1001. A New Pope

Comment #139945 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Okay that was brilliant. The speech was very moving too. I can understand why their solar system was spared.

1002. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139944 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Bonzai,

I think they did shut down for awhile till the controversy stalled out. The lady who runs the camp appeared on talk shows and I think seriously expected revival. All I can ever think of when I think of that movie, was the little blond girl who couldn't just play with her friend so distracted by her role as winner of souls for jesus. I also think of that young boy who couldn't bring himselff to fully accept the stories and seemed to really hurt because of it.

1003. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139942 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Who are these lords anyway? Something like the Jedi council?

1004. Fleabytes

Comment #139928 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Cartomancer?
Is your twin identical? Did I just miss that?

1005. Fleabytes

Comment #139925 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Bonzai,
Just read your post 3751. I'm in agreement with you for the most part.
But I do think religious dogma informs a lot of what even the soft theist thinks. American Catholics are unique, and Western Catholics too in they are educated enough to have trouble believing literally in the dogmas of the past. My point wasn't that you had said something that wasn't true just that the doctrines shift from the outside, on the merits of the human intellect and not from any-at least none I can see-doctrinal merit.

More than this I think you are letting the believer off to easy on this whole queer point anyway. Here in the states it is almost wholly religious opposition that hems up the ability of the alternatively persuaded to be married to someone of the same sex. If this were just a minority with the religious community it would like not be a hinderance.

Its good the human mind can throw off the stultification. But I think you grant more than is warranted. Perhaps I grant less.

1006. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #139659 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 11:02 am

Jac##### also said this astonishing thing:

Why one side suppresses evidence to the contrary is anathema to good science, and a modern-day analogy to the relious suppression of evidence that the world was once flat and at the center of the universe.

Okay. I've heard this charge made before, but you are just going to have to quite making it with out evidence. I've read various papers in the peer-reviewed journals, seen headlines and read journalistic treatment that call into question the global warming issue and human affects there upon. Here I think you are seeing what you want to see. The issue indeed may not be settled. But the weight of the evidence so far seems to favor the man-made hypothesis.
If you are going to keep crying foul you are going to have to cite some evidence.

Additionally, I made the point that believing in man-made global warming "just in case" is a Pascallian Wager on par with believing in God "just in case." The difference is by believing in a non-existant god might waste a few Sunday's you might otherwise spend a more productive endeavor, like watching football, say, whereas moving on one set of contradictory yet-to-be-fully-understood scientific claims can have huge political and economic consequences, some of which are desired (by those in favor of them, no doubt, hence their bias) and some not even thought out.

Pascall's wager, as Juxtamonkey pointed out, enjoys not a scintilla of evidence in favor of the bet. Not. One. There is room to debate the evidence on the global warming issue. Are we looking at the data right? A wise betting man only bets on a horse with good chance to win. The history of the God idea isn't strong on this point. Further more you would waste more than sundays committing to the groundless wager that wouldn't do you any good anyway (because you cannot make yourself believe soemthing you don't anyway. WOuldn't god see through the ruse that you just went through the motions of belief profession to avoid the torment of his loving fires?) Depending on the faith you find yourself compelled by you can donate thousands of dollars or more over the course of your life to your parish. More than that you could find yourself in something backwards enough to require more devotion and respect the invisible sky-daddy than to your family, friends and neighbors.
While the proposition under review, global warming is occuring, would require that we make economic changes and lifestyle changes were it true it at least has the benefit of having a mass of evidence on its side. If you think that I have liberal bias on this issue you are mistaken. I would love for the hypothesis to be utterly wrong. I like some SUVs too. However I am not convinced the hypothesis is off the mark.

A (Danish?) scientist once claimed that during the 1970's global COOLING mini-hysteria we should, as a remedy, burn MORE fossil fuels to counteract it!

This is a good reason to reserve judgement until more evidence comes in.

And the ozone layer, with the passing of the worst 80's hairstyles had to offer and their aerosol armaments, is suddenly no longer an issue. An embarrassment? Surely not talking about this anymore is akin to a theist diverting attention from the issues they cannot explain: "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Smoke and mirrors, I think sometimes. NO WONDER many people find "comfort" in something that requires only their faith instead of rigorous,lengthy, polarizing and mudslinging political, economic, and sometimes, scientific debates.

