551. Comment #83049 by alovrin on October 28, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Dianelosity

idealistic theism is free of paradoxes, especially in comparison with scientific realism.)

Thats right I temporarily forgot about your new improved doctrine, you mini jesus.

took the expression from something Dawkins said

So you could twist it to suit yourself.

..... "nihilists". But I wonder, do you really believe that your life has no meaning?

Oh so Im a nihilist now. However the question is still meaningless when it is posed purely to say I have the answer, (which you do rather a lot) as in god.
Maybe getting to a state of consensus on more basis questions like how has life arisen? should have priority, before we tackle this meaningthingy.
Underneath your liberal christian waffle you are such a Luddite.
You still think god is the first cause, s/he/it stuck the finger in the pie and made self replicating cells, doled out conciousness and morality, you elevate JC into the realms of these events, and supernatural beliefs gives your life meaning. So maybe you are the paradox, which could be why you have formed a theory supposedly free from contradictions, in your mind. FingWeird.

Other Comments by alovrin

552. Comment #83050 by Lauregon on October 28, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Hi mates,

I might or might not disappear for a time - having a hysterectomy tomorrow morning.

Yes, some assumed I was male and I never bothered to straighten things out. A sin of omission I'm correcting now.

Cheers! - Dr Benway

May your hysterectomy be as wildly successful as my husband's valve job and multiple by-passes in August. Make friends with the frigging breathing tube if you're given one.

Very best wishes.

Other Comments by Lauregon

553. Comment #83055 by BAEOZ on October 28, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Dr. Benway:

My perfect cock will survive.

You hermaphrodite you! Best of luck Dr. B.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

554. Comment #83098 by epeeist on October 29, 2007 at 12:18 am

Comment #83032 by Dr Benway

My perfect cock will survive.

Along with the humour and erudition I hope.

Other Comments by epeeist

555. Comment #83108 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 1:16 am

Dr Benway:

Very best wishes. Hope all goes well.

Other Comments by steve99

556. Comment #83112 by Philip1978 on October 29, 2007 at 1:24 am

Dr B
Wishing you all the best here, I hope you, your perfect cock, wit and humour are not fiddled with in a bad way by any of those naughty nurses! :)

Take care,

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

557. Comment #83138 by alovrin on October 29, 2007 at 3:56 am

Dear, DrB
I wish you a speedy recovery.
And will toast your good health, post op of course.

Other Comments by alovrin

558. Comment #83150 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 29, 2007 at 4:49 am

Epeeist (post 522, or #82605):

Now if I was an unethical atheist I would just post the following link with no comment - http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html However, it was actually posted in another thread by kraut, it just seemed apposite.

OK. You like being cryptic, but as you quote this study I assume you agree with it. So let me comment on it.

First of all one of the main theses of New Atheism is that religion is immoral, but New Atheist authors are reduced to using as their evidence for that bits and pieces out of an ancient document written by the priestly class of a nomadic people three thousand years ago, or by using some of Christianity's two thousand years old and rather simpleminded dogmas which were obviously concocted to explain Jesus's humiliating crucifixion within a primitive theistic worldview according to which everything that happens is controlled by God. Or else they are reduced to using the extremely selective evidence of the religious suicide bombers (while conveniently overlooking the evidence of non-religious suicide bombers, not to mention all the great crimes against humanity in the 20th century perpetrated be non-religious people). Don't you think that if there were good scientific studies that evidence that religion (or specifically theism) conduces to immoral behavior they would be using that evidence to the fullest of its capacity? Doesn't the fact that Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins with all their scientific sophistication do not (to my knowledge) ever mention Gregory Paul's study says something? And I wonder about how scientifically adept the reviewers who approved its publication in the good but relatively minor "Journal of Religion and Society" are.

And who is Gregory Paul? Well, he is not a social scientist as one would have expected, but a free-lance paleontologist who, as far as I could ascertain, does not even hold an academic degree. So here we have one study by a non-specialist pitted against a whole series of studies by various academic researchers. Now I know all about the appeal to authority fallacy, but clearly under the circumstances one should be a little more careful with this "scientific" study. But let's take a critical look at it on its own merits:

We have been discussing the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior. Paul's study only measures homicide and suicide frequencies in "prosperous democracies". Suicide frequencies do not result in any correlation, so his whole argument rests on homicide rates. Now two issues should immediately raise our suspicion:

First of all why only use data from these few "prosperous democracies"? There are data for many more countries than that, and indeed, contrary to what he claims, pretty reliable data (both basic religiosity and homicide rates as relatively easy to measure). So why not use that information too? Because had he used it the correlation between religiosity and homicide rate he was clearly looking for would probably disappear. (Other of the many methodological errors of Paul's study are documented in this paper written by academic researchers: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html ) Paul did not even include the various quite developed ex-Soviet countries, which, having both a relative high homicide rate and low religiosity, would be sufficient to mar his statistics. The use of selective evidence appears to be a popular tool of New Atheism and this speaks volumes about the strength of its intellectual underpinning.

Secondly, why not use crime statistics (including white crime) in general instead of just homicide rates? My guess is that had he done that the correlation he was looking for would have disappeared also. After all it is a well-known fact that homicide rates correlate especially strongly with other factors, and in particular with the availability of hand-guns, whereas crime in general is more independent.

