Thursday, July 19, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

by PZ Myers, Pharyngula

Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/all_the_mistakes_of_the_godly.php

Imagine you found a population in the US where the majority of the people believed that 2+2=5, and that attempts to correct them with the actual, correct result of adding two numbers were regarded as insults to their revered traditions. I think we'd all agree that they a) they were wrong; b) they were misled, misinformed, and miseducated; c) that they were ignorant of arithmetic; or d) might very well have been maliciously deceived by someone in their midst. Somehow, though, if the ridiculous error involves God, some people take a big step backwards and are appalled that anyone might criticize them. Those "revered traditions" become more than mere excuses, they are inviolate.

You guessed it, once again someone was aggravated that I have dared to call adherence to religious belief a case of being "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed." This time our indignant contestant is Mark A. R. Kleiman, who considers it atheistic bigotry to enumerate the reasons why people might come to absurd and erroneous conclusions. That 80-90% of this population, which is not hypothetical at all but is the entire US, believes that chanting their wishes into the sky might get them granted by a magic being, or that over half use the excuse of their religious dogma to reject the basic facts of modern biology, is something we must not question and especially must not criticize. Because it is religion, it must be respected.

Except, well, Kleiman has an out. There is a "childish" religion that can be criticized, but then there's this mature, adult religion that is "always metaphorical." He's not really defending those ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed religious kooks that believe the earth is 6000 years old or that we go to war in the Middle East to smite the wicked brown-skinned Muslims, oh no — those are the negligible, unrepresentative fringe elements. True Religious People� know that everything in their religion is a metaphor. They don't really believe in an anthropomorphic god � why, that is only a symbol for "an infinite, omniscient, beneficent, immortal being".

This is ridiculous on two counts. One, talk to some real people sometime, willya? The majority of religious people in this country do believe in a completely non-metaphorical god, who acts non-metaphorically, who has non-metaphorical desires and plans, and who non-metaphorically wants their high school football team to win the championship, if they pray hard enough. This god of the rarefied nebulous metaphor is the product of theologians who've studied the subject long and hard enough to know that the god of the people is untenable nonsense, and must be cloaked in metaphor.

Two, there's no reason to believe in a metaphorical "infinite, omniscient, beneficent, immortal being," either. There is no evidence, no explanation, no mysteries which we need to fill with this superman — excuse me, superentity — of the supernatural, so why should saying that this silly concept is actually just a metaphor for that other silly concept salvage either one? It's a shell game: the abstract deity exists only as a distraction, a pawn to use to draw away attacks on the invisible man-god, and if we criticize the metaphor, the man-god can be mocked to let our theologian pretend to be sly and clever and just as skeptical as his interlocutor.

I have to wonder, too�if this god is a metaphor, why are people always building real monuments and cathedrals to him, and donating real money and effort to his worship? Why not just stay home on Sundays, watch football, and say you're metaphorically being religious? There's a real disconnect here: the institution of religion is not committed to a metaphor.

Kleiman also complains that my reason for stating my opinion is that I'm just trying to get the truth across — apparently, trying to hammer home that 2+2=4 means I have claimed possession of absolute knowledge of all. The only truth to which I hold here is that there is no god and no evidence for one. If someone wants to rebut that firm rock to which atheism is anchored, that's the idea they have to address. None do. And saying the absence of god can be replaced by a metaphor for god is dodging the issue.

After trying to undercut my argument with puffs of metaphorical smoke, Kleiman does ask an interesting and revealing question.

I've always wanted to ask someone like Meyers — or Dawkins, or Pinker — how much smarter he thinks he is than, let's say, Heraclitus or Socrates or Maimonides or Newton, who thought hard about religion and didn't dismiss it as nonsense.

Why would anyone think I regard myself as smarter than Newton? I think there are religious people who are much smarter than I am even now. I do not make the logical fallacy of believing that because people are wrong in one thing, religion, they are therefore wrong in all things; I don't believe that Christians are irreparably stupid or that their gullibility about god translates into some gross systemic defect in their entire ability to reason. I also do not equate "smartness" with "infallibility," and know that even certifiable geniuses like Newton can also believe fervently in erroneous matters � like alchemy or Christianity. It would be like noting that Mark Kleiman cannot spell "Myers" properly, therefore he is incompetent in all things and must be less intelligent than me, who can spell it correctly.

