901. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93533 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 12:11 pm

A lack of a parsimonius approach would be disastrous even for an isolated individual.

One would think. Still, narcissists, who enjoy a rather flexible relationship with reality, rise to high office.

When you wrestle slippery chappies, you set concrete traps that leave no wiggle room. Obviousness is no trap at all. Agreement is much better.

If I were teaching a course in Logic and Rhetoric, videos of these debates with D'Souza would be a godsend.

902. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93528 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 11:33 am

Is this going to depress the hell out of me, plastictowel?

Hi Steve. Yes, parsimony rests not upon mere arbitrary agreement, but upon necessity. Agreement simply provides the strongest basis for later appeals during the game.

If two people can't agree upon parsimony, they might as well just hit each other with sticks to solve their differences.

903. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93522 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 11:08 am

dinesh asked for proof of parsimony???

You can't use rules of evidence to prove the rules of evidence. You can't use the inductive method to prove the inductive method. D'Souza simply illustrated that point.

From context, it appeared that D'Souza was arguing that rules like parsimony are arbitrarily enforced. That's not true. Rules like parsimony rest upon mutual agreement before the debate begins. You can prove the necessity of such a rule easily enough:

1. Ask, what happens to debate if we throw that rule out?
2. Demonstrate that without the parsimony criterion, all sorts of absurd hypotheses become equally valid.
3. Debate itself becomes pointless without a means of judging which hypothesis is more likely to be valid.

Throwing out a rule you normally observe is called "special pleading." It's no different, in my mind, from stealing or cheating on a test.

Well, let's be honest - Dan pulled a "Dinesh" and didn't fully address the topic of the debate. He kind of beat around the edges and then it's off to a new topic.

Dan's argument was simple enough:

1. We observe a process of evolution among living things and the productions of living things.
2. Examples of religion evolving provided - Mormons, John Frum, etc.
3. We can appreciate the selective forces that influence the evolution of language and culture, and this confirms our feeling that these are human inventions.
4. Religion demonstrates a similar evolutionary history, influenced by selective pressures we often understand.
5. Religion, like language and culture, is man made.

Dennett then demonstrates how the concept of God has evolved over time - from the tribal warlord Yahweh to the modern "ground of all being." He likewise concludes that God is man made.

Dennett said up front that he asked D'Souza if he could talk about his primary interest, toxic religion, and D'Souza agreed. So going off on that tangent isn't "pulling a D'Souza."

Dan notes that more toxic versions of religion seem to emerge where children are kept ignorant of competing religious ideologies. Thus his proposal to educate children about world religions.

I would have liked for Dan to have brought the discussion back to his original questions during his first rebuttal. I sort of fault him for not doing that, but I understand the difficulty of the situation. Normally, it would be appropriate to rebutt more recent assertions. You'd really have to be certain of the dishonesty before you to insist like a bulldog that earlier matters be concretely addressed before moving forward. It's aggressive and a bit rude to assume the tone of cross examination without clear provocation. One likes to give the benefit of the doubt.

904. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93475 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 8:01 am

Good to know, plastictowel. I got it from Disney.

905. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93460 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 7:26 am

Hitler-Stalin-Mao:

People raised from the cradle to believe in a cosmic enforcer of right and wrong have major problems understanding how morality can exist without God. They are like Dumbo believing he needs the magic feather in order to fly.

If you were Dumbo and you believed the feather made you fly, you'd be pretty frightened and upset by someone trying to take that feather away from you.

Hitler-Stalin-Mao are like other Dumbos crashed and dead on the ground. The lack of a feather may have been incidental to their accidents, but Dumbo can't be sure. They sure look like proof of what happens to a flying elephant when he lets go of his magic feather.

We have to show that justice and living by the golden rule are down to us. They've always been down to us and always will be. Like the feather, God is a symbol. He represents those ideals. But the heavy lifting is down to us.

906. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93444 by Dr Benway on December 3, 2007 at 6:57 am

Why Dawkins refuses to take this idea to its logical conclusion--to say that raising a child in a religious tradition, like other forms of child abuse, should be considered a crime punishable by the state--is a mystery

Not really. Ever heard the analogy, "the cure can be worse than the disease?" The risks of any intervention can outweigh the benefits. Prosecution of thought crime and bad metaphysics within a family opens the door to all sorts of problems.

907. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93349 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Yes, well, people who publish books on the NY Times bestseller list are presumed to be functioning at a level above the average middle school student. They're expected to be intelligent, educated, mannered, aware of the rules and capable of following them without a reminder every five minutes.

Plus a moderator can't know where someone is headed. Hard to judge an argument until the end, often.

I'd have difficulty policing D'Souza. That "whaa?" feeling is paralyzing.

908. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93342 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Things move too fast for a moderater to step in as you describe, Paine. These events are largely to entertain and sell books. From that vantage point, the more blood on the carpet the better.

909. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93337 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Ian H Spedding FCD: So I ask again: how do you decide who wins such debates?

I'll take a snip of the debate - the part about world religious growth - to illustrate how I judge these things.

Dennett reviewed a pie chart showing percent of the world's population in each religion. He stated that Islam is growing by virtue of a differential birth rate. Christianity actually is decreasing and non believers are the fastest growing group. Source: World Christian Encyclopedia.

D'Souza's response: Is religion growing? Globally yes! **Note that his examples below are not global.**

1. Growth in the west might be debatable. Europe is largely secular and America is seeing a resurgent atheism.

2. Dennett gave no source (actually he did). D'Souza references Phillip Jenkins, who allegedly says that there is a rapidly growing religious revival throughout the world.

3. Numbers of Hindus may not be increasing but level of devotion among Hindus is increasing.

**This is a fallacious comparison - aka "apples to oranges." Measures of Hindu devotion cannot be used to contradict statistics regarding percent world population in each religion.**

4. Asia and Africa: 100 years ago 5% Christians but now 50%.

**Again apples to oranges. Statistics within a continent cannot be used to contradict a global measure.**

5. South Korea had virtually no Christians several decades ago but is now over 50% Christian.

**More apples and oranges. Statistics within a country can't contradict a global measure.**

D'Souza smugly concludes, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinon, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts."

**This implies that Dennett's facts have been properly refuted. But they weren't.**

To summarize D'Souza's errors:
1. He claimed to be proving global religious growth but he offered only partial data by continent or country.
2. Wrongly claimed Dennett quoted no source.
2. I won't take off points for calling South Korea a continent. Prolly a slip of the tongue.
3. Claimed he'd refuted Dennett's facts when he did not.

What D'Souza could have done:
1. Asked Dennett for his source for the pie chart and comments about which groups were increasing or decreasing, if he didn't hear it mentioned.
2. Admitted that he's not going to contradict Dennett's world statistics.
3. Asserted his examples of religious growth in particular locations (Africa, Asia, South Korea).
4. Concluded that although percent believers may not be growing globally, local growth may suggest that the future of religion is uncertain - i.e., there may be more believers in the future if local growth spreads.

The false accusation that Dennett gave no source and was making things up is pretty galling, given the above. If I behaved like D'Souza in this exchange, I'd have to disappear into a cave, never to be seen again. Can't see how mere apology would be enough.

For any debate to be productive, both parties have to be relatively balanced. If one party is disorganized and lapsing into fallacy after fallacy, the other party will be overwhelmed with the bookkeeping. That's an unfair disadvantage.

I recommend Dawkins debate D'Souza by email, if at all.

910. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93187 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 11:51 am

Funny stuff for atheists to try in future D'Souza debates:

1. Show up to the debate without pants. This will screw up his overused "I see I have a wide podium" joke.

2. After the usual D'Souza avalanche, say, "I feel like a nudist covered by blood sucking mosquitoes. Too many bad arguments to smack; not enough time to smack 'em!" Thus you sabotage his "I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony" joke. Or if he used it already, you get a nice rebound laugh.

Fun with props:
1. Teddy bear with "Hello my name is Mohammad" sticker. Set it on the podium.

2. Get a big blank book. On the first page write, "God(s) do not exist." Outside cover: "THE BIG BOOK OF ATHEISM." For each appropriate strawman (Hitler-Stalin-Mao, nihilism, eugenics, etc.), dramatically grab the book, flip through all the pages, then look up and sigh. If D'Souza glances at you, shrug and shake your head. If he says something, reply, "I'm not finding it in here. Would you mind showing me?" then hand him the book.

3. Magic Eight Ball. When the "which religion is correct?" question comes up, pray aloud for guidance, then use the Eight Ball to determine the right one. If D'Souza thinks this method is silly, ask him to demonstrate his method.

4. Large tin of SPAM labelled "GOD." When D'Souza insists God is necessary for rationality, morality, etc., whip out the prop and say, "Believe it or not, you can have lunch without the SPAM. And you can have morality without God." Drop the prop into the bin.

D'Souza will complain you're not being respectful toward his beliefs. Say, "Well, you haven't said anything nice about my pants, so we're even."

911. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93182 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 11:32 am

Hi kaiserkriss,

My comment in 246 was a response to ADH in 244. We were having a back-and-forth 'bout when it's ok to poop on someone's head.

ADH: Indeed we do Dr Benway. But we are not going to agree about that, are we?

Well, we could try to reach agreement. If we fail, we both might have an understanding regarding the nature of our disagreement.

Or we could just poop on each other. Sometimes that's more fun anyway.

912. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93153 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 10:32 am

ADH, we'd need to resolve the first matter of fact: is God man made? Once that's settled, we might discuss why man made God, or why man pretends no God exists.

We can't logically debate the second matter before resolving the first matter.

913. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93147 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 10:17 am

If the proposition on the table concerns the motives of the debator, it's appropriate to discuss those motives.

914. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93141 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 10:02 am

If there is a proposition on the table and the debate is shifted from arguments for or against that proposition to some personality problem of the debator, that's an ad hominem.

Debate can be satisfying and productive when all parties agree to the rules. When one side persists in special pleading, all we can hope for is sufficient attention to the dishonesty.

915. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93134 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 9:43 am

ADH:

"The worst thing that spouts out of the orifice of that awful being ..."

Can I ask you why you indulge in this ad hominem abuse?

Actually that's not an ad hominem. That's merely abuse. The core of D'Souza's argument against atheism is an ad hominem, however - i.e., refusal to believe due to egocentrism.

What Dennett wants is to teach religion as a function of natural selection.

Dennett made his proposal quite explicit. Natural selection was not included in the content. Did you watch the debate?

916. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93112 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 8:23 am

Speaking of flirting: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=630

917. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.

918. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93097 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 7:40 am

All the women that Dawkins encounters from now on and who are so inclined (and have read the article) will take this as an open invitation to flirt mercilessly with him.

It is difficult not to personalize this article.

Reminds me somehow of a conversation I had with a co-worker. I was surprised to hear she was going through a divorce. She'd been married about 15 years, three kids from 5 to 12 years old. "We just grew apart," she said. "No sex for about a year. We were like roommates. So we decided it was time to move on."

"Wow," I thought. "No alcoholism, drugs, cheating, financial problems, crazy relatives - none of the usual suspects, yet it's over."

Couple weeks later, I learned that she'd moved in with her boyfriend. "Ah," I thought, "now things make sense."

This article gives me that "wow" feeling. I'm waiting for the "ah." Not a rational reaction, I admit.

919. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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

Not a known troll, no.

920. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.

921. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

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.

922. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93084 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 6:45 am

Special pleading against parsimony comes up fairly frequently. The best counter to this, I think, is a reductio ad absurdum: "Now that we've thrown out parsimony as a standard, allow me to explain how I know you're being moved by noodly appendages right now... Look! You just raised your eyebrows. Proof!"

Special pleading against corroboration: "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Trust me."

Hitler-Stalin-Mao brought to you by Special Pleaders Against Corroboration, Inc.

923. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93079 by Dr Benway on December 2, 2007 at 6:15 am

Thor: D'Souza is one of the most talented and skilled demagogues I have seen in the whole unbeliever-vs-theist debate lineup so far.

Ooo. That's a keeper for the book jacket, prefaced by "What the atheists are saying about Dinesh:"

924. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92985 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm

I like the nurse crop also.

But note that Christians explain ol' hardass Yahweh as a kind of "nurse crop" which paved the way for the more refined "love thy neighbor" of the New Testament. Seems like a post hoc rationalization to me.

925. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92980 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 9:23 pm

About 4% of the population are sociopaths.

Baptist sociopaths will talk about the Bible and profess belief in Jesus. They will quote the ten commandments. They also will steal the stereo out of your car. When up for parole, they will say they know stealing is wrong because of the 10 commandments. They will thank Jesus for helping them change for the better. Upon release, they will be more careful not to get caught the next time they rip you off.

Some atheist sociopaths will read Nietzsche and will tell you that morality is an illusion. They also will steal the stereo out of your car. When up for parole, they will say they know that stealing is wrong. They will make up whatever shit works to convince the social workers they've changed. Upon release, they will be more careful not to get caught the next time they rip you off.

In conclusion: the biology of sociopathy is independent of one's metaphysical persuasion. Atheism per se does not encourage sociopathy.

926. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92975 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Welcome empyrean! I like your question: should we convince the Scandinavians to get religion? I suppose so they can enjoy the same high crime and divorce rates as the Bible Belt. :o)

927. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92970 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Argument: Stalinism was bad/Maoism was bad.
They were species of atheism.
:. Atheism is bad.

Argument with the same form: Chickens and Penguins can't fly.
They are each a species of bird.
:. No birds can fly.

Yes. However I suspect D'Souza recognizes the category error and feels it's beside the point. His point is actually a bit of tu quoque - i.e., "if I'm responsible for Salem, you're responsible for Stalin."

The more precise diagnosis therefore is prick or stupid prick.

Mango: No, you missed the point. The anthropic principle IS the explanation for the improbability.

Yes, but you need a multiverse. So it is a bit of a tricky thing.

928. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92962 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 8:38 pm

what does Dawkins mean when he says he "knows" we will find the Darwinian explanation for altruism? This is faith, no? What kind of faith?

He means that we probably will find a Darwinian explanation for altruism.

Note that a probability estimation is different from the acceptance of a proposition without any corroborative evidence - e.g., faith that Jesus was born of a virgin. These sorts of religious propositions are accepted because people deem it virtuous to do so.

929. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92952 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Nice tie though.

930. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92944 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 7:51 pm

"What if you're wrong?"

Our duty is to be honest. If we're honest but we're wrong, would anyone here condemn us?

931. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92940 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Most annoying bits for me:

1. The yelling. Even with the volume turned low my orienting response is repeatedly provoked. It disrupts my ability to reflect and organize my thoughts while I'm listening. I need the occasional pause.

2. The accusation that Dennett over-extends Darwin into inappropriate domains. He doesn't quote Dennett or anyone to illustrate his point. Unlike D'Souza (apparently), I've never heard an atheist argue that Darwin's model of natural selection explains abiogenesis or the fine tuning of the universe. D'Souza had better back up this accusation with a material example if he doesn't want people to believe he's a liar.

Evolutionary psychology is an emerging field and it's possible a fair amount of human behavior won't be well accounted for by a Darwinian model. But there's nothing inappropriate about the effort to understand how natural selection might favor certain behavioral traits.

3. "My neurons made me do it." You are your neurons. If you say there's no point in telling you it's wrong to kill people because you can't help yourself, we'll simply lock you up. Need anything more be said?

4. If D'Souza truly believed that the fine tuning problem was evidence for God, he'd recommend physicists stop investigating the problem. Why isn't he campaigning against CERN?

Homework for D'Souza:
1. Reification (the map is not the territory)
2. Falsification
3. Fallacy of affirming the consequent
4. Tu quoque
5. God of the gaps
6. What happens when we throw out parsimony?
7. What happens when we throw out corroboration?
8. Try decaf

FYI: Phi Beta Kappa is the sound made by the bottom of the barrel when scraped.

932. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92879 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Perhaps those constants aren't independent. Perhaps if we understood more about the geometry of reality, we'd see how all the parts stand in relation to each other, and how each value couldn't be otherwise.

Or maybe God used a machine with dials and carefully rigged the game.

Either way, it's a long way from Big Bang to eat-my-body-drink-my-blood.

933. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92865 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Dennett's comment about "creation" being a concept from the novel (DSouza's analogy) and therefore not applicable outside the novel (if all other terms from the novel are rejected) is excellent.

WRT fine tuning: Before Darwin, we guessed that life was designed by God. We couldn't understand how complex life could emerge without a designer.

Isn't it risky for the theist to link God to our current ignorance regarding the fine tuning problem? If this gap in understanding is filled, intellectual honesty requires that we reject the God hypothesis a second time.

934. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92850 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 3:17 pm

The "winning" thing seems daft to me. It only has meaning if a debator is a product on the market and I've no interest in that. Arguments ought to be strong enough to stand apart from those who voice them.

If I were Dawkins, I might agree to a debate by email but I'd probably not bother with a live performance. Science and spin don't get on too well.

He ridiculed the multiverse hypothesis (or speculation if you like that word) by giving some crazy argument about O J Simpson's defence etc.

Google "Chewbacca defense."

935. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92841 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Dennett put a strong point on the table worthy of our reflection: Believers ought to be challenged to present their method for preventing toxic belief systems from gaining popularity.

Dennett's point about morality was sound: even if God makes the rules, He doesn't tell us directly what He wants. We're stuck with His self-appointed, contradictory proxies. So we have to talk about our values and work out what seems best. Nothing new here.

D'Souza is a challenge because he packs so many propositions into his speaking time. I suppose I'd handle him like a bull-dog prosecutor: focus upon one point at a time until you push him to concede or you demonstrate his error. Ignore everything irrelevant to the one point until it's settled.

936. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92831 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Thanks, Pat. I was there and enjoyed myself. Dennett's concern regarding toxic belief is exactly my own. D'Souza would earn more of my respect if he would tackle that problem directly. Like many here, I'm acutely worried about the elementary school teacher in the Sudan, Ayan Hirsi Ali's safety, and so on.

I often wish I could continue a debate after it ends, so here goes:

D'Souza: Dennett is guilty of over-extending Darwin. Evolution can't explain why we believe certain propositions are true. The premises of modern science are based upon Christian metaphysics, namely that the universe follows rational laws because there is a rational law-giver.

Whaa?
1. The evolution of life is something we observe. Natural selection is our theory to explain those observations.
2. The evolution of the universe from the Big Bang forward is not explained by Darwinian natural selection but by an incomplete set of physical laws. These laws are a human invention. When you speak as though the laws of physics somehow exist in the universe, you're guilty of reification.

Descriptions of God are to a large degree man made.

By what method do we sort the man-made part from the ___ part? Does this method exclude toxic superstitions?

Propositions concerning God and the afterlife aren't going to be supported by decisive empirical evidence. Still, we ought to take these propositions seriously, as our beliefs about God and the afterlife affect how we live now.

If how we live now is what matters, why not focus upon that and screw the rest?

Atheists naively deem everything we don't know as "can't possibly exist."

Actually, science is a method for falsifying hypotheses. Propositions not yet falsified often can be assigned a degree of confidence in relation to competing hypotheses using standard criteria.

The atheistic viewpoint cancels out the subjective dimension.

Actually, we have developed ways to study subjective experience. And further: although matters of feeling and preference may not serve as reliable guides to what's true about the universe, they remain important truths about one's self.

Free will and morality have no meaning for a materialist.

Nonsense. Dualism, BTW, is highly problematic.

We are both reasoning in the dark. The only difference is he won't admit it.

In order to reason together both parties must agree upon the rules. If parsimony is accepted as a rule, the self-creating God hypothesis must be afforded a lower probability than the self-creating universe hypothesis. If parsimony is rejected as a rule, things are going to get pretty wacky.

Humbly open yourself to God. You might come to see that humans are a divine creation, a product of divine intelligence and divine love.

Personal revelation provides no barrier to toxic belief.

937. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92697 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 8:46 am

Honestly, the last thing Richard would want is to be muzzled because the atheist community doesn't want to offend religious people.

With respect to polyamory, offense will largely be a function of attachment style, not religion.

938. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92687 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 8:18 am

The daughter thing is what I mean by freak.

Before we had language, we communicated pain by causing pain.

939. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92681 by Dr Benway on December 1, 2007 at 7:58 am

Unlike reptiles, mammals have a developed attachment system. We know serotonin and oxytocin have something to do with attachment behavior, anxiety, and depression, but are still working out the details.

Mating behavior often, but not always, commandeers this earlier attachment system. When it does, we see romantic love - feelings of tension beneath the sternum, sweaty palms, sighing, obsession with the loved object, excluxivity, intense rejection anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and so on. Strongest force in the universe.

Some people never fall victim to the madness of love, which is always exclusive in its focus. Some people seem particularly prone to it. Polyamory may be a reasonable option for the first group; serial monogomy is likely most natural to the latter group. Ordinary folks in the middle -- once in a happy relationship with a mate -- tend to arrange their lives so as not to reawaken the experience of falling in love.

Russell Blackford: You can never step entirely outside of your own values, but you can always ask yourself, "What are my deepest, most enduring values?", and use your answer to that question to judge your more immediate responses, prejudices, emotions, so-called "moral intuitions", socialisation, etc., either "endorsing" these things or "disowning" them.

I don't disagree with you, Russell. But on behalf of those with attachment problems, I ask that you recognize the limits of change. We don't know how to change a person's sexual identity or sexual orientation. Likewise, we can't change attachment style.

Many people are not capable of forming deeply secure attachments to a primary love object. Some remain worried about abandonment no matter the evidence against it. Some exhibit a permanent ambivalence. These problems have nothing to do with religion.

Those who form anxious attachments will completely freak if you ask them to consider open marriage, and there are a lot of 'em out there.

940. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92594 by Dr Benway on November 30, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Quick recap:

Dennett was strong out of the gate with several clear, direct questions for D'Souza. He recommended general education about world religions as a way to innoculate children against toxic sects. He wondered if D'Souza likewise worried about toxic variants of the major religions.

D'Souza largely ignored Dennett's excellent questions. He ran through his customary avalanche of dodgy analogies and arguments - e.g., how do electrons know 'bout the laws they follow (reification cough cough), fine tuning of the constants, morality, consciousness, etc.

Dennett decided to tackle some of D'Souza's obvious errors. I rather wished he simply ignored the storm and re-focused upon his original questions. Those questions were beautiful.

Next there was the back and forth and the "whaah?" moments. It's difficult to believe someone so smart and eloquent can make such basic mistakes. Just as some people don't get the Monty Hall problem no matter how carefully you explain it, D'Souza doesn't really get natural selection and philosophy of science.

Smacked my forehead coupla times in disbelief.

D'Souza said something about Christianity giving us science, ethics, using the toilet, and I thought "OMG, the "Christianity invented indoor plumbing" thing was a joke! He's not actually claiming that, is he? I'll have to hear a recording of the debate to catch that "toilet" moment again.

D'Souza conceded his belief in God was a guess. I appreciated that. But he pooped on agnostics, which I didn't like.

D'Souza also conceded evolution, sorta. "I'm arguing ID with respect to the creation of the whole universe."

Two of the three hours basically were fought over fine tuning and a creator God. Reminded me again why I'd concede deism up front.

Hitler-Stalin-Mao again. Hey D'Souza, I don't blame Christianity for Jim Jones or David Koresh. I blame human gullibility and narcissistic personality disorder for those disasters. Same thing with Hitler-Stalin-Mao.

I do blame Christianity, however, for "God hates fags" and "kill the witches." That stuff is in the Bible.

Dennett looked quite tired at the end. Yet he generously signed my book. Good man.

I liked D'Souza more in this debate than the others. The few grudging concessions helped.

941. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92349 by Dr Benway on November 30, 2007 at 10:26 am

That's a non sequitur since nobody suggests that anybody should be forced into polygamy.

I think I used the word "pressured" not "forced." Here's an example of the sort of pressure I mean:

Why should you deny your loved one the pleasure of sexual encounters with others, if he or she is that way inclined?

We know how such statements will be spun. "The new atheists feel that marriage, like God, is a religious delusion for the brainwashed and weak minded."

There's a better approach to the problem that's far less threatening: emphasize mutual consent and mutual happiness. Don't advocate for open marriage per se.

Humans have their limitations. If you're fond of them, best not press them beyone their breaking point.

942. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92294 by Dr Benway on November 30, 2007 at 8:41 am

Beth: To claim that any discussion of marriage, sexuality, and jealousy will 'sink' the atheist PR campaign is utter nonsense.

By "challenging the notion of marriage," I had in mind polyamory specifically.

I have no personal objections to any mutually consensual behavior between two people. But I know that many people would be miserable to the point of suicide if they felt pressured into accepting an open marriage situation.

If atheism seems linked to polyamory, it's not going to be popular.

943. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92282 by Dr Benway on November 30, 2007 at 8:18 am

I've observed often enough how family courts can sometimes provide closure but hardly ever provide justice. What happens between two intimates when they're alone together over long periods is difficult to judge from the outside.

The general public is even farther removed from the reality of an intimate relationship than a family court. What can the public really understand about the hopes and sufferings of the participants?

Best to keep intimate relationships out of politics, in my opinion. The details of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky shouldn't have been material to a congressional investigation. I suppose Clinton's frank denial of the affair opened the door to those details. But I would have preferred some higher standard of relevance to have limited the questioning.

Humans of normally excellent judgment can make some stupid decisions in the context of romantic love. I don't think you can extrapolate from a messy personal situation some general principle about an individual's judgment. However, there is a line good people don't cross even when they're stressed. I can't tell you where that line is, but sometimes I feel I know it's been crossed.

Cartomancer: I want to be able to let these people get on with their lives and not get worked up and hurt when I think about who they might be sleeping with, but I cannot. And it is making me very depressed indeed

Your feelings sound pretty normal to me, Cartomancer. Next time you're in the bookstore, have a look at Love and Limerence by Dorothy Tennov. "Limerence" refers to that strange state of falling in love. Tennov argues that limerence is biologically determined and largely involuntary. It's consistently described by people from many different backgrounds and follows a fairly predictable pattern.

Once you're in it, you're fucked. A gradual escape is possible if the object of your attention decides either to bond with you or rejects you unequivocally. Mixed signals keep it going.

Limerence is focused on one person and I note you mention "people." If you're ping-ponging from wanting one special person, losing hope, then transferring the feeling to another, that's limerence. If you want them all at once, that's probably something else.

You might enjoy reading Savage Love. There's comfort in noting that many people are a lot more screwed up than yourself.

944. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92215 by Dr Benway on November 30, 2007 at 4:26 am

I think a Darwinian model of exclusive love that speaks of mating but says nothing about attachment rather misses the boat. Human childhood is long and requires enduring attachment. Human culture also requires enduring attachment.

Imagine you're a hungry baby monkey. You see a bunch of perfect bananas a few feet above you in the tree. But suddenly you notice your mother is swinging away from you to another tree. Do you

a) grab a banana then chase after mama?
b) forget the banana and chase after mama?

If you picked "b" you are indeed a primate. The attachment drive trumps all.

Mating is a time of greater neuroplasticity and the object of primary attachment can be changed. But the character of the attachment bond typically doesn't change much.

945. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92205 by Dr Benway on November 30, 2007 at 3:51 am

Exclusive love emerges in an obvious way around 9-10 months of age, long before adult sexuality.

Those lucky enough not to have suffered damage to early attachment bonds can say things like, "What's wrong with sex outside marriage?" But they ought to be aware of how such talk will affect people less lucky. Might as well ask, "What's wrong with my cutting out your heart and eating it in front of you?"

Exclusivity is part of sexual jealousy, but has far deeper roots in the personality. Modern psychiatry hasn't a clue how to help people rise above their nature at this level.

I think that people with attachment issues turn to religion for security and in hopes of finding a "good" partner who won't abandon them. Religion, therefore, should be seen as a consequence of attachment problems rather than a cause of traditionalist sexual mores.

Few issues will sink the atheist PR campaign faster than a challenge to the notion of marriage.

946. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91990 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Well of course I'd mind. Getting dumped sucks fucking donkeys.

A very endearing thing to say.

947. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91969 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 4:13 pm

No have ten foot pole. Make only brief journey into mine field:

Romantic relationships are compromises between many competing and overlapping needs. Sex is clearly important. But don't forget the three flavors of attachment: secure, anxious, and ambivalent. One's capacity for attachment is determined early in life and changes very little later on.

If your partner forms secure attachments, maybe there's room for polyamory.

If your partner forms anxious attachments, you best put notions of open marriage out of your head. Don't even wonder aloud about the idea.

If your partner forms ambivalent attachments, the outcome is difficult to predict. I've seen a sort of don't-ask-don't-tell parallel play situation remain stable over time. But "hell hath no fury" is more common.

Attachment has nothing to do with religion. 100% biology.

I haven't yet met a human who can alter this personality characteristic after the age of, say, puberty. No pill, no therapy, seems to touch it.

948. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91759 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 7:09 am

Let me say up front: Capitalism good.
But also: Rich tend to get richer.
And: Healthy competition and monopolies don't mix.
However: Economies of scale good.

We need civic infrastructure. Whether the need is met by a large corporation like the late Ma Bell, or another large corporation like "the government" or a collection of smaller corporations shouldn't matter in principle. What matters is efficiency, sustainability, and accountability.

Libertarians are too focused on "government bad" in my opinion. What's bad is the lack of accountability, which can happen with private corporations as well as the government.

949. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91753 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 6:34 am

I'd like DC power outlets in my home and extinction of all those power bricks. Surely if we could standardize most electronics to say 12V, 5V, 3V we could standardize DC outlets to this and kill off those bricks.

Seems silly:
wind or solar source --> DC batteries --> AC inverter --> DC transformer --> laptop.

Much better:
wind or solar source --> DC batteries --> laptop.

Latest weekend hobby: modifying LCD Christmas lights for background room lighting. A string is a couple of watts. Out of the box they're rated for only 20,000 hours. But you can get 100,000 hours if you don't overdrive them.

LCDs + battery + solar panel = constant room lighting for 10 years.

I'd also like more telecommuting. Thousands driving for 45-60 min per day one-way to a large building to work at a desk with a computer is daft. Large companies ought to create small work pods scattered around the suburbs and use videoconferencing for meetings.

I'm not sure about nuclear power. We're still paying for Seabrook station. Those plants are crazy expensive to build and run. And they age.

950. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91746 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 6:12 am

Wycliff, Tyndal and Cranner got burned at the stake, but at least they didn't sit on their butts chewing the fat.

How my brain works: the words "burned" and "butt" and "chewing the fat" triggered a memory of assisting with a breast lumpectomy, when I first noted that burning human fat (singed by the Bovie) smells just like BBQ chicken.

Language processing is so layered and complex, it's a wonder we understand each other at all.