Beyond his obvious cooking of the numbers, let's discuss some basic statistical principles. At the beginning of his paper he downgrades several other studies, which contradict his, by pointing out their "smaller sample sizes" whereas his sample was "800 million" adults. Well, anybody who knows anything about statistics is aware that what's important is "statistical significance", and there are many other factors beyond sample size that are critical for achieving statistical significance; indeed in the real world it's not the size of the sample but the neutrality of the sample that is difficult to get. A thousand good data points are often quite sufficient to demonstrate statistical significance; to wave the "800 million" number is an obvious red herring. In fact he is grossly misleading when he writes "The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined". In fact factors such as availability of guns, non-availability of social safety net, non-availability of good education, poverty, and unfair distribution of wealth, are all important factors when one studies crime in general or homicide rates in particular. And Paul's star witness, the US, fails in four out of these five factors when compared to the rest of his sample (namely Western Europe and Japan). As for his secondary star witness, Portugal, it's the poorest country in Western Europe.

In other words even if a good scientific study were to show a positive correlation between religiosity and homicide (or crime in general) in various countries this would not amount to a causal link between religiosity and immoral behavior, simply because there are many other factors to take into account which probably correlate stronger and hence are better explanations. Compare Paul's results to the results I quoted in post 432 or #81155 above: that a religious family earning the same amount of money and living in the same society (and thus the strongest outside factors are eliminated from the sample) on average gives significantly more money to charity, gives more blood, and gives more time to help others, than a non-religious family.

The rest of Paul's study discusses issues of health (child mortality, life expectancy, STDs, teen abortions), but here, obviously, factors such as the quality and availability of medical services and of education are the main explanatory factors. And when such factors are normalized, several other studies show a positive correlation between religiosity and physical and mental health.

At the end of his study Paul mentions that the US society has less health benefits even though it pays more for health. However that is to be explained (and out of the top of my head I suppose this has to do with the absence of national health insurance in the US which would raise average health, America's pork barrel politics, or even America's culture of medical malpractice premiums), the whole issue of the efficiency of the health services in the US has next to nothing to do with religiosity. Once again it seems an atheist has gone to a fishing expedition to find something - anything - to say against religion.

I am rather disappointed with atheists' lack of critical thought; I mean how could anyone even a little versed in statistics take this study seriously? You Epeeist like to use long words when discussing statistical issues, but it seems you were nonetheless suckered by Paul's study. Luckily, the question of whether religiosity is conducive to moral behavior (or alternatively whether non-religiosity is conducive to immoral behavior) is a plainly scientific question, which can and I think will be properly investigated until a conclusive result is reached – especially now that new atheists are making so many waves.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

559. Comment #83233 by Lauregon on October 29, 2007 at 11:27 am

Neo-theist Dianelos burrows ever deeper into the corner of no return, arguing for what Dennet calls "belief in belief."

Other Comments by Lauregon

560. Comment #83238 by Lauregon on October 29, 2007 at 11:52 am

the whole issue of the efficiency of the health services in the US has next to nothing to do with religiosity. - Dianelos

There is a strong correlation between religious belief and the lack of universal health care programs in the US. There is and has been a deep current among right-wing Christians that social services are immoral, stealing from those who deserve to give to those who don't. This racist, right-wing sectarian faction has since the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and 70s burrowed purposely and deep into the political machinery of the US, and fought fiercely against welfare programs and anything that hints of "socialism"---such as universal health care. These right-wing Christians who put BushInc in office believe that charity should be confined to voluntary contributions, and that government social benefits thwart "God's" will by allowing the undeserving poor a safety-net, without which the poor would be left to destitution which "God" mercifully allows to happen to the wicked as a teaching. IOW, if you're poor, it's because you're out of favor with "God."

Other Comments by Lauregon

561. Comment #83272 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Yes, I see. What you're saying, Dianelos, is that, whether a "God" person actually exists or not, the "God" person must be made to appear to be a fact---and a scientific fact at that---which renders your entire argumentation utterly UNBELIEVABLE. Given your premise that belief in "God" must continue for the sake of social order, you will to argue ad nauseum, as you are doing and have been doing, using whatever dodgy tactics are useful in the moment, any tactic at all, anything to keep "God" belief alive. You've argued your way deep into into a corner here from which you can never extricate yourself. You can, of course, argue on and on and on, but you'll possess zero credibility. You aren't arguing for truth, or for "God." You're arguing for social control, plain and simple. What you're arguing for is neo-con bullshittery.

I feel hesistant trying to correct such a perceptive analysis, but I feel you are missing something. I think that Dianelos is not so much trying to convince others about the existence of objective moral truths; I think he is trying to convince himself.

Other Comments by steve99

562. Comment #83279 by BMMcArdle on October 29, 2007 at 1:42 pm

I call my worldview "Wishful Thinkism", and believe only that which works best to support it.
Nothing else would make sense to me.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