In fact, I might assume that he misspells it to goad me, and is therefore wicked; or that perhaps he is merely ignorant of the correct spelling, because he hadn't seen the word written out before; or that someone misled him and told him the wrong spelling; or perhaps he has grown up in a tradition of inserting a redundant "e" in the name and made the error unthinkingly. If I point that small error out, though, am I going to be accused of both bigotry and elitism in thinking that I must believe myself superior in all ways to Mr Kleiman? At least, that's the impression I get from his complaints.

Perhaps he should learn that poor ideas about a god should be as subject to rejection as poor spelling — even more so, since the latter is trivial and isn't going to drag us back into an age of superstition. This knee-jerk deference granted to religious absurdity, this belief in the sanctity of belief, is something that contaminates even good minds, and that's too bad.

(By the way, both Meta and Meta and Norm Doering noted this strange blind spot in Kleiman's reasoning, too.)

The exchange continues: (Thanks to Rieux)
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/spirituality_and_religion_/2007/07/bigoted_atheism_redux.php
and
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/another_round_in_the_kleimanmy.php

Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 95 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #57441 by maton100 on July 19, 2007 at 11:16 am

As always, I concur PZ!

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #57444 by BT Murtagh on July 19, 2007 at 11:20 am

The linguistic deficiencies of the typical fundie always remind me of my favorite riddle:

Q: What do you you get when you cross an agnostic, an insomniac and a dyslexic?

A: Someone who lies awake wondering if there really is a dog.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

3. Comment #57445 by Enlightenme.. on July 19, 2007 at 11:27 am

He'll just be another a-humanist whose deception is practised for the good of absolutist morality, PZ

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

4. Comment #57447 by automath on July 19, 2007 at 11:29 am

I find it quite contemptible behaviour and his statement here

Now, what's the difference between "My cause is simply the truth" and "What I believe is true"? None that I can see.

might help highlight from where his problem stems. He has been infected with the relativistic meme where truth is everything and nothing. Kind of a believer that's left the track. Two fries short of a happy meal. Whacko.

Other Comments by automath

5. Comment #57449 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 11:32 am

People today versus great thinkers of the past:

Yes, in a sense, just everyday normal people today know more about the world and have a more humane ethical sense that the greatest scientists and philosophers of the past.

But it's not really comparing apples with apples. Whatever brilliant discovery or idea thinkers of the past came up with, they derived themselves, whereas we've had it handed to us on a platter.

How would Newton fare in our time, or how would Edward Witten fare back in the 17th century? Impossible to say.

It also makes one spectulate about what great ethical developments in the future will occur, that when they look back on our time in 2007, they'll ask the same questions: "how could they not realise that??" Some possible candidates: gay marriage, public nudity, global egalitarianism relative to today, 20 hour or less working weeks, longevity research, internet-based democratic voting on regular issues, a working global government and a transcendence of nationalism, vegetarianism, legality of any adult sexual relations e.g. incest, polygamy, etc, decriminalisation of drug addiction, incentives for genetic screening of inheritable diseases, etc.

Other Comments by Rtambree

6. Comment #57453 by USA_Limey on July 19, 2007 at 11:57 am

5. Comment #57449 by Rtambree wrote:

"gay marriage, public nudity, global egalitarianism relative to today, 20 hour or less working weeks, longevity research, internet-based democratic voting on regular issues, a working global government and a transcendence of nationalism, vegetarianism, legality of any adult sexual relations e.g. incest, polygamy, etc, decriminalisation of drug addiction"

... That's a weeks vacation in San Francisco.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

7. Comment #57459 by Rieux on July 19, 2007 at 12:17 pm

There's been another round of exchanges in this "debate":

Kleiman responds to the above: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/spirituality_and_religion_/2007/07/bigoted_atheism_redux.php

And Myers rebuts:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/another_round_in_the_kleimanmy.php

Other Comments by Rieux

8. Comment #57462 by McLir on July 19, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I came out to my dad as an atheist back in '87 -- we had a serious meeting at the nearby Elias Big Boy. He kept saying "I don't want to argue with you, but..." and then he would launch a counter-argument against atheism. And I did my best to answer his arguments without trying to launch into a full debate.

