1. Comment #93085 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 6:47 am

This was a good debate. I just watched all of it and actually tried hard to grasp the meaning behind D'Souza's words, despite his overenthusiasm and oversights. I've read enough of Dennett to understand his position. I certainly don't plan on becoming a Christian but I'm leaning more toward agnosticism now. I think this happens to a lot of atheists after a while. The position of theism - if debates like this are any indicator (and I've heard many) - is apparently not as untenable as we're made to believe.

Other Comments by Appleby

2. Comment #93086 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 6:56 am

The position of theism - if debates like this are any indicator (and I've heard many) - is apparently not as untenable as we're made to believe.

LOL.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

3. Comment #93087 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 6:56 am

It may not be untenable, but surely to move from atheism to agnosticism you would need some evidence to change your mind. I am curious to know what that is.

Other Comments by steve99

4. Comment #93088 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 6:59 am

In D'Souza's defense, I think what he's basically trying to say is that there is probably something greater than ourselves out there and science doesn't provide sufficient answers to the really big questions. Unless you're well educated and self-actualized, life becomes difficult without believing in some kind of continuity after death. Hence, even if you don't believe in any such thing (for whatever reason, really) it's probably a good idea to adjust to those who do.

Other Comments by Appleby

5. Comment #93089 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 6:59 am

Appleby, I know you're full of shit. Perhaps I'll tell you how, so you can polish up and lie more effectively in the future.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

6. Comment #93090 by BaronOchs on December 2, 2007 at 7:08 am

I think what he's basically trying to say is that there is probably something greater than ourselves out there and science doesn't provide sufficient answers to the really big questions.

There certainly is something greater than myself out there: the world/the universe/ all the rest of life apart from the little bits I've seen . . .

Do we need some magisterial discipline like either Science or Religion to answer the "big questions". The answer is only the way we find to make sense of and find value in our personal experience.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

7. Comment #93091 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 7:12 am

In D'Souza's defense, I think what he's basically trying to say is that there is probably something greater than ourselves out there and science doesn't provide sufficient answers to the really big questions.

No, I don't think so. You see, he is labelling that Big Unknown "God", which is claiming that he has special knowledge about the supposedly unknown.

Doctor Benway... is this a known troll?

Other Comments by steve99

8. Comment #93092 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 7:22 am

I've been an atheist for a while now but to be honest, I've become less and less impressed with atheism over the years (and not just because of Josh's shenanigans in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali threads). There really isn't much substance to our position and I still find myself wondering sometimes about why things are the way they are. I know, there need not be a purpose to existence (human or otherwise) but I can't shut my mind off to such things because it's what a scientist is "supposed to do" in that situation.

Our growing immaturity (as someone in the audience even pointed out to Dennett) toward religion, even among the vanguards of modern atheism, betrays an insecurity I thought we didn't suffer from. I don't think religion, any religion, is better than atheism but I can't argue that they're any worse either. This is why I'm leaning toward agnosticism. It's not because of this one debate but rather many little things adding up over time. I think I now opt for mutual respect between atheism and theism. It just seems right. It seems like the mature thing to do.

Other Comments by Appleby

9. Comment #93094 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 7:29 am

Not a known troll, no.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

10. Comment #93099 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 7:42 am

There really isn't much substance to our position and I still find myself wondering sometimes about why things are the way they are. I know, there need not be a purpose to existence (human or otherwise) but I can't shut my mind off to such things because it's what a scientist is "supposed to do" in that situation.

Religion tends to shut down wondering about why things are the way they are.

Our growing immaturity (as someone in the audience even pointed out to Dennett) toward religion, even among the vanguards of modern atheism, betrays an insecurity I thought we didn't suffer from.

You get some noisy people saying crude things in any situation where people in general are being given more freedom to talk and think. This is not insecurity, it is human nature. If you want to see insecurity, look at the recent statement by the Pope condemning atheism.

I don't think religion, any religion, is better than atheism but I can't argue that they're any worse either.

Well I can! They lead to oppression and stifling of imagination and intellect.

I think I now opt for mutual respect between atheism and theism. It just seems right. It seems like the mature thing to do.

I find it rather astonishing to think we should respect religion when we have the stories of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who have suffered the consequences of religious belief.

No idea deserves respect until it has to fight for respect with evidence of its truth and utility. Maturity is to apply the criterion to all ideas equally, and not give special status to those labelled 'sacred'.

Doctor: I was a little started by your response :)

Other Comments by steve99

11. Comment #93100 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 7:47 am

steve99,

I'm not defending religion. I thought that was clear from my last post. The mutual respect I'm talking about comes not from looking at the worst examples of religion but the best; and not at the worst of atheism, but the best.

Other Comments by Appleby

12. Comment #93102 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 7:50 am

The mutual respect I'm talking about comes not from looking at the worst examples of religion but the best; and not at the worst of atheism, but the best.

But you were suggesting you were moving towards agnosticism. That implies more than just respect - it implies a change of belief.

Other Comments by steve99

13. Comment #93104 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 7:55 am

But you were suggesting you were moving towards agnosticism. That implies more than just respect - it implies a change of belief.

This is true because I find atheism and theism (even at their best) to be wanting. Theism in the ways you just pointed out and atheism as I have. Therefore agnosticism seems like the best option for me now.

Other Comments by Appleby

14. Comment #93106 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 7:57 am

Doctor: I was a little started by your response :)

Sorry. Forgot to take off my X-Ray specs.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

15. Comment #93110 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 8:10 am

This is true because I find atheism and theism (even at their best) to be wanting.

I don't see how that relates to the truth value of religions.

Other Comments by steve99

16. Comment #93113 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 8:26 am

I don't see how that relates to the truth value of religions.

Well that depends on how you define agnosticism. Perhaps the mistake is mine for even trying to classify my position using a hackneyed term. I wouldn't even call myself "believing" or having lost belief in anything. I'm simply less dogmatic about my atheism and a bit more respectful toward theism.

This is not because I think religious propositions are any less false than I did before but rather because I try not to caricature religion as often, try to listen more intently to what theists are saying and be a bit more forgiving toward their ignorance.

Other Comments by Appleby

17. Comment #93117 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 8:39 am

This is not because I think religious propositions are any less false than I did before but rather because I try not to caricature religion as often, try to listen more intently to what theists are saying and be a bit more forgiving toward their ignorance.

Well, I can see nothing unreasonable in that. I think your position illustrates the point that Sam Harris makes about problems with use of the term "atheist". It has much baggage.

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #93120 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 8:45 am

Well, I can see nothing unreasonable in that. I think your position illustrates the point that Sam Harris makes about problems with use of the term "atheist". It has much baggage.

Add to that that I'm now also a bit more open to the possibility that we may actually be more than the sum of our parts.

Other Comments by Appleby

19. Comment #93122 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 9:00 am

Add to that that I'm now also a bit more open to the possibility that we may actually be more than the sum of our parts.

Well, there are plenty of atheists who believe that. They are called Buddhists!

Other Comments by steve99

20. Comment #93135 by villageidiot on December 2, 2007 at 9:47 am

Our growing immaturity (as someone in the audience even pointed out to Dennett) toward religion, even among the vanguards of modern atheism, betrays an insecurity I thought we didn't suffer from.

I want to just say that I get what you are saying. Also I really don't understand why, in a forum that purports to allow free speech, your comments get relegated to an "alternate comment thread".

Other Comments by villageidiot

21. Comment #95137 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 12:26 pm

you are pre-loading any model of things with your assumption that our universe is one of the more likely ones. You have no justification for assuming that.

On what basis do you place any one of the possible states of the universe into the the equation?

You're assuming that there are, or could possibly be, other variants of the universes without much evidence to support that claim. Parsimony would be best served, without evidence to the contrary, by just assuming that there are no other variants. I hate parsimony ... it's not really an argument.

Other Comments by Riley