563. Comment #83280 by Goldy on October 29, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Only been away for the weekend and Dr B has 1. turned out to be a lass and 2. is going for surgery!
Good luck etc! Don't do too much afterwards! My mother thought she was taking it easy by doing light cleaning and mild shopping after her hysterectomy and lo, it floored her for almost a year afterwards! Take care!
I go under the knife too on the 27th Nov - though mine is merely a wee hernia op.
We'll get through this OK :-)
Right, DG. Facts are verifiable information. They may be observational - though I can't really observe why the value of pi is what it is. However, that is fact.
You are giving us your educated opinions. Education depends on the source (as you point out yourself "And who is Gregory Paul? Well, he is not a social scientist as one would have expected, but a free-lance paleontologist who, as far as I could ascertain, does not even hold an academic degree. So here we have one study by a non-specialist pitted against a whole series of studies by various academic researchers."). Even the most ardent academic researcher can be swayed by interpretation of their observations - we would not have a regional evolution vs out of Africa debate about mankind if it were not so, or even creationism. (*edit* And let's not forget the importance of funding and all the implications that has on research!) And even the most rabid researcher does not present his findings as fact. Theory, hypothesis, postulation, you name it, but not fact.
Your "facts" can be countered. Poo pooing them, as you did to epeeist, is one way of ignoring these counter arguments (forgetting that many many people do not need some piece of card to verify their research credentials. Is Da Vinci to be discounted too? No degree either, as far as I recall. And why would one want to believe a clerk regarding his scribblings on relativity?). The fact that an unlettered member of the population can counter your thesis with researched data is compelling evidence that what you present as fact, observational or not, is not. It is a theory.
My point - wrong use of words to justify your argument. Also omission - I don't read your essays in detail so may have missed your previous use of observational - and repetition after having it pointed out that you can't call your points facts.
This has made me suspect you merely use the "observational facts" that agree with your observation only. This makes any hypothesis of yours very suspect - how can I believe what you say when already you seem to be observing the unobservable?

Other Comments by Goldy

564. Comment #83285 by steveroot on October 29, 2007 at 1:58 pm

What's a Dr. Benway?

-a bit less ;-)

Speedy and complete recovery, please! Looking forward to seeing your characteristically terse commentary back on the boards.
Steve

BTW, what's with all the outpouring of sympathy and good wishes from these heartless atheists anyway?? Don't they know that "studies show" that when people know others are - um - wishing them well - yeah, that's it! - that they worry more?
Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.

Other Comments by steveroot

565. Comment #83295 by SharonMcT on October 29, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Dr. Benway:

I will be thinking of you and hoping all goes well. I selfishly hope you are not gone long as I will miss your posts terribly.

Other Comments by SharonMcT

566. Comment #83296 by Diacanu on October 29, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Best wishes, Dr. Benway...even though I'm new and don't really know you all that well.....



Other Comments by Diacanu

567. Comment #83343 by Lauregon on October 29, 2007 at 6:20 pm

I feel hesistant trying to correct such a perceptive analysis, but I feel you are missing something. I think that Dianelos is not so much trying to convince others about the existence of objective moral truths; I think he is trying to convince himself. - Steve99

Could be; maybe that's part of the messianic process. ;)

Other Comments by Lauregon

568. Comment #83411 by epeeist on October 30, 2007 at 1:22 am

Comment #83150 by Dianelos Georgoudis

OK. You like being cryptic, but as you quote this study I assume you agree with it. So let me comment on it.

Did I say I agree with it? A major supposition on your behalf.

Let's deal with me first:

1. I am not a statistician (though I suspect since you only seemed to discover the null hypothesis a few weeks back I probably know more statistics than you)


2. I used to work with the statistics department of a research company. I put together the data collection mechanisms and worked with the statisticians to analyse the data


3. I have worked with statisticians since, but not for some while

I had already stated this set of caveats before, you seemed to have missed them.

OK, now let us look at the Brooks paper that I referenced.

1. Firstly, you will note that I did not make an ad hominem attack on the author, claiming confirmational bias on his behalf because he was a Catholic, and incompetence because he took a degree in economics not statistics


2. To expand a little on my lack of comfort with his analysis:
   
   
   
   • His basic idea of partitioning his respondents into religious and secular is wrong. What he is doing is dividing his respondents into church going and non-church going.
   
   
   • He is pre-supposing his conclusions by doing this. Rather he ought to treat the data as a continuous spectrum, the number of church visits per month might be a good variable to use.
   
   
   • As I have said (with caveats), the statisticians I knew would not have used a generalised linear model to analyse this kind of data, especially using a model that seems to mainly be used for LD50 data
   
   
   • There would seem (to me at least) a whole set of variables that should be taken into account - age, income, social class, location, education, political affiliation, gender at a minimum
   
   
   • Presuming he did this kind of analysis then where is the correlation matrix and the regression coefficients?
   
   
   • Why does he present only simple statistics to show the confirmation of his hypothesis, where is the rest of the analysis? The lack of this analysis undermines the credibility of the report.
   
   


3. All the criticisms of the Gregory Paul paper could equally be applied to the Brooks paper

Now to look at you "analysis" of the Paul paper

And who is Gregory Paul? Well, he is not a social scientist as one would have expected, but a free-lance paleontologist who, as far as I could ascertain, does not even hold an academic degree. So here we have one study by a non-specialist pitted against a whole series of studies by various academic researchers. Now I know all about the appeal to authority fallacy, but clearly under the circumstances one should be a little more careful with this "scientific" study. But let's take a critical look at it on its own merits:

Complete ad hominem. This alone is sufficient as far as I am concerned to undermine anything you say from here onwards. However, we will continue.

We have been discussing the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior. Paul's study only measures homicide and suicide frequencies in "prosperous democracies". Suicide frequencies do not result in any correlation, so his whole argument rests on homicide rates. Now two issues should immediately raise our suspicion:

First of all why only use data from these few "prosperous democracies"? There are data for many more countries than that, and indeed, contrary to what he claims, pretty reliable data (both basic religiosity and homicide rates as relatively easy to measure). So why not use that information too? Because had he used it the correlation between religiosity and homicide rate he was clearly looking for would probably disappear. (Other of the many methodological errors of Paul's study are documented in this paper written by academic researchers: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html ) Paul did not even include the various quite developed ex-Soviet countries, which, having both a relative high homicide rate and low religiosity, would be sufficient to mar his statistics. The use of selective evidence appears to be a popular tool of New Atheism and this speaks volumes about the strength of its intellectual underpinning.