One of his last statements really threw me. "Do you think Christians are stupid?" I can still feel the HUH? on my face. I just said, "No. Do you think Buddhists are stupid?"

Other Comments by McLir

9. Comment #57465 by BT Murtagh on July 19, 2007 at 12:41 pm

"Waiting for media.fastclick.com..."

Grrrr. I don't mind reasonable, nonintrusive advertising; bills have to be paid.

Right after pop-ups on the scale of annoyingness, though, lie these fucktarded banner ads that have to download their content from some 300 baud acoustic modem on the other side of a timewarp leading back to the 1980s.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

10. Comment #57467 by mandelstam on July 19, 2007 at 12:48 pm

I don't think christians are all stupid, but..
I had a friend (no longer) who is an evangelical christian and says the bible is literally true. It isn't stupidity that appalls me but the intellectual violence he and others like him must do to themselves. It is truly dreadful, and frightening, because that violence they feel mandated to inflict on others. And most "civilised" countries encourage it being done to children.

Other Comments by mandelstam

11. Comment #57472 by oarwhat on July 19, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Rieux, #57459, Thank you for posting these links to the other sites. This is a wonderful conversation they are having. I like PZ more and more.

Other Comments by oarwhat

12. Comment #57477 by D'Arcy on July 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm

So according to Myers' summary of Kleiman, inside his faith there is another more abstract faith:

True Religious People� know that everything in their religion is a metaphor. They don't really believe in an anthropomorphic god � why, that is only a symbol for "an infinite, omniscient, beneficent, immortal being".

Slippery character this God. Just when you think you're getting to grips with Him He disappears into a deeper metaphorical world. A sort of divine dance of the Russian dolls. Maybe the dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies would be a fair description of Kleiman's faith.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

13. Comment #57478 by BMMcArdle on July 19, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Re: Smart people believing weird things

Being brainwashed from infancy and immersed in a culture of ignorance and non-critical thinking is a hard thing to get over.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

14. Comment #57479 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 1:23 pm

12. Comment #57477 by D'Arcy

>Slippery character this God

Basically, it's an ongoing effort to redefine God to keep Him one step ahead of science. The more we've understood since the Enlightenment (Copernicus, Darwin, Hubble, etc) the less the Bible seems plausible, so the faithheads always have to keep their God unfalsifiable.

Other Comments by Rtambree

15. Comment #57485 by bluebird on July 19, 2007 at 1:57 pm

True Religious People~~TRiPe

Other Comments by bluebird

16. Comment #57490 by rufustfirefly on July 19, 2007 at 2:23 pm

I really like "the intellectual violence they must do to themselves".

Other Comments by rufustfirefly

17. Comment #57508 by ICONIC FREEDOM on July 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm

I'm starting to equate those who live, speak or believe in god/religion as part of the conspiracy theorists of our society who are delusional and have such a distortion of reality.

Having been hard on this subject for quite a while now, it becomes so absurd, instantaneously, when someone says they believe in god. It's one of THE most ridiculous claims.

Recently a chap at work said he KNOWS that god exists. I told him it was impossible. His little pea brain and mine, could not, if it were, even attempt to assimilate such a thing, as it would have to be so much greater than the universe we live and the ones we do not.

His arrogant nature by making such a contemptible claim left me laughing. Indeed, as it has been said, if he believes his "personal experience" was a validation for authentication then I told him it is no less than the psychopath down in the subway who claims he hears voices that god told him to push someone onto the tracks; nor would it be any less than Andrea Yates killing all her children because she was "told" to do so � is her behavior less than that of Abraham sacrificing his own son?

It's stupid � all of it.

Every chance I get to say so, I do so. I refuse to listen to this tripe spewed onto our society any longer without contempt and accountability.

"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" � if you've got, bring it.

We're waiting.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

18. Comment #57511 by automath on July 19, 2007 at 3:14 pm

It's the eagerness of people like Myers to scoff at, and therefore refuse to learn anything from, traditions that go back thousands of years that bothers me.

What a smuck. This is akin to the religious meme of materialism being the denier of human experience. As for the refusal to learn from tradition, well what can an atheist, free thinker and sceptic really say about that! I think he's targeting the wrong crowd here, maybe he should aim his scorn at the dogmatic believers of revealed truth!

