I'm on a list of the 50 greatest atheists of all time, which is nice, but a little uncomfortable. I really don't belong on a list with Feynman and Turing and Russell, you know.
It's also a strange list that mentions a few old Greeks at the beginning and then leaps right into the late 19th century and present. It's only nominally "all time", I'm afraid.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
That Answers in Genesis crackpot, Terry Mortenson, is speaking on "Millions of Years" at the Creation "Museum". Those of us who visited that circus of charlatanry know that this is one of their obsessions — the idea that the earth is more than 6000 years old is one of the wrecking balls atheists…
I just posted an entry on Darwin's status as a scientist, and wanted to tag on this brief run-down on some biography. (Although I'll say right off that I'm *not* a historical Darwin scholar, and a lot of brilliant people are.)
First, Darwin is the most biographed scientist. Second, that means…
Really, I don't read Debbie Schlussel's blog—a reader sent me a link, so I put on the waders and gas mask and climbed down into the sewer. I'm now completely baffled; why is this insane and deeply stupid person ever put on television? Her response to the CNN complaints is illustrative, and even if…
Good news! While I still get flooded with email every time Bill Donohue puts my address in a press release, I'm getting 90% fewer death threats! I think that maybe the example of Ms Kroll and her trollish husband has made people thinking twice before explicitly spelling out their gruesome plans, so…
Unfortunately the inclusion of Mick Jagger and Bruce Lee in the '50 most brilliant' does tend to deflate the honour somewhat
Well at least they didn't add Jefferson and Franklin.
Erm . . . if Bruce Lee and Jodie Foster are in there why isn't Christopher Hitchens?
You must be rousing the rabble to get included. I was surprised Asimov didn't appear.
Cue the outspoken libertarians, but Ayn Rand? Influential? Sadly, yes. Brilliant? Perhaps not so much.
Deary me, what about Spinoza? And Voltaire?!?
I think you sure do deserve to be on a ist of brilliant atheists, PZ - but I'd like the list itself to be a better one...
PZ, now you need to be interviewed by Ali G, like Noam Chomsky.
Yes, Warren Buffet [sic}. He, uh, let's see, made a lot of money. Wouldn't Bill Gates be better in that category, at least if it's true (as is said) that he's an atheist?
Nietzsche's not on the list of most brilliant atheists, but Jody Foster is?
Congrats PZ, but it's not much of a list.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
*Throws a boot at Objection!
Yeah... they missed a lot of much better choices on this on. You deserve to be on there, PZ, but you're right. It's not much of a list. You should be part of a better one.
At least Bruce Lee kicked that nazi Chuck Norris' ass repeatedly. Maybe that's why he hates America so much.
Not much of a list, no disrespect to the majority of those on it, but how the hell can the listmaker have forgotten Robert G. Ingersoll?
No good saying that Ingersoll was an agnostic, because reading his speaches, he was a full-time, full-blodded atheist. Maybe his official stance was somewhat tempered because the GFs had still lots of power.
Two others missing are Jack London and Ernest Hemingway, both rather prominent, neither too much into godbothering.
Deary me, what about Spinoza? And Voltaire?!?
Voltaire didn't like atheists, believe it or not. I don't think Spinoza was an atheist either. (I thought he was a "pantheist" or something like that.)
nothing like a good ol' fasioned sandwitch!!!
happy monkey!!!
Where are Marx, Hume, von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Stalin, Lenin, Petronius, Woody Allen, ... From the inclusion of Noam Chomsky, and others, I assume the list considers importance and pop culture, not whether they were "good" or "positive" contributers.
Thanks Rev! I hear that the throwing of footwear is a symbol of great respect in many cultures. In fact Bush was recently honored in this way as a show of appreciation from the liberated Iraqi people.
Spinoza was an atheist. Check this out for a good explication of his views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZPzivgc7aQ&feature=related
Panentheist.
Really, it's one of the most god-soaked metaphysical systems ever devised. It is true that one can easily dispense with his god, however, and end up atheist--since there's no real distinction between god and nature.
Possibly that's why Einstein ended up atheist, although it's not clear how true (or how knowledgeable of) he ever was to Spinoza's ideas.
Which I guess brings up the question of why Einstein's not on the list, either. While he was famously theistic, or probably more accurately, deistic, for much of his life, the fact that he ended up atheist matters to the history of science (probably matters little to the history of atheism, other than turning around the claim, "but Einstein believed in God," to our favor).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
What the hell is Mick Jagger doing in there.
What no Hitler or Stalin? (sarcasm, "cause they were atheists you know!")
Needs more women.
(And here I thought I'd found a comment registration system that would actually REMEMBER THAT I'D SIGNED IN EARLIER. Ah, well, it was nice while it lasted.)
You said the dirty word, I had to do it.
"Sandwiched between Jodie Foster and Steve Pinker"
Thanks PZ. As an openly bisexual middle-aged geek, you just gave me at least a week's worth of fantasy material with that headline.
I'm with #3 above. What!? No Christopher Hitchens? I think the Hitch might agree that Mick Jagger manifests some form of brilliance, but not necessarily intellectual. Mick is "brilliant" in the slang use of the term, but putting him on the list and not Christopher Hitchens...sheesh.
No Mark Twain?
Glen D: Which I guess brings up the question of why Einstein's not on the list, either. While he was famously theistic, or probably more accurately, deistic, for much of his life, the fact that he ended up atheist matters to the history of science (probably matters little to the history of atheism, other than turning around the claim, "but Einstein believed in God," to our favor).
Yeah really, a lot of people on that list probably were theists at one point or another.
JamesF, I've seen a couple of the Ali G interviews. They are definitely an acquired taste, funny and painful at the same time. The interview where he accuses Ken Ham of leaving a floater in the toilet had me near crying.
I wonder how many of the interviewees knew what they were getting into. Many of the interviews look genuine, with people being genuinely boggled by his reactions.
Its just tv, but I wonder how real these clips are. It would be quite an achievement for any young interviewer to have a list of interviewees that AliG has racked up.
Oh, and 'Mad Props to Prof PZ fo' makin da lizt'
Why not van Gogh, who at least made atheistic statements. And for Chrissake, why not Darwin, as long as agnostics who have little space for god (Sagan, etc.) are included?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
If they have Mick Jagger how come they don't have Elton John?
Many of the luminaries on that list don't identify as "atheists", but are just non-religious. And then of course you'd have to include Einstein, Darwin, and so many other famous people that it becomes ridiculous.
The Pharyngula hoards should compile a list of the top 1000 atheists. That would be more like it.
I agree with Glen Davidson, but with reservations. Spinoza is often called a pantheist, and he certainly used the word "God" a lot.
However, I agree with Glen Davidson that it would be more accurate in contemporary terminology to call him a "panentheist." That is, he believed that only one thing exists. It seems that he meant that the only thing that exists is the real-world material universe (disputed, but many scholars agree, see below).
At the very least give him credit for being excommunicated by the Sephardic community of Amsterdam, and also for this: for a century or two afterwards, if you wanted to accuse someone of being a dirty rotten atheist you might do so by calling them a "Spinozist."
"Spinoza (1631–1677) responded to the dualism of traditional theism by emphasizing the relationship between God and the world to the point that the nature of any ontological distinction between God and the world became problematic...[Theistic thinkers were disturbed by] Spinoza's close identification between God and the world."
#29, this is a GOOD list. No godless homosexuals please.
And no Terry Pratchett.
Yeah, Jager and Lee should have given way to Twain and Pratchett.
I don't think there's ever been a "top 1000 atheists" list. This blog is the perfect place for it. Make it happen people.
I suspect Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson belong on the list. Both were likely agnostics at least, although they felt religion played a useful social role.
And re: Mick Jagger--hey, you wouldn't want to deprive him of his satisfaction, would you?
They have Ayn Rand and Mick Jagger and not Isaac Asimov?
Pz, i just wanna know... that picture is
the best one you have ?
Everytime i see you in any website i see
this same picture over and over again...
And as a regular on Pharyngula i seen
some other great pics as well, like the one
with the pirate hat.
Will we be ever be able to see another
despiction of our admired Prof. Myers ?
Regarding to the list, there are some
which are significative characters, but
overall is more about being known figures
rather than anything else.
Still i never thought than one day i would
find a list which Bruce Lee and PZ together.
Quite funny.
*cough* Jodie Foster *cough*
If I remember my "Brief History of Disbelief" correctly, there wasn't much open atheism in the Western world between the ancients and the Renaissance. (The latter being, of course, er, a bit before the 19th century, but still....) Presumably doubters were driven underground (or worse) in the interim rather than not existing--but my sense is that even the most "all time" lists, at least insofar as they're Western-centric, are going to show a big gaping hole for something like the first 1,500 years of the Common Era.
"Brief History," BTW, is a very nice BBC documentary presented by Jonathan Miller, including interviews with Steven Weinberg and Arthur Miller... and, of course, Dick to the Dawk and an un-pimped Dan Dennett. I recommend it to anyone; there's a Web video version available here.
OT but did anybody else's computer fonts seem to shrink after reading that page...?
Why isn't Baron Holbach on the list? Ingersoll certainly belongs there too.
Um. No. Not really.
Jefferson surely from nearly all his writing believed in a deity of some sort and Franklin, as you can see from the quote above was no agnostic or atheist.
Many called Jefferson an atheist in the day, but that was purely because he didn't subscribe to Christianity as they thought he should.
No, neither was an atheist or an agnostic.
What the hell is Mick Jagger doing in there?
At least, he's not polluting it with his god-awful noise.
I find it difficult to credit that there were no notable atheists born between (circa) 300 bce and Andrew Carnegie, in 1835...
The Emperor Julian (the Apostate), about whom Gore Vidal wrote a terriffic novel, would be one, i'd think...
What criteria did the compilers of the list use? A strange mixture of respected thinkers and random non-religious people. We could do better.
Voltaire may not have liked atheists, but that doesn't stop him being one! His writings are rich with vituperative anti-clericalism - check out the 'Philosophic Dictionary'!
I vote Bruce Lee stays. He did for martial arts what Darwin did for biology, which is to give a unified framework to an previously obtuse collection of facts.
Mick Jagger needs to go though.
@33 Alan Turing is a homosexual.
You damn kids, get off Richard Harris' lawn!!
There's the Celebrity Atheist list:
http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page
Where one could hope to be sandwiched between Asia Carrera and Annika Sorenstam.
Voltaire may not have liked atheists, but that doesn't stop him being one! His writings are rich with vituperative anti-clericalism - check out the 'Philosophic Dictionary'!
Vituperative anti-clericism--e.g., Humans will never be free until the last priest is strangled by the intestines of the last noble--doth not an "atheist" make...
I wrote (@ #40):
Upon further review, that link might be obsolete/broken; today I'm having an easier time watching "Brief History of Disbelief" on video.google.com.
Tat is too much sandwich for one man. You take Pinker. I will take Jodie.
...about 2.3 percent of the world's population identifies themselves as atheist,...
Huh? Think of the non-theistic religions, such as Communism, & some Buddhism, Confucianism, & Taoism. Deists are atheists too.
It's all still pretty cool. :-)
Congrats!
@ Rev: Is there a more fitting euphemism than umm (to avoid any further boot throwing)that term that I used. I thought of assholes but while fitting it is not exclusive.
Possibly a bit pedantic but didn't Epicurus believe that gods (somewhat like the Olympians) existed? I thought his big thing was that gods worthy of the name couldn't possibly need anything from us mere mortals, so we didn't have to worry about them.
Voltaire may not have liked atheists, but that doesn't stop him being one! His writings are rich with vituperative anti-clericalism - check out the 'Philosophic Dictionary'!
I don't think he was an atheist, but who knows what with all the sarcasm and everything. It's my understanding that he thought it would be a crappy world without people thinking a god was watching them all the time. (Hence the "if there were no god, it would be necessary to to invent one" line in response to the "Three Impostors" atheist tract that was circulating. (If memory serves.))
But yeah it's no secret that he hated organized religion.
This whole fixation on the label "atheist" is infantile and counter-productive. The above list emphasizes this point.
Does it really matter whether someone like Einstein or Chomsky call themselves "atheists"? These kind of people affected by superstition in any way, and cede no authority to religious claims. Who cares whether they identify as "atheists"?
huh?
Am I missing a sarcasm tag in there somewhere?
Not really but it's like saying Candyman in the mirror three times. When you say the word that shall not be named it tends to turn threads into a wankfest of those who subscribe to unsaid word.
Yes.
As another blog just pointed out, top 10 lists are designed to generate traffic and discussion by manufacturing controversy.
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/44630
Not that that doesn't make them interesting.
No Robert Ingersoll? Pshaw.
Rev, okay, maybe that was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
A deist, believing that a god created the universe, setting up the fundamental constants, & providing matter & energy, then retiring, is no theist, who believes in a god that intercedes in the World & in human affairs. Some deists thought that the creator (God) should be worshipped, but, as with many things, there is a spectrum of belief, & modern deists may not feel a need for worship.
Voltaire, Franklin, & Jefferson, were Deists. Spinoza, known as "the god-intoxicated man", was a Pantheist.
Jodie Foster isn't the only homosexual on the list.
Not only is it not much of a list and arbitrary, but anyone who writes a short bio of Alan Turing to introduce him and leaves out the appalling treatment he received because of his homosexuality (including chemical castration, which may have been a factor in his suicide), despite helping his country win WWII and saving countless lives, doesn't deserve the attention.
Whenever I think about Alan Turing I get very angry. He's one of the people whose bio should be mandatory in history lessons, but instead of people being deeply disturbed by the way he was treated, he's still mostly "someone you don't talk about". In spite of all posthumous recognition.
I like and admire Jodie Foster very much, but it hurts to have her admit that she has great respect for all religions. My like for her is not diminshed, but I would most assuredly argue with her on that point, and perhaps even convince her that this regard is unwarranted at best.
I would never consider Gould as a great atheist, maybe more of an agnostic, and this is determined from all his books I have, save a couple, in which he more than gives cursory admiration for religion. In fact several of his books have a biblical passage at the chapter heading. Maybe great in his discipline, but definitely not as an atheist.
Chuck @ 63
Robert Green Ingersoll is certainly on our side, and from his writings one would most assuredly call him an atheist, but alas, he was a theist and never admitted to a stance of atheism. He is one of my favorite people nevertheless.
I'll throw my hat in too: No Hitch? Surely he's at least worthy of right-honorable mention.
They left off Diederot? Baron D'Holbach? Man, what a slam to the French intellectuals of the 18th century...
The order of the list is by date of birth, farthest back first.
This is a surprising and impressive (for the most part) list.
I had to look up Feynman, probably my favorite physics personality ..(although Neal Degrasse-Tyson is giving Feynman a run for his money)...and noted the picture...
Feynman _hated_ that pic, as it became the one picture almost everyone wanted of him.
Overall, I'd say it slammed non-Anglophones and intellectuals (except scientists and analytic philosophers) much more generally than that. No Umberto Eco or José Saramago or Percy Shelly?
Nerd, you know the bible has no problem with lesbians ;)
A deist, believing that a god created the universe, setting up the fundamental constants, & providing matter & energy, then retiring, is no theist
WTF? How can you believe in a god and not be a theist? Belief in god is the definition of theism!
"god" = "diety" = "theism"
"no god" = "no diety" = "atheism"
Or is this just woo-woos shifting the goalposts so they can say they're "atheists" but still believe in the great heavenly woo-woo for which there is no evidence but their earnest wishes?
mjr.
If wasn't such a lame-ass thing to do I'd have QFTed the whole of catta's post @#65.
The Emperor Julian (the Apostate), about whom Gore Vidal wrote a terriffic novel, would be one, i'd think...
Haven't read the novel, so I don't know if he's portrayed as an atheist, but he was not one. He was a devoted pagan, with a fancy-pants neo-Platonic philosophy. Some historians have claimed he was initiated into Mithraism. He was the only emperor after Constantine to reverse the policy of Christianity as state religion and seems to have sincerely wanted to strengthen the pagan religions in the Empire to the point where Christianity was just one faith among many. But it was too little, too late. Paganism was crushed over the next century and the West fell into barbarism, illiteracy and superstition. And that's how we lost the incalculable treasures of pagan literature. Short-sighted, power grubbing Christian thugs, killing pagan priests, converting temples into churches and burning books.
They've got Jagger and Davies on there, but no Nietzsche? Travesty!
There are few realms of modern thought that were not influenced by Nietzsche's deconstructionism, existentialism, and praise for the individual's right to herself. He was a damn fine philologist too.
I am not miffed or disappointed that my namesake did not make the list. There are many names from every period who were atheists and have been overlooked or neglected. We can easily track them down and wonder how they managed to elude recognition. The important thing is that they existed and let it be known that insane religion has not infected everyone with idiocy and subservient grovelling. Regards to them all, known and unknown.
Oh you and your modesty, PZ. Maybe you should write a fesity atheist book though, just to keep up with your reputation.
@mjr
My impression was more that it was an atheist trying to conflate their numbers so more of the "cool kids" are on their team.
The list also contains a few cranks, like Linus Pauling, who turned to quackery later in life with his "orthomolecular medicine."
If Adams is the only sci-fi author in, then why not Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Ellison ...
Notice the lack of, uh, diversity: 3 female and one non-caucasian. For her courage, add Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Rand in, Marx out??? Puhleeeeze
re Spinoza: Did he think his "God or nature" was in any sense "person-like" (conscious or thinking or whatever)? If not, I'd class him as a atheist. I mean, if someone gives the name "God" to something which isn't a god (say to Eric Clapton) it doesn't make them a theist, surely?
"Deism" of some sort isn't an obviously absurd position. If it turns out there's fine-tuning, then as far as we know we need to turn to either multiverse or intelligent design. This is the province of physicists. The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.
Hello Google, it's the Rev. Can you looks something up for me?
*headdesk
I dunno, P.Z. You've been pretty influential to the modern atheist movement.
Like much of the new atheist movement driven by the internet, you have helped spark a lot of good dialogue and been a part of some pretty hysterical civil disobedience.
That said, I'm a little mad that Freud and Rand ended up as high as they did, though they were fairly good with respect to their irreligiousness. I guess I just don't like them very much.
It's a pretty phenomenal list. I've studied with Searle, and, though I dissent from some of his views on consciousness, he's an incredible mind.
I kinda wish that 34-36 were 1-3, but that's just my opinion.
Not a very complete list. How come no Arthur C Clarke?
jstein@87: It's chronological
Must get image of weirdest threesome out of head.......
***Pictures the lushes locks on Pinker's head waving majestically in the air***
Snap out of it!
Check your dictionary: "theists" believe in the existence of a personal God who intervenes in the functioning of the cosmos, while "deists" dispense with that belief (along with the existence of miracles, prophetic mouthpieces, etc.).
Check your dictionary: "theists" believe in the existence of a personal God
I understand that the popular practice is to adjust the dictionary (I notice even wikipedia gives a nod to this new and unusual usage). It's still postmodernist bullshit.
So, may I assume that since you don't believe in pink unicorns, you are a "unicornist"?
That list is pretty silly really.
Mick Jagger?What's his qualification,singing "Sympathy for the devil"?
And Francis Crick??
Interesting list, quite incomplete of course and very much open to argument.
One of my candidates would be Daniel L Everett, a missionary who wanted to convert the savages in the Amazon and lost his faith in the process:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1859528,00.html
Nehru's background was not fucking "hindi" but "hindu".
The list could be more accurately titled '50 Famous Atheists We Can Think Of'
...and atheism is a valid position within hinduism
"Deism" of some sort isn't an obviously absurd position.
It's no more absurd than to assume that the universe was perhaps farted into existence by my horse, last wednesday. Which is to say it's pretty absurd. And it remains absurd until we see some evidence supporting it. (My horse actually appears to exist, so the horse-fart theory so far trumps deism in terms of objective evidence)
If it turns out there's fine-tuning, then as far as we know we need to turn to either multiverse or intelligent design. This is the province of physicists.
If it turns out that there's fine tuning, there will be theories made a-plenty. In the meantime, deism is nothing more than childish self-important fantasy.
What about a position for which there is no evidence is not "absurd"??
Cue "...but some really smart people were deists!" fallacy in 3... 2... 1...
Ramen to that! Can't count how many times I have had to correct my American acquaintances that I speak 'Hindi', not 'Hindu'!!
Certainly not in the traditional sense of Hinduism. Would you care to elaborate?
So if I'm reading the atheism/theism subthread right:
Atheism used to mean "lacking belief in god".
Theism used to mean "belief in one or more gods".
But now Theism means "belief in a personal* god".
Therefore, religions that believe in an impersonal god are really atheism.
My head hurts. Someone make it stop.
CJO,
Re. The Emperor Julian (the Apostate)
He was an interesting chap who wanted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem--just to demonstrate that the prophecy of its destruction was FAIL. But he died before he could carry out that particular plan.
You are correct, he was no atheist. In fact in trying to return Rome to the old gods he ordered mass animal sacrifices--trying to play catch-up as it were.
Albert Camus should be on this list.
brainz.org seems to be a really poor website that thinks it's a lot more intellectual than it actual is.
So if I'm reading the atheism/theism subthread right:
Atheism used to mean "lacking belief in god".
Theism used to mean "belief in one or more gods".
But now Theism means "belief in a personal* god".
Therefore, religions that believe in an impersonal god are really atheism.
My head hurts. Someone make it stop.
* And what does this mean, anyway? I couldn't find any good definitions. Does it mean an interventionist god? An anthropomorphic god? Would the FSM count, seeing as his noodly appendages are keeping us from floating into outer space (even though he doesn't look like a person)? I couldn't find consistent definitions.
I'll admit ignorance on this. Where does the incorrect use of Hindu instead of Hindi come from?
Marcus, it's not po-mo. The founder of Deism was Lord Edward Herbert of Cherbury (1583-1648). He believed in a creator god that was worthy of worship. That aspect of the deity has probably been diminished, even to the point of being totally rejected, for people who would call themselves Deists nowadays. Deists were, & are, freethinkers.
The whole idea of this creator god could be diminished to the point where it is simply the 'whatever' that brought matter & energy into being, along with fundamental constants (or variables, if that's how some prove to be).
This deistic god wouldn't warrant the title of 'god' compared to the petty-minded, jealous, sadistic, thoroughly vile god of the Abrahamic religions.
You are right; the theistic version predominates, but the carvaka/lokayata school was constantly a thorn in the side of the theistic interpretations. Wikipedia has a decent summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka
Rev. BDC, this will 'warm' the cockles of your heart!
Hindu is a follower of the Hindu religion (Hindusim).
Hindi is a language derived from the ancient language Sanskrit. Hindi is currently the national language of India.
Oh something that simple. I was envisioning much more nefarious reasons.
The list was interesting but, as noted by many, an odd combination of characters. Being a grammar-Nazi though, I was perturbed by the number of typos and misused words. Especially at a site called "brainz". It seems that they were careless about their content in more ways than one. In any case, nice to see PZ get some plaudits.
Did you like the 'heat'?
Oh and I saw the bacon torch.
Is there anything bacon can not do?
So if I'm reading the atheism/theism subthread right:
Atheism used to mean "lacking belief in god".
Theism used to mean "belief in one or more gods".
But now Theism means "belief in a personal* god".
Therefore, religions that believe in an impersonal god are really atheism.
It's just language games. The soft-creos want to distance themselves from the hard-creos because they are tired of being laughed at. So they're redefining the language to make it seem like they're not creos. They're all on the slow bus and they're arguing who's in front.
The root word of "deism" is "deus" - god. The "-ism" part is normal English; there's no way to parse "deism" as anything other than belief in god(s). Someone who doesn't believe in god or god(s) who is searching for an explanation of the universe is a "scientist" or a "rationalist". Ultimately, "deism" comes back to "goddidit" -- and if that's not a statement of religious faith then I am a teapot orbiting Mars.
also the list does not include
old charlie, arguably one of the most famous atheists of the last 150 years.
Sorry, my comment @110 was directed to the Rev @108. And now, the comment system won't even allow me to post this correction... Apparently it is too soon (Sigh!)
Am I addicted to Pharyngula, or what?
And what about Jean Meslier, the priest who wrote the first openly atheistic book in history?
I agree, though, that Bruce Lee should stay.
It's the crack pipe of blogs.
Lower cholesterol?
Marcus, it's not po-mo.
Sorry. It's one of the biggest insults I know, and it just slipped out...
The founder of Deism was Lord Edward Herbert of Cherbury (1583-1648). He believed in a creator god that was worthy of worship. That aspect of the deity has probably been diminished, even to the point of being totally rejected, for people who would call themselves Deists nowadays. Deists were, & are, freethinkers.
You can call them "freethinkers" or whatever you like, but it's still religious faith. Sounds like you're arguing a sort of faith-limit-approaching-zero position. But that's silly because it begs the question of having been faith-based at all. If the faithless are presented with evidence of something, they'll believe it or not based on the evidence. The "deists" may be whittling their imaginary playmate down to whatever wafer-thin minima they're comfortable with, but that doesn't make them rational.
The whole idea of this creator god could be diminished to the point where it is simply the 'whatever' that brought matter & energy into being
Reasoning: you're doing it backwards!
When there's an explanation (with evidence beyond mere speculation) of how the universe came into being, that "whatever" will be understood. Sitting back and assuming in the meantime that it's a whittled-down deus of the gaps is intellectual cowardice, dishonesty, or both.
This deistic god wouldn't warrant the title of 'god' compared to the petty-minded, jealous, sadistic, thoroughly vile god of the Abrahamic religions.
Yet it's a "god" and you're asked to take it just as much on faith as the abrahamic asshole god. It's just that the faith gets thinner and thinner and thinner. It's still faith. It's just a little, shitty faith that could be replaced with an intellectually honest statement, "I don't know."
Marcus J. Ranum #112 wrote:
Heh. This morning I was reading Daniel Dennett's acceptance speech for the FFRF "Emperor Has No Clothes" Award, and read the part where he describes theists as coming in two different varieties: "supers" and "murkies."
pfffft. Cholesterol is a myth drummed up by the anti-bacon PACs.
Frank Zappa.
How can this list be complete without him?
Needs more Luis Bunuel. Best critic of religion in the medium of film.
Nietzsche would have been nice but he's become a little cliched and wasn't the most rational thinker. Then again, Ayn Rand still made it.
In order to be a little less Western-centric (and to fill in the gap between classical Greece and the 19th century) they ought to have included Al Ma'arri or Ibn al-Rawandi, the two earliest critics of Islam in the Arab world.
Bacon is mainly protein,unless you fry it in heaps of fat or it has some huge rind on it its not actually bad for you.The classic "bacon and eggs" breakfast is a high-protein,low-fat,low-carb affair thats quite nutritionally valuable.
Sastra writes:
Heh. This morning I was reading Daniel Dennett's acceptance speech for the FFRF "Emperor Has No Clothes" Award, and read the part where he describes theists as coming in two different varieties: "supers" and "murkies."
Yeah! :) Those are great terms (adopted!)
Murky theists attempt to do the mysterious too hard to fathom shuffle, but it doesn't work -- because if it's all so mysterious and hard to fathom, their reasons for assuming a god is part of it is equally mysterious and unfathomable. So "what makes you know?" garners you a long spew that should be familiar: "science doesn't know everything, blah blah blah." Which is true. But scientists just say "I don't know" and the murkies say:
huge jumping back and forth quantum brane xtra dimensional mulder and scully dancing wu li masters higgs boson quantum superposition goddidit.
It almost makes you admire Ken Hamm for his honest stupidity, in comparison.
Protocol @106:
Thank you for pointing me to that Wikipedia entry.
For the uninitiated, nāstika = atheist in Sanskrit.
While I can accept it as a branch of Indian philosophy that is atheistic in nature, I don't really buy into the claim that it is noteworthy as "evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism". I do note the authors of the cited paper that posits this viewpoint... :D
Radhakrishnan was a brilliant scholar, philosopher and statesman, and truly worthy of respect. I am loath to comment without reading the original treatise, but I don't know whether I agree with the use of the word 'materialism' in this context. Atheism simply denotes rejection of the concept of God. Hinduism (as a religion) envisages a God in various forms, including a formless God. That is prima facie incompatible with atheism.
It is a pity that
For what it's worth, checking my dictionary (the OED):
theist
(1) One who holds the doctrine of theism.
(2) A person addicted to tea-drinking.
Assuming we're using definition 1 here [runs finger up the page] ....
theism
a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.
b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = MONOTHEISM.
c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = DEISM.
d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.
Hm. Checked my dictionary, and deists are theists. Except when they're not.
BTW, if we're taking votes on an improved list, I'd like to nominate Christopher Marlowe.
@123: No wonder I love bacon so much!
mmmmmmmmmmmmm... bacon!!
Though its shortcommings, it is an interesting list. Perhaps it is a bit "presentist" and "American-centered", but the Ultimate Battle for Reason will be fought in the States, anyway. (Or, properly speaking, the Penultimate Battle, being the Ultimate fought in the so-called Islamic world).
Marcus, this theism v deism started because I disputed the claim "...about 2.3 percent of the world's population identifies themselves as atheist,..."
Earlier I said, "Deists are atheists too", but as I said back at #64, "Rev, okay, maybe that was a bit tongue-in-cheek."
Of course it's all semantics. But it's important, as David Hume made a big issue of, to get definitions of words settled on a precise basis. Otherwise, disputes just go on & on as the combatants continue to misunderstand each other. Confucius had a go at that too, so it's had a lot of history from the best minds, but we still mostly bumble on regardless.
The term "God" is usually used, by default, to refer to that bugger Yahweh, aka Allah. But the much less vile, or morally neutral, deistic god is a god too.
Deism is nowhere near as stupid as theism. (Just for the record, I do not call myself a deist. I prefer to say that I'm an anti-theist & atheist.)
"My partner and I want a vial of sperm and an applicator that looks like Jodie Foster’s knuckles."
/Hoping this doesn't become a Family Guy bashing thread
Marcus J. Ranum #124 wrote:
Well, some murkies say that. Other murkies say "No, that's nothing at all like what I mean by God." And then, when you ask them what they mean by God, they keep snickering over the fact that you got them so wrong and confused them with New Agers, really, it just goes to show how atheists always pick on unsophisticated versions of God, they're so like children, they try to bring everything down to their level in such an amusing way. It's hard for murkies to get past that mis-step on our part, and continue seriously after that.
Marcus, ...if it's all so mysterious and hard to fathom, their reasons for assuming a god is part of it is equally mysterious and unfathomable.
Some of them declare a feeling of the immanence of their god. This state of mind does not depend so much upon reason, but rather, upon what may be almost a schizophrenic delusional state.
Thank # 121 for Frank Zappa.
I don't quibble with Mick Jagger (didn't even know but I'd put John Lennon on
What, no Madalyn Murray O'Hair??? Ingersol (already mentioned)
I'm sure there's more that could be put on a list that others will remember.
How could they leave out Hypatia of Alexandria? Wikipedia lists her as a pagan, but anybody who was hacked to death by a Christian mob gets my vote. She did math, logic, astronomy and philosophy, and could be considered the last of the great Greek thinkers of ancient times. She died for truth, much more painfully than Socrates did, but is seldom remembered.
And yay to whoever suggested Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Women were way short on that list, even counting Mick Jagger.
Also, Alton Lemon (from the Lemon Test that Scalia hates so much.
Except that Lennon claimed that he was not an atheist shortly before he was killed, implying that he never had been an atheist:
He ends up being labeled an atheist because of his "imagine...no religion," but he wasn't. People need to take him off of their atheist lists.
To be sure, it's quite unclear (at least from that interview) how he was "a most religious fellow."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Deism, in my opinion, was a respectable enough position in antiquity. There were so many gaps back then for a god to fit into.
In the modern world, where practically the only gap a god can be posited by the non-ignorant is as the First Cause (and even then is a fallacy, as there would have needed to be a previous cause to create god), deism is just theism for people who don't want to commit to any disprovable beliefs.
Deism is theism, and it makes no sense to call it "nowhere near as stupid". If you're postulating that theism is de facto stupid, the same argument applies to deism.
By the way, crediting Stephen Jay Gould for "A scientific dissent from Darwinism" (the Discovery Institute's petition), as this list does, is an incredibly ugly mistake.
Paul, theists have to take much more absurd supernatural woo on board than deists do, hence, theism is more stupid than deism.
Deism is not theism.
No Bradlaugh? No good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bradlaugh
Deism is based around the belief in a non-interventionist god figure. That doesn't mean it's not theism. Theism is the belief in a god, and deism sure qualifies no matter how much you equivocate. If deus wasn't there, it would be atheism instead of deism.
This is not the first time these points have been brought up in this thread, and as I have yet to see why "deism is not theism" you're just arguing by assertion. Just because deists are murkies instead of supers doesn't mean their woo is any less stupid or unnecessary.
REVBDC quoted in #42
I have always thought that Ben was just having a little fun with with this quote.
While he probably didn't "dogmatise" or "study" the divinity of Christ, do you really think that he did not seriously ponder and consider the matter?
He probably just didn't want to piss off and offend the natives & yokels at that late state in his life. IIRC he was in his eighties when he gave tat interview, and died just a few months afterwards.
What do you think?
REVBDC quoted in #42
I have always thought that Ben was just having a little fun with with this quote.
While he probably didn't "dogmatize" or "study" the divinity of Christ, do you really think that he did not seriously ponder and consider the matter?
He probably just didn't want to piss off and offend the natives & yokels at that late state in his life. IIRC he was in his eighties when he gave tat interview, and died just a few months afterwards.
What do you think?
Paul, it's pretty simple: more woo = more stupidity.
Waitjustagoddamminute-Ayn Rand, but no Kurt Vonnegut, no Isaac Asimov? I guess that producing anything humane or of any real or potential value to humanity(or even just basic decent writing)was a secondary consideration as applied to writers on the list. I would put Woody Allen's books ahead of Ayn Rand's, by any standard.
It's nice to see Douglas Adams get some notice, though. The humor and insight contained in just one of his short novels is worth more than a whole library full of deluded, dehumanizing, ego-masturbatory Ayn Rand bullshit. Hell, two crunchy tacos and a bean burrito are worth more than a library full of Ayn Rand bullshit, but I digress.
Sorry about the double post
First time posting in a while.
DAMN YOU type key registration process!
/Shaking fist
Sorry PZ but you are not a better biology professor than Asimov was a writer. If the list was the 50 Atheists who are most annoying to the religious then you would be right near the top!!!
Are you from England by chance?
Richard Harris writes:
Deism is nowhere near as stupid as theism.
My stupid-o-meter only has a true/false setting. It's one of the cold war era soviet-made ones with the extra heavy-duty irony circuit. So I can't resolve how much stupid we're talking about; they both register in the red zone for me.
And, you're right - it's all semantics. I'm very concerned that our dictionaries not get hijacked. I've watched that happen with "alternative medicine" and I desperately don't want to see it happen with atheist terminology, too.
Which reminds me of a joke Hitchens told once, about being stopped in Ireland during the troubles, "what religion are you?" "Oh, we're atheists." "catholic atheists or protestant atheists?"
Hmmn, an indifferent list. What about porn stars Asia Carrera and Brandy Alexandre? And Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Natalie Angier, Dave Barry, John Conway and Harry Kroto. Mick Jagger beats Christopher Hitchens? Why not squeeze another ten or so into the top 50?
Paul #141-
For the record I think you have your definitions exactly right, but one thing-
If every theist in the world were instead satisfied with deism, realizing that the "god" they "believed" in was just a vague idea of a cosmic first cause; essentially unknowable, not personally involved in daily life, and thus anyone who claimed to know or talk to god should be either ignored or maybe pelted with rotten produce, then I don't think even the most committed atheist would have too much to complain about, as in "stupid and unnecessary." Well, possibly unnecessary, but then so is almost everything in life.
Sob! I shall have to give up atheism.
Hi, my name is 'Tis and I'm addicted to tea.
Neil #151
Fair enough. I think I would be happy in such a world. Nobody yelling at me that I'm going to burn in hell because I don't follow their divinely inspired 10 Step Program Towards Holiness, and I'd still have the deists clutching their security blanket to poke fun at!
I understand that General Robert E. Lee was also not a believer. It's enough to explode the heads of the Confederacy-worshippers.
Deism/Theism
Deism strikes me as a (relatively) rational viewpoint before Darwin came along with his better explanation of life on Earth.
Marcus, the way I see it, driving 10 mph over the speed limit is stupid (most of the time), & driving 20 mph over the speed limit is even more stupid (most of the time). I hope that you agree that this analogy is appropriate.
Neil makes a good point. If all the theists became deists, there'd be a heck of a lot less nastiness, misogyny, idiocy, & violence in the world
Mick Jagger has always managed the Rolling Stones' money, making them all richer than God. Compare their financial situation to that of almost any other band from the '60s still upright despite 50+ years of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll--and then claim he's anything but brilliant.
I am chagrined, once again, not to find my name on the list. The whole thing is so political. Diagoras has been "working the refs" since 412 bce.
Tom at #147:
Apples and bacon? (Not even oranges!)
What are you, Nisbet-in-disguise?
#121-Duh, I can't believe they (and I) forgot Zappa! Love him or hate him(and I love him)he's certainly helped our culture, at least by making sure it's easy to not take our culture too seriously.
And O'Hair. In spite of any personal problems, she woke up this country of god-soaked idiots up like a branding iron on their cattle asses. Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to write an entry in my personal blog about O'Hair and some christians I know, an old friend's family. I was at their house when they saw the newspaper article about the discovery of the O'Hairs' bound, murdered corpses. After reading the article, the mom and dad started chuckling, and they all, including my friend, had a good laugh about the grisly murder. "That's what they get," said the mother. No bullshit. I never looked at religion, conservative christians, or morality the same way again. I've never had a "supernatural" feeling or experience, but the dread and disgust I felt then made the hair on my neck stand on edge.
Sorry to drift so far, but I've been meaning to explore it a bit and the mention of Ms. O'hair brought it back to me.
Quite a few names on there that I didn't know were atheists.
Carnegie and Buffet warms that cockles of my old heart. It's good to see that there are true philanthropists out there.
I honestly didn't know about Nehru. Nor that Lee had such a distinguished background.
But the sexiest of woman of all time wasn't news to me at least. Pitty that Tracy kept being a Catholic and would divorce his wife. Bastard.
Carnegie was not all that philanthropic towards his workers. His actions during the Homestead Steel strike cannot be considered philanthropic.
Paul @141
Between 'theist' and 'deist' there exists the same type of definition vagueness that exists for atheists. Deists are theists in the same way that babies (and rocks) are atheists. Its true by definition, but also wrong, because in both cases a subset of the definition has appropriated the term in whole. (Is there a name for that?)
Richard Harris writes:
Marcus, the way I see it, driving 10 mph over the speed limit is stupid (most of the time), & driving 20 mph over the speed limit is even more stupid (most of the time). I hope that you agree that this analogy is appropriate.
I don't like arguing by analogy. It generally introduces a lot of irrelevancies that distract more than they illuminate.
If you want to argue that more or less delusion is better, be my guest. I'm guessing you've got a dog in this fight, so to speak, since you seem to be so dead set on it.
Since all deists are theists, they're stupid. We could examine all the claims of the various deists and try to rank the stupid. At the bottom of the list, perhaps, would come the deists and their "I dunno. psst: goddidit" beliefs. Yay! They only have 10,000 stupidons while the hardcore fundamentalists weigh in at 5,000,000 stupidons. There, how's that?
If I read you right, you're saying that deists are ignorant or brain-dead theists?
On a more serious note, no, it is not wrong. Deists believe in a god. It may not be a "personal" god, whatever that means (I'm still awaiting clarification on that point, preferably by a self-identified deist). That puts them in the theism category.
Your "subset of the definition has appropriated the term in whole" doesn't make any sense in context. Nobody implies theism is deism (deism is a subset of theistic beliefs, obviously, as are monotheism and polytheism). And as far as I'm aware, nobody has tried to define atheism as "babies and rocks".
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. I'll try logic and you can tell me where I'm wrong.
Deists are a subset of Theists. Deist implies Theist.
Babies and rocks are subsets of Atheists. Baby or rock implies Atheist.
Are we in agreement here?
Now, you're saying that this shows me wrong somehow, because of something about subsets? If you're trying to turn it around and say all Theists are Deists, sure, that's a fallacy. A -> B doesn't mean B -> A, obviously. But nobody here has claimed that.
Ayn Rand in, Karl Marx out? Give me a break...
Ricky Gervais is a loud and proud Avowed Atheist, and fucking funny as hell to boot. He does lots of anti-creationist/religious dogma jokes and comedy. Too bad he didn't make it but his stardom and public atheism has only been less the 4-5yrs on the worldwide stage of fame.
"Ricky Gervais-Bible/Creationism" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocgcj-C_nIw
Cafeeine writes:
Between 'theist' and 'deist' there exists the same type of definition vagueness that exists for atheists.
That's a general problem with language. It's why you've got some people who are "clue-challenged" while others are simply stupid. Sometimes terms are adopted in hopes of making things more or less palatable - but that's marketing and propaganda.
There's no definition vagueness for "atheist" - it means "someone who does not believe in god(s)." Very simple. Now, someone may not like that term, for whatever reason, and decide to use the word "atheist" to mean "someone who does not believe in PZ Myers" and, perhaps, it'll work. We'd then need a new term for people who don't believe in god(s) and we'd be right back where we started again. It's just vocabulary - and, if you want, you can have your own. But it's a social phenomenon, language. If you want to have your own language, expect a lot of puzzled stares. Unlike facts, you can have your own vocabulary, but nobody's required to adopt it. You could use the word "lampshade" to mean "person who does not believe in god(s)" and "atheist" to mean "thing that goes on top of lights to diffuse their brightness." It's asocial but be my guest.
I'd bet that "atheist" will continue to be used for "person who does not believe in god(s)" for a very long time.
Deists are theists in the same way that babies (and rocks) are atheists. Its true by definition, but also wrong, because in both cases a subset of the definition has appropriated the term in whole. (Is there a name for that?)
It's called "bullshit" I think.
Sartre you ain't; sorry but you really don't belong on the list if he's not on the list, and I like you.
Paul,
I was not saying that you are wrong, but that it is an issue of people using different definitions.
Theism is belief in a god, and as such it encapsulates Deism, however their outlooks are completely different, so as to be different animals. The biggest difference between the god of the deist and the god of the other theists is that it doesn't interfere with the natural world. In a sense, post-creation, they are, in my experience, as naturalistic as any atheist. So in effect most (although not all) arguments one can use against a theist do not apply to deists. Frequent public use, especially online, has equated [theists] to [all theists minus deists (and pantheists)]. Therefore a Deist may be a theist or not, depending on the definition used.
The is why I used the atheist baby analogy. A baby obvious does not have any god belief, but this is not what we mean when we say "PZ Myers is a proclaimed atheist" nor is a baby or a child 'atheist' in the same way it can be called 'Christian' or 'Muslim.
That was all the point I was trying to make.
A biology geek on a list with Greeks and Jodie Foster.
Not too shabby....
There was that long span where open atheists were dead atheists . . . in some places we are still in the dark ages.
Mu @ 33 - Another homosexual on the list (besides Jody Foster) is Alan Turing who was convicted under England's homosexual laws during the 1950s and eventually committed suicide.
To this day most religious people and persuasions still cannot accept homosexuality. That Leviticus crap and all. A shame that such a talented genius as Turing was underappreciated during his lifetime.
"There's no definition vagueness for "atheist" - it means "someone who does not believe in god(s)." Very simple."
If its that simple, why do words have multiple definitions? In effect what happens is words often get used to describe different meanings, and if these are adopted they become accepted. This happens, which is why there have been various propaganda movements to push this to particular ends (Homosexuality is a good example. One side of the debate promoted the connotation of immorality and the other of gaiety) I understand that language is a social construct, however it is hardly a uniform one. There are diverging branches shooting out at every point.
In our case, 'atheists' often is used specifically as [atheists who are also outspoken, active and opposing religion] and 'theists' means [theists who believe in some personal god who interferes in the natural world and/or performs miracles, distinct from deists and pantheists].
For reference: theist.
Frankly, I have no beef with deists; with no Revelation they have only, like us, their own best intentions to guide them. The distinction is of significance, but they're not atheists, that much is clear.
John Morales @ 175
Their own best intentions to guide them? How can their best intentions guide them when those intentions are guided by belief in the non-existent? Our best intentions are superior, as we are guided by reason and can recognize other's intentions to convinve themselves of the irrational. No, the difference is significant, and has no significance on their side.
Holbach,
In contrast to dogmatic revealed religions (I'm considering deism as a type of belief, not a religion), deism provides no prescriptive moral dogma or activism (insofar as I'm aware). So I make it that, like atheists, they must use reasoning and humanity in their moral judgements.
I admit I don't personally know any such.
Just to be redundant redundant, I have to again register astonishment and dismay that one of atheism's most colorful proponents wasn't acknowledged in this list.
Dumb All Over
The Meek Shall Inherent Nothing
It Might Just Be A One-Shot Deal
Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk
...and more genius I'm not remembering off the top.
I don't wish to belittle the contributions of the 50 on the list. But the list should be 51 to accommodate Frank.
John Morales @ 177
Deism may divorce itself from organized religion, but it still endorses a belief in a god, whether that belief is embraced privately or through organized religion. The belief is paramount, and no matter the degree of interpretation, it is still a belief in an imaginary thing. I make no distinction on a person's level or idea of a god; it is still an irrational belief of which I find repugnant.
Holbach,
"I like and admire Jodie Foster very much, but it hurts to have her admit that she has great respect for all religions. My like for her is not diminshed, but I would most assuredly argue with her on that point, and perhaps even convince her that this regard is unwarranted at best."
Religions are cultural artifacts, one can respect them just as one can respect the water works, pottery, literature, laws, myths, weapons, weaving, medicine, alchemy, tanning, painting, sculpture, dancing, etc.
I wonder how the the dichotomy between fundamentalist Atheist and the atheists for whom it is not central to their identity would correlate with Myers-Briggs personality attributes. I suspect it would be along the Judging-Perceiving axis. I usually ask for the particular inquirers definition of "god" before responding whether I am an atheist or beleiver or not, since I'm not attached to any particular definition of God.
Perhaps we should accumulate separate Atheist and atheist lists.
PZ, if you don't belong on that list, then what ever shall we do with Sir Jagger?
Africangenesis @ 180
Religion is undoubtedly a cultural artifact, the cultural aspect of which I certainly question as an atheist. It would no doubt have no bearing on culture if it had not existed, and culture would still germinate and prosper. All the examples you noted are of visual and tactile reality, whereas religion is not, and those examples do very well without religious influence except perhaps myths which I lump with religion, even though not originating of religion, and alchemy which is also false. I enjoy many interesting pursuits, all without the influence or hint of religion.
I am an atheist, not fundamental or any other questionable tag one may wish to apply. Religion is simply a system of beliefs in gods that don't exist, and on this dictum it is absolutely false. Why is it so difficult to understand that without our brains there would be no idea of a god. Our brains gave birth to this imaginary thing and all the reasons to understand and prove it so, and yet that same brain also disproves with reason and fact the non-existence of such ideas.
I will make no attempt to identify the reasons for my unbelief as they are so logically obvious. I am an atheist, and no amount of irrational discourse will ever sway me from my rational stance.
AG:the dichotomy between fundamentalist Atheist and the atheists for whom it is not central to their identity That dichotomy is in your perception.
It's not a matter of identity, it's about a degree of tolerance.
Perhaps you misperceive us. Atheism is not generally considered a philosophy or an idealism, it's a descriptor of lack of god-belief.
Holbach is no more atheistic than I, but merely proclaims less tolerance and compassion for theists.
I note you both seem to disdain to nuance between religion and theism per se.
Kevpod, just about everything goes better with more Frank Zappa.
John Morales writes:
I'm considering deism as a type of belief, not a religion), deism provides no prescriptive moral dogma or activism
What about believing in a god isn't religion?
Maybe they don't worship it, and maybe they don't think it affects anything (Aside from creating the universe) but if the deists believe in god, it's religion. Or - at best - "the supernatural" It's creationism writ cowardly to say "something created the universe and for all intents and purposes it's got to be godlike" but of course it's a "belief system" not a religion.
You know what comes next, right? (Wait for it:)
Bleating: "...you gotta respect my beliefs!" It's OK if you disrespect all those stupid religions but my beliefs aren't a religion because my god is really tiny and little and, uh, no, no, I don't have a religion - just a god.
Or is this another one of those "I have my own vocabulary and can call it whatever I want" kind of deals?? "common internet usage" my ass.
What's going on here with all the deist apologetics? This is getting weird. Are all you guys looking for excuses so you don't have to accept that your relatives and friends are nutters and you're rebranding them as "deists" because "creotards" is going to make someone cry?
John Morales writes:
you both seem to disdain to nuance between religion and theism per se.
Well, you've done a rotten job of explaining how they're different, aside from their spelling.
Marcus, you're technically right, but I consider religion to be codified belief and the practice thereof, as opposed to the belief itself. I think that allowing myself that distinction (whether linguistically appropriate or not) helps me to think about these matters more clearly.
PS Oops re blockquote fail above.
I wonder whether it's rank stupidity or intellectual dishonesty that makes people use the ridiculous expression 'fundamentalist atheist'.
Marcus,
Apologetics? Please.
Just saying there's a generally understood difference between deists and theistic religionists, and the former of the two should be preferable to any rational person.
It's not much of an acknowledgement for you to make.
John Morales @ 187
No matter how you think about the distinction of religion, or what term you apply, it is still religion, a system of beliefs in an imaginary thing. Even semantics is useless in codifying distinctions when explaining the concepts and precepts of religions. Religions are a god belief, a god belief establishes religions. Simple as that.
I may have mentioned this before in an earlier post, but on close reading of your comments I suspect that you are not a true atheist, as tidbits of deism intrude in the ever so lightly reference. I may be wrong, but I can sense the smallest iota of deference to a god.
I disagree with this and think that John's correct. Deism is acknowledging the existence of a deist god - a god which, by definition, cannot be worshipped or interacted with or venerated - that's not religion.
Holbach, Buddhism is a religion and yet it has no gods; therefore, your definition is inaccurate. You can have religion without gods and gods without religion.
And, for fuck's sake, acknowledging this does not mean 'deference to a god'.
John Morales writes:
Marcus, you're technically right, but I consider religion to be codified belief and the practice thereof, as opposed to the belief itself.
I read that as "you're right but I prefer my own reality in which I'm right so let's use that instead."
Why not use "codified belief" like you just did? It's descriptive, comprehensible (obviously) and appears to work quite well.
So if I understand you, you're saying that the difference between "religion" and "theism" is that you, John Morales, have your own personal language in which they're different. You have all the makings of a good theologian!
Africangenisis writes:
I wonder how the the dichotomy between fundamentalist Atheist and the atheists for whom it is not central to their identity would correlate with Myers-Briggs personality attributes.
Who gives a shit? Myers Briggs is pseudoscience that only an idiot would take seriously. I suppose it's more precise than astrology because it divides all the people on earth up into 16 basic types, instead of 12.
just for the hell of it, can I have Jodie Foster? OK, OK, she is out of the closet, but ya know, I find her atrractive..
If she would allow me, I would, ya know...
OK, enough of my wanking, Congrats to PZ!
Like the famous atheist and rationalizer par excellence the Marquis de Sade?
(Ducks)
There is nothing per se irrational about believing there was a First Cause. Likewise for believing in the alternative, Eternal Regress.
I don't think the question can be settled empirically.
Marcus:
You understand me, and it's not just my idiosyncratic view.
Consider secular religions, or just Google the terms, if you would, and tell me otherwise.
There's always one Zappa freak around to bore everyone. That would be me.
My last point is that the Frank tunes that deal with the falsity of religimusness are as enjoyable on the musical level as they are for their message.
I'll just go away now.
Thanks, Frank.
And PZ.
There's always one Zappa freak around to bore everyone.
Around here there are at least a few. So I would not feel so all alone.
Wowbagger,Om @ 191
Substitute the word god for spirit, and what do you have? Buddhists have spiritual awakening which is akin to a belief in someting ethereal, which is not real. By not calling it a god does not erase the belief in something that transcends reality. Sure, it may not be a religion, but it is guided by a teacher who claims a spiritual affliation with something that does not exist.
And I disagree with your statement of having religion without gods and gods without religion. You cannot separate the meaning no matter how you couch it. You say that "a deist god, a god which by definition, cannot be worshipped or interacted with or venerated- that's not religion." For fuck's sake that's still a belief in a god whether you worship or interact with or venerate it This is my point. You may not pray to it or acknowledge its presence, but you still believe it exists. Whether you attach this god to a religion is immaterial; you still believe in its existence. Can't you get my meaning and interpretation? For fuck's sake I don't believe in it's existence, let alone assign it deference. If my reasoning is wrong in this meaning, then by all means enlighten me.
John Morales writes:
Just saying there's a generally understood difference between deists and theistic religionists, and the former of the two should be preferable to any rational person.
"Theistic religionist" is redundant. Religion is theism. Theism is religion. Both are the belief in a god or gods.
Deism is a belief in a god or gods. Therefore it is also a religion.
Religion (or theism) is the set of all belief systems based on a god or gods. There are lots of subsets of that set, one of which is a belief in a god or gods that doesn't interact with mankind or the universe aside from having created it.
Just saying there's a generally understood difference between deists and theistic religionists, and the former of the two should be preferable to any rational person. It's not much of an acknowledgement for you to make.
A "generally understood difference"? If you use your own dictionary, maybe. Wishful thinking won't make it so.
Deism and other religions are all stupid. Is one more stupid than another? You can waste your time arguing about whether mormons and their magic pants are stupider than deists and their godditit because we still don't understand everything. Rational people do not need to prefer more or less stupid religions. What's the point of ranking them?
I like your typepad ID page; at least there you're up front about your being a creo, there. It certainly explains your concern with ranking one version of stupid religiousity as less stupid than another; I'm guessing that - coincidentally - it's the one you believe that's less stupid, huh? Guess what? Every dumb creo thinks theirs is less stupid. You're like the kids in the short bus arguing about who sits closer to the front; you just don't get it, do you?
(PS - "John Morales" argumentation style and views so exactly match "Richard Harris" that I wonder if you guys are clones. I'm starting to suspect one is a sock puppet.)
Disagree all you like; you're still wrong. Words have meanings and the word 'belief' and the word 'religion' are not interchangeable no matter how angry you get about it, nor how foolishly you react to people who point that out to you.
Deism, AFAIK, doesn't imply that the god that created the universe is interacting with it in any way. It set things in motion and then left, never to return. That's it. How is believing that a fucking religion? They do not live any differently from an atheist apart from thinking that what we think happened without any input from a being happened with input from a being.
And before you accuse me of secretly loving Jesus or whatever the fuck else you imagine not agreeing with you 100% on everything implies, let me say that I think deism is a really fucking stupid concept. It makes no fucking sense to me whatsoever. But that doesn't mean that anyone who is stupid enough to subscribe to it is religious, because that's not what the word means.
Are you drunk? I wrote what I wrote because you accused John Morales - a poster with a history of atheist posts - of being a closet theist because he dared disagree with you and implied that deism (which he doesn't subscribe to) isn't a religion!
Find some real godbots to argue with; don't try and fabricate them out of atheists who don't happen to share all your opinions or who won't submit to your obnoxious rigidity.
Marcus,
Huh. Just looked.
"John Morales has left 1 comment on 1 blog." Actually, I've made more than a few in various blogs. Why that one shows rather than any other I have no idea.
That's a comment I made responding to someone talking about me in their blog (and I thought misconstruing me, thus the correction) about comments on another blog.
That you think I'm a "creo" or haven't been upfront is an indication of poor judgement.
Kevpod #178-please keep banging away about Zappa. He's got to be one of the most under appreciated artists of the 20th century.
Especially those three songs from the album You Are What You Is:
The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing
Dumb All Over
Heavenly Bank Account
I refer to these as my "Holy Trinity" of Zappa music. Fuckin' genius-a fine mind, and balls of steel. Kind of the like Christopher Hitchens of music.
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Astonishing. You should be so embarrassed by this that you stop posting here for at least a few days until people forget how stupid a mistake you made.
Try using the search box for this site and see what John Morales has actually written, in context.
Wowbagger, OM - I was a fundamentalist christian, the Bible said it, I believed it, that settled it. But now I see the error in my ways, and I am, I suppose a fundamentalist Atheist.
I'm very late to this discussion & will have to review it, but I usually wear the same size Bulldog collar as Holbach. Perhaps you might consider giving some of the walking wounded a break?
I'll leave off any further pithy remarks until I have a look at this. It was rather startling. Because I come from the snake kissing evangelicals I can clearly see the need for iron fist atheists like Holbach and myself. If I'm wrong, I'll cut my own bar tab and ban myself from the spanking couch for the weekend. ;)
John Morales writes:
That's a comment I made responding to someone talking about me in their blog (and I thought misconstruing me, thus the correction) about comments on another blog.
It's really hard to figure out what's going on in there and whose voice is whose. A little formatting might make it a bit more clear. I didn't read it carefully enough; I suppose I should have spent more time suffering through trying to make sense of it.
That you think I'm a "creo" or haven't been upfront is an indication of poor judgement
Waaah waah waah. I misread the spew on your page. I'm sorry. Really.
It's not "poor judgement" as judgement is commonly understood. Commonly, "poor judgement" is understood to mean "really nice guy" If you don't believe me I'll run and put it in wikipedia really quick and give you a link.
What interests me is that the majority of those on the list are either scientists, educators or entertainers.
Wowbagger writes:
Astonishing. You should be so embarrassed by this that you stop posting here for at least a few days until people forget how stupid a mistake you made.
I don't work that way. I make a mistake, I claim it and move on. What kind of chickenshit would hide because of a blog posting? Is that what you'd do?
I'm a straight atheist, and I don't accept it . . . it's not my place to accept, reject, or even have an opinion on who adds meaning to your life or what his or her genitals should look like.
Gays should move past asking for tolerance, because tolerance implies a right to an opinion. Every human should be free to live his or her own life, choosing his or her own partners free from any fear or even a moment's consideration of what the rest of us think.
I didn't give a rat's ass what you thought of my wife when I proposed to her, and my gay brothers and sisters shouldn't care what I think. Equality is not enough . . . indifference and nothing less!
Patricia,OM,
Hopefully, you can be an "iron fist atheist" in your stridency, but still open to good faith intelligent discussion that acknowledges distinctions such as Wowbagger, Morales and others here are trying to make.
I disagree with Wowbagger's assertion however, that deism is a stupid concept, although I'll grant that it is a dated one. The intellectual giants who held that belief in the past were living before nearly all the advances of modern physics, so their mechanistic beliefs about the universe itself were matters of faith, since they had no understanding of the workings. Even today, we don't know if there was ever NOTHING and the big bang is a singularity not covered by our physics. One can define it as the beginning of time but that is merely an intellectual discipline insisted upon by some. There are still mysteries about the universe and time, and we now know enough to be more comfortable with a void in the gaps of our knowledge. Whereas at one time a first act, a creator made sense, today it is merely a speculative hypothesis about something beyond a sigularity.
While some scientists had the optimistic hubris to label our species home sapiens (man the wise?), a more general and correct observation was probably "man the religious". We are the anamolous ones.
Wowbagger writes:
But that doesn't mean that anyone who is stupid enough to subscribe to it is religious, because that's not what the word means.
Gosh, did you go switch ALL the dictionaries or something?
Or are you using your own like John Morales'?
I could probably pile on definitions from online dictionaries until our eyeballs explode but here's a few:
re⋅li⋅gion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
religion
the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
What about 'god created the universe, then left' isn't a statement of faith about the behaviors of a supreme being? Or that it once existed? Ascribing universe-creating or fine-tuning powers to this "god" sounds a whole lot like worship. ("worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being")
Let me ask you flat out; what are you attempting to accomplish with your attempt to redefine 'religion'??
Marcus J. Ranum,
I think you will be able to grasp the distinction better if for "set" of beliefs, you substitute "system" of beliefs. Most Deism doesn't rise to the level of religion. A deist who believes "I believe a higher being must have created the universe, since it is so ordered, although I see no evidence of any activity since then, I can accept it if you are inclined to appreciate and worship him", simply doesn't not rise to the level of a religion.
Africangenesis writes:
A deist who believes "I believe a higher being must have created the universe, since it is so ordered...", simply doesn't not rise to the level of a religion.
OK, so you disagree with every definition of "religion" that I've managed to find so far.
So please share your definition. And, how do you compute this "religion level"? At what point does belief in a supreme being "rise to the level of religion"?
Oh, and tell us why your definition of "religion" is better than Webster's and the OED's and should superceed theirs.
I'm not saying necessarily that they're right, you understand. But since language and vocabulary are social phenomena and they work by us agreeing on the meaning of words, Webster and the OED represent a respected long-term consensus.
Marcus,
I was agreeing with your definitions. I was just explaining them to you. The terseness of the dictionary was not writtent to be used for fundamentalist prooftexting. Go to a cultural anthropology text or an encyclopedia article for an explanation of the concepts that would be the starting point for an intelligent discussion, e.g,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
bonze@194
The irrationality comes into play when you accept that belief as 100% proven, and use it as a rationale for acts that you would not tolerate otherwise.
When you refuse to examine the possibility of being wrong, and dismiss evidence contrary to your belief, you are being irrational. Note that the object of belief doesn't count.
I was just explaining them to you.
the fucking arrogance is palpable.
god, I wanna kick you in the taint.
Ichthyic,
I explain, and you do nothing more than declare moron, arrogant and inane, without explanation or substance. Too bad you aren't "arrogant" or patient or polite enough to explain. Why should anyone take you seriously if you don't participate in good faith.
Quite the Euro centric list there. What about all of the atheistic philosophers in Asia, many of them coming before the Greeks?
Jesus fucking Christ. Seriously, PZ, you've got to turn registration off so we get some trolls for Marcus and Holbach to attack. These two empty, frustrated pricks are so desperate to argue with people they'll start something over anything, not matter how fucking inane.
Marcus J Ranum wrote:
You see what I did there? The sections which aren't in bold are those parts of the definitions you cited which deism does not meet the definition of religion. Can you see how much is in bold? You know why? Because that's how deism isn't a religion. Here's it dumbed down for you:
Deism says 'a being created the universe' - that's it. It doesn't say anything about its purpose or its nature; it doesn't involve any devotional or ritual observances and it doesn't contain a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
It doesn't involve the service or worship of God or the supernatural.
It doesn't involve the worship of the god or gods or any such system of belief and worship relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality of deity.
You want to count the words that don't apply to deism compared to those that are?
Are you kidding me? Belief in the existence of something = worship? Maybe you should spend a little more time thinking about what those words in the dictionary mean rather than just cutting and pasting.
Heck, I believe some guys built my house; I don't know for sure 'cause I wasn't there - does that mean I worship them? Am I engaged in some sort of builder-centric religion by acknowledging that?
I'll try another way - though I'm not going to hold my breath. It's thoughts as opposed to actions. Deism is the thought there is a god; religion is acting upon that thought. Like murder - thinking about murdering someone - not a crime. Actually murdering someone - a crime.
Patricia wrote:
I think you're confusing fundamentalism with strength, or ferocity or commitment - that's not what it means. A liberal (non-fundamentalist) Christian can be just as unwavering and ferocious about his/her beliefs as any YEC, snake-handling, gay- and woman- hating Phelps type - it's just that latter takes a more significant proportion of the bible literally.
There can't be fundamentalist atheists because, apart from lacking the belief in god, there's nothing else to it. We don't have a book which we believe to the letter - or if we do it's news to me...
Yes, there's the whole 'strong' vs. 'weak' atheist spectrum, but I still think it's totally inaccurate to use the term 'fundamentalist' to differentiate one atheist from another. It seems, for the most part, to be used by people trying to irritate atheists by comparing them to fundamentalist Christians.
Atheists who happen to be emotionally stunted assholes, on the other hand, do exist; we've just had the pleasure of seeing them in action. Fortunately, it makes no difference whatsoever to my lack of belief in god.
Seconded.
Hey, as long as you're okay with people reading your posts and going, 'hey, it's that Marcus guy - he thought John Morales was a creationist; can you believe that? What a fucking douche. He obviously doesn't spend a lot of time reading posts for comprehension so I'll just ignore him' you can do what you want. I'd be so embarrassed to have made such a fucking egregious error that I'd want to wait until people stopped associating my name with 'fucking clueless dumbass'.
You claim it? Funny, what I'd do - and what I suspect anyone else with an ounce of character and integrity would do - is apologise, admit I made a serious error and withdraw the accusation.
But that's why I'm not an arrogant asshole who can't admit when he fucked up royally - probably because my argument isn't so weak that I'm afraid it couldn't remain standing if I actually admitted I wasn't perfect.
That you consider genuinely apologising and acknowledging you misrepresented someone 'chickenshit' says a great deal about you.
And this:
That's what's called a notpology. You aren't even a big enough man to admit you made a mistake, are you? Fucking pathetic.
It obviously doesn't matter whether someone is an "atheist" or a "deist". Neither believes in a god that intervenes in human affairs. The atheist and the deist differ only on the question of the origin of the Universe. This is a scientific or philosophical matter of contention, and, let's face it, most of you aren't really interested in this. How many of you have put significant time and effort into gaining familiarity with concepts in cosmology? Not even one percent of you, I'd imagine.
So stop being so uptight about the word "atheist". Some people who call themselves agnostics or deists or whatever are for all practical purposes the same as atheists in worldview.
oooo
oooo
flame war
who are we gangbanging?
I'm glad I did a [find] search on the comments for Ayn Rand before unleashing a redundant tirade of indignation.
Well done, Pharyngulites, carry on.
Wowbagger:
Patricia suggests that fundamentalist atheism is;
Nobody said it, I wouldn't believe it if they did, and that settles nothing
which is why she capitalizes atheism but not christianity
I think she said that,
anyway
Food for thought
now, where's my pie !!
I like Frank Zappa but I wish he had catchier melodies for the vocals. I wish he would have spent more time on that. Oh well what can I say.
Children, play nicely together. Or there'll be no ice cream after lunch today.
Scooter#225,
"I'm glad I did a [find] search on the comments for Ayn Rand before unleashing a redundant tirade of indignation."
Did you find the first tirade interesting, informative or challenging? It is probably for the best, since your admission that your comments would have been redundant, implies that they also would not have been any better.
Rand may well have saved atheism by rescuing it from total identification with communism, at a time when even the Pledge of Allegiance had to be amended to conform with the political correctness of the time. I also wonder if she might have been ahead of her time in snarkiness, since her discussion of religious beliefs had more of a mocking than academic tone. The persuasiveness of her works despite their politically incorrect (by western judeo-christian standards) perspective on morality suggests human nature has values that are percieved as positive even against strong cultural headwinds. Perhaps cultural anthropologists should be looking to see how universal these values might be. Genes valuing and seeking heroic integrity and creative competent productivity would seem to have the potential to increase evolutionary fitness. Excellence persued to the point of indulging a selfish desire for improvement and perfection. Amazing skill and competence seems to be associated with this type of internal drive for mastery and competence rather than some kind of service to the collective motive.
Could there be a tension, sharing and altruism are the glue that is valued in the tribe and collective, but it may be the genes of the competent ingenius provider that are given the most opportunity to propagate. Does the hero/warrior/provider have a selfish or sacrificial motive for developing his competence? There may be a schizophrenic tension in human evolution at this stage of our partially aborted evolution.
I think my sarcasm detector is broken
Play. Play is as important in developing facility with objects of the intellect, as it is with physical objects such as the basketball, revolver, skateboard or sword. The best minds I've seen in labs and academia play with ideas, language, mathamatical formulas, artistic media or whatever the "objects" of their discipline are. Is play selfish?
A week without trolls,and we're turning against each other already,out of boredom or something??
What on earth???
I liked his dicso song. IIRC, Zappa liked disco a lot.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a75_1182003313
It seems that way, and it's very depressing. And what's even more disturbing is that certain posters have become so desperate for something to attack that they've started strapping religious strawmen to well-known atheist regulars.
Wowbagger,
yeah,im on(a quiet so far) night shift and reading my way up the thread,and cant quite believe the thing with John M.
Agree 100% with your 222.
When we did the previous experiment with signing in, traffic was down considerably, and we were on the edge of sniping at each other. I've noticed a drop-off in the number of my posts since the latest signing in started, mostly due to the lack of trolls.
Mine too. But that doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to start picking fights for the sake of it. However, as this thread illustrates, I'm not going to sit back and take shit from people who do.
Atheists are rediculous. They would even deny they're own existence if they knew they wouldn't run out of athiests. (Which ain't very many.)
I can't deny my existence. I have the Redhead and a mortgage bill as evidence to prove it.
Wowbagger,
We could always make fun of libertarians. AG is still around and probably spouting silliness about von Mises was the greatest economist since Adam Smith and Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.
I would never advocate anyone denying their own mortgage bill. I have been quoted out of context!
It's a gorgeous day. I'm going for a sail.
Nice day here by the lake. A good day to rake the back yard.
Sadly, this suggests* that perhaps we all have less to say to each other than we might otherwise think, and that the trolls, rather than being an annoying distraction, are in fact one of the major factors driving the conversation.
*Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, please note the word suggests. I'm just speculating, although I don't think that this idea completely lacks supporting evidence.
Josh,
I dont think there can be any doubt about that trolls are a major driving force of conversations.
But trolls are also a good opportunity to learn stuff for oneself at times.
And last week here has been a tad boring..:-(
#229
Apparently you are attempting to begin an inteeligent discussion about Ayn Rand.
It would be easier to have an intelligent discussion about shoving a banana up your ass, then compare and contrast to teabagging.
I read her crap, all four abominations when I was about thirteen, on advice from my dad, they did not compare favorably to Marvel comic books then, nor do they now, on any analysis of literature that I am aware of.
More along the lines of the really bad incomprehensible writing of the DC comics of the sixties..... totally flat, dull, with characters more stiff than drug store Indians.
This discussion of that moron is now closed, go troll the fucktards at John Galt dot duh, lightweight.
Indeed. I'm hoping that a few of them evolve and get through our new airtight security measures.
I think we're just used to high troll volumes and we need to adjust to a less antagonistic approach. It might take a while but i guess we're going to have acclimatise.
Whew, I'm glad this didn't blow up into 500+ comments, since I said I'd read it all.... coffee!
PZ, I for one, feel your inclusion on the Top 50 influencial atheists is very cool. Keep up the great work you do so well...hearding cats is never easy!
And to those here who wish to argue over lexical definitions...please, try to keep it civil. Some of us are trying to get some rest and your noise is keeping us from that...I suggest you rest as well.
The Randroids...the Randroids...
I have no clue what you are getting at there.
Rev., looks to me like an imitation of a troll, only sillier.
I'm myself an atheist, but there are many scientists who flirt with deism, like Freeman Dyson, who are massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than you and anyone else here. Even Einstein seemed to sometimes veer down that path. These guys were discovering the laws of nature in their mid-twenties, whereas you and your ilk while away the hours insulting creationists.
And there are many who don't.
Your fucking point? If you have one.
What's the point of being Ilk if you don't insult creationists? It's more fun than jumping into a polar bear's swimming pool.
My point was exactly what I said was my point. It is wrong to refer to "people stupid enough to subscribe to [deism]", because some deists are highly intelligent. This clique has the annoying habit of acting as if everyone not part of it is an idiot.
No, not really. We have the annoying to some but true tendency to point out that idiots are idiots.
Some may act the way you describe but not all of "this clique".
You however seem to have the annoying tendency to engage in reckless smug hyperbole.
Wowbagger, OM wrote:
But that's why I'm not an arrogant asshole who can't admit when he fucked up royally - probably because my argument isn't so weak that I'm afraid it couldn't remain standing if I actually admitted I wasn't perfect.
You just blew my irony meter to pieces.
I made a mistake, and if I didn't throw myself on the ground apologizing to your satisfaction, that's your problem. What it's got to do with whether my argument is strong or not is irrelevant - though I'm surprised you'd trot out such a tired highschool level debater's trick. The irony of someone posting a bit of pure ad hominem ranting and saying my argument is weak smells like ... victory.
That's what's called a notpology. You aren't even a big enough man to admit you made a mistake, are you? Fucking pathetic.
Is there a "miss manners" abbreviation you are trying to add after your OM? You're doing it wrong.
If Morales wants to take me to task, let him. If you want to be his self-appointed yapping dog gnawing at my ankle, more power to you.
Therion @ 257,
And highly intelligent people do and believe irrational and stupid things all the time,what has the computing capability of anybody's brain got to do with its inherent tendency to subscribe to superstition and woo?
Again,your point?
I know that I for one feel like a complete failure after this insightful and accurate broad brush characterization, crushed by a terrible sense of not having contributed anything to the world. And I was already feeling low this morning, popping in here every so often to browse or drop a comment as an intermittent distraction from these manuscript edits that my co-author just sent. The guilt during breakfast was heavy too, as I took periodic Pharyngula breaks while putting together a field trip itinerary.
But painful or not, I'm glad you made that comment. And let me assure you, it's not lost on me at least. Rather, it weighs on me that our intellectual prowess and professional productivity isn't up to your standard. Because of course groping for your approval is my main concern.
And what exactly was it that you've done today?
Therion, all you have shown is that even individudals who may be genius in some areas can be blind in others. Cognitive dissonance for a £1000 anyone.
That's patent bullshit, sorry. This is no different from any other community in that the appraisals of idiocy here are almost always entirely subjective. It's fashionable to say that Ken Ham and Michael Behe are morons etc., but I sincerely doubt they score below average in IQ or are unusually ignorant. It can be fun to call creationists names, so I don't really have a problem with that. In this thread, though, the rampant hubris was becoming obnoxious, so I felt it necessary to break the bad news.
Smug hyperbole? What? "Smug" occurs when someone implies his own superiority or implies others' inferiority. I did nothing of the kind.
Hey, what about Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Nietzsche!
This calls for bacon and fried pertaters.
*carry on*
@ 263,
Its not fashionable,its true.And you are doing it again !
Their IQ has fuckall to do with their tendency to lie,misrepresent,distort facts or be willfully ignorant,and thats why we will call them out on it.
Noone here is feeling superior,you might be projecting there.
Therion bears a striking resemblance to J.
I'm (still) reading Isaacson's biography, but I'm not really seeing where Einstein veered down that path in any meaningful way. A sort of pantheism, yes, but not deism. Perhaps I haven't reached that part yet. I don't know much about Dyson (read one of his books years ago), but I found this about him on a web site:
I would love to see this evidence.
Hi SC!
Doesn't matter. I'm not the one calling people idiots.
But deism isn't necessarily "irrational and stupid". If fine-tuning holds, and it might well do, there are two known hypotheses that can account for it. One is an intelligent designer, the other is a multiverse. Some people believe the latter comes out even worse after we apply Occam's razor. They're not obviously wrong.
Maybe if you look at it closely enough, deism comes out as less plausible. Big deal. Most of us have lives and things to do that don't involve orienting our lives around vague probability estimates based on dimly understood hypotheses and arguments.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
hello SC..:-)
Oh fuck I remember him. Wasn't he the idiot that kept on going on about brights? I do see the resemblence.
Not in so many words, perhaps, but you did, to use your phrasing, veer down that path a bit:
FINE TUNING
Here we go.
Einstein and Dyson and many other great physicists, based on my readings, do seem to toy with deism, sometimes conflating it with pantheism. Whenever Dyson is questioned about this, his ultimate answer seems to be along the lines of "I don't know, but I won't rule it out". There are many quotes of Einstein that seem hard to explain if you identify God solely with "the laws of physics".
The best argument against deism, in my opinion, is Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747" idea. This seems a decent, handwaving sort of reasoning. The fact is, however, that the argument, as presented by Dawkins, fails to satisfy the theoretical standards required by physics and cosmology (and maybe even philosophy). Maybe someone will come along and develop it further and more solidly. Until that happens I'm not going to consider it a knockdown argument.
Hi Patricia!
People pointing to some of the problems with this list may be interested in the discussion here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/an_inspirational_poster.php
This has never made sense to me. Of course this universe is has the conditions for life, since life exists in at least one tiny part of it (I don't see this as something that needs to be accounted for an the way you're suggesting). But the contention that an intelligent designer created the cosmos planning for it to give rise, billions of years later, to carbon-based life forms on one dinky planet and then through a process that looks completely contingent, again over several billion years, produce one species of relatively intelligent primate strikes me as quite stupid. And given what we know about the material basis and evolution of animal minds, including our own, this immaterial Mind business is also rather dumb.
See y'll later, I've got to buzz off for some new knitting needles that are an hours drive away. :D
Actually, this appears to be correct with regard to Einstein. I just got out the book and I had not in fact reached the section on "Einstein's God," which I just read. However, it seems in his case to be a "meaning" given irrationally on the basis of an understandable sense of awe and wonder.
Wowbagger writes:
(various personal crap)
Try keeping your wits about you. I don't understand why you're getting so upset. You can foam at the mouth all you like but it carries no weight with me. So, what's your agenda?
I've been quite clear about mine: I'm trying to understand why people are trying to reinvent perfectly good language - when I see that, I always suspect an attempt at spin or a hidden agenda. Something's going on. What is it?
Deism says 'a being created the universe' - that's it. It doesn't say anything about its purpose or its nature; it doesn't involve any devotional or ritual observances and it doesn't contain a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Yes, that's my understanding as well.
Now, be intellectually honest and re-parse:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Is deism a set of beliefs: Yes
Does it concern the cause of the universe: Yes
Does it concern the nature of the universe: Yes ("godprobablydidit" as an explanation for how physical law came into being is a pretty powerful statement regarding the nature of the universe!)
Does it concern the purpose: No (although it's pretty obvious that "god" had its purpose for creating the universe, deists simply say they don't know what it is - which is a far cry from saying that a supreme being went to all that trouble for no purpose)
"Often containing" doesn't mean "always containing" and "usually involving" doesn't mean "always involving"
I don't think it's a good idea to start dissecting each and every definition of "religion" that we find in dictionaries. That'd be pointless. I picked the first one (I think it's Merriam Webster's but I forget) because I thought it was pretty fairly worded.
Are you kidding me? Belief in the existence of something = worship?
No, I said "sounds a whole lot like..."
Seriously, though, how can someone claim that the universe was created by a supreme being and not have a bit of respect for that supreme being's awesome universe-creating powers? I'm not trying to put the word "supreme" in anyone's mouth, but calling something all powerful is a statement that it's superior to oneself, is it not? It's not headbanging on the ground style worship.
Heck, I believe some guys built my house; I don't know for sure 'cause I wasn't there - does that mean I worship them? Am I engaged in some sort of builder-centric religion by acknowledging that?
What a silly argument. If you believed that some guy magiced your house into existence using mighty incomprehensible all-powerful magic that established the very fabric of the space-time in which your house was built - and you believed in the guy because, well, you wanted to. And that the purpose of this all-powerful house-builder was unknown to you and possibly un-knowable... Uh. I'd say you'd be pretty retarded not to show someone who does that kind of thing a certain amount of respect. And, if I believed in such a thing, I'd owe it at least the veneration and respect due to my creator. That sounds a whole lot like 'worship' to me. Your house-builder's motives were doubtless clearer than god's: you paid them. They are eminently comprehensible, while the god of the deists remains mysterious in motive, method, and power. You don't need to take your builders as an article of faith but a deist certainly makes a lot of assumptions about god (like: goddidit, godexists) ; your example and reasoning are very poor.
I'll try another way - though I'm not going to hold my breath. It's thoughts as opposed to actions. Deism is the thought there is a god; religion is acting upon that thought.
That's your definition. Why don't you go find a few dozen dictionaries that use it and then I'll be impressed.
Here's why your definition fails: thinking is a subset of action. If a deist sits there thinking "god created the universe" he is acting on those beliefs. Thinking is doing something.
Oh, now you're going to say "but he's not banging his head on the floor like a muslim!" - so what? He still thinks he knows something about the origin of the universe and even that tidbit of "knowledge" about something so big and important is going to have consequences throughout the rest of his belief system. What about thinking you know something about the origin of the universe based on know evidence isn't revealed truth?
Let's try this another way:
- Can we agree that Jefferson was a deist?
- Do you therefore argue that Jefferson was not religious?
- Can you please explain why he wrote a bible based on the principles of pure deism as taught by jesus?
Cue the "no true deist" response from Wowbagger... 5... 4... 3...
Marcus Ranum,
its 3am at Wowbagger's location,you might have to wait for your answer.
This was posted on the "easter" thread earlier:
You're certainly trying.
Therion writes:
But deism isn't necessarily "irrational and stupid". If fine-tuning holds, and it might well do, there are two known hypotheses that can account for it.
It's still irrational and stupid because it got the reasoning backward. Deists start with the conclusion "goddidit" and go from there. It may turn out they're right. It may turn out they're not. But that will only turn out to be relevant if and when we ever know.
A rationalist would shrug and say "we don't know yet" and keep trying to find out. A deist says "I already know, I'm just trying to prove it."
Wot, No Shelley? Publishing The Necessity of Atheism got him expelled from Oxford University in 1811.
Good to see Russell T Davies on there.
You're ignoring the possibility that some individuals who identify as deists genuinely believe deism is the best bet.
Well, you could say the same about the two sequels to The Matrix. "This is shit. How could this be designed by a conscious agent?" But the brute fact is, there's no other way we can account for its existence. Some deists, I'd imagine, would make the analogous case.
You use words like "stupid" and "dumb" far too readily. The fact is, there lots of industrial-strength thinkers who've wrestled for years with the mind-body problem and still take this "immaterial Mind business" quite seriously. Like you I think they're wrong, but they are not necessarily stupid or intellectually dishonest. The philosophy of mind can be disturbingly, profoundly confusing.
Yawn, philosophy without evidence is sophistry. Yawn. Belief without evidence is delusion. Old argument, going nowhere. Mental masturbation.
Your analogy is not apt. That is not what I'm arguing.
It seems as though the only aspect of the universe that people seem to believe needs to be "accounted for" is us, which is silly. The history of the cosmos, our late and apparently contingent emergence, and our miniscule place in it does not suggest that we are a part of some conscious master plan. Quite the contrary. Again, I'd like to see this evidence Dyson alluded to pointing toward a universe that anticipated us or had us in "mind." It's ridiculous.
I think the "philosophy of mind" has to be based on the science of brains. Otherwise, yes, it can be profoundly confusing, because people can come up with all sorts of notions that have no evidentiary basis or make little sense in light of what is known.
I never said anyone was stupid. I said certain ideas or contentions are stupid, particularly given what we now know (but even Lucretius saw the problems with arguments that are still being made a couple of millenia later). Intelligent people can harbor stupid beliefs about any number of subjects. And not once on this thread have I called anyone intellectually dishonest. I'll thank you not to misrepresent me.
You're right, it is boring. That's because some of you insist on repeating the same old slogans and buzzwords, all of which happen to be irrelevant in this case. The deists I referred to believe they do have evidence. They might turn out to be wrong, just as people can be wrong about politics, economics, or any other point of intellectual disagreement. Different from theists, they're not going on faith, and they're not making outrageously extravagant claims about the authenticity of holy books. No need to describe deists as "deluded". If you do, the word will become meaningless and will apply to everyone who makes a bad argument in any subject of discussion whatsoever.
Geez, Pharyngulates, better start getting along better. Patricia, OM, has gone off to get knitting needles--and when she gets back...well, I hate to even think about what's she's gonna do with them!
He was probably thinking of the foundations of quantum mechanics when he said that. The formalism suggests (note: I only say "suggests") that human consciousness plays a special role. Naturally, many physicists don't believe this is so. It is, however, an extremely difficult conclusion to theoretically avoid. Physicists have been trying since the 1930s, without any clear success.
No, people like John Wheeler and Freeman Dyson are not idiots, and what they say is not "ridiculous". Modern physics can be deeply spooky and unsettling. Personally speaking, the more physics I learn, the more I sympathize with their theoretical extravagance. Grand puzzles require grand explanations, and I can understand where Dyson, Wheeler etc. are coming from (even though I don't agree with them).
I have no idea what you're talking about here, nor do I care particularly, especially since you've simply avoided addressing the points I've made. This modern deism is but a desperate attempt to salvage some essential core of the Judeo-Christian god, not any sort of scientific conclusion arrived at through analysis of the evidence (the cosmos and its history).
I pointed out your earlier misrepresentations and asked you to stop. Now you can just fuck off.
Contentions about what needs to be explained based on the anthropic principle are indeed ridiculous.
That is evidence for neither a deity nor a universal Mind.
How sad for you.
Time for you to grow up then.
I found Starsky&Hutch deeply unsettling when I was 10,but Im better now.
SC, OM #284 wrote:
This is a point which always strikes me about Fine Tuning Arguments: they only seem to take out what they put it. Humans are amazing: if things had been even a little bit different, then humans would not be here: therefore, an amazing plan must have been in place beforehand.
Put in that humans are special, and we subsequently discover that humans are ... special. Deliberately select an object, and find out it appears that someone has mysteriously selected it. No kidding.
I would be interested in seeing a Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God which starts out with the assumption that human life is dull, boring, and in need of no particular explanation, because there is nothing specially noteworthy about it. I have a feeling it wouldn't get very far -- or even get started. If human arrogance is a necessary requirement for finding God, then perhaps what's really being worshiped here is not the Higher Power, but our amazing selves.
It's partly that more recent figures are remembered.
Hypatia, Napoleon Bonaparte, Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman, Wafa Sultan, Margaret Mead, Eugenie Scott, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Jane Rule, David Hume, Voltaire, James Randi, Linus Torvalds, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, Studs Terkel, Theo Van Gogh.
Actors, actresses, musicians, athletes, politicians: Sir Ian McKellen, Griff Rhys-Jones, Trent Reznor, John Lennon, Ani DiFranco, Björk, Marlin Brando, Brian Eno, Margot Kidder, Diane Keaton, Sarah Polley.
From the Internet: Warren Buffet, Richard Branson, Michelle Bachelet (current president of Chile), Liv Arnesen (the first woman to ski solo to the South Pole), Nadine Gordimer( winner of the 1991 Nobel prize for literature), Baroness Susan Greenfield (a leading neuroscientist and the director of The Royal Institution), Wendy Kaminer (American author, journalist, lawyer), Julia Sweeney (American actor/commedian [or actress/commedienne, depending on how much information you want in your words ]), Dick Cavett, Barry Manilow, Sarah Vowel.
Possibilities: Carl Sandberg? Abraham Lincoln? Elizabeth Cady-Stanton? Susan B. Anthony?
Ah, we're up to the fuck off's now.
Then I'm back just in time with my super sharp Addi TURBO 47" number ten knitting needles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER3MS8gm8UE
Oh no, jet propelled needles. Duck pullets, duck. ;)
(Either those are very long or circular.)
Yep, circular. My first pair of Addi Turbo's! I'm pretty excited to try them. (oh gosh, you couldn't tell. :D)
Isaac Newton was smarter than most people even now, but he believed in some weapons-grade stupid shit, too.
Being smart about one or even many things does not exclude being a brain dead moron about something else.
A list of great atheists that doesn't include JL Mackie can be safely ignored anyway.
At #293, Patricia, OM announced:
I tried to warn them, but nooooooo. Looks like they're just too stuck in their snarling and snarking to disengage.
So...whatca going to do with those needles?
Maybe you can just teach everyone to knit. At least for beginners, it's rather hard to knit and snarl.
At least the abuse of poor Wowbagger let up while I was gone. Sheesh!
Knitting needles must be scarier than I thought.
Rule one, stay the length of the knitting needles plus one step away from the Redhead when she's busy with them.
bastion of sass - yeah, it was getting pretty snarly here. I fell asleep during the fray last night... rolls eyes.
I'm making:
http://www.knittingpureandsimple.com/cardi.html
#286 - bulky shrug, it'll do nicely while peddling herbs and eggs at Saturday Market. Maybe I could chart a big red A on the back. ;)
Nerd - You could always ask her to make one of these:
http://queerjoe.com/images/Willie_Warmer.jpg
Patricia, ROFLMAO
And the line between Ravalry and Pharyngula begins to blur.
There was one? :-)
And the line between Ravalry and Pharyngula begins to blur.
you mean Ravelry (especially LSG), and yes, especially when knitting and bacon and sex come together.
I FUCKING PREVIEWED.
*smacks hand into wall*
Owe. Fuck.
*glares at everything*
Oh no, Josh caught the Rev.'s cooties...
Welcome to our world. Typos are the norm. You are now a true Pharnagulite.
Uh, yeah, you might have noticed I have a little problem with irrational anger when I make typos...
Owe. Fuck.
you mean "Oww. Fooke?"
;P
as to the willie warmer posted by Patricia...
I was "forced" to watch all 4 seasons of Outrageous Fortune by Kiwis who said it would edjumacate me wrt Kiwi linguistics. One thing I do recall, however, was the "cock sock".
I can't find the relevant clip, but for those unfamiliar with OF, it's like this:
http://www.bebo.com/FlashBox.jsp?FlashBoxId=4402666193&
Hmmm.... That might explain the dents in my desks at both work and home. And my sore forehead...
Hehe...cock sock.
And Nerd, as you once advised me-a helmut might help with that. It was good advice on your part...
a helmut might help with that
I don't know what some German guy is going to do for him.
*runs*
Now maybe you'll appreciate silk yarn a little bit more Nerd. :D
you mean helmet?
*ducks*
*throws his K-pot at SC*
Playfully, of course
Josh, we are heading for punville. It happens every so often. I have the bad habit of contributing a pun or two. SC, Emmet, and Mayhempix are the experts.
A little pun-o is better than were it was headed a minute ago...
Heading? I thought we were already there.
My response is the same, however. Puns always earn smacks.
*retrieves k-pot for Dania*
I'm back. Yes, I had a nice sail after we rigged a new spinnaker halyard. That only took an hour and a broken fingernail. But the sailing was good.
*throws his K-pot at SC*
Puns always earn smacks.
Hey, I'm just needling you, but since I now know how you feel I'll save my purls of wisdom for those who'll appreciate them. I guess neither of us wants to be left in stitches.
Don't make me stop this thing and come down there.
*pops up and looks at Josh*
*ducks again immediately*
Look out Chimpy, they've all been playing with "socks" while you weren't looking.
Bacon's in the harbor. (ducks and runs.)
I saw that and while I don't know exactly what is going on, i have a good idea and I DON'T LIKE IT ONE BIT.
Settle down or I'm turning this thing around and EVERYONE is going home.
Rev.'s a punophobe. He knows how much he loves them, and that if he opens that gate just a little bit he won't be able to stop himself. Witness the thread about the Iraqi shoe thrower. So he tries to prevent others from tempting him.
You know it's true, Rev. :)
Okay, back from dinner*
*groan*
Oh, and SC, just FYI while I have you here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/ken_millers_talk.php#comment…
*What do you mean "why the heck was I checking Pharyngula from the restaurant?" It's not nice to point at someone's addiction, you know.
Oh yeah! Well I've got your font cootie hanging upside down from the Mimosa tree. Turn around, and I'll drop him into the chook yard. *so there*
Patricia, are you pulleting my leg?
Yes, the Rev. gets all crochet-ty about puns.
Yes, and I'll egg you on too.
*looks for his firehose
Maybe we should stop needling him about it.
He's liable to tat-tle on us.
We could just let him off the hook.
*completely misses Dania's pop-up while writing to SC*
DAMMIT.
*brandishes K-pot pseudo-menacingly*
Just you do that again...
A corset could get ugly...
He thinks we're a darned bunch of troublemakers.
But I still don't know why he wales so much about it… some kind of bias.
Ok that's it. You asked for it.
Take this.
Aw c'mon Rev. — it's just a little ribbing.
Really. He's been lam-basting us for too long.
UGH!
OK, I'll quit ribbing you now.
At #327, SC, OM wrote:
My head is bobbin "yes." It seams we've witnessed this pattern of punning previously.
But to tease the Rev about it seems rather crewel. He really can't help himself.
Jesus Christ, Rev. Watch the collateral damage. Wow.
Knit wit.
Just wait till the Vile Bitch get's here Chimp, she'll rip you a musical new one.
Knit wit.
I knew it! He's one, too!
(Everyone's a sampler, it seems.)
At #347, Patricia, OM wrote:
Nod. I suspect that in her own special way, she'll press the notion that the Rev. should cast off.
Rev BDC #341
Oh, so you want to play rough, do you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCAjmuA1HDk
Twill any more warped puns turn up?
How many are weft?
lam-basting
don't you mean lamb-basting?
*turns off Project Punway for a moment*
Josh, thanks for reminding me about that thread ((I hadn't seen Kseniya's last replies, either). Sorry I didn't respond. My ambitions exceeded my energy/time this week, but it's in my notebook, so I'll let you know what I come up with and where I go with it when I have time.
I'm sure we can make it work.
Okay, enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Here's one for the rest of us: Robby O'Connell "Kilkelly, Ireland"
A few, but some of them are so bad, they could only be contem-plaited by selvages.
Dang, I garter go cook supper.
We can. We will. And there is absolutely no rush.
I'll just needle you about it periodically if you forget...
oh, don't make me go narwhal on your ass.
We all know what wool knitters are really about...
:p
Holy shit. I had completely forgotten about this song. Wow. Old girlfriend. Back in the day. Maine. July. Wow. Just...wow.
I never knew who sang this and spent some time hunting around for it before the intertubes days, but had completely forgotten about it since.
Thank you for this...
Oh, yeah. Well, if you're going to be like that, take this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ
With tomorrow's work looming, twill be better for me to show some moral fiber, make this my dernier comment, perhaps ply myself with a little Bushmills (not gin), and go to bed, lest I be up-braided for my bad puns.
Yeah, I had a notion that the worsted was yet to come. Just swatch.
Yeah, I had a notion that the worsted was yet to come.
Yeah, better to bolt now.
I almost unraveled listening to this one. Priceless.
Got the pork roast socked into the oven, but I still tweed to dill the carrots.
You mean just dart off?
On similar lines, here's my rendition of Spancil Hill, a classic Irish song loosely based on a poem by Michael Considine, who emigrated to the US around 1870.
And, with that, I'm off to the scratcher.
You just had to horn in with those dirty deeds.
You mean just dart off?
Yup. I know I'll regret it if eyelet myself stay.
You guys and gals just have me balled up with laughter.
arrrrgggghhhh. it's a seventies war!
Oh, yeah. Well, if you're going to be like that, take this!
parry.
thrust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mflw8-BZdV0&feature=related
I'll see your parry, and riposte with shag hair carpeting.
*sigh*
Fine. You made me do this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auYCXBzep9o
Fine. You made me do this.
Oh, thou has truly drawn blood with that one.
*gasp*
still, 'tis but a flesh wound...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZSEDsWp7TQ&feature=related
You're cruel, Josh. Now I'll have to do something probably illegal under the Geneva Conventions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHS8hj4TdT8
*ducks*
*spins*
*goes for legs*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzaJgXYMAsY&feature=related
oops, we're not doing parody.
*trips*
Ono, is he killing Beatles?
goes for quick-flip recovery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8bXs9Er3iw
Peace, guys. I surrender.
muhahahaaha!
unlimited power!
Sorry to interrupt the knitting puns but I've got to respond to what was put to me while it's fresh in my mind.
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Therein lies the problem, Marcus. We're not talking about what you would do if you believed, we're talking about what other people do do when they do believe.
And you don't get to tell them (or us, for that matter) what they do and don't do if they believe. Christians like to tell us what atheism is in such a way that it suits their arguments; we don't accept it. It's the same case here.
Plus, if you want to argue it that way then we really are at an impasse because I'd say that if I believed in a deist god (which I don't) it wouldn't make a lick of difference to how I lived my life. None whatsoever. So, something created the universe and then left. Big, fat, hairy deal. Where's my burrito?
What you wrote about Jefferson is valid, though, and I take that on board - what I think it means is that there are religious deists and non-religious deists. I'm prepared to accept the label of hair-splitter for the sake of defusing an unneccessary argument.
Put it this way - I feel that if someone meets the description of what I've been saying a deist is then they aren't religious. When (if) they start behaving in any of the ways you've outlined as being indicative of a religion - adherence, reverence, veneration, respect, worship and so forth - then yes, they are religious and the way they are practicing it is a religion.
Neither of us are deists, though, and I believe we're both wasting our time trying to quantify at what they do and don't believe and how they act on those beliefs.
Oh, what are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Oh, that hurt.
*staggers back*
*presses play*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UauHDIlhvTk
BRUTAL!
*spits blood*
from hell's heart, I stab at ye...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxo0lsJnx-U
How dare you take John Williams' name in vane!
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath...at thee...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHfaSKbn6vM
I didn't want to do this, but you leave me little choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_P-v1BVQn8
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath...at thee...
*head pops from having hot poker thrust unexpected through helmet visor*
I don't know if we're cable to zip it or knot.
@bastion:
appropriate, as I think you're the last man standing.
*looks around at the carnage*
*only bastion remains*
*locks and loads*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0lKmznjgfQ
Why don't we just let it be?
from beyond the grave...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfm-17pu6SQ&feature=related
goodbye my friend, it's hard to die...
We need all the help we can get.
*Dives for cover*
Yeah, that's what they want me to beweave. Then, when I least expect it, they'll smock me with a good hook.
I'm not taking any darn chances!
They. Just. Won't. Die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A81fwLNklSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFnMDQIZqAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy4HPA06xzw
(Dang, #394 was me, but TypePad seemed to have expired.)
Bastion, just think of the yarns you can tell your grandkids if you survive.
[gasp!]
There will be blood tonight!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn4Kfvxczs0
Ha! Where did you buy that dud from? North Korea?
*spits blood*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc5d01_riBo
*shakes head*
Budget cuts...
There will be blood tonight!
already posted that one at #384. While I can understand picking up a fallen soldier's weapon, I think that means Josh has a large advantage now.
*raises head, looks around*
By George, we need more bacon.
*dives back under cover*
*moves to overwatch position*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeW4dbuyscQ
No worries Wowbagger, OM. He had a good frogging coming to him, needle him all you like.
*Looks up at the ring-o-stars. Time for bed*
*scans*
*detects no enemy fire*
*breaks contact*
*moves to last in route rally point*
*calls higher and gives sitrep*
*recons and establishes patrol base*
*waits...*
Time for you to cast off Nerd. ;)
Wowbagger#382,
"Therein lies the problem, Marcus. We're not talking about what you would do if you believed, we're talking about what other people do do when they do believe."
That's the part I never got either. Believers assume that if they get you to believe the God-creator theory, that automatically you will swallow the whole shebang that they think comes with it. The creator exists, THEREFORE, you must worship him, he is in peronsal communications with you, he had something to do with Jesus and the bible, he made sure the Bible was inerrant and properly assembled at the council of Nicea, and oh yes, Satan exists too, and unfortunately is a bit more active in the world. For someone interested in evidence, it seems so many parts of the argument are missing.
An interesting near universal characteristic that Marcus seem to share is this idea that worship or veneration would somehow follow. Why would such a lofty being be interested in our little worships and sacrifices? The idea itself seems silly, but ritual sacrifices and submission to gods is a near universal in humans. It looks like an anthropomorphism of gods to the top of our petty social hierarchies. If we imagined ourselves at the top of the hierarchy, we want the best meats and the most fertile disease free mates. And, of course, unless one happens to be a libertarian, when one encounters someone in authority or otherwise above us in the social hierarchy, we lay down or bend over and assume the position, and then after the authority has had his way, we thank him for the gift of our lives.
Somehow, the deists of the past, with their impersonal, uninvolved Gods, don't seem to practice any religion beyond a little awe at creation, and they don't assume the position.
Damn it! Obviously shell shocked from Josh's last barrage.
Forced...to retreat...try to recover...check to see what remains in my arsenal.
Yes! Still have some firepower remaining.
Now, should I use it all at once, or hold out against a counter attack?
Oh well, let's see what happens...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fgGNZYR5QM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSqo17o2a1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKw8j7GLSdw
holy fuck!
it's a goddamn cluster bomb!
:P
Jammies, check. Teeth flossed and brushed, check. Alarm set, check.
Yes Ma'am.
Twas my mammal ammo.
To which I add:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0KKGdb4qUY
SC,
What, are you afraid your posts don't hold up to scrutiny? If not, I can't understand this needless aggression. There's no "misrepresentation" on my part. My point, clearly, is that they are brilliant men, who know far more science than you, and are not to be trifled with. You didn't call anyone an idiot, but you apparently think you can wave aside people Wheeler and Dyson with belittling words like like "stupid", "ridiculous". That is just arrogant, in my opinion.
Thousands of physicists, including sober-minded atheist physicists like Leonard Susskind and Steven Weinberg, would disagree completely.
You're just stating this without any supporting argument, so I need only say that I disagree and move on.
Many deists don't even talk about "god", but instead a Turing machine. Modern deism is a fairly respectable attempt to reduce one mystery (the origin of the Universe) to a mystery which seems smaller and easier to digest (a Turing machine on which this Universe is "running"). Many physicists believe there's fine-tuning, and they have some good points. There are only two known hypotheses that can immediately account for fine-tuning, one of which is some sort of deism. The other (the multiverse) some would say is just as extravagant.
The argument that the Universe seems to anticipate "us" also can't be dismissed out of hand. If you understood quantum mechanics, you would be able to see this better, or at least debate the subject without hysterics.
My money is on the multiverse, which anyway suggests itself in different forms through string theory and foundations of quantum mechanics. Even still, I think this hypothesis has its own problems. It's not even plain to me how the multiverse is better than deism in terms of postulatory parsimony.
Therion,
which part of "intelligent people can believe stupid things" do you not understand??
And quit with the argumentum ad verecundiam already,it doesnt really fly around here.
An old trope in fantasy and SF.
---(snippet from Accelerando, Charles Stross, 2005)
Manfred's mood of dynamic optimism is gone, broken by the knowledge that his vivisectionist stalker has followed him to Amsterdam - to say nothing of Pamela, his dominatrix, source of so much yearning and so many morning-after weals. He slips his glasses on, takes the universe off hold, and tells it to take him for a long walk while he catches up on the latest on the tensor-mode gravitational waves in the cosmic background radiation (which, it is theorized, may be waste heat generated by irreversible computational processes back during the inflationary epoch; the present-day universe being merely the data left behind by a really huge calculation). And then there's the weirdness beyond M31: According to the more conservative cosmologists, an alien superpower - maybe a collective of Kardashev Type Three galaxy-spanning civilizations - is running a timing channel attack on the computational ultrastructure of space-time itself, trying to break through to whatever's underneath. The tofu-Alzheimer's link can wait.
---
I guess it's all storytelling, but some of it is acknowledged to be so.
Anyway, the advantage of multiverse hypotheses over deism is that at least some such may be in principle testable.
Greater parsimony is not the only criterion; possible testability is another.
not to be trifled with
wtf?
Now I'm laughing at you.
The amateurs have been out tonight, huh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HejVjzhKTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vY5mDmGQIs
You're just stating this without any supporting argument, so I need only say that I disagree and move on.
without saying it, she might be responding to the fact that we've had the fine tuning discussion here MANY times.
always with the same, inevitable conclusion:
It's a bunch of mental masturbation.
she might be jumping the gun a bit in YOUR case, but not by much I'd suspect.
The argument that the Universe seems to anticipate "us" also can't be dismissed out of hand
That is irrelevant as to whether a "consciousness" is involved though, and I think the exasperation expressed by many (including SC, and myself for that matter) who enter into this discussion time and again is that fine tuners tend to not realize this (not saying that is the case with you), and it becomes tedious to the extreme to have to argue the point over and over again.
just like John says above:
Anyway, the advantage of multiverse hypotheses over deism is that at least some such may be in principle testable.
Greater parsimony is not the only criterion; possible testability is another.
without testability, it's all mental masturbation, and there are many who find that deists like to plant their "god" into that gap.
Therion,
"There are only two known hypotheses that can immediately account for fine-tuning, one of which is some sort of deism. The other (the multiverse) some would say is just as extravagant."
And deism may actually be subsumed within the multiverse hypothesis. The "creator" of the current fine tuned universe may actually be a being as finite, albeit probably more experienced than ourselves. Hopefully the deists won't be so pigheaded as to reject him, just because he is physically unimpressive and probably unattractive to any of our sexes. Who is to say we might not be able to create new verses with some modicum of control (or destruction?) within a few centuries or millenia. It probably won't be quite as easy as the capability to intelligently design new life, but time is on our side, as a species, if not as individuals. Where there is an absence of evidence, the possibilities are less circumscribed.
Well, I just looked at a list of unofficial tenets of modern deism on a deist website. They still believe such things as "all men and women are created equal". In other words, their God isn't one that entirely keeps out of human affairs. I can't condone this, of course. It's palpably rubbish. Neither the philosophy of mind nor modern physics lend it any support whatsoever.
A more serious case can be made for the idea of an impersonal intelligence that designed the observable universe. Maybe it isn't a single entity, but a technical team from some inconceivably advanced alien civilization.
Now people who don't know much about physics can't understand the sense in these seemingly wildly extravagant pipe fantasies. The reason physicists do it is that there are very serious and confusing, fundamental problems in science, which cry out for grand solutions.
Read some books on modern physics, because you don't have a clue. Many theorists are not discouraged by the fact that they cannot touch and or bounce particles off the entities they postulate. What's important is whether or not a theory works. It's perfectly conceivable that a good case could be made for some designing intelligence, purely from the theories.
If you're skeptical, consider that some string theorists believe they have evidence of the existence of other universes (among other things), even though their subject hasn't made any testable predictions. But maybe you write write off string theory too as abject "mental masturbation".
Africangenesis wrote:
I think that's one of the strangest things I've ever read.
Interesting link Therion, but it seems a little idiosyncratic - and self-admittedly unofficial.
The list also seems self-contradictory, but hey, it's a whole lot better than the 10 Commandments as a basis.
I note in passing that it also contradicts parts of my literal #177, but it nonetheless supports the sentiments I expressed therein, especially in regards to morality.
Yes, I agree with that characterization. We are, after all, talking about the Spider-faced Turd People from Planet X.
Therion#421,
Let's not grant that moderndeism site with much authority. It doesn't have many references, and only the Thomas Paine document dates to the time of the founders. Adorning deism with all those tenets would seem to edge it towards a religion, rather than just a belief about what might fill the gaps in our knowledge. The site doesn't provide documentary evidence about who among those that self identify or give credence to deism, actually subscribe to which tenets.
Therion:
No, there are at least 4, and that's just what I've picked up with my layman's knowledge.
In addition to the two you've mentioned, hypotheses 3 is that the variables that make up the cosmologic constant probably aren't as independent as we think. As such, the ranges of valid values may not be as big as we think, making chance more likely. There may also be more than one set of valid values that produces a viable universe, also making chance more likely.
Hypotheses 4 is that there aren't as many variables to be tuned. It's possible that as we establish a theory of everything we will determine how to express some of the variables as a function of the others - thus reducing the number of variables required to be tuned. Some string theory proposals do this, for example. Once again, this makes chance more probable by reducing the fine tuning.
Of course, random chance is still a valid answer. The probability of an event which has already occurred is 1, and the weak anthropomorphic theory applies. This isn't very satisfying as answer, but it is legit.
Finally - hypotheses 2 (multiverse) comes in lots of flavours. One of my favourites is that universes "breed" (possibly via black holes) and the characteristics of a "parent" universe are passed down to some degree to the "children" universes. As a result, universes that are more likely to produce "children" universes will dominate the multiverse, and it so happens that universe tuned like ours represent one such local optima - reasonable number of black holes that live for a long time. I find this one elegant because it applies evolution to the multiverse, and we already know that evolution can explain complexity arising out of simplicity. This means that the original parent universes may have been extremely simple things indeed. Of course, this is just mental speculation, not science, but it's consistent with the real world and doesn't require any voodoo such as a creator diety.
Read some books on modern physics, because you don't have a clue.
why do i feel like saying something really childish right now, like:
he who smelt it, dealt it.
Frankly, you haven't a clue how much physics I have studied or read, and I suspect that based on your repetition of this phrase, and the defensive usage of it, you yourself are not actually well studied in the field; as much as you would like us to think you are.
What's important is whether or not a theory works.
and how would you know if a "theory" (you mean hypothesis, right?) "works" or not, bright boy?
Go on, tell me.
On second thought, don't. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but fuck me, I'm sick of you armchair physicists.
The reason physicists do it is that there are very serious and confusing, fundamental problems in science, which cry out for grand solutions.
what a wanker.
guess what, genius?
problems to be solved of a "fundamental" nature exist in all branches of science. For example, in my own field, while I personally consider the matter resolved to satisfaction, there are a number of biologists who still consider the level of selection issue in evolutionary theory to be one of monumental significance.
It's really not, though.
you can wax philosophical all you like, and so will Dawkins, and so has Gould...
In the end, though, the only real way to determine what hypothesis is supported is to test it, directly or indirectly.
the concept of fine tuning is no more "deep" than punctuated equilibrium was in Gould's day, regardless of whether philosophy students wish to make it so.
If that's the case, then we don't have improbable constants and therefore don't no fine-tuning.
Again, that's simply an argument against improbable constants, i.e. against fine-tuning. I was assuming that fine-tuning holds. I know lots of people contest it, and I admitted as much above.
I mean "and thefefore no fine-tuning.
Yes, but that's my point, Therion - there are multiple explanations to the apparently tuned nature of the cosmological constant. It's not just a choice of "God did it", or "Multiple Universes Branching Down The Trousers Of Time With Every Choice", which is the false dichotomy you tried to present.
You can believe in fine tuning; as you point out, you'll be in good company. But it's not the only answer.
Therion,
"Yes, I agree with that characterization. We are, after all, talking about the Spider-faced Turd People from Planet X."
Yes, the feelings of unattractiveness will most likely be mutual, so there should be no rush to offer it our neighbor's virgin daughters. (in lieu of our own)
If you don't get the point that evidence can be theoretical as well as experimental, then you really don't know much about the physics of the past few decades. I wasn't being uncharitable; that's just how it is.
Anyone who equates "fundamental" with "monumental" when the discussion is about "fundamental physics" really doesn't have a clue. You have proven yourself an ignoramus. I suggest you go read some books.
Therion:
Surely you're not making an analogy between string theory and Deism!
Deism is just intuitive supposition - tarted-up animism; an not comparable to theoretical physics.
*moves back into area of operations*
*surveys the damage*
*decides that it's a very good thing that the patrol base was a couple klicks away and out of cluster bomb range*
*resumes hunting*
If you don't get the point that evidence can be theoretical as well as experimental
if you don't get what "theoretical" actually means...
oh wait, you don't.
nuff said.
Anyone who equates "fundamental" with "monumental"
...and anyone who mistakes "theory" for "hypothesis" knows shit all about science.
like I said, your nothing but an armchair physicist wannabe.
fuck "reading books", go back to school, eh?
Mental masturbation analogy for Therion and John Morales:
Deism is to String Theory what using your right hand (dry) is to using the Orgasmatron3000 chair with all the bells and whistles (not to mention whips, feathers, and fireworks).
Both gets you where you're going, but the second way takes longer, is more satisfying, and requires specialised training...
This, of course, is outright fabrication. I just searched for all instances of "theory". There is nothing I said which could possibly be construed as mistaking "theory" for "hypothesis".
I base my claims of ignorance on lack of knowledge you've conspicuously demonstrated in this very thread. Your charges, however, are unsupported, and plucked straight from thin air.
Heh, anyone who doesn't concede that breakthroughs in the fundamentals of any scientific discipline are of monumental significance is either extremely jaded or in denial.
Therion, remember the edifice stands on the fundament - when the fundament shifts, it shakes the entire structure.
No. Look, it's perfectly simple. My point was that in principle, deism could be shown plausible without any direct empirical data, purely based on deductions from present theories (which themselves are based on empirical data). Some string theorists believe they've discovered evidence of the existence of things beyond the scope of all conceivable experiments. There's no reason why other theories couldn't also achieve this. I'm not saying there's any corresponding theory for deism. In principle, though, there could be. Therefore I reject the assertion that any theorizing that's not "testable" is "mental masturbation".
Therion:
Terminology is important.
Regarding any putatively explanatory claim:
If it's not testable, it's not a theory but a conjecture.
If it's testable in principle or yet to be tested, it's a hypothesis.
If it's been tested and is yet to be falsified, it's a theory.
As to plausibility, by definition any non-self-contradictory conjecture that can't be falsified is, to a greater or lesser degree, plausible (Sometimes the term is pejorative; note in particular senses 3,4 & 5) of that definition.
Yes, but the lack of a creator can also be shown plausible.
Not quite. String theorists are developing theories which correctly describe known facts, and which are testable but which are not practical to test at this time. The first part works because string theory tends to be mathematically equivalent, in simpler cases, to modern theories - in much the same way that Newton's Theory of Gravity can be shown to be a special case of Eintsein's version.
The difference is that the string theorists aren't running around saying that their models are true. In fact, they're trying really hard to disprove them. In particular, when the LHC gets fired up again, one of the interesting experiments will be to see which of two competing string theories are wrong (with the possibility that both are wrong).
Deism doesn't provide any way to disprove itself, practical or otherwise. This means it doesn't get the same level of respect as string theory.
RobertDW @443, you've covered points I thought about including but was too lazy to do so; good to see, though, because your independent concurrence is a vindication to my ego.
There is nothing I said which could possibly be construed as mistaking "theory" for "hypothesis".
from your post at 422:
What's important is whether or not a theory works.
unlike yourself, I actually AM a practicing scientist, and DO care when wankers like yourself pretend to be.
Please show me where the technical literature supports your claim of a theory that isn't testable.
John wrote:
Terminology is important. Heck, if we're talking about science, then terminology is critical. Please pay careful attention to John's word usage here. Note his choice of explanatory claim. Not all hypotheses are explanatory claims. They don't have to be; they can simply be descriptive. John is only talking about those that are explanatory. Those that are not explanatory do not become infant theories upon failing to be falsified. They are, for the time being, supported hypotheses.
Which present theory implies that it's plausible that some sort of mind and intelligence could exist independently from a universe?
I don't like using this sense of "conjecture" in connection with physics, because it's too similar to the mathematical version of conjecture.
That's not what I was talking about. The existence of other universes, which some people say follows from string theory, can't be confirmed directly by experiment. We can't even imagine how that could be done. We can of course test the notions on which the theory depends, as I mentioned above. Obviously you need to feed in some data at some point in the theoretical line of argument.
Well OF COURSE it doesn't merit the same level of respect as string theory. Why don't people actually read my posts before they deliever these tiresome harangues? My point was that IN PRINCIPLE there could be a case for some kind of watered-down deism. A theorist somewhere might have a good case for some version of deism. Even if it is wrong, it might raise instructive theoretical points. I'm not going to reject this straight away as "mental masturbation".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qEA8wwvb4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp1I0t_KoTM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsn4KZkUBeg
You don't have a clue what my occupation is, so shut the fuck up.
You don't have a clue what my occupation is, so shut the fuck up.
oh, now you've gone and dun vexed me.
put up or shut up.
I can list a publication of mine.
"A Test of the Function of Juvenile Color Patterns in the Pomacentrid Fish, Hyspypops Rubicundus" Pac. Sci 47:3.
you?
thought not.
My point was that IN PRINCIPLE there could be a case for some kind of watered-down deism.
and you have utterly, utterly failed to explain how this would be so.
it might raise instructive theoretical points.
...and we see through your wishful thinking.
thanks for playing, though.
Ichthyic,
"unlike yourself, I actually AM a practicing scientist, and DO care when wankers like yourself pretend to be."
No you aren't. You are an avatar. You are only able to use argument from your own authority, if you use your real identity, or if, overtime, you have established a reputation for being a reliable source of information and being able to back up your claims.
The reputation of your avatar is not that of a scientist but of making snarky, vulgar, pompous, dismissive, unsubstantiated comments. You are not pretending to be a scientist well.
Haven't published anything yet and am working on my PhD. I still know enough to competently discuss the topics I raised. I made no claims to personal authority, so my qualifications shouldn't be relevant.
Not that I have any interesting in divulging personal details on this blog, in any event. Your pathetic attempt at dick-waving doesn't impress me, sorry.
Thanks, Africangenesis, you said it better than I could.
You're creepy. (Are you suggesting that Einstein will return from the dead and vaporize me? The picture of him on my bookshelf is looking a lot more menacing now...)
If you acknowledge this, you should apologize for implying that I did.
I've made what I think perfectly clear. Fuck off.
You know what's arrogant? Fine-tuning arguments! You haven't responded to my or Sastra's points about this above, but the fact that life has arisen through what appear contingent processes anywhere in an otherwise profoundly inhospitable universe (as Neil deGrasse Tyson describes entertainingly) is not evidence that the universe is finely tuned for its/our existence. The evidence points in the opposite direction. This idea is more arrogant than it would be for the bacteria beneath the glacier in Antarctica to seek to account for the earth in terms of its making it possible for them, specifically, to exist. There are major questions about the formation of the cosmos, but we don't occupy an important place in it - spatially, temporally, or in any other way - that requires some grand explanation. Get over yourself. It's ridiculous.
Do you have anything to say that isn't an argument from authority? It's boring and sad. And I believe cosmologists are overwhelmingly atheists, so you're not going to get very far even with the fallacious arguments.
Presumably they have to talk about a deity to be deists.
My reading of Dyson, limited though it may be, suggests that he is very much about attempting to rescue the concept of a deity, and religion more broadly. Situate his writings within the broader history of deism.
Not about this alleged "fine tuning," they don't.
Which you have not demonstrated to be a scientific problem. We may like to think we're important, that anything useful or necessary to us was produced with us in mind, and that is what religions have done, but that doesn't make it reasonable or scientific to do so.
As I understand it, the various multiverse hypotheses have grown out of the mathematics. They were not developed to respond to the nonproblem of fine tuning. There is no need for this, since it has not been demonstrated to be a scientific problem. Why is there no fine-tuning argument about the existence of dark matter?
Yeah, like anyone cares.
Every time a discussion arises along these lines, I link to the James Gates talk in which he, as he frequently does, makes it perfectly clear that these ideas are built on the math but still have no evidentiary support, which would only come from experimental physics.
Answer me honestly: Did you post here previously using the moniker "J"?
Therion@453:
Not to diss you or anything (this time) Therion, but out of genuine curiosity:
What in, and why haven't you published?
I'm not an academic, nor am I likely to go back to study for my doctorate - in my field (computer programming) there is a sufficient disconnect between the academic world and industry that there wouldn't be much benefit for me (and there's a lot of learning I can do without it). OTH, I've known 4 people go for their doctorates - 2 in comp. sci, 1 in physics, and 1 in history. All of them were submitting papers for publication in the first year of their doctoral program, and all of them had been published by midway through the second.
I don't know - maybe this is because post grad students in Australia are all subsidised by the Government, and are expected to publish before they get their thesis. I don't know the culture in the US in this regards.
So: what are you studying that doesn't expect publication before your doctorate?
Yawn, more mental masturbation, no evidence. Just like Eric.
Therion#453,
He has sustantiated his basis to argue from authority in a certain area, by revealing his identity. Although, since what is at issue is pedantic usage of certain terminology related to science, perhaps the appropriate authority should be in the area of philosophy of science, and even then, those of us on this forum, would have to decide whether we want to argue adopt the pedantic definitions or argue about them or just use the vernacular. I would argue for using the pedantic definitions where they help clarify the issues.
However, in this case, they appear to be being used as part of a "you are stupid for not using the pedantic definitions" ad hominem attack.
It's basically the same culture in the US, and the competition/pressure/whateveryouwannacallit is "worse" now than ever. In the geosciences, if you don't have five or six solid articles under your belt (at least in press) by the time you defend, then you're not going to really be competitive in terms of securing a cool job (keeping in mind that we don't rely nearly as heavily on post-docs as some other disciplines do). And if you haven't published at least a couple by that time, well then it's pretty much thank you for playing. But this is for academia; industry is a little different.
You are only able to use argument from your own authority,
you mean, the authority that comes with actually doing science, instead of being a wanker, like you?
hey this is fun.
Do you rely on your own authority when making your arguments? do you actually have qualification to do so? If you don't rely on your own authority on a subject, then that would imply you haven't really learned anything about it, right?
overtime, you have established a reputation for being a reliable source of information and being able to back up your claims.
I'll quotemine that as being more accurate in that form. Just because I constantly attack your limited knowledge of your preferred subject, hardly reflects on what I have contributed here over the last several years. You tend to ignore things that don't have to do with you personally, which of course is why you haven't the slightest clue what ANYONE here contributes, or even can contribute, and is one of the reasons you were nominated for the "survivor" game.
bottom line, you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about most of the time you go off, and it never seems to be the case that you even notice, despite MANY repeated corrections to much of your misinformed libertarian screeds.
Haven't published anything yet and am working on my PhD.
good.
what does your major prof suggest about the fudamental nature of deism?
assuming you're studying physics and not philosophy, of course.
here's the bottom line, it doesn't matter what you do, or who you are, you're still arguing a position that is untenable, and frankly naive given you are a grad student, and while you pretend to have the support of physics "luminaries" you yourself have done little more than use them as an authority figures (suggesting we can't simply "handwaive" them away), which is why I'm having so much fun playing this little game with you.
You haven't established the veracity of your primary premise whatsoever.
as to dismissing the opinions of others in the field, it's really a common thing in science.
nothing and no-one is sacred. I'm more than happy to praise Francis Collins work on the human genome project, and thumb my nose at his attempts to explain humans as special creations because of his concept of "Moral Law".
The first lesson to learn when and if you do publish is that even your own work will be subject to attack, regardless of what school you graduated from, or what grants you received, or what journal you published in.
Just because deGrasse Tyson has an opinion, doesn't mean it is sacrosanct.
Now then, you wankers can play tag-team if you like.
more fun for me.
However, it's quite late here on the bottom side of the world (12:30). I'll have to catch up with your wonderful insights tomorrow afternoon (my time).
@Therion:
seriously, though, ask your major prof what he would think of you exploring the "hypothesis" (and I do use the term loosely) of deism wrt to any specific observation within cosmology.
I'm sure he/she will get a kick out of that one.
Africangenesis wrote:
What a crock of fucking shit. His demeanour has absolutely zero to do with his bearing as a scientist, which related directly to the issue at hand - the practice of science.
Well, there's some weak tea for ya.
His demeanour has absolutely zero to do with his bearing as a scientist
especially on a blog, ffs.
oh, that I could be as polite as Dawkins is.
simply not possible.
damn, this has been a fucking great roller coaster of a thread!
while the flame wars got it going, the comic interludes of puns and 70's music wars really made it for me.
and now being tag-teamed?
*sigh*
only wish I didn't have to sleep.
'nite
Physics, and no, it's not universal to publish in the first year. Thoroughly depends on how much leeway your supervisors give you. There are even people who don't publish anything until their doctoral thesis. Personally, I dislike this whole "paper count" dick-measuring obsession. It forces people to churn out "safe" papers of only superficial value.
Once again, I'm not going to give out personal details. I've been burned badly doing that in the past. I've made no claims to any special expertise, so none of this should be relevant.
Hang on, can't _everyone_ agree that it is in principle possible for an undetectable entity with no influence on the universe to exist? I mean, by definition? I don't see how that makes it reasonable to posit one and claim it ever did anything that affects us, e.g. set universal constants.
Someday, somebody needs to explain the link between "if the universal constants were slightly different we wouldn't exist" and "the universal constants were fine tuned to allow us to exist". Try as I may I can't actually see the logic there; it's an emotional demand to be the centre of the universe. What are we, toddlers?
What? Lots of eminent physicists take this very seriously. Surprisingly seriously. I'm not going to bother with it, as it will probably be a waste of time. But if someone else has a coherent theory, I'll be interested in what they have to say.
Coherent theory, god doesn't exist. And attempting to create one is not science, and is bad philosophy.
While I do agree with you on this, Therion, I'm not sure how many of them are cosmologists. Dunno if that's your branch of physics, but still...
(Oh, and I agree with you about the "push to publish" drive producing papers with relatively little new in them; it is a problem)
I agree with Therion 100% on this opinion. Whereas I'd be disinclined to hire someone who hadn't published anything*, it's definitely accurate that by itself, a long CV does not a spectacular scientist make.
*Because you don't really begin to understand science until you do it, and in the modern world, a big piece of doing it is the communication of the results.
Therion#466,
I once attended a talk by Heisenberg where he got mystical about the implications of quantum mechanics. He had this eye looking back at the universe slide and argued for an important role of consciousness in maintaining the universe. I think his argument was something like "if no one observes a universe, does it really exist". I'm sure he was still quite intelligent despite his advanced age, but ...
SAWells @465:
The problem is that the universal constants seem to be almost (but not quite) perfect for the sort of universe that allows humans in it. And they could be any value - nobody* can explain why, for example, the speed of light in a vacuum isn't 56 miles/hour (which would be a lot safer for highway driving and make cross-continental roadtrips go a lot faster).
It could just be chance. Chance is even the correct "null hypothesis". But scientists don't like "random chance" as an explanation, and if they're going to accept it, they're going to push it really hard first.
As I mentioned earlier, there's actually a lot of theories going around which explain why fine-tuning would result. None of the scientific theories, however, are based on the cosmic equivalent of a hand tuning a dial.
* Well, when I say nobody - I'm just making this up. But if someone does now why the speed of light is what it is, please let me know. :)
Ichthyic,
"Do you rely on your own authority when making your arguments? do you actually have qualification to do so? If you don't rely on your own authority on a subject, then that would imply you haven't really learned anything about it, right?"
No I don't rely on my own authority, and seldom expect others to accept it, except I guess it is implicitly cited when I reveal personal experiences such as the attendence the Heisenberg talk that I just mentioned. I usually can backup anything that is questioned or explain some gap or oversight in my reasoning, or admit I was wrong, or wasn't being rigorous in specific instances. Recently you haven't been specific enough to merit a response. I tend to recall concepts rather than people, so perhaps we have had encounters in the past that were more substantial, if so, thank you.
I'm not really all that surprised by this. Many if not all come from cultural contexts in which the idea of a deity is pervasive. And it's psychologically difficult to let go of many of these ideas. The point is that this, not the scientific evidence, is the source of the persistence of these ideas.
And allows everything else in it, in it. But don't let the facts that we didn't appear* for billions of years, on one tiny planet, through what appears to be a contingent set of events, or that most of even our own planet is uninhabitable by us and the vast majority of the universe is completely hostile to life, stop you from asserting a "problem" of fine tuning. Way to miss the point.
*And are doing much to make this appearance a brief one.
SC @ 454,
You're incapable of having a conversation with me without swearing at me repeatedly, so I'm not going to continue. I have no idea why my tentative defence of deism has provoked so much outrage. Your atheist self-identity really means a lot to you, I guess.
And no, I am not "J".
Africangenesis @ 470,
The Heisenberg? Fascinating. What was he like?
Yes, the idea you refer to, that without consciousness the universe wouldn't exist, is held by a number of physicists, including John Archibald Wheeler, who is one of the greatest American physicists of all time. In fact I alluded to this idea above. I don't think it's very plausible, but it suggests itself with spooky naturalness from the formalism of quantum mechanics. The reason, as perhaps you're aware, is that the "measurement" of an observable quantity is given special priority in the QM formalism.
Right now, the universe is in a "golden age" for life. There is a sufficiency of Population I* stars and associated planets with a high enough level of metallicity** to support life. If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity, especially carbon. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white and red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end.
Because of this and the specific makeup of the universe, the infamous Anthropic Principle was formulated. This principle comes in two flavors:
The Weak Anthropic Principle: "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where ... life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p 16.
The Strong Anthropic Principle: "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." (Op cit, p 21.) [Emphasis added]
Essentially, the difference between the two principles is that the Weak Principle says that life can exist and the Strong Principle says that life must exist. The Weak Principle is based on the tautology "if things were different then things would be different." The Strong Principle is based on "I exist, the universe revolves around me, therefore I am the purpose of the universe."
*For purely historical reasons, older stars are Population II and younger stars are Population I. For theoretical reasons, some cosmologists think there may have been even older Population III stars.
**The metallicity of an astronomical object is the proportion of its matter made up of elements other than hydrogen and helium.
I'm perfectly capable of doing so. I choose not to, asshole.
However will I deal with the disappointment?
You've presented no such defense, tentative or otherwise. You've offered only evidence that you have a hard-on for smart men.
What a fool. I've said very clearly that I was angered by your repeated implication that I had called Dyson or others idiots, which you refused to correct and for which you failed to apologize.
SC, first: I don't believe in fine-tuning.
Second:
Well, any universe with humans in it, created from a Big Bang, is going to be pretty old. We need Generation I and II stars to go through their lifecycle to produce the heavier elements. Then once the elements are in place, the world has to be made, life has to emerge, and then it has to evolve to us. That takes time. :)
Of course it's going to be on one tiny planet... the chance of humans evolving separately on multiple planets would be insane. OTH, if we wanted to, humans could easily spread out through this galaxy in the next 100 million years. In a couple of billion years, we could easily spread out through most of the neighbouring galaxies. Give us 20 billion, and who knows? Remember: if there was a cosmic plan to create a universe for a single species to own, it would go through a point where that species is confined to one planet, trying to figure out where they are going as a species.
(We can do this and I think we will do it - consider that healthy & active lifespans pushing 200+ seem to likely within the next couple of centuries; space journeys of 40-50 years or more won't be that unimaginable)
Not that I believe this at all; I don't. But frankly any universe with something like humans in it isn't going to be much younger than the really old universe we are already in, unless it has radically different physics to what we have.
(Also, why do you assume that the purpose of a universe that is almost, but not quite, perfect for humans is to have humans in it? Maybe there is another intelligent species 20 galaxies over and the fine-tuning of the universe is exactly perfect for them; we could just be an unfortunate side-effect in the system)
Therion#474,
I don't have much information from attending one talk, but Heisenberg was elderly, soft-spoken, self-deprecating, patient with questions, and was genuinely enthusiastic about the implications of this insight he was sharing. I got the impression of that he was searching for some meaning at this stage of his life. This insight seemed to be more than a hypothesis to him.
I recall that there were also some protesters questioning his activities during WWII. Looking at his bio, he died in 1976. I would have heard him in '73 or '74
SC for the win.
I meant 'Population III' and 'Population II' stars, but couldn't remember the right term - thanks, 'Tis Himself, for posting a good explanation of the idea I was trying to put across as well.
I implied no such thing. You were writing them off, taking them lightly, despite their extensive qualifications in the relevant domain. When someone does that, it is quite natural to say, "These guys are no idiots." or similar. Therefore you'll get no apology from me.
Now enough of this bullshit. It should be apparent that you're kicking up a fuss over trifles, probably because you're bored as a result of the shortage of trolls.
Africangenesis @ 478,
Thank you for that. I always like to hear what I can about the great scientists.
Then your response to SAWells @ #471 is just bizarre. With whom are you arguing? I think you're confused.
Not if the universe were really finely-tuned for them. A lot of things are not confined to one small part of the universe.
Remember? Something you're just making up?
Creepy and ridiculous. This is just what I'm talking about - religious beliefs repackaged for the cosmic scale. These sci-fi suppositions have nothing to do with fine-tuning arguments.
Oh, really? We're rapidly destroying the planet that is the sole source of our life for the moment. We'll be firtunate if we don't kill ourselves and virtually every other species on earth off within this time frame. But this is all irrelevant.
I'm glad of that.
So?
I'm not assuming that. The fine-tuning arguments based on one version of the SAP assume that. That's the problem. Sheesh.
Of course this is possible. You're misunderstanding what I'm arguing.
WTF? How were you saying the same thing? If you were simply trying to point out that there exists a WAP, we know that. It's, as 'Tis Himself notes, a tautology, and doesn't require any elaborate wanky explanatory frameworks of the sort that we're discussing.
It's only natural if you're an asshole who refuses to acknowledge, even when it's pointed out to him repeatedly, that it's possible for brilliant people to have ideas on a variety of subjects that lack a scientific basis and are silly or ridiculous.
Like profanity?
Actually, this thread has been very entertaining, your comments aside. Some trolls are more amusing than this recent batch of pompous grad students, though, it's true.
Yes, except that conditions in the vast majority of it would kill us instantly, it's just perfect for us.
Guillermo, is that you? Or is it Alvin?
Without technological support conditions on most of the Earth would kill us in a few days. If you were dropped in the ocean a few km from the nearest land then you would be dead within a day. Even sooner if you were dropped in a cold current.
...a universe planet where a percentage of the land mass that is almost, but not quite, perfect for humans...
Nice to see you're all still being knotty.
These intuitive arguments concerning the imperfection of the universe don't really achieve anything substantial. I estimate that about 10 to the -11 of a percent of the observable universe is life-friendly. But maybe that's superb for a typical logically possible universe. For example, it's very difficult to see how more than 0% of a universe operating by Newtonian mechanics could be life-friendly.
It's impossible to know how "good" our universe is in the sea of possible universes, unless you actually do the analysis. Some physicists who have conclude that our universe is surprisingly well-suited to life.
No Mill nor any of his contemporary rationalists, no Huxley, and B.F. Skinner only in a misinformed, derogatory footnote?
Better luck next time, kids.
Personally, I see the fine tuning argument as a presupposition argument. You set up conditions that prove a deity by definition. All presupposition arguments are failures, since they are circular. Switch god to Side Show Bob, and the argument is the same.
People who try presupposition arguments already believe in god, so they need a rationale to "spread the word". We don't need your word, as it is false.
Whoops! Mistook a diameter as a volume. Caused quite an error. That should be 10 to the -36 of a percent.
Therion, I want you to try to thrive in the deep ocean by a volcanic trench. Life evolves to fit the conditions, the universe was not designed for any particular species.
I guess if you bend the definition of well-suited far enough, sure.
Made another mistake. 10 to the -56 seems far more appropriate. This is annoying, I am used to being able to edit my posts.
Therion, correcting your math doesn't change the fact that your real mistake is in presuming god exists. There is no need for a deity anywhere, except between your ears, because of your desire to manufacture one.
Oh, piss off. I said I'm an atheist. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand any argument that's more subtle than vilifying anyone who doesn't share your position.
Why Nerd, that looks like an invitation to be gruesome.
*smiles sweetly*