The ozone issue is of much less concern not because anyone is diverting attention away from it as you so smugly contend. But because it was a successful correction. The correction was reducing massively the production of CFCs (they as you may or may not know are what caused the damage to the ozone layer in the first place). The ease and tractablitiy of the problem was that it was so easy to demonstrate the cause and the effect. Thus people moved much more quickly to counter act the issue. However certain countries are still under-pressure to reduce their emmissions of CFCs, China springs to mind, but cry foul because they weren't permitted to use the chemical for as long as the rest of the world. Nobody hides Ozone depletion, we point to it as a successful endeavor. The ozone layer is recovering because cooperation on a global scale.

To all of which I say that I question your agnostism and understanding of the issues involved.

1007. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #139649 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 10:25 am

Also,
What ozone hole debacle are you talking about by the way?

1008. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #139647 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 10:22 am

Whoa. Just wanted jump in after reading some of this. Its more interesting than anything the wee-flea has uttered.
jac12358 said:

.The point is typically there is NOT population-wide independent verification of every scientific theory, and so on a purely practical involving time, interest, money, resources and education, the simply HAVE FAITH / BELIEVE.

No I think most scientists believe in the method to ferret out error in our wrong headed ideas, and be willing to alter our own views accordingly. This is what science has that religions tend not to have. Error correcting machinery. It helps that as scientists we have some phenomena to observe of course. Not something the theologian can necessarily claim with equal veracity. More than this, the culture of science rewards the overthrower of errant ideas. When Dawkins discusses the various theories for the origin of the universe you should note that he doesn't do it with anything like religious conviction. And says it is an open question about which we may never ever have an answer.
I'm relatively unconcerned with what goes on in physics, they have the same error correcting machinery, the same mix of openness of conservatism that exists in my own field of biology. I talk with my friends in physics and read the work of various lay treatments. When we see broad consenus we might take some sense that problem is being worked out.
However I do not take it on faith. Science produces. If it were just ivory tower goofs treating the situation like the philosophers of ancient times then yeah, I'd say religion science sre completely equal in their credibility. However that ain't the case.

I'd like to make a final comment on global warming, which I was disappointed to see omitted from Dawkins' book. Perhaps he is hedging his bets, but given his apparent political leanings, it is tempting to conclude that had he mentioned it it would have exposed itself to be the can of worms that would undermine much of his thesis.

Why would you think that global warming would be in book about God? I'm not sure that the presense or abscense of said phenomena would have little bearing on the God/religion question. The whether it is or isn't happening by the way is not a political question. It is a scientific one. What we do with the findings is a political question. I'm less agnostic on the issue than I used to be and that has a great deal to do with the fact that work by many thousands (I was one of the workers!) of scientists seem to point toward man-made global warming as being the reality after all.
And acting as if it is indeed the case, as Hitch has said "This is the only place we have to live and run the experient." Is anything but Pascal's silly wager.

We can predict what would happen if global mean temperatures waver up or down 5 degrees C to a high degree (the difference between a mile of ice over Indiana and the current temperat climate seems to be a global mean of 5 degrees cooler). Too much hotter and there is a shallow sea on the eastern side of the Rockies. At least that is what the evidence currently says. It could change tomorrow. But the inertia of the research, from people of mixed agendas seems to point toward the problem as being real.

But that is a digression on which I could be moved and have researched in great detail that has precisely not a thing to do with Dawkins case against God.

1009. Leaving the Faith

Comment #139637 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 9:37 am

Richard Morgan said about family and friend relationships the following:

and I suspect that there are lot more people hurting in that area than not.
There's a lot more to be said about that, but at another time.

It would be remarkable if that weren't true. Atheism, and my list of consolations and pursuits ring hollower to me if this family and friends to discuss them and argue about them is missing.

1010. Leaving the Faith

Comment #139636 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

Richard,
I meant that last line to read as follows,
"Don't worry about me, worry about Mr-I-need-something-else."
As in worry about qster who needs something more than the dead of atheism.
Sorry that was unclear.

1011. Fleabytes

Comment #139635 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 9:30 am

But Hitler's dislike arose in the rather fruitful soil of German Christianity, and probably 1800 or more years of Christian influence. Sure it needn't be expressed strictly theological terms. But Jew integration into nations with strong christian ties has always been shall we say problematic. Nor has always been easy in Muslim societies for Jews to integrate.

Jews were not permitted to hold land or office in Germany if memory serves. Would a group become insular and backwards then? Would they ply the only trades open to them? Sure.
I do agree though that within a great deal of Jewish thought there does seem to be a bit of self-imposed racial identity to what ought to be an intellectual commitment. However, so insular had the society become that they have their own peculiarly local genetic problems.
However it remains to be proven to me whether that inusluarity was exacerbated by the whole blood of christ on their heads business and their persecution at the hands of their spiritual bros.