Other Comments by automath

19. Comment #57526 by thirdchimpanzee on July 19, 2007 at 4:05 pm

In Kleinman's response to PZ (see 57549) he tries to draw an analogy between pouring ridicule and contempt on a person with only a "high school" understanding of atomic theory (based on an 1925 Bohr model of an atom), and the contempt PZ is showing for religious people and their incomplete understanding of their God(s).

But he unwittingly makes a key point for PZ - the fact is that armed only with the 1925 model of atoms, one can make real and valid predictions of a great deal of Chemistry. In the same way the we might consider Newtonian physics superseded by Einstein, the greater part of our everyday lives can be adequately described by Newtonian mechanics. As far as I am aware, we managed to put people on the Moon using Newton's level of understanding.

What the proponents of a religious world view seem unable to appreciate is the complete inability of their system of understanding to predict anything whatsoever. One of the reasons the Maya developed such a sophisticated level of Mathematics was to enhance their ability to predict eclipses. The ability to make predictions that were material and observable to all would understandably bolster the power of the priests. They built instruments and observatories to help improve their predictive abilities.

If only churches, synagogues or mosques would have any similar utility. The buildings and holy books of these three religions contain practically nothing of any use (compared with the Mayan codices for example) beyond contradictory and misleading "moral" examples and dubious history. To those who would argue these books contain valid prophecies - there's not one that can stand close scrutiny. On the other hand, a Mayan prediction for an eclipse can be easily tested.

A person is far better served understanding the world through the perspective of the Bohr atom than they would be trying to understand it through the Bible, Torah or Quran.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

20. Comment #57535 by Insightful Ape on July 19, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Mr. Kleiman obviously sees no difference between "smart" and "infallible".

Other Comments by Insightful Ape

21. Comment #57538 by hillbilly78 on July 19, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Gods proving to be more slippery than a snake in the Garden of Eden...

Other Comments by hillbilly78

22. Comment #57550 by Hobbit on July 19, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Is it just me or do faith heads only hear / read every 4th sentence?

They love to ignore large amounts of reasonable arguments and go off on a bizarre tangent. And if they do choose to respond to overwhelming evidence, it is usually "The Sky Fairy is all powerful and can change the rules, himself, the meaning of his word at will and until you understand this you will never get it."

There is a bumper sticker I see often that states "God said it, I believe it, end of argument". Not it's not! It is simply closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not listening..." over and over again until the rational person walks away.

I agree with scooternyc when he says:

It's stupid � all of it.

Every chance I get to say so, I do so. I refuse to listen to this tripe spewed onto our society any longer without contempt and accountability.

"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" � if you've got, bring it.

We're waiting.

I have started doing this myself.

Why do I torture myself!

Other Comments by Hobbit

23. Comment #57568 by Liveliest Crib on July 19, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Sadly, so many will read Myers' words, and ask themselves only, "Why are atheists so angry?" -- whereupon the (non-angry) atheist might explain again the evils of religion, only to be told in response that it's really all metaphor. {sigh}

I think there are religious people who are much smarter than I am even now. I do not make the logical fallacy of believing that because people are wrong in one thing, religion, they are therefore wrong in all things;

Heh, a while back on one of the threads, I tried to explain to one of this site's detractors that I didn't think I was necessarily smarter than any religious person, just that on matters of religion, I'm more rational. His/her response was something to the effect of, "You're just playing word games." Oh, the irony.

7. Comment #57508 by scooternyc on July 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Recently a chap at work said he KNOWS that god exists. I told him it was impossible. His little pea brain and mine, could not, if it were, even attempt to assimilate such a thing, as it would have to be so much greater than the universe we live and the ones we do not.

To my dismay, I once found myself in a conversation with "knower" as well. I told her that I fully admit that I can't know for sure that there is no god, and asked whether she conceded that she couldn't really "know." Her reply: "Oh, no! Yes I can know! Because I believe it enough to know!"

Of course. How silly of me to overlook the obvious. If you just believe hard enough, it's true. If childhood memory serves, it's roughly akin to how young audiences save Tinkerbell's life in stage renditions of Peter Pan.

Upon telling her that her words were senseless, she mentioned Pascal's wager. Even explained it all out -- all the "logic," as she were offering profound wisdom I'd never heard. A smile came across her face that revealed her thoughts: "Check and mate, Liveliest Crib! Check and mate!"

I retorted, "Wait . . . does that really work? Your god will let me into heaven if I just hedge my bets and pretend to believe? How f***ing cool!" She turned and walked away. My prayers were answered, I guess. ;)

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

24. Comment #57570 by hungarianelephant on July 20, 2007 at 12:58 am

I don't think Christians are stupid either. But on the other hand ...

In my mid-teens, while I was sitting on the fence, several of my friends got religion. They started going to happy-clappy retreats, and would come back talking about the redeeming power of Jesus in every second conversation. (If this doesn't sound like odd behaviour to you, you have never lived in the North of England.)

What sealed the deal for me was that I was constantly talking to a glazed expression, a head full of stock phrase gibberish and a bag full of pamphlets. They no longer cared about such trivia as logic, evidence, discourse and proof.

There's a phrase for this, and it's "wilful ignorance". That realisation was what finally pushed me off the fence and into the atheist camp.

Does it mean I'm smarter than them? Nope. But I reckon that I'm using my intellect better than they are, at least in trying to understand the universe I'm in.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

25. Comment #57572 by Shuggy on July 20, 2007 at 1:05 am

Imagine you found a population in the US where the majority of the people believed that 2+2=5

But people who believe in The Trinity believe that 1+1+1=1, from which 2+2=5 can readily be derived (as can any other proposition at all).

I've always wanted to ask someone like Meyers � or Dawkins, or Pinker � how much smarter he thinks he is than, let's say, Heraclitus or Socrates or Maimonides or Newton, who thought hard about religion and didn't dismiss it as nonsense.

Why would anyone think I regard myself as smarter than Newton?

Newton himself said (quoting Bernard of Chartres) "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." so he would be the first to acknowledge that later scholars could see still further.

Other Comments by Shuggy

26. Comment #57575 by johntfiorito on July 20, 2007 at 1:22 am

As a side note, would people mutilate their own bodies without a belief in a non-metaphorical god? What I'm referring to is male circumcision...which makes me wonder...how is it that two people who met in the desert would prove to each other that they are part of the covenant of YAHWEE, would they not have to drop pants to prove it to each other...is that where this animosity towards homosexuality (which I would argue is only a sin when it is between two men...read Leviticus for yourself on this if you don't believe me) comes from...is it possible that they had to write in the Torah the sinfulness of homosexuality to show the outside world the fact that as part of their religion the men had to show each other their private parts is not an indication that they were a homesexual cult....just a thought

Other Comments by johntfiorito

27. Comment #57576 by Beachbum on July 20, 2007 at 1:24 am

I have a sign on my front door that reads:

The most heinous thing about religion is that it replaces ignorance with stupidity!

In line with everything else I write, there is much to be garnered from between the lines.

1. Ignorance, stemming from the dark and hostile time of early man through the Dark ages, when religion, at its peak of power, tried to keep the masses ignorant of everything except the preaching of the pontiff. Even reading the Bible was off limits for the layman.

2. The intellectual gymnastics involved in reverse engineering the known world of say 1600 to 1900 years ago to fit biblical accounts, not to mention what I like to call "copyright infringement" of a multitude of lesser theologies (I try to think of all religions as "pagan" and/or "cults").

3. The wholesale garnishment of innate morality for the supposition that it is god given as opposed to inborn through mutual cohabitation and natural selection.

4. By preaching the "word" every Sunday they lead people to feel they do not need to read the Bible or do their own research. "The preacher said that's what god ment." ,or "The preacher interpreted this verse that way and that's good enough for me."

To me this is wholesale Stupidity.

My question is: When we infer or imply either directly or inadvertently that religious people are stupid, do theologians or apologists, in their heart of hearts, feel this a good thing or a bad one?

Other Comments by Beachbum

28. Comment #57584 by sheepscarer on July 20, 2007 at 3:04 am

I love Beachbum's doorsign. The trouble with this website is that many of the cutting phrases which would make great t-shirt slogans are being lost in the sedimentary layers of general wisdom and common sense. I reckon we need a compilation of the best single sentence or short phrase punchlines that would fit on an atheist's t-shirt.

Other Comments by sheepscarer

29. Comment #57585 by Quetzalcoatl on July 20, 2007 at 3:10 am

In that spirit, I would have to nominate the sentence on Robert Maynard's Avatar- "Science.....it works, bitches".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

30. Comment #57594 by Logicel on July 20, 2007 at 4:54 am

Beachbum wrote: My question is: When we infer or imply either directly or inadvertently that religious people are stupid, do theologians or apologists, in their heart of hearts, feel this a good thing or a bad one?
_________

That theologians and apologists either want or regard the mass of religious believers to be stupid, well, at least as not as smart as them?

Psychology, relating to religion, has a ways to go in order to shed meaningful light on the psychological mechanisms involved in religious beliefs, including the relationship dynamics between religious leaders and followers, mainly because religious beliefs have been so long given protection from critical examination.

From the many articles posted here by theologians and apologists who vehemently oppose/reject the conflating of religious believers with stupidity, I would offer that theologians/apologists clearly regard such labeling of religious believers as a bad thing.

More interesting, is why they would? Is it because such labeling would trigger self-righteous indignation at being so labeled--or even self-doubt, resulting in their followers learning more about the atheism/theism debate, therefore encouraging and allowing the replacing of theist beliefs with factual knowledge, or even worse, embracing critical thinking?

If the religious relationship between leaders and followers is regarded as a power structure, then the knowledge base (knowledge and access to it is empowering) needs to held by the leaders, while any such shifting the knowledge base towards the followers would be discouraged. So stupid followers are not necessary. Making access to knowledge difficult is more an effective way to keep the power structure intact.

However, starting from the printing press leading up to the present instantaneous global communications, it is impossible to keep knowledge hidden from the masses easily. Perhaps, we will find that religions will eventually focus on folks with less than average intelligence to become their flocks! LOL. Churches need smart folks, who can earn good bucks, to keep the religious coffers filled to bursting.

Since knowledge is now fairly accessible, the approach is to label certain knowledge as being inadequate, false, misleading, etc. The religious leaders rely upon their so-called divine connection to identify which knowledge is good/wise, thereby relegating critical thinking to the useless bin, or so they may think. However, critical thinking is so cool, so satisfying, so empowering, the arbitrary knowledge base on which religious beliefs rest, is getting a good shaking up.

Other Comments by Logicel

31. Comment #57603 by sbooder on July 20, 2007 at 5:52 am

Mr Kleiman,
ignorance of Atomic Theory of Matter can be fixed by learning about Atomic Theory. Ignorance about a God; be it personal, metaphorical, metaphysical or a Darlek, can not be fixed by learning about it, it would still be nonsense.

You would be no closer to making Sherlock Holmes a real person by knowing lots about him, than if you new little about him, he will remain fictional no matter what, and so will God!

Let me explain it in really simple terms: Science � Real. God � Not Real.

Other Comments by sbooder

32. Comment #57605 by steveroot on July 20, 2007 at 6:50 am

31. Comment #57603 by sbooder on July 20, 2007 at 5:52 am
Let me explain it in really simple terms: Science � Real. God � Not Real.

I don't know- I saw a bumper sticker and a t-shirt yesterday, both of which said: "God is Real". That convinces me!
Actually, on the back of the shirt was the other part: "Live like He _IS_". How many levels of delusion is that again?
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

33. Comment #57612 by sheepscarer on July 20, 2007 at 7:39 am

Yes that reminds me of the comment by the late great Linda Smith: 'If god really wanted us to believe in him ......well, he'd exist.'

Other Comments by sheepscarer

34. Comment #57627 by Phaderus on July 20, 2007 at 10:03 am

Quetzetcoatl,

I've got a t-shirt with the "Science, it works bitches" quote from xkcd.com , an excellent webcomic for the science inclined. On the back is a picture of the exact curve fit between the theoretical and actual readings from the COBE microwave anisotropy satellite, which is one of the biggest nails in God's coffin if you ask me.

Other Comments by Phaderus

35. Comment #57652 by D'Arcy on July 20, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Hobbit asks:

Why do I torture myself!

Hobbit, I don't know why you torture yourself, but I hope it's not with a crown of thorns. I find this debunking of religious ideas quite stimulating and good fun. To me the whole idea of God has always been laughable, so why shouldn't we have a good laugh about the believers? They are ridiculous in their attempts to justify faith in general and theirs in particular. Laugh especially, if at the back of their minds are thoughts like: "God will repay your insolence with eternal hellfire", and the like. These people are preposterous; they are to science what Monty Python is to Delia Smith's cookery books.

My advice to Hobbit is enjoy the deconstructing process of this evil and pernicious fantasy of organised superstition called religion.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

36. Comment #57660 by ghostbuster on July 20, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Not hard to figure out why really smart people believe in really dumb things; we have an emotional compartment to our selves, one that frequently will not let go of comfortable beliefs no matter how many facts are presented to refute them. It is the one reason that cult members, presented with undeniable evidence that their cult is false, are even that much more inclined to support the cult's beliefs. That dead stare you get from Jehovah Witness's when you catch them in their faulty logic is a "does-not-compute" signal coming from the emotional side of the brain rather than the intellectual side. This conflict is called, simply, compartmentalization. I think most of us are guilty of it in other ways too.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

37. Comment #57715 by windfall on July 20, 2007 at 5:36 pm

I found it odd that he mentioned Steven Pinker with Richard Dawkins. Pinker is an atheist - though he doesn't really come out and say it very often. His deconstruction of the 'ghost in the machine' (the soul) in his excellent book "The Blank Slate" is surely supreme. But, as I say, he seems hesitant to come out and criticize religion as such, rather than just some of its tenets.

I was really hoping his next book would make him the fifth 'horseman of the anti-apocalypse' (as Hitchens so colorfully put it recently). Alas, it is called "The Language of Thought". Nevertheless, I will buy it and devour it as soon as it goes on sale. Pinker is a suburb and clear thinker and elucidator.

Other Comments by windfall

38. Comment #57717 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 5:44 pm

37. Comment #57715 by windfall

You're right - Pinker's a superb clear writer across a range of issues. And he has won a few atheist-related awards, including last year's Humanist of the Year, and this award...

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm

Other Comments by Rtambree

39. Comment #57724 by mikkala on July 20, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Question;

Who can tell me if PZ has written any books?
If he hasn't, it's a damn shame. The man is a literary giant, not to mention incredibly informed about the topics he adresses.

He ought to follow suit and publish a blockbuster hardcover. Toss another proverbial "bomb" to god's weakening chin. His posts are always sparkling.

Other Comments by mikkala

40. Comment #57730 by mithraman on July 20, 2007 at 8:07 pm

We need to hear from some real experts on the subject. Here's what Jesus and Mo have to say about god as a metaphor:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/07/20/crude/

Other Comments by mithraman

41. Comment #57743 by jonjermey on July 20, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Bear in mind too what might have happened to Newton (or Boyle or any other empiricist of the day) if he HAD expressed a disbelief in God - and what actually did happen to Galileo. I wonder how many atheists of the past went silent to their graves for fear of torture and persecution?

Jon.

Other Comments by jonjermey

42. Comment #57751 by Roy_H on July 20, 2007 at 10:19 pm

From what I can see looking at this morning's news,there are as many Harry Potter worshipers as god worshipers.

Other Comments by Roy_H

43. Comment #57754 by Beachbum on July 20, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Logicel, your response to my question once again shows an understanding of the topic, that is a cut above the the fray. Also, in all fairness it shows an intellectual fortitude that seems to be unmatched by the occupants of the Theological camp.

Honestly, through my experience with the conversations of many years of interaction with the religiously mobilized, I have seen examples of your points to the extreme that evangelical zealots are inconsolable on any topic within a rocks throw of religion. Which means the religionists are doing a very good job of convincing the flock that they are experts at whatever they are preaching. So, by association, the flock now know it all.

My point is that we need a tact that appeals to their religious (intellectual) vanity.

Ouch! I think I just burnt a brain cell.

While convincing them that they are smart, can we show them how to be "smarter". Does this show a modicum of understanding of your answer.

In the spirit of the T-shirt slogan type stuff, I submit a few for your review:

The only thing universal about god is in its variations

Even beliefs can use a second opinion

Read the Bible, it is its own worst enemy

In all discourse, consider the source

Ask me about the Final Awakening

Please feel free to morph these into something "good", I just hope to start the fires.

