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

Comment #91743 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 5:55 am

Oh one more thing: D'Souza likely will trot out those daft statistics about how many killed by the Inquisition. Might be worth having a more accurate estimation handy.

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

Comment #91740 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 5:47 am

Addendum: If D'Souza says Christianity invented science, law, Enlightenment values, charitable giving, indoor plumbing, etc., you may plug my latest product. I'll send along a % of any resulting sales in thanks.

"There's a new product on the market called Bathwater No Mo! Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water.

"In earlier times, people had to take positives like education, good food, plumbing, and so on, along with a lot of nonsense they didn't really need. Now with Bathwater No Mo! you can keep anything worthwhile while leaving behind things like criminal gullibility, superstition, and cries of death to the infidel.

"Send check or money order for $19.95 to Doc Benway's Emporium. You'll be glad you did."

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

Comment #91735 by Dr Benway on November 29, 2007 at 5:31 am

Professor Dennett,

Bring a cute fuzzy Teddy Bear named Mohammad. Set it on the podium to remind everyone what we're up against.

D'Souza argues that Christianity has done great thing X, Y, and Z. Atheists are myopic in their condemnation of this wonderful boon to society.

I'd want to say something like this to him:

Religionists are vastly more anti-religious than most free thinkers. Each religion cheers for itself but sneers at all the other religions.

Imagine what would happen to D'Souza were he to make the same pro-Christian speech in the Sudan. His 40 lashes would not come at the hand of an atheist, but a believer in God.

D'Souza may argue that Christianity is more correct than Islam.

I'd ask, what standard are we to use in deciding which religion is correct? If we use our own sense of what's best for us, we prove we don't need religion to guide us. We've got our own sense of what's best.

Furthermore, we've no hope for peace upon our globalized planet if religion A is to compete against religion B. The only way out of this mess is to base our social policies upon evidence. No more unfounded nonsense about the supernatural, please! Enough!

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

Comment #91567 by Dr Benway on November 28, 2007 at 2:54 pm

D'Souza's new book is out and his sales will benefit from the exposure. Hope Dennett's well paid.

If past is prologue, this "debate" will consist of two lectures followed by tangential, well rehearsed blurbs. It must be thus, for an actual debate by the rules would hardly be worth watching:

Atheist: Evidence?
Theist: Evidence?
Atheist: Onus.
Theist: Moral basis.
Atheist: Euthyphro.
Theist: Hitler Stalin Mao.
Atheist: Human gullibility.
Theist: Personal experience.
Atheist: Corroboration.
Theist: Uh...that's it for me. Only a bit of spin left.
Atheist: Off for a pint then?

We avoid teaching ID in science class so as to avoid the meta-message of ID, which is anti-science. Perhaps we likewise ought to avoid these pseudo-debates and their anti-rational meta-message. Reasoned debate is not the same thing as rhetorical excercise.

I'd prefer to watch two people in comfortable chairs having an interesting conversation over the course of two hours, rather than these oddly structured "debates."

955. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91263 by Dr Benway on November 27, 2007 at 8:21 pm

I've a soft spot for Julian the apostate.

956. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91197 by Dr Benway on November 27, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Corylus: OK, no magic spells, but also no VPL in the photoshoot.

Speaking of, I caught a rerun of Space 1999 recently and was reminded of the surprising quantity of polyester in those days. Couple of the cuter dudes have no VLP. One's Jewish.

Needless to say, the future isn't what it used to be.

957. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91169 by Dr Benway on November 27, 2007 at 1:00 pm

If the Chinese authorities suppress Budddist monks or I get so angry at the stupity of religion that I snap and punch the local vicar in the face, why aren't these atheistic crimes?

When is an ideology itself causative? 1. Some authoritative, written basis for the ideology must exist and 2. A reasonable person reviewing that basis and the behavior in question would see a clear link between the two.

Example: the Bible says, "suffer not a witch to live." Some Christian believers persecute people they believe are witches, quoting that scripture as justification.

Is there an authoritive, written atheist ideology that prescribes violence toward believers? Not that I'm aware of.

Religionists are more anti-religious than mosts atheists I know. For example, Islamists aren't allowed to tolerate polytheists. Polytheists must convert or die, per the Qur'an.

Boris: I would like to collaborate with them on freedom for all of us (even for fundamentalists and creationists).