1012. Fleabytes

Comment #139630 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 8:43 am

I also might offer that the homophobia phobia, which is less a phobia and more akin in its expression to anti-semitism is not necessarily innate in us. It is infact inflicted by at least three related sky-daddy fantasies that I can think of. That at least one of them is changing its tune in a few of its denominations is not all that subtle in its implications.

1013. Fleabytes

Comment #139627 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 8:38 am

That the AC in Canada is having this crisis is no mark of a nuanced view of the matter originating from within the cloistered walls of the, what did you call it, synod?
It is because the zeitgeist has moved the hell on! That pressure has been building from without for a few decades now as homosexuals have found a louder and louder voice. Not that it matters a whit to me, but the growing acceptance of homosexuality especially in recent years probably owes a bit to science suggesting that sexual attraction and orientation seems to be something like the opposite of a choice. As I said though i don't give two shits if it is or isn't a choice. Adults want to get it it on then go to it. I just want that to be clear.

1014. Fleabytes

Comment #139624 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 8:31 am

Bonzai,

You said: Most people,--religious or not,-- don't have consistent beliefs, they pick and choose and can live with uncertainties. That's the way we muddle through life as a species. A Christian does grieve when a love one dies, that wouldn't make sense if he truly thinks they will be united in heaven. I suspect as some levels he knows that it is just a faint hope, or what we would call wishful thinking,

Having once been Christian-a weak one forever impressed by science and fossil records and such-and having been around them I think I can suggest that some of what you are observing is simply that they tend to be an unreflective lot very much of the time. They excuse their grief in the following way we greive for our own loss and not for them. Some will skip the grief altogether as you may know and skip straight to the God called them home and halleluja!

But they do seem to believe a great deal of what they say, and drone on about how great that makes them. Catholics for instance couldn't be describe simply as fundamentalists as they believe alot of other wierd things and things that cause them great emotional trouble. I will agree the religious mind does take it ala carte, but they still take it and they still believe what they take on whole. And the truth claims they take are an important aspect of the muddling you were refering to.

I hope I haven't misunderstood what you were saying.

1015. Fleabytes

Comment #139620 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 8:19 am

Richard Morgan,
Over on the Ayaan peice you took me to task for mentioning family and friends on my list last. You may want to go see my response.
-Max

1016. Fleabytes

Comment #139616 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 8:11 am

Steve Zara,
I didn't much think about the colors at age 9 or why they "feel" the way they do. And to day I suspect that its part of our information processing aparatus and has something to do with our attaining useful agency while moving through our world. I think people are working the problem and will eventually figure out the details.
That it is "feeling" and not some other something else is an interesting question and one we may have to wait to discover other intelligent life of our own making, or elsewhere in the galaxy to discover. I suspect what you are rightfully marveling at though is simply labels we have come to give important signals in our brains. And I suspect that such labeling grew, and introspective insight grew with human sociality. That that our sophisticated "understanding of how we feel" is just another evolutionarily good trick that has been co-opted for new stimuli the likes of which we find in the modern world.

Some of that seems to be what the evo/psychs are pointing out and discovering. Much of the reason we don't feel that consciousness is epiphenomenal is because we have a whole medical literature describing the ill effects of head trauma, and neural imaging that seems to support the idea that feelings, mental states and altered-mental states are brains and their chemistry in action. Certainly some of what I've suggested (maybe most of my evolutionary hypothesis will prove wrong) will undoubtly be not right, but it seems like what some of you are proposing is putting the cart before the horse. I do think it is interesting that there is an "I."

I agree that is interesting that we feel and not something else. But we don't know what the alternatives are or if there are any that might give weight, and urgency and rank to the information we gather about the world around us.

1017. It's Make Believe!

Comment #139476 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 12:24 am

I love his bit about wanting the disaster to get just a little bit worse. Its fucking hilarious.

1018. Leaving the Faith

Comment #139472 by MaxD on March 6, 2008 at 12:12 am

Seriously I thought they were so obvious as to not need pointing out.
Don't worry about me. Worry about Mr. I need something else.

1019. God, power and money

Comment #139464 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 10:53 pm

For fun go to you tube and type in Benny Hinn and look around for "let the bodies hit the floor." You will laugh.

1020. Leaving the Faith

Comment #139462 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Playball said:

I had dinner with him last year at a charity function. He is exactely as you would imagine him to be: walking happiness.

He didn't look like walking happiness when he was on the end of Dawkins questions in Dawkins' reason specials.