Other Comments by Beachbum

44. Comment #57756 by joaquinvalencia on July 20, 2007 at 10:58 pm

As a BYU attending, mission serving, married-in-the-temple, now EX mormon (and proud atheist) I can tell you that members of the LDS church do not believe in anything that can possibly be described as a metaphorical God. Their God has flesh and bone and nothing of the story of creation is allowed to be taken as metaphor by members in good standing. Period. There are MILLIONS of Mormons.
I was one of them.

Don't we have to acknowledge at some point that there is a correlation between atheism and intelligence? Yes, there are believers who are "more intelligent" than I am in the sense that they would score higher on an IQ test, but many, many believers ARE believers because they can't see through the circular and specious arguments that are presented to them as conclusive.

While not all believers are stupid, it is much easier for the stupid to believe.

Other Comments by joaquinvalencia

45. Comment #57774 by Veronique on July 21, 2007 at 1:33 am

Not all christians are stupid....

However, I find it ironic that all christians consider themselves life members of a death cult:-)

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

46. Comment #57779 by sheepscarer on July 21, 2007 at 1:50 am

More T-shirt slogans:

There's a LIE in beLIEf

And man created god in his own image

Religion washes all brains whiter than white

(front of T-shirt)
3 impossible things to believe before breakfast
(back of T-shirt)
Santa Claus, tooth-fairy, god

Other Comments by sheepscarer

47. Comment #57801 by cry4turtles on July 21, 2007 at 6:01 am

"Recently a chap at work said he KNOWS that god exists. I told him it was impossible."

Another response, "Which God?"

Other Comments by cry4turtles

48. Comment #57805 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 6:48 am

Beachbum wrote: My point is that we need a tact that appeals to their religious (intellectual) vanity.
_______

Ah, advertising/publicity/persuasion is my weak point. Though I admire many commercials for their entertainment value and lessons in psychology, as very smart people work on them and their results are admirable, they have very little effect on me from a consumer's perspective.

I make a poor salesperson, because my only edge is: This product does this and here is some hazy 'evidence', and if you want what this product does, then buy it. But if the product is pricey and/or not crucial to your survival/fulfillment, be smarter than me and learn how to live without it and certainly find a better way of earning a living than peddling the stuff like I do. F minus for me in 'salespersonship'.

Each atheist can experiment and decide which approach(s) to use in terms of debating/conversing with which theist(s), and they can improve their approach(s) through time and learn from their mistakes. However, each approach, even different ones used by the same atheist, can be grounded within a consistent theme. Mine, is lack of evidence for religious beliefs. So, though my style may differ depending on the theist with whom I am conversing, my theme is solid and steady.

I like all your t-shirt slogans because they reflect your edge. However, keep in mind that an important aspect of edges is that they can become blunt through time or even obsolete if the context in which they are used changes significantly enough.

Other Comments by Logicel

49. Comment #57806 by BT Murtagh on July 21, 2007 at 6:54 am

sheepscarer quoth:

(front of T-shirt)
3 impossible things to believe before breakfast
(back of T-shirt)
Santa Claus, tooth-fairy, god

To match up with the original quote of the Red Queen, "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast", it would have to be six. I suggest these additions:

Six impossible things to
believe (before breakfast):

1) Santa Claus
2) Easter Bunny
3) Tooth Fairy
4) Pink Unicorn
5) Spaghetti Monster
6) Any God, Anywhere

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

50. Comment #57814 by keith on July 21, 2007 at 8:47 am

You know how analogies are supposed to make a difficult point clearer? Well, have you ever noticed that an analogy in the hands of a religious person has precisely the opposite effect? I found the analogy of atomic theory so convoluted and contrived that the original point because less clear rather than more so. Am I being cynical in thinking that this could be due to an intentional desire to muddy the waters? Maybe, or maybe the truth is less sinister, though equally depressing: religiously-oriented minds are so hell-bent on making their belief system work that one more somersault with pike and one more knot added to the already impenetrable tangle simply goes unnoticed - at least by them. For non-believers it's just the final Heath Robinsonesque detail in an already comical creation.
(Sorry. I have should have read PZ's response before writing this now slightly redundant comment).

Other Comments by keith

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last