Sounds good on paper, but things get tricky when you think about the problem. Shall we support "freedom of religion" for all? Even for those religions preaching discrimination against rival religions?

958. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91090 by Dr Benway on November 27, 2007 at 7:24 am

I am a mixture of rational thought and irrational experience. I treasure my dreams of madness each night, my imagination, my emotions, my eyes that can see my husband as perfect, although he is not perfect.

But I hold reason above personal feeling when negotiating with others about the problems we face. Reason can be shared so long as all parties agree on the methods of reason and define their terms reliably. Feelings can't be shared in the same way.

959. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91086 by Dr Benway on November 27, 2007 at 7:14 am

People ought to be free to bear witness to the truth of their own eyes, ears, thoughts, and feelings. If God is there, best they feel free to speak of Him. If God isn't there, best they feel free to report that.

Secularism means separating private, personal belief that can't be corroborated from political power.

Powerful politicians tend to lie. We can't take their metaphysical claims at face value. Is GW Bush a sincere believer? Were Hitler and Constantine sincere? I'm afraid we'll never know. All the more reason to leave religion out of politics.

960. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91076 by Dr Benway on November 27, 2007 at 6:45 am

Dear Keith, I live in Czech Republic, the most atheistic country in the world.

In a society where nearly all are atheists, I'd expect no particular correlation between atheism and the capacity to think rationally and independently.

Giving a man atheism is like handing him a fish. Teaching a man the methods of rational, rule-based inquiry is like teaching him how to fish.

Atheism is far less important than the rules of evidence that suggest that conclusion.

Atheism follows from the preponderance of the evidence suggesting no God exists. A reasonable doubt remains, however, and therefore deism is defensible.

But it's not rational to believe in an interventionist God, as we have no corroborative evidence in favor of any alleged interventions. One can still believe, but one shouldn't expect praise from others for this belief, as it offends our collective need for corroboration.

961. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #91067 by Dr Benway on November 27, 2007 at 6:26 am

BorisCvek: And religion is not the Lord or the Truth as well. Religion is only human way to try to be more close to them.

Hi Boris! Free thinkers reject the notion that man can speak for God - either because God doesn't exist, or because God doesn't fiddle with his creation, or because God wants no middle men. Pantheists, transcendentalists, deists, humanists, and agnostics stand alongside atheists on this team of free thinkers.

The free thinkers are trying to save the world from the Islamists, the creationists, the Christian dominionists, the pseudo-scientists, the global warming deniers, and the head-in-the-sandists.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao exist today in one form or another, ready to lead us if we'll only believe in them and their mission.

Humans have always longed for wise, powerful, protective father-figures. To defend against the rise of another horrible god-man, we must be vigilant against our own gullibility. We must insist upon independent corroboration of the claims our leaders make.

962. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90565 by Dr Benway on November 25, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Propositions can be accepted without evidence provided they are necessary for communication and rational investigation. Examples:

1. Words have meanings.
2. By studying a few examples of a thing, we can discover general principles about those things.

Religious propositions accepted on faith generally fail tests of necessity and therefore ought to be rejected. Example:

3. Jesus was born of a virgin.

963. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #90358 by Dr Benway on November 24, 2007 at 2:51 pm

What's love got to do with it?
What's God but a second hand emotion?
What's love got to do with it?
Who needs a hearsay of hearsay quotin'?

964. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90345 by Dr Benway on November 24, 2007 at 12:06 pm

fides: Another example of science and religion, faith and reason, walking hand-in-hand on the journey of truth.

Fair weather friends at best. The two have had their ugly quarrels.

Where faith and reason agree, faith is redundant. Where they disagree, well...

965. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90314 by Dr Benway on November 24, 2007 at 8:54 am

Tibor: I do a lot of little bad things every day without much suffering from guilty conscience and it seems to me that the others around me do the same.

You're a poor salesman for your product.

966. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90308 by Dr Benway on November 24, 2007 at 7:30 am

Ruht: "But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth the all things, yea, the deep things of God."

Ruht, the Holy Spirit has inwardly confirmed to me the truth of evolution.

967. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90087 by Dr Benway on November 22, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Paradoxology is fascinating. Ruht's incoherent propositions are linguistic versions of the peacock's tail - a proof of his robust loyalty to memes he can't understand.

Understanding would lead to paraphrase and slow degradation of the message.
Understanding would remove the trance and the magic.
Understanding would kill the buzz.



Great buzz classics on the jukebox:

One hand clapping
Trinity
All-powerful, all-knowing, all-good
Transubstantiation

968. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90057 by Dr Benway on November 22, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Tibor: There is a level of altruism that really works (works here means that you get back more than you invest) but after this level, the more you help 'fellow apes' is the less beneficial for you.

Then you are serving the interests of others above your own interests. This might or might not be admirable.

Personally, I find masochism immoral, as it tends to enable sadism.

969. For the glory of God

Comment #89928 by Dr Benway on November 22, 2007 at 7:18 am

Without religion, people would still form groups and groups would still fight over resources. Examples of non-religious groups: by location, language, political party, profession, trade union, charity, sport, etc.

But secular group boundaries have a man-made permeability that religious groups often lack. A trade unionist can appreciate that he'd be in a different group if he worked in another field. A sports fan can see that he'd be supporting a different team if he lived elsewhere. If religionists admitted the same arbitrary selection pressures, the jig would be up.

Religion intensifies and hardens in-group loyalties and out-group animosities through imbuing them with an eternal significance ordained by God. The eternally saved verses the eternally unsaved can't be reconciled through negotiation and compromise. A perfect God does not compromise His perfection.

Religious peace, therefore, is the peace of the dog pack: stable so long as everyone knows his place. Shifts in power must be tested by force, as there really is no alternative mechanism for resolving conflicts.

Israeli Jews and Palestinians would all be "people of Palestine" were it not for religion. Individuals might sue for compensation due to illegal confiscation of land by the government or other individuals. But the Saudis and Iranians would have no reason to send boatloads of guns to "the Palestinians."

970. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89909 by Dr Benway on November 22, 2007 at 5:31 am

Ruht: The basic principle of ID was around long before Behe.

At least you've a modicum of honesty above Behe, as you dropped the pretense to science and admitted your advocacy for creationism more quickly. The plaintiffs could have used you on their team in Dover.

For the sake of enjoyable argument, I will concede a creator God. Now, how do we decide which God is the real one? Allah? Yahweh? Vishnu? Zeus? Odin? Earth Mother? Quetzalcoatl?

edit: Ruht's name triggers my dyslexia; please forgive "Rhut" if I don't catch it. Gotta love that "edit" button!

971. For the glory of God

Comment #89836 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 9:28 pm

If religion weren't a consideration, there would be people of Middle Eastern ancestry, but no Jews.

972. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89832 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Rhut, Behe would frown at your efforts. Google "flagellum" or something.

How can we take your rather rabid advocacy for ID seriously, when you exhibit such ignorance of its claims?

973. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89823 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 8:11 pm

C'mon. What's your favorite irriducible complexity Ruht?

974. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89790 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Ruht: No, you already lost.

So, what's your favorite "irriducible complexity"?

975. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89782 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Ruht: [snip]

Hi troll! Wanna play wid me?

976. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #89639 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 10:16 am

Tibor: Well and if this is the case, then what is that foundation?

The exigencies of sustaining relationships.

977. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89636 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 10:13 am

krisking: We clearly live in very different countries.

Another thing I notice: Europeans seem more upset about the excesses of "multiculturalism." I find myself in more debates with people on your side of the Atlantic regarding moral absolutes vs. "everything is permitted."

Does this false dichotomy arise out of a fear of the barbarian hoards? Surely a third choice is obvious: the exigencies of sustaining relationships forces people to adopt some basic, fairly universal behavioral principles, like doing to others as you would be done by.

978. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89583 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 7:05 am

GSP, I don't think AHA is a neocon anymore than Hitch is a neocon.

Is English not your first language?

979. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89578 by Dr Benway on November 21, 2007 at 6:57 am

krisking: I can accept that. The confusion for non-scientists is that "theory" often appears to be portrayed in the media as more or less absolute truth.

Interesting. In the US, the opposite misunderstanding is more common - e.g., "evolution is just a theory."

980. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89407 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Who would be asking these questions were it not for Hitch?

We need a few more like him.

981. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89390 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Diacanu:

...thinking I could throw out organized religion, but get a transcendental high off their being a cosmic consciousness at the same time was literally like having my cake and eating it too, and that gave me an intellectual high to go with the transcendental one.

Bathwater No Mo! comes in a range of convenient sizes --everything from sample packs for spots of "what bollocks" to the 50 gallon "Fundie Drum."

Free delivery through this holiday season!

epeeist: Hey, I have two daughters. Do I get to know twice as much about God's mind as DG?

Somehow I suspect you'd make a convincing argument in favor of cooperation, were Mr. Creepy Sexual Predator caught in your home.

But what would Dianelos do?

982. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89378 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Dianelos: Actually, experiencing being a parent helps one understand God's mind.

Thank your inner fascist --that part of you keen on power differentials-- for that feeling.

Best to keep an eye on it as it tends to get in the way of more egalitarian relationships. Those are not to be missed.

983. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89354 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 11:27 am

...idealistic theism's explanations for the whole of our experience of life work

If you're fond of fascism.

984. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89352 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 11:22 am

Dianelos: Only it's not like every seed becomes a different tree, but rather all seedlings grow together and grow into each other, and finally become one with the parent tree, a process through which the parent tree grows.

Like an ant colony? Bee hive? Slime mould? The Borg?

Is this the voice of Dianelos, or the Great Collective speaking through him?

985. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89346 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 10:55 am

We have many more data to our disposal, indeed subjective data: how it is to love somebody, how it is to perceive beauty, how it is to understand or to realize the meaning of something, and, in general, how it is to be human. My thesis is that one cannot understand reality if one disregards this wealth of data, and it seems to me unwise to disregard them just in order to ape science which does not require that data in the first place.

The expression of personal experience is data about personal experience. It's data about how one feels. It's not data about quantum mechanics, evolution, other persons' feelings, the historical Jesus, etc.

986. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89343 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 10:50 am

Dianelos: That's why one should compare different models one to one and under a series of criteria, instead of trying to study one model independently.

Actually, we look for specific observations that might falsify an hypothesis; we don't "compare hypotheses to each other" per se.

Oh! You're not talking about the reality we observe. You're talking about REALITY, which we can't observe directly even with our instruments.

Well we don't bother with that.

But you might want to read up on the REALLY REAL REALITY which creates the REALITY which underlies the reality we observe.

987. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89337 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 10:25 am

Illusions are wrong inferences we make based on our direct experience. But the experience itself cannot be wrong.

I'm not sure what "wrong" means in this context.

A room full of witnesses watch a man steal a purse. Several give contradictory accounts of what the perpetrator looked like. Some witnesses must therefore be "wrong."

Perception always involves a degree of filtering, processing, and interpretation, even at the lowest level. Even at the retina.

988. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89333 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 10:12 am

Dianelos: I used to think that those who claimed that atheism is a position of faith were overdoing it. But if a naturalist is always willing, no matter what, to make additional assumptions and/or change naturalism in any possible direction as long as doing so avoids supernaturalism, then that is a reaction motivated by a premise accepted on faith, isn't it? (Here I am using faith in its common meaning of "dogmatic".)

We've covered this ground before.

The "supernatural" is a wastebasket for things that
1. Lack corroborative evidence in their favor
2. Violate established scientific theories

Look in the wastebasket and you'll see Thor, the evil eye, zombies, resurrections, angels, fairies, Yahweh, Jesus, Vishnu, ghosts, etc., etc.

To move from the wastebasket onto our collective map of reality, we need:
1. corroborative evidence indicating the thing exists
2. a reformulation of established scientific theories, or an explanation as to why the thing doesn't actually violate these theories.

There's nothing dogmatic about this. Non-supernatural entities, such the Higgs boson or the multiverse have to meet the same requirements in order to get on the map.

989. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89316 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 9:38 am

Dianelos, if you say "sometimes we need proofs; sometimes we don't" [snip]

:-) But I haven't said anything like this. That was a misrepresentation, a rather smelly red herring.

Here's what you said:

It's naive to ask people for "proof" simply because there cannot be any proofs for ontological claims(1). Strictly speaking not even mathematical proofs are really proofs, because they all use as a premise unproven axioms(2) and production rules(3). So when many an atheist keeps asking like a broken record "prove it, prove it" they are only evidencing how clueless they are about epistemology.

And:

Of course mathematical proofs are needed(4), and we have confidence in them even though they are based on unproved premises(3).

Rephrased:

1. Ontological claims are not supported by proof and that is ok.
2. Some mathematical premises are not supported by proof and that is ok.
3. Some mathematical production rules are not supported by proof and that is ok.
4. Mathematical proofs are needed.

How does my paraphrase, "sometimes we need proofs; sometimes we don't" contradict the above?

Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water.

You should apply it to religion then.

I have. You can too!

Send check or money order for $19.95 to Doc Benway's Emporium and ask for "Bathwater No Mo!" You'll be glad you did.

990. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89275 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 6:39 am

Fear might explain Dianelos' persistence. However his methods aren't fair minded. Example:

Dianelos: I am sorry to note that Harris comes close to justify the torture of suspected terrorists and even of their families.

Mr. Reset failed to mention that we chatted about this before:

#59675
#61013

I corrected him then, showing that Harris was offering a thought experiment in his usual Socratic style in order to demonstrate most everyone's acceptance of torture under certain circumstances. Dianelos thanked me for the clarification.

Dianelos, imagine Mr. Creepy Sexual Predator has your daughter in a warehouse somewhere nearby, watched by his sidekick Mr. Sicko Retardo. Retardo has a ritualized fetish involving a favorite knife and small creatures. He likes to cut bits off "to see what they do." Mr. Creepy is tied to a chair in your home, looking up at you with a smirk. You know Retardo will be anxious and prone to playing with his knife while waiting for Creepy to return.

Under such circumstances, are you categorically opposed to using, say, a baseball bat to a shin as a means of persuading Creepy to tell you where he's got your daughter?

If you answer "no" then you are in support of Harris' point.

If you answer "yes," then I'm afraid you won't be voted "father of the year" this time around.

991. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89256 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 5:56 am

Timnea: How does that fit in with killing thousands, including small children, with tsunamis, hurricanes, earth quakes etc.

Like most fathers of girls, one day Dianelos will have a talk with his daughter that goes something like this:

Dianelos: "I don't think X really loves you."

She: "How can you say that Daddy? You're just being over-protective."

Dianelos: "Honey, when a man loves a woman he's considerate of her feelings..."

She: "X does all kinds of nice things for me."

Dianelos: "Yes, but he's not consistent. He stands you up and doesn't call. One minute he's charming and you're laughing; the next minute I see you getting tearful because he's distracted and not paying attention.

She: "Well, he's got a lot on his mind."

Dianelos: "You'd never be so insensitive toward a friend no matter how much was on your mind, so why do you make excuses for him?"

She: "I love him, Daddy."

Dianelos: "I know. But X is teaching you all the wrong lessons about the nature of a caring relationship. Once you find someone who really does love you, you'll see the difference."

She: "You don't understand. X is everything to me."

Dianelos: "Longing for someone who isn't quite there for you isn't healthy. You'll blame yourself for not being good enough. And when you occasionallly get a signal from X that he really might love you, you'll feel such relief. Too much relief. You'll chase after those moments like an addict, and you'll lose all sense of perspective."

She: "I can't imagine living without X."

Dianelos: "Honey, if I could give you only one gift, it would be this: to know what genuine love is like. One day you'll find it. And when that happens, you'll see that you don't need to make excuses all the time, as you do for God -- er, I mean X."

992. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89243 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 5:10 am

irate_atheist: I loathe Barbie, as does my wife.

"But," says Suzi, "Barbie is the best toy ever. Introspection, which is just as good as science, proves me right about this."

993. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89239 by Dr Benway on November 20, 2007 at 4:46 am

Dianelos claims he's pro-science and not a creationist. But that review shows gross ignorance of the scientific method and advocates for "Goddidit" miraculous intervention to explain the emergence of life on Earth.

How to explain such a self-contradictory mind?
1. ignorance
2. mislead by someone in authority
3. madness
4. mendacity

I'm voting for #4 at this point, although I'm trying my best to give the benefit of the doubt.

994. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89131 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Dianelos: If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are.

Oy! So much the self-other confusion.

Suzi, age 4, is going to Pete's birthday party. She's giving him a Barbie. Barbie is the best toy ever.

995. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88991 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Dianelos: On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things.

You're expecting too much from rules of morality. Rules help us build and sustain relationships. They help us understand what to expect from each other. They don't stop people from doing hurtful things across the board.

Do you imagine if everyone believed that God would square accounts one day that we'd enjoy peace and harmony? I should point out that communities with 100% belief in God, heaven, and hell still have their crimes.

I certainly don't believe crime would vanish if everyone were an atheist, although I imagine rational discourse about ethical problems would be easier.

steve99: I keep asking you HOW God is supposed to explain objective ethics, but you just won't answer. You just keep throwing the phrases 'God exists' and 'objective ethics exists' together as if they will somehow magically make sense.

A materialist says, "According to natural selection, we are here to propagate our genes into future generations. Therefore, we ought to propagate our genes."

A theist says, "God made us so that we may worship Him. Therefore, we ought to worship Him."

Both arguments take the form, "Super human power X dictates Y. Therefore, we ought to do Y."

Both arguments imply a hidden assumption: that we want what super human power X wants.

Neither argument explains why this assumption is justified.

There is a more direct solution to the problem of ethics: let's talk about what I want and what you want. Let's see if we can agree and work together toward our mutual advantage.

This direct solution avoids the problem of having to justify the hidden assumption above.

996. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88934 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 7:37 am

Dianelos: theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

phil rimmer: I'm sure Bin Laden thinks precisely this.

Dianelos: I am not sure what kind of argument that is, but would like to point out that the fact that Bin Laden also thinks that 2+2=4 is not considered a threat to arithmetic.

It's an argument against "ethical empowerment" being a good thing.

"Ethical empowerment," as you've used the term, appears to be a personal sense of confidence that one is doing the right thing. Recently I came across a study indicating that ethical empowerment actually correlates with immoral behavior. I'll see if I can find a reference.

Do you not see the narcissistic theme running through all the arguments you present that are under dispute here? Are you under sway of some charismatic figure?

997. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88909 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 6:47 am

Dianelos: And theism gives theists one more reason to help those who are unfortunate beyond one's own benefit.

Theism is authoritarian. Theism suggests that one's relationship with Ultimate Authority is more important than one's relationship with fellow humans. Thus theism devalues human relationships.

Theism presents a knotty ethical problem no one has yet solved: who speaks for God? Arguments over who's personal revelation of the divine is more accurate have led to great evils in the world.

We have many good reasons to care for others. Adding "one more reason" that comes at such a price is unwise.

998. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88887 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 5:58 am

Dianelos: You don't have to believe that others objectively exist in order to communicate with them: Solipsists too go to the market and ask for half a kilo of feta cheese.

Button pushing is a form of communication, but it's not the form I mean when I say, "necessary for communication."

Allow me to restate myself: "Some propositions are accepted as necessary for intersubjective verification."

Agreement upon the inductive method is necessary for intersubjective verification of predictions. One can make predictions apart from accepted rules of inductive reasoning. But no one is obligated to take them seriously.

999. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88878 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 5:38 am

steve99: To be honest, I have been lazy about the science/naturalism distinction in recent times. I just can't be bothered to argue about those in detail when Dr Benway and epeeist do this far better, and when you won't apply the same standard of rigour to your own thinking.

Communication involves an encoder, a message, and a decoder. The snags over ambiguities - which are ubiquitous - often reveal interesting differences among decoders.

If I say to a colleage in my field I've never met before, "the problem is likely supratentorial," I know I'll provoke a smile. The meaning of the words isn't only in the words, but in the mind of the decoder as well.

I'm generally blind to slips or ambiguities in your writing until Dianelos reacts to something like "pi is infinite." Likely we share a similar educational experience. I'm no physicist but I have a grounding in science. Philosophy, I confess, isn't my strong suit. Seems you might be like me in this.

Comparing notes, then: Do you feel, as I do, a strong hesitation to take seriously the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? I've come to realize what that's about: Thou shalt not overstate thy data. Service to this commandment makes it impossible to comment upon metaphysics, except perhaps to say where logic has been violated or not.

The mindset of someone like Dianelos - someone who seems to feel that we embrace metaphysical models much as we decide who to vote for in the next election - seems alien to me. I don't choose truth. I present my data and follow the rules, no more than this.

At Prestigious University, we had an inside joke: presenters at conferences from our program didn't bother with color slides. They didn't have to. Black and white and badly formatted was entirely sufficient.

1000. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88853 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 4:37 am

Dianelos: Incidentally, a deist is also a theist, as a deist believes in the existence of God – so I don't understand why some atheists make a big deal about the distinction between deism and the rest of theism.

I've said this before. It's an important point, so please listen.

A deist god is rationally defensible.

A god who intervenes in our universe is not.

Rational people ought to require corroborative evidence for these alleged interventions before accepting them as facts. To date, we lack this evidence.

Now Dianelos, if we have to repeat the same material again, I'd like you to recognize that you have a "reset" problem.