Qster said,

With Atheism, I can only see a dead-end - where do you go from there?

What more do you want? reality is plenty fine with me.
Here is a list of things that might occupy a mind unfettered by mysticism though.
...one can combat one's natural pessimism by stoicism and the refusal of illusion while embellishing the scene with any one of the following.
There are the beauties of science and the extrodinary marvels of nature. There is the consolation and irony of philosophy. There are the infinite splendors of literature and poetry, not excluding the liturgical adn deovotional aspects of these, such as those found in John Donne or George Gerbert. There is the grand resourse of art and music and archetecture, again not excluding those elements that aspire to the sublime. In all of these pursuits, any one of them enough to absorb a lifetime, there may be found a sense of awe and magnificence that does depend at all on any invocation of the supernatural.
-Christopher Hitchens The Portable Atheist

I would add to that list physical disiplines as well. Exercise, sports, dance, martial arts, etc. Family and friends will do very nicely too.
As an atheist. I'm content with the world and the a larger cosmos around me. What you seem to be after is some extra something. With all there is you want a little more? Doesn't that seem just the tiniest bit greedy?
Why?

1021. Leaving the Faith

Comment #139460 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Qster you actually find anything useful in Chopra? I hate to be mean but he seems like something of a quack.

1022. Fleabytes

Comment #139457 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Steve Zara said,

What I am discussing is why it is like anything to have that feeling.

Hmmmm. This is a strange question. Which of course could be good or bad. I am not sure it is focused enough to be a scientific one though.

1023. Fleabytes

Comment #139455 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Robotaholic,
I don't mind myth and the like in my fiction occasionally. I think the narrative has to justify it of course (Signs worked, and I am Legend did not for this reason). But the language of theology is like sleeping pill to me too.

1024. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139453 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Qster said

See, its exactly that sort of response that puts me right off. The innate belief of atheists that nothing can exist outside of the observable physical, measureable universe - remarkably narrow minded i would say. Im not advicating belief in ghosts, fairy goblins or whatever but nor do I think that, in our current feeble state of mind, that we have it all wrapped up thanks very much. Ever since Humans have had the cognitive powers, we have believed in the existence of some form of higher power. To now suddenly say that its actually far simpler than that - "There's Sweet FA out there" is to my mind too simplistic.
Rationality is determined by a framework of what is observed and known - fair enough but you would then argue that there can be nothing else exiosting outside that framework? Correct?
Perhaps thats why you are afraidtodie

Why is it too simplistic? I mean sure there is a great deal we don't understand and may never quite understand but.....why posit anything so unwarranted like reincarnation etc? You were talkign about souls and spirits a bit ago. Isn't that a mighty bit of question begging.

There is no real reason to suppose that the mind is anything other than the brain at work and that when our brain kicks off, so do we. There is plenty of evidence to support the assertion that mind is the matter of the brain. What justification do you have of the positive assertion that there is something after this life? Such a extrodinary claim requires extrodinary evidence.

1025. Fleabytes

Comment #139331 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Steve Zara,
It seems that emotions have strong selective advantage in that they encourage us to certain actions etc. Knowledge is kind of not all that useful unless it can be folded into the service of some kind of action.
So I am not sure why we might find the evolution of feelings so surprising.

1026. Fleabytes

Comment #139193 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 9:22 am

Richard Morgan Said:

I suspect this thread will live on as long as Clearthinker continues to return periodically to post his responses and chastise us all for wandering off-topic. As if he expects us to spend all our time talking about him and his book while he isn't around.

I for one know I keep looking for the intellectual train wreck of his responses!
I crafted a response to one my self that I suspect I will have to send to him directly or he will miss it. I had something to do with his shifty usage of the bible.

1027. Fleabytes

Comment #139190 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 9:16 am

Dr. Benway,
It has been addressed but your point about the liberal,"rational" theologian wanting their cake and eating it too is only too true. They switch effortlessly from the language of metaphor to the language of literalism and back without even realizing when they are making fascinating claims about reality.
Or rather wild claims about reality.

1028. Fleabytes

Comment #139167 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 8:48 am

MPhil, by all means PM away.

1029. Fleabytes

Comment #139165 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 8:44 am

Stryer here is was my response,

Who is more sure of his conclusions?
Not me. Its you I think. You are absolutely sure that religion is a fine
institution, good for society, and worth pursuing. I have offered a few
ways in which this could be disputed, yet you, are the one who
dogmatically rejects any kind of evidence I offer. It is still
undisputable to you. