beyond nature.") If a religion does not entail belief in something supernatural, then metaphysically it is simply an acceptance of the natural world as fact. It makes no sense to call such a thing "religion." It would rob the word of any meaning. We use the word religion to indicate belief in the supernatural: that is its function.
3. Atheism does not involve worship of any sort. It does not imply any worship.
4. There are no “priests” or “church” hierarchy in Atheism. There are admired atheists; but their pronouncements are not taken as “holy writ” as in religions. Rather, they are subjected to the same scrutiny and skepticism as anyone else. A casual look at any on-line atheist discussion board immediately shows how quickly prominent atheists attract (often vehement) criticism from their fellows.
5. There is no training or “confirmation” needed to be an atheist. One doesn’t even need to know they are an atheist: if they simply fail to believe in the supernatural, they are an atheist.
6. There are no: creed, catechism, holy books, oaths, or liturgy associated with atheism in any way. Again, simply failing to believe in any supernatural entities makes one an atheist by default.
7. There are no rituals, rules of conduct, taboos, ceremonies, or any other social hallmarks of atheism, as there are in religions.
8. Atheism doesn’t splinter into multifarious “sects” of atheism each devoted to their own particular opinion on the correct way to not-believe in the supernatural, each denouncing the others and perhaps even killing each other over fine points of disbelief.
Any dispassionate assessment of atheism can only conclude that it is not religion. It is often grouped with religion simply because it is the main (only?) alternative to religion. This is convenient in book stores and libraries; but it says nothing about the actual nature of atheism. Atheism has only one thing in common with religion: It says something about gods – that there aren’t any.
Oliver @ #79:
Oh, the sense I got was that the crowd was overwhelmingly tilted toward the skeptical side. I expected at least a few "You suck, Dawkins" challenges during the Q&A, but there was really only one on-balance-negative comment, and it wasn't particularly acid at all--just meandering, poorly thought out, and difficult to understand.
The only notable presence of The Other Side I saw was on the tables in the foyer that were heaped with the programs describing the night's proceedings; on at least one of those tables, someone had deposited a stack of nicely produced plastic cards (they looked and felt like refrigerator magnets, except that they weren't magnetic) with John 3:16 and a very short evangelistic tract printed on them. That was just about all of the man-on-dog [whoops--wrong blog...] theist-on-atheist action I saw all night.
Exactly, JBlilie but religious people will assert the contrary. They have an unfortuante mental hole - they cannot see how anything other than a religious viesw of the world is possible. Atheism thus becomes a victim of the True Believer's lack of imagination - somewhat ironic given the excess of imagination in so many other areas of their lives.
@JBlilie:
I think that Dawkins should be on Midday with Gary Eichten next time around!
In retrospect, I must apologize for my baseless accusation regarding Walton's sobriety, it was rude and uncalled for.
Hey! I was working on a totally nonsensical post, just to meddle with PZ's tired brain, and uoflcard beat me to it. I was going to write, "PZ, you must bee tree. Mmm bizzle blip lunchbook ftang nap." But I couldn't get it funny enough, soon enough. Uoflcard wins the prize!
Uoflcard, seriously, are you being paid to come over here and waste our time? I know that the "science" videos by fake-science groups like the Disco 'Tute always show banks of computers and busy interns in their "laboratories". The gods know that they can't be doing serious work, or they'd have accomplished something new. So I figure that the kids are godbotting away on the internet, making dumb-ass arguments that could only impress the gullible. Are you getting paid, or are you messing with us out of the delusions of your own mind?
Either way, you are being silly. Complaining about this blog not being sciencey enough is a hoot. The people who now host it decided it was what they wanted. PZ Myers sets the tone, and you can just bugger off with your silly complaint. As for us commenters and our behavior; dammit, man, this is the comment section of an online blog. We're only a step above the loonies who comment on YouTube. Stop bitching about the petty nonsense, and address the main issues as best you can.
Uoflcard, you have a teeny bit of a point there, if you'd unclench long enough to write it out. People here are accusing you of making an extraordinary claim when you say that God exists, and are asking you for proof. You tell us about your relationship with God, which is going in the right direction, then veer off into madness with the claim that billions of others share that relationship. That part is arrant nonsense, as very few religious denominations are bigger than a few million. Many, many are religious, very, very few are of your particular flavor, and would agree with you on what constitutes a relationship with which aspect of which God.
Uoflcard, what should have been your only point is that, to you, the non-existence of God is an extraordinary claim. You live your life in the presence of God, and you see his works and wonders all around you, every day of your life. YOU require extraordinary proof.
So, to get all sciencey, what, to you, uoflcard, would constitute proof? Let us, together, try and test to see what we can find.
Will you accept errors in scripture as proof? Will you take up serpents as a test? Or is your faith unshakable and un-testable?
If you want this blog to be scientific, suggest something scientific, eh? There's a good boy.
@Rieux
Erm... credit where credit's due!
"they cannot see how anything other than a religious viesw of the world is possible. "
not to give them any credit, but I think they also understand the insulting nature of calling non-belief a religion - its their way of saying "you're just like me". They can't see the world through any lens but the religious one, but they also don't want anyone else to either, so they claim we don't.
Probably.
I'm a horrible judge of character.
Plus I'm still used to living in the backwaters so suggesting that such a large amount of people are skeptics is just. . well . .unusual for me.
If anyone finds a recording of Dawkin's talk posted, please direct me to it. I doubt that Josh Timonen recorded it for posterity.
As an aside, show me a man with evidence of god, and I'll show you a man who is misinterpreting the evidence.
JBlilie, you rock! I've saved that into my computer for re-reading a few more times. Thanks.
In my one college class on religions (blessings on Dr. ten Z.), we got two different definitions of religion. The first, and obvious, was "belief in, and worship of, supernatural being or beings". You covered that very nicely--no belief, no worship, no supernatural.
We also got a definition that was something like "core values by which one lives one's life". The word "religion" supposedly came for the word for "to tie together", so anything that holds one together might pass as that kind of religion. Which seems to open a door for calling atheism a religion . . . except, of course, that atheism isn't the central value of my life. The search for truth may be my central aim, and the idea that the truth is good may be my central delusion, but atheism? No, atheism is just part of the truth, and was a big step in my life, but it isn't my religion. How could it be?
Thanks again, JBlilie, for a great description of atheism and what it is and is not.
gotta tell a story on myself....
in your blog you wrote "....(Hi, Levi!) who was also in attendance last night, and has to describe frequency shifting in bat calls this morning."
I had to reread this... the first time I saw "Cat Balls"
He's obviously more fit than you. Say hello to Natural Selection.
What's with the hatin' on Oklahoma? I happen to enjoy showtunes, thankya very much.
There's a bright golden haze on the meadow ...
"and has to describe frequency shifting in bat calls this morning."
Ha! I read it as 'frequency shifting in cat balls'. Gotta love Spoonerisms.
Greetings!
uoflard, you have claimed (if I understand you correctly, please correct me if I do not) that the existence or non-existence of a deity is not a scientific question.
I am assuming, then, if someone were to bring you very well documented, reproducible, testable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of a deity, you would reject it?
Out of interest, if someone were to bring you such data, on what grounds would you reject it?
Let me be clear, I am not stating that such evidence exists (I certainly haven't seen anything even remotely like that...), but I am suggesting that such evidence could, in theory, exist.
Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Dawkins is an amazing speaker. I'm really glad I chose to attend. Even the intro was not too bad. :)
Ki - Walton doesn't merit your apology. He is a self flagellating young TWERP that deserves, and loves having his nose rubbed in his own pant load. Please continue to pour the CAPS on him. ;)
AnthonyK - I'll be back to help you slice the roasted gawdists as soon as I get my ornate knobs warmed up.
PtheV@96
Yeah, I know Walton has issues, I just don't like making unfounded accusations, and as he hadn't mentioned being drunk, I didn't want to leave myself with an opening for getting called out on it. Unfounded rumors get ripped apart here pretty quickly.
That's not true!
So, you're not planning to top off the week with a Watchmen viewing at 12:01 this coming morning, then?
We're going to see it in IMAX; we'll be there with a group of friends in full nerd musth.
I was there! It was great hearing Dawkins speak.
I don't know how Dawkins does it. He's just come off of a trip to Michigan, and will be in Oklahoma tomorrow. He is clearly made of tougher stuff than I am. - PZ
It's all down to the stiffness of the upper lip - starch was traditional, but I believe cortisone injections are increasingly popular ;-)
I know that the "science" videos by fake-science groups like the Disco 'Tute always show banks of computers and busy interns in their "laboratories". The gods know that they can't be doing serious work, or they'd have accomplished something new. - Menyambal
Well, all that quote-mining uses a lot of CPU time, and the interns are needed for praying that the software doesn't crash - if it does, they just have to go and buy a new computer, of course.
I ducked out after the second question. It seems like Q&A's are dominated more by people who wish to demonstrate how smart they are in front of a famous person than actually getting to a question. And for the reasons that Kristine noted above, Q&A periods are generally boring.
It was a great night. I finally got to meet Anastasia Bodnar of Genetic Maize in person! (Oh, and a fellow by the name of Dawkins.)
alatham -
I know that proving a deity's non-existence is impossible, that's why I asked it. Defaulting to atheism is not a scientific claim, it is philosophical. Both atheism and theism are completely unscientific. That is the point. I completely forget what the context in which I said that was on nogodblog. If it was just a challenge to atheism, then I admit it was pointless to ask. If it was in a conversation in which an atheist(s) was assuming his faith (or lack thereof) is scientifically validated (or that mine is scientifically contradicted), then the question stands (without actually expecting an answer, because I know there isn't one).
Menyambal -
I stated in my initial post that my faith (and yours) is not scientific (i.e. it's not a naturally testable, falsifiable phenomenon). Therefore it is not science. If scienceblogs wants to officially include philosophy, than this blog is not falsly represented. But according to its own description, scienceblogs is:
As I said, most of it is informative and interesting. Atheism is not science, therefore should not be represented as such.
Now, as far as what would make me not believe in God... Well, if my prayers hadn't been answered continuously throughout my life (I'm not talking about wishes), many times in truly inexplicable, highly "coincidental" ways, if I didn't feel like there was anyone there, I wouldn't have remained a believer. But at this point, my belief (to me) is "properly basic". I'm not here to convince everyone there is a God, just point out that atheism is not science and shouldn't be discussed as such.
JBlilie (w/o quoting your entire post about the "definiton" of religion) -
Depends on the definition. Most of your definition is a completely arbitrary caricature of religion (priests, set of rules, etc.). According to George Lindbeck (Nature of Doctrine), religion is "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments". Basically, your religion is your primary worldview, what shapes your thoughts and actions. If you have a worldview, you have a religion.
Also, if you firmly believe that there is no God, then you have faith that there is no God. That is what faith is. That word also gets caricatured, usually by being associated with the supernatural and/or lack of proof. You can have faith in something with lack of physicaly proof (such as faith in existence/non-existence of God, except for those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus, etc.). But it doesn't need to be supernatural or "blind" (not that either of our faiths are blind...I have had a relationship with God, you have not, so we both have reasons besides a blind leap). When I was a kid, my dad picked me up from school everyday, about 10 minutes after the rest of the kids were picked up, due to getting off work. When I was standing there on the sidewalk by myself everyday waiting for him to arrive, I had faith that he would be there, and usually about 10 minutes after everyone else had left. My faith was based in the fact that he had picked me up on a daily basis at the same time for weeks and months before that day. I had a firm belief he would arrive, so I had faith. If you have a firm belief that there is no god, then you have faith in that. Some atheists are atheistic only in the sense that they don't positively believe in God (i.e. "agnostic atheists"). They are atheists because they don't believe in God, but they also aren't sure that there isn't a God. Judging by your personal definition of atheism, I take it your are not agnostic, but truly believe there is no God:
There are many who claim to only be atheistic by default, because they have not experienced or witnessed proof of God. But then they spend their days mocking anyone who does believe in the supernatural. These are the ones that bewilder me. They claim to not positively believe that there is NOT a God, yet they mock people who do. ?
uoflcard, tl;dr. Your god doesn't exist without you showing physical evidence the it does.
Seems you missed this part:
Why do you think it is up to you to decide what should be on this blog?
uoflcard,
There's nothing new, interesting, or clever in your circular arguments. If we want any more shit out of you, we'll squeeze your head.
Cordially,
Father Nature
Atheism is not about proving the non-existence of any deity, it's simply not having any reason to believe that deity exists. Without evidence of any particular god, why believe?
"You can't prove non-existence of anything."
This is often stated as a general principle but it is not true in all cases. I can prove that purple socks do not exist in my sock drawer - I can simply look and see. This is just the common sense meaning of 'proving non-existence'. I can of course, expand the volume of space that I have to search and, so long, as the volume of space is finite, I can theoretically still prove non-existence. However, as a practical matter a large enough finite search does become impossible.
So, I think a revision of the statement that is always true is: "You can't prove the universal non-existence of anything".
Why do you [uoflcard] think it is up to you to decide what should be on this blog? Helfrick
I'd hazard a guess that it's because uoflcard is a self-important, arrogant little shit with nothing better to do but whine about what someone else chooses to blog about.
Oliver -
For my references to Dawkins, I'm speaking of religion as typical, theistic religion. But see my previous post for why religion is basically your worldview. If you believe there is no God, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, etc., that is your worldview. Items like Prop 8 are just competing worldviews. Some people with Christian beliefs and other beliefs that would lead them to vote for it are pro-Prop 8, and you (I'm assuming) are against it. Two competing worldviews. btw, not all Christian worldviews are the same. Personally, I'm not against gay "marriage".
Do I think homosexuality is natural? No.
Do I think it is sinful? Yes.
But the bible clearly says that no sin is worse than another in God's judgment. Except for Jesus, no man has ever lived without sin. Therefore, whether you are gay, you've murdered 1,000 people, or your heart has ever desired a worldly possession, there is no difference when it comes to God. Only Jesus, who lived the perfect life and was the only one to finally uphold God's covenant, dying for our sins is good enough to atone for us. None of our works or our attempts to be sinless will save us.
So back to gay marriage. Biblically, it is impossible for two gay people to get married, because it is between one man and one woman. But there is already a difference between marriage in the eyes of God and marriage by law. You can get married by God w/o any ceremony, any lawful designation, etc. The "I do" ceremony is not in the Bible. And as I said before, regarding sin, there is no difference between being gay or coveting a nice car. We don't have laws regulating desires of the heart, so what's the difference in having laws that regulate marriage?
Atheists get married all of the time, in atheistic ceremonies, right? They don't commit their lives together before God, so they are not married in God's eyes. They are married by law but not by God. Why can't gay people be married in the same fashion? They would be married by law, but even if they did use the same language as a traditional ceremony (readings from a Bible, etc.), they would not be married in the eyes of God, because His definition is between one man and one women. It therefore technically impossible for a gay couple to be married in the eyes of God. So, I believe, all of the talk about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" is hallow, because we have absolutely no power or authority over God's laws.
I live in Kentucky, and there is a debate raging about trying to pass a bill that would basically exclude gay couples from adopting children. It does not explicitly say "gays cannot adopt", but I believe it says only married couples would be eligible. This supposedly is meant to eliminate single parent adoption, or boyfriend-girlfriend relationships where the parents would be more likely to split up. That part I agree with, but it is a slippery slope. I tended to agree with what one gay protestor said outside of our capital. That is, judge it on an individual basis "in the best interests of the child". I would rather have a gay couple who have been committed to each other for 10 years adopt a child rather than a man and a woman who dated for 3 months and just recently got married. With divorce rates as they are today, marriage on its own is anything but a guarantee.
Also, I do think children are better off (in general) with a father and mother (whether you believe it is because of God's plan or because it was "naturally selected", the proof is out there...look at inner city kids whose dads get 5 different women pregnant and then just send in their child support checks. How are those kids turning out? yes, it is more complicated than that, but in the same environment, the little boys with present dads on average have better grades, commit less crime, etc.), but I think a child is much better off adopted in a stable, morally sound (yes, of course you can have morals and be gay or a non-believer) gay relationship than be in the foster system. I grew up with dozens of foster kids (my grandmother was a foster parent to about 250 foster kids over 30 years), and I've seen the toll the system takes on them. And with the over-abundance of unadopted children, the last thing we need to do is eliminate more possible, beneficial homes for kids.
Agreed. That is what I intended to say; the revised statement is robust, as far as I can tell.
uoflcard, you appear to be proselytizing, which is against the rules.
All research currently points to having two parental figures, regardless of sexuality, helps a child. Gay and lesbian couples raising children do just as good a job as heterosexual couples.
So all those instances of homosexuality in nature are unnatural? You go tell that to the black swan!
Thats down right preaching. Leave troll. >:[
I didn't say what I thought should be on this blog, I just said this blog (at least most of its posts) does not belong in list of science blogs because it is not science. The same logic would apply if there was a blog about baseball on scienceblogs.com, although baseball does not offer "attacks on science", as far as I can tell. If this blog strictly defended the scientific method, what is taught in science classrooms remaining strictly science, etc., that is perfectly understandable. A blog about atheism is not science. That is the only statement I've made regarding this blog.
I just said it's non-science on a science blog. What makes me "self-important" or "arrogant" from that? The arrogance in this comment section are those that mock others worldviews, which I have not done.
Do you think there's no science on this blog?
I didn't realize there were rules, and also I didn't mean to come across as trying to evangelize or anything. Someone gave a caricatured version of my worldview. Do the rules not allow me to defend it? If not, or if I came across the wrong way, I'm sorry.
Your story has become tiresome.
Now is the time on Sprockets vhen ve dance.
There are rules. Go look at the dungeon page. Quit preaching or leave.
And it's ocurrence in animals is a myth, right?
Since I've had my original question answered (Why is their an atheist blog a website supposedly dedicated to Science? "Because scienceblogs.com allowed it/knew what they were getting into), I'll leave now. Just letting you know so no one comes back to me months later accusing me of ignoring them.
Hi, PZ, it was good to see you at the lecture last night and walk along the Mall with you and Professor Dawkins to the Campus Club. Too bad about the basketball game snarling up the parking. I was satisfied with my parking spot; I left home early to make sure I'd have time to find parking.
The arrogance in this comment section are those that mock others worldviews, which I have not done. - uoflcard
If you don't know it's insulting to refer to atheism as a religion, you're cretinously stupid as well as arrogant and self-important. If you don't know that many others among the scienceblogs include non-science as well as science content, you're wilfully ignorant as well as arrogant and self-important, because it means you haven't bothered to look before having the insolence to tell someone else what they may blog about. Whether you know these things or not, you're a complete waste of space, as well as arrogant and self-important.
Therefore, whether you are gay, you've murdered 1,000 people, or your heart has ever desired a worldly possession, there is no difference when it comes to God. - uoflcard
What a total shit your god would be if it existed.
(last comment, this was posted before my previous post)
Perhaps I could have worded it better, but by "natural" I meant "not immoral". Animals steal, kill, rape. So that means its okay for humans to do the same?
The key is consent. The difference is that is what you've listed, the person being robbed, killed or raped isn't consenting to the act, unlike in homosexuality.
From what I've seen, uoflcard is not guilty of the sort of mindless preaching that gets people banned. That fate is usually reserved for folks who are rote posting Bible passages, or intoning dire predictions of upcoming damnation.
uoflcard is making rational arguments (that is, statements that can be argued for or against, with evidence.) I think he's wrong when he claims that theism and atheism are not impacted by the scientific approach, but he's not wrong to make the claim in this forum. Imo.
Okay. I was just curious as to how you dealt with the observations of homosexual acts in animals. I think I understand your're distinction. Thanks.
I don't think uoflcard has any new arguments, and is wasting our time. Unless his god interacts with the physical world, it is a philosophical god who can be ignored. If god interacts with the physical world, traces of his presence can be found and investigated by scientific means. No need for long sophistry.
uoflcard #94 wrote:
Is the existence of God a hypothesis?
Should it be?
by "natural" I meant "not immoral". - uoflcard
Hey, we've been honoured by a visit from Mr. Humpty Dumpty! So, Mr. Dumpty, was it all the King's horses or all the King's men who finally did manage to put you together again?
To equate the morality of sexual practices between consenting adults with rape, murder, and theft is absurd.
Is that the sort of nonsense they teach you in your bible classes at Limestone College?
Are there many normal marriages in the bible?
Your worldview is a joke uof.
A bit late to the party, but I just thought I'd add that atheism is scientific, because it applies science to the question 'do gods exist?'
The only reason it has become solely a philosophical, rather than both a philosophical and scientific, question is because the religious have pushed it in that direction. Why? Because, despite our increases in scientific knowledge - microbiology, long-distance astronomy, molecular and atomic structure etc. - we still haven't found anything to support the theory that any gods exists.
Religious apologists have, of course, realised this; ergo, the push to have the question of gods' existence excluded from science.
Which would be fine if the holy books of the religions had only ever included a non-corporeal god who never interacted physcially with the world or his people - but (for Christians at least) the old testament is full of examples of how Yahweh manifested himself to the Israelites and demonstrated his existence. That he doesn't do so anymore seems more convenient than anything else.
To me the idea that the existence of god is outside the scope of science is a perfect example of a recent shifting of the goalposts.
I get that you are Christian and believe that all sin is of equal worth, but seriously how can you compare consensual sex between same-sex partners to stealing, killing and rape? The focus on homosexuality stemming out of fundamentalist Christianity is one of the most absurd moral crusades I could think of. But yes, I get your distinction.
Wowbagger@137 is quite right. At the start of the 19th century, it was still quite accepted for scientists to base their hypotheses on the Bible - for example, the geologists William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick, both Anglican priests, who started their investigations convinced they would find relics of a universal flood a few thousand years ago but - much to their credit - later changed their minds because they found no such evidence. Similarly, many respectable Victorian scientists took part in investigations of spiritualist mediums. It is because science has utterly failed, despite prolonged and thorough investigation, to find any evidence whatever of the supernatural, that, while it is possible to be a religious believer and a good scientist, it is far more readily compatible with practising science to be an atheist and materialist.
Wowbagger #137 wrote:
I agree. Early scientists were confident that their investigations into nature would demonstrate the existence of God. Even today, both parapsychologists and creationists believe the same thing: that materialism and naturalism has been falsified. If they were right, it would be. It could be.
God is not "outside of science" the way moral statements, aesthetic preferences, inherently personal experiences, or definitions are. It's a failed hypothesis that can only be salvaged by making it irrelevant for explaining anything, and thus "consistent" with absolutely everything.
What a relief! I'm not alone. Looks like I'm the fourth person to admit here that I first read "cat balls."
Within the "archeo," did Dawkins go off into adaptive purpose vs. something like Gould's "spandrels," over which he and Dennett sparred long and hard?
"You can't prove the universal non-existence of anything."
Ah, but you can, provided that the thing that allegedly exists is claimed to be universal. If any space can be shown to not contain God, then God is not universal, and God does not exist.
Anything that shows that God does not dwell within the heart of a believer is proof that God does not exist. Uoflcard is a believer, and is babbling ungodly nonsense. God is not in him. God is not.
Uoflcard, you little proof, this blog is not about atheism. The boss is godless, but that's not what the blog is about. Atheism is popular here, but not required, nor is it the center of anyone's life. Some of us are a bit militant, but few have the obsessive relentlessness of a godbot. It isn't a recruiting cult.
Atheism is scientific in one way, at least. As was once said, "I have no need of that hypothesis." All of the world, all of the world's functionings and wonders, out into the deepest reaches of space, to infinity and beyond, can be explained without invoking a god. Yes, we haven't all the answers yet, but we now understand thunder without Thor, lightning without Zeus, evolution without what's-his-name. And seem quite likely to keep doing so.
Parsimony, it's called. "We don't need it." We don't need you here, either. You need your fingers to eat your supper, though, so quit typing at us.
You aren't doing any good here. You may think that you are making some sort of progress or something, but I can assure you that you aren't. In your terms, our faith is strong. In our terms, you are a raving godbot. Take a break, and take it far away.
I'll acknowledge the "cat balls" on the first reading too. After the WTF moment, I reread it and then it made sense.
Nice to see you and your family again last night. The U always seems to have a sporting event going nowadays. When I went in the 80s, there was only one stadium and once in a while you would run into "Event Parking" issues, but now its almost all the time. Unfortunately, for those of us looking for academic pursuits at an institution of learning, we take a back seat to sports - so $10 parking is the rule now for a lecture. Kristine and I will see you next time you swoop down.
Wow, thanks for the little plug at the end. Had I known that my presentation would be advertised, I would have practiced quite a bit more.
Enjoyed the lecture but not the wait for parking as I got caught in the basketball game parking traffic. It took me 30 minutes of bumper to bumper on University before I could get to a parking ramp and that was about a 10 minute walk from Northrup. I only missed the intro, though.
You flyover people are so cute with your quaint notions of what constitutes "traffic."
I loved the intro PZ! I heard a lot of laughs. Dawkins did a great job and his visuals were wonderful. The Campus Cub event was really awesome and had lots of interesting people which made chatting quite fun (Thanks Rick!). I didn't know there were so many godless folks around Minnesota!!! A big thanks to everyone who made the evening a success!
I too had a great evening last night... it was nice to see the place so full of thoughtful people... speaks well for rational thinking in Minnesota.
It was wonderful to hear Dr. Dawkins speak. I was very pleased to finally meet PZ while Dawkins was signing his hundreds of book copies afterwards, and enjoyed the walk with Dawkins, PZ and a few others across the lovely bridge to the union after the talk.
I was interested to hear Dr. Dawkins refer (in the Q&A session after the lecture) to the field of epigenetics as "fashionable". He almost seemed dismissive of it in terms of evolutionary importance. I understand that an environmentally produced change in gene expression that does not persist for more than a few generations really can't have evolutionary consequences, but from my reading on epigenetics (admittedly not very much) the number of generations such changes can be passed on hasn't been determined yet.
Dawkins amazed me with the unfailingly civil, thoughtful and considerate way in which he handled all questions. (Though there were glimmers of the rottweiler a couple of times.)
Still pissed that I got called into work Wednesday night. I did catch most of MPR Midmorning interview by Kerri Miller. Still trying to figure out her interview technique with him. She attempted to rip him a new one and I couldn't figure out if she was trying hide her sympathies with him ... being that MPR is lutheran public radio in disguise... or if she really honestly disliked him as much as it sounded. Did anyone else catch that interview?
I'm STILL annoyed that I was away from my hometown that night... stupid college; stupid education... Hopefully Josh Timonen (or someone) recorded the event, at least.
Regarding Dr. Dawkins' use of the "archi-purpose" to mean an "old" purpose--I don't think "archi-" is the right root to use. According to Wikipedia, the Greek αρχι- (archi-) means "chief" or "leader". I think that if he is going to use this term he should probably use the root "archae-", or a form of it.
And like PZ, I am dubious about the word coinage. Maybe it's just me, but I still have trouble wrapping my brain around exactly what a "meme" is, in spite of extensive reading and discussion with colleagues.
@recovering catholic:
"And like PZ, I am dubious about the word coinage."
I think Richard does this as much to highlight a point or that a word is needed rather than to bring particular new words into mainstream usage. He does something similar in one of his books with the word 'designoid' to denote things that look as though they were designed weren't really. I'm not aware of his using the word elsewhere and it seems more likely that it was a narrative device for the purposes of making a particular distinction than a serious attempt at a new technical term. I've been known to introduce terms in talks and even papers which I've no particular intention of using again. It's either that or find myself tripping over language as I repeatedly argue a point. A couple have caught on in a limited way, but that wasn't my primary intention.
Perhaps Richard was doing something similar in this lecture: the distinction he was apparently making is an important one which a lot of people are (often wilfully) ignorant of.