He states that he used data which was considered reliable. You obviously have a better idea than he what constitutes reliable data.

He actually states that "Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors."

Secondly, why not use crime statistics (including white crime) in general instead of just homicide rates? My guess is that had he done that the correlation he was looking for would have disappeared also. After all it is a well-known fact that homicide rates correlate especially strongly with other factors, and in particular with the availability of hand-guns, whereas crime in general is more independent.

Again - it is easier to get reliable data and reliable data is easier to analyse and produces results which have better significance.

Beyond his obvious cooking of the numbers, let's discuss some basic statistical principles.

Another ad hominem, again this renders virtually anything you say worthless. But we will continue.

At the beginning of his paper he downgrades several other studies, which contradict his, by pointing out their "smaller sample sizes" whereas his sample was "800 million" adults.

Misreading by you (deliberate?). This is the population of the areas covered in his meta-analysis. In paragraph 10 for example he quotes 23,000 as a combine figure for two sets of data.

In fact factors such as availability of guns, non-availability of social safety net, non-availability of good education, poverty, and unfair distribution of wealth, are all important factors when one studies crime in general or homicide rates in particular. And Paul's star witness, the US, fails in four out of these five factors when compared to the rest of his sample (namely Western Europe and Japan). As for his secondary star witness, Portugal, it's the poorest country in Western Europe.

Well yes, so why aren't criticising the Brooks study in exactly the same way?

In other words even if a good scientific study were to show a positive correlation between religiosity and homicide (or crime in general) in various countries this would not amount to a causal link between religiosity and immoral behavior, simply because there are many other factors to take into account which probably correlate stronger and hence are better explanations. Compare Paul's results to the results I quoted in post 432 or #81155 above: that a religious family earning the same amount of money and living in the same society (and thus the strongest outside factors are eliminated from the sample) on average gives significantly more money to charity, gives more blood, and gives more time to help others, than a non-religious family.

So the Paul study might reveal correlation between religiosity and immorality, but not causality. So are you then saying that the Brooks study shows that religiosity is a causal for morality. If so, how do reconcile the two views.

The rest of Paul's study discusses issues of health (child mortality, life expectancy, STDs, teen abortions), but here, obviously, factors such as the quality and availability of medical services and of education are the main explanatory factors. And when such factors are normalized, several other studies show a positive correlation between religiosity and physical and mental health.

Let us see the analysis that allows you to come to this conclusion.

I am rather disappointed with atheists' lack of critical thought; I mean how could anyone even a little versed in statistics take this study seriously? You Epeeist like to use long words when discussing statistical issues, but it seems you were nonetheless suckered by Paul's study. Luckily, the question of whether religiosity is conducive to moral behavior (or alternatively whether non-religiosity is conducive to immoral behavior) is a plainly scientific question, which can and I think will be properly investigated until a conclusive result is reached – especially now that new atheists are making so many waves.

I am rather disappointed with your despicable set of ad hominems in this particular post and in the paragraph above in particular.

Other Comments by epeeist

569. Comment #83412 by epeeist on October 30, 2007 at 1:25 am

Comment #82954 by epeeist

The god concept that interests me is not the one believed by ancient peoples, but the one that best explains the whole of my experience of life.

So you aren't dismissing the beliefs of ancient peoples, you accept that they are as valid as your own

Are you ever going to answer this?

Other Comments by epeeist

570. Comment #83414 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 1:33 am

Could be; maybe that's part of the messianic process. ;)

I think it may be more likely that there is a deep-seated fear of a world without certainties, especially moral ones.

Other Comments by steve99

571. Comment #83524 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 10:13 am

Epeeist (post 533, or #82954):

The god concept that interests me is not the one believed by ancient peoples, but the one that best explains the whole of my experience of life.

So you aren't dismissing the beliefs of ancient peoples, you accept that they are as valid as your own.

I am not sure what you mean by that; I wish you were less cryptic and more clear in your statements. But, anyway, yes: I consider everybody's beliefs as "valid" as my own as far as personal beliefs go, for everyone tries to do the best they can to understand the world. But when compared to ancient peoples we today have the benefit of thousands of years of philosophical and scientific thought and can presumably do better than they thinking about ontology. But perhaps we have some comparative disadvantage too: modern education tends towards technical overspecialization, and the modern world makes us run so much we often don't have the time to actually think about our condition, to actually contemplate life and what it tells us about objective reality. So there may be some ancient wisdom forgotten or misunderstood today, and it's good to study what ancient peoples thought about the great questions, which by the way haven't really changed at all. Reading Plato, for example, one discovers an ancient person's thinking about the same questions we face today – which is kind of interesting.



Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

572. Comment #83530 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 10:29 am

I think it may be more likely that there is a deep-seated fear of a world without certainties, especially moral ones. - Steve99

I think you're absofrigginlutely correct.

Other Comments by Lauregon

573. Comment #83535 by epeeist on October 30, 2007 at 10:40 am

Comment #83524 by Dianelos Georgoudis

But, anyway, yes: I consider everybody's beliefs as "valid" as my own as far as personal beliefs go, for everyone tries to do the best they can to understand the world.

Come all you Wiccans, followers of the Aesir, believers in Cernunnos and hear.

DG believes your beliefs are as valid as his (which of course they are).

Other Comments by epeeist

574. Comment #83539 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 11:08 am

SRWB (post 536 or #82971):

I meant consequences to the one who makes these actions

So did I, but I meant in this life, not in the hereafter sitting around God's throne!

But in this life very often good actions do not result in good consequences for the one who commits them. Haven't you heard the expression "nice people finish last"? So it's not like doing the right thing can be justified by pointing out the good consequences it is apt to have for the one doing it; in fact it's very often the case that doing the right thing is what clearly is not apt to have good consequences for one's life. Sometimes when I discuss morality with atheists I get this impression they have in mind some kind of idealized world which is not how the real world works. If there is nothing after death then in the real world it often pays not to do the right thing; that's why I say that atheism fails to offer a logical path away from immoral behavior.

atheism offers no logical path away from immoral behavior where such immoral behavior is to one's advantage.

How about these? Immoral behavior might gain someone temporary advantage in the short term, but in the long run they usually end up paying for it.

That's far from typical, for in many cases immoral behavior is to one's advantage in this life, short-term and long-term. In fact in those cases where what you describe is typical we don't normally speak of moral behavior but of smart behavior. So, for example, we don't say that it's moral to study, but that it's smart.

I still don't understand your point about how studying and looking before crossing the street are pertinent to a debate about ethics and morality.

I meant this in the sense that it's entirely reasonable to take into account the consequences of one's actions. I personally do not believe in anything like that God will punish us for our sins in the afterlife, but I do believe that all our actions always have consequences for ourselves, so that reality is such that it always pays to do good and it never pays to do evil. For me reality can be compared to a path through a wilderness: to stray from this path hurts (us, as well as others) and to stay in the path brings us forward (individually and collectively).

I never claimed any such connection at least as far as taxes is concerned. I only claimed that there is no logical path that would lead an atheist to pay their fair share if they can get away without paying it. If you or anybody here can see a logical reason for an atheist to do the right thing in this case I would very much like to know about it.

You didn't claim it in so many words, but the inference of your original question is that there is a connection between unethical behaviour and being an atheist.

I think what I claimed has two implications: 1) That all other factors being equivalent a non-religious person is apt to behave less ethically than a religious person. Now it's possible that atheists (or rather non-religious people) on average behave more ethically than religious people today: perhaps they live in better societies, or perhaps they are better educated, or perhaps have more money, or in general enjoy on average more of the various factors that also predispose people not to behave unethically. 2) That when non-religious people behave ethically they do it because of intuitive or emotional reasons, and not because of logical reasons.

Epeeist already answered it and so did I in #508!

I never saw Epeeist's answer :-( but you in post 508 only point out that you are an atheist and you pay your taxes, and that society has evolved in ways that its members do their part. But this does not answer my question at all. Again atheists may do the right thing for intuitive or emotional reasons which can be explained on evolutionary grounds. My question is what logical reason would motivate an atheist to do the right thing when doing so would not be to their advantage, for example pay their fair share of taxes when there is a legal way to avoid doing so. It's a simple question, and I don't think anybody has answered it. I think there is no answer, because there is not such logical reason. If so, atheists should deal with this implication of their worldview.



Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

575. Comment #83545 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 11:27 am

Steveroot (post 537 or #82972):

Bravo! And I honestly mean that. To my shame it's a couple of years since I last donated blood. But here we are discussing averages and not individual examples.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

576. Comment #83548 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 11:34 am

SRWB (post 538 or #82977):

So let me restate my answer to Hitchens's challenge: "The ethical statement that no atheist can reasonably make is that we should - literally, truly, and without exception - selflessly love our enemies and act on it."

As I asked in #334, is "love your enemies" really an ethical statement? You never did answer. Enemies, by definition, hate us and seek to harm us. Is it really ethical to accept that kind of attitude from someone who has proclaimed him/herself your enemy and intends to harm you and your family? Not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly is ethical about allowing someone, probably a complete stranger, to threaten and harm you and yours and only respond by saying "I love you" and acting on it? What does that mean? Should I give him a hug and a gift, maybe a freshly baked pie? More importantly, does it work?

The answers to your last four questions are: there are no strangers for we are all siblings, exactly what it says, yes, in all appearances not.

But your general sense that "love your enemies" is not even an ethical statement only evidences that I am right: that's a statement that makes no sense in an atheistic worldview.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

577. Comment #83553 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Phil Rimmer (post 542 or #83008):

The ethical precept is not "return no evil except in the following cases: a) if brutally attacked, b) if by killing somebody you save several lives, c) etc. etc). Neither is it "love your enemies, or at least their children after you eliminate their parents".

We agree. The ethical precept is "Love your Enemy". I reject out of hand all your proffered weasel-worded alternatives.

We surely agree, that other ethical precepts are in play also? It is the simple fact of the existence of these that subverts the first precept from being simply a Pacifist's charter. I WILL fight and kill for the greater good. But I know I will also have my heart broken.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you deny the weasel exceptions, including that one may kill somebody if that would save several lives (i.e. for the greater good), but then point out that you would kill for the greater good. But if you mean that you accept the "love your enemies" precept as long as it does not contradict any of the other ethical precepts you consider stronger, then you are not really accepting it, are you? I mean by that measure anybody can claim to accept any possible precept, but then point out that they accept even more strongly other precepts that contradict it. Such language does not make sense I think.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

578. Comment #83567 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Steve99 (post 543 or #83012):

Just a point of information you may find useful here. The Buddha also said "love your enemies" centuries before Jesus.

Very interesting. Can you give any links to validate this claim of yours?

Although highly spritual in nature, early Buddhism was certainly atheistic by any modern definition. So, I am afraid that even this phrase, whatever you think of its value, fails Hitchens' test.

Well, I think new atheists say that we don't take our morality from religion in general, not from theism in particular. Hitchen's book is subtitled "How Religion Poisons Everything", he speaks of believers (and surely it's not like Buddhists do not hold beliefs without objective evidence), and his challenge clearly tries to show that ethical thought is just as viable in the naturalistic understanding of reality he shares with the other New Atheists as in any religious understanding of reality.

Also I object to your calling Buddhism an atheistic religion, in the following sense: It's true that according to Buddhism reality is not based on a person who has designed us and our environment, and hence is not a monotheistic religion. On the other hand according to Buddhism's ontological belief in the reincarnation, people reincarnate as people but also as animals and as gods. So it's not quite correct to say that that Buddhism is atheistic by any modern definition; after all it accepts the existence of gods as supernatural beings not subject to physical laws (even though I understand they are not supposed to be eternal). Anyway please correct me if I am wrong.



Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

579. Comment #83572 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/buddhistatheism.shtml>

Other Comments by Lauregon

580. Comment #83576 by walk on October 30, 2007 at 1:14 pm

DG 576

If there is nothing after death then in the real world it often pays not to do the right thing

We should feel lucky that DG believes in an afterlife, because this little insight into his personality is a bit disturbing. Here he goes again:

in many cases immoral behavior is to one's advantage in this life, short-term and long-term

My question is what logical reason would motivate an atheist to do the right thing when doing so would not be to their advantage

My personal answer to this is that my conscience won't allow me to lie, cheat, or act unethically in any way. It's a matter of being able to live with oneself and be proud of one's behaviour, whether it is observed or not.

reality is such that it always pays to do good and it never pays to do evil.

Obviously DG has to be compensated in some way to behave morally, or:

I do believe that all our actions always have consequences

fear negative consequences to refrain from behaving unethically. Troubling.



Other Comments by walk

581. Comment #83581 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Bonzai (post 547 or #83036):

The Buddha also said "love your enemies" centuries before Jesus.

There is a Buddhist fable that goes like this. One day a wolf and a rabbit came to the Buddha. The wolf wanted to eat the rabbit and the rabbit asked the Buddha to intervene. The Buddha chastised the wolf and told him to leave the rabbit alone. "But", the wolf protested, "if I don't eat the rabbit I will starve to death, why is the rabbit's life more precious than mine?" The Buddha saw that the wolf did have a point. He thought very hard for a while but still couldn't find a way to resolve the conflict. Finally the Buddha said to the wolf, "OK, you can eat me instead and leave the rabbit alone."

Nice story, but I don't see where it teaches us to love our enemies, after all it's not like the rabbit is Buddha's enemy.

You probably have heard of this before. If "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" are indeed virtuous doctrines to emulate the Buddha was way ahead of Jesus.

I don't see in the fable above any of the two precepts. And, in any case, it's not like there is a competition between Buddha and Jesus you know :-) That's not at all how it is. I don't know enough of Buddhist ethics to be able to judge, but I think it's excellent also and in any case very close (or possibly identical for all practical purposes) to Christian ethics. And the fact that both religions focus on the right way, and then point out the same way, belie those who claim that there are huge disagreements between religions. I think that all major religions are very close in what really matters, which is about our true response to the transcendental. That objective reality is such that the meaningful way to live our lives is to follow this path.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

582. Comment #83582 by Diacanu on October 30, 2007 at 1:25 pm

*Sees the usual long-ass ream of posts from DG*

Theeeere, you all done making poopy, DG?





Other Comments by Diacanu

583. Comment #83585 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Lauregon (post 550 or #83040):

Well, yes, I know of that language, but it's quite misleading because Spong is not an atheist; in fact he believes in the existence and presence of God and calls himself a Christian. – Dianelos

I didn't say Spong was atheist, but he does refer to himself as non-theist, of theism as dying, and he does call for a new, non-theist understanding of both Jesus and Christianity; he completely rejects theism's supernatural doctrines. And, as I said earlier, people who come to reject those supernatural doctrines do find their way to Spong and his new vision of a "religionless Christianity." See his latest book for verification, "Jesus For the Non-Religious." In it he writes, "Theism isn't God; it is rather, a human coping mechanism."

Well, however Spong may be using the concepts of "religion" or of "theism" it's clear that Spong believes in God (as his statement you just quoted evidences) and hence is clearly a theist according to how all atheists and (for all practical purposes) all theists use this concept. And I suppose by "supernatural doctrines" he means the various miracle stories, which most liberal Christians do not believe either.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

584. Comment #83597 by phil rimmer on October 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm

But if you mean that you accept the "love your enemies" precept as long as it does not contradict any of the other ethical precepts you consider stronger.

I greatly appreciate your plate juggling in dealing with so many issues on this thread. Truly, though I feel the answers to your queries were already in #542.

Despite "loving my enemy" if there is a greater good to be done I may kill him. I may kill the one I love, "though it break my heart".

Your weasel-worded alternatives spoke of "returning no evil". No! We are discussing loving one's enemy. No contradiction, whatsoever in the rejection of your phrase above, or in both loving AND killing one's enemy.

Please, please unpick the logic of the FIRST paragraph of #542.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

585. Comment #83601 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 3:19 pm

As so often, Dianelos not only gets the wrong end of the stick, but actually provides evidence to counter his own viewpoint.

If Buddhist ethics are close to Christian ethics, that proves Hitchens' point. I have studied some Buddhist ethics. Buddhist ethics don't require any belief in God, or indeed any belief in the transcendental. quod erat demonstrandum.

Other Comments by steve99

586. Comment #83611 by walk on October 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Dr. Benway,

I echo the best wishes expressed by all your friends here for a speedy recovery. On another thread a few months ago (after you used a Boston colloquialism), I identified myself as a former Bostonian and gave some personal info. Your response indicated a relutance to offer any of your personal details (not my intention). Now, knowing that you are female, I understand your response a bit better, and I apologize if I appeared to be prying.

I always look forward to your brilliant, pointed, and entertaining posts.

Other Comments by walk

587. Comment #83616 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Well, however Spong may be using the concepts of "religion" or of "theism" it's clear that Spong believes in God (as his statement you just quoted evidences) and hence is clearly a theist according to how all atheists and (for all practical purposes) all theists use this concept. - Dianelos

Not true. Spong says theism is dead. Spong does speak of "God," but as an experience. He says that the traditional God has been rendered unbelievable by the intellectual revolution of the past 500 years. Spong writes in his latest book that atheism is a rejection of the theist definition of God. He writes, "I am a God-intoxicated being, but I can no longer define my God experience inside the theistic definition of God...the theistic definition was never about God; it was always about human beings desperately in need of a coping system that would enable them to live with the anxieties of what it means to be human." [p 214]

And I suppose by "supernatural doctrines" he means the various miracle stories, which most liberal Christians do not believe either. - Dianelos

You don't seem to actually know much about Spong's views, but you've written that you think Spong has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Given that you appear to be attempting to align Spong's views with those of "most liberal Christians," and given that you claim he remains a theist, what was the 'baby' you think he threw out---and why do you suppose he's so controversial and so vilified by so many clergy and lay persons around the world?


Other Comments by Lauregon

588. Comment #83680 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Lauregon (post 550 or #83040) (cont):

Well, unfortunately we read the gospels very differently. For me the substance of John 13:34-35 is clearly and explicitly about how we should live our lives. - Dianelos

What's clear is that you read the gospels as cherry-picked proof-texts.

Indeed. You see, I don't consider any text written by humans infallible, and hence pick what I find good and reject what I find bad, no matter whether I am reading the overall sublime Christian gospels, or the sub-mediocre TGD (which still has some good bits, for example his description of the Darwinian understanding about how religious beliefs might have evolved).

Unfortunately, the idea that "God" is "perfect" is a dogma that has no means of being proven or even observed. – Lauregon

Neither has the idea that electrons exist any means of being proven or observed. But many atheists believe electrons exist. – Dianelos

As far as I'm aware, there have been no bloody wars fought over disputes concerning the existence or nature of electrons, or dogmatic claims of there being only One Perfect Electron.

That's funny but immaterial. My point was that reasonable people do believe in existents that are not-proven and not-visible.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

589. Comment #83685 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 30, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Lauregon (post 552 or #83046):

You see where I am pointing at? Ethics without some transcendental ground in a religious worldview is apt to go seriously wrong. - Dianelos

Yes, I see. What you're saying, Dianelos, is that, whether a "God" person actually exists or not, the "God" person must be made to appear to be a fact---and a scientific fact at that---which renders your entire argumentation utterly UNBELIEVABLE.

No, that's not what I am claiming. I am claiming that the best theistic worldviews are more reasonable than the best atheistic worldviews, because when compared one to one under the same criteria the former work better than the latter. Further I also claim that religious worldviews are more conducive to morality than non-religious worldviews. Finally I claim that to those for whom the world seems to be religiously ambiguous, and who therefore cannot decide on other grounds whether to adopt a religious worldview or not, the fact that a religious worldview offers various experiential benefits including ethical empowerment is sufficient reason to choose a religious worldview.

By the way, you are correct to write about my speaking of the "God person", but please note that it's also the "God reality". God is the whole of reality, and the whole of reality is a person.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

590. Comment #83693 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 31, 2007 at 12:59 am

Alovrin (post 553 or #83049):

idealistic theism is free of paradoxes, especially in comparison with scientific realism.)

Thats right I temporarily forgot about your new improved doctrine, you mini jesus.

:-) Well, you know it's not like theists must be dogmatic and are not allowed to develop their beliefs; indeed all reasonable people continuously think critically about their own beliefs and try to improve them. And if you think that I am the only theist doing this you are very mistaken, see for example Alfred Whitehead or John Hick, not to mention the many millions of liberal Christians. As for Jesus he has certainly and mightily influenced my thinking, but so has to a lesser degree Dawkins, and even you my friend.

Oh so Im a nihilist now.

Well, if you really think that the question about the meaning of life is pointless as you say in point #2 of post 517 then you are; but perhaps you don't really think that.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

591. Comment #83694 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 31, 2007 at 1:05 am

Lauregon (post 562 or #83238):

These right-wing Christians who put BushInc in office believe that charity should be confined to voluntary contributions, and that government social benefits thwart "God's" will by allowing the undeserving poor a safety-net,

This seems to me to be quite an extremist view.

I think that many people vote for the Republican party simply because of greed: they expect the Republican party to lower their taxes. But greed is not motivated by religion; quite the contrary in fact. If people took seriously any of the great religions they would be less greedy.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

592. Comment #83711 by BMMcArdle on October 31, 2007 at 2:55 am

It is disgusting and demeaning to anyone who has ever acted morally or ethically simply because the knew that it was the right thing to do, to listen to self-righteous talk about "ethical empowerment" being derived by belief in the unknowable.
Regain control of your imagination-kidnapped conscience.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

593. Comment #83738 by irate_atheist on October 31, 2007 at 5:13 am

591. Comment #83685 by Dianelos Georgoudis -

By the way, you are correct to write about my speaking of the "God person", but please note that it's also the "God reality". God is the whole of reality, and the whole of reality is a person.

WTF?! Does this mean that, from your perspective, you're quite possibly talking through someone else's arse? It would certainly explain a lot...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

594. Comment #83810 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 11:08 am

No, that's not what I am claiming.
I am claiming that the best theistic worldviews are more reasonable than the best atheistic worldviews, because when compared one to one under the same criteria the former work better than the latter. Further I also claim that religious worldviews are more conducive to morality than non-religious worldviews. Finally I claim that to those for whom the world seems to be religiously ambiguous, and who therefore cannot decide on other grounds whether to adopt a religious worldview or not, the fact that a religious worldview offers various experiential benefits including ethical empowerment is sufficient reason to choose a religious worldview. - Dianelos

Which means that it doesn't matter whether or not "God" actually exists. What's important, you maintain, is that it's pragmatic to assume or pretend that "God" exists because of the benefits you believe accrue from the belief.

That said, living a "religious" life doesn't necessarily require a "God" person. Buddhists call living such a life "mindfulness." I have the idea that Sam Harris is following that path in some way---as is my best friend, a Hindu Vedantist.

If what you're advocating is simply a way of life, why all the zealous attempt to scientifically "prove" the existence of "God?" Why not become part of the New Age movement and campaign for a spiritual or mindful way of life? For that matter, why not align with Spong?

By the way, you are correct to write about my speaking of the "God person", but please note that it's also the "God reality". God is the whole of reality, and the whole of reality is a person. - Dianelos

So you claim. (BTW, Spong disagrees).

I claim that the proper accompaniment to peanut butter and bread is raspberry jam. I also claim that sandwiches made of ordinary bread should never be cut in rectangles but only in triangular halves . I claim that neapolitan ice cream is only for toddlers, and that eggplant is a dandy meat substitute. ;)

Other Comments by Lauregon

595. Comment #83812 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 11:18 am

These right-wing Christians who put BushInc in office believe that charity should be confined to voluntary contributions, and that government social benefits thwart "God's" will by allowing the undeserving poor a safety-net - Lauregon

This seems to me to be quite an extremist view. - Dianelos

Many people claim to know what "God's" will is.

I think that many people vote for the Republican party simply because of greed: they expect the Republican party to lower their taxes. But greed is not motivated by religion; quite the contrary in fact. If people took seriously any of the great religions they would be less greedy. - Dianelos

So many differing people feel so certain they know what "God's" will is.

Other Comments by Lauregon

596. Comment #83924 by 43alley on October 31, 2007 at 4:53 pm

If anyone is interested, I took the brilliant opening Hitchens did here and overlaid visuals to compliment his arguments.

part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18

part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHuvErbpd0

Other Comments by 43alley

597. Comment #83942 by Diacanu on October 31, 2007 at 6:08 pm

43alley-

Excellent!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

598. Comment #83984 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 1, 2007 at 12:44 am

Epeeist (post 570 or #83411):

So I take it you judge Paul's study to be scientifically valid. Fine. I on the contrary judge it to be nothing more than a glorified version of the harebrained "look at how good people in atheist Sweden are" which apart from being selective evidence also grossly overlooks the various factors that apart from ontological beliefs also affect human behavior. Paul's study by the way is mentioned more than 100 times in this site, which goes a good way to explain how atheist mythology is shored up: when there is no evidence clutch at any straw and declare it solid, it's like constructing a strawman in reverse.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

599. Comment #83987 by Goldy on November 1, 2007 at 12:48 am

Golly DG, given your very loose criteria on facts etc, you're the last person to criticise anything.

Other Comments by Goldy

600. Comment #83988 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 1, 2007 at 1:00 am

Walk (post 582 or #83576):

My question is what logical reason would motivate an atheist to do the right thing when doing so would not be to their advantage

My personal answer to this is that my conscience won't allow me to lie, cheat, or act unethically in any way. It's a matter of being able to live with oneself and be proud of one's behaviour, whether it is observed or not.

Correct, these are all good reasons that partly explain peoples' moral behavior, but they are all intuitive/emotional reasons. My point is that as far as moral behavior is affected by thinking atheism offers no logical path towards moral behavior (and even fails to offer a logical path away from immoral behavior).

Sometimes not answering speaks as clearly as answering, and you'll have observed that nobody in this thread has produced a logical reason for an atheist to pay their fair share of taxes in society when there is a legal way to avoid doing so. So I stand by my claims: 1) When other factors are equivalent a non-religious person is apt to behave less ethically than a religious person; 2) The more influenced by reason and less by emotion a non-religious person's behavior is, the less can one expect ethical behavior. There is already some significant but not conclusive body of scientific studies that confirms the former claim, but none I know of that confirms the second. I agree with Sam Harris that peoples' ontological beliefs do affect their behavior to an appreciable degree, so this is an important issue of public policy and much more scientific research is in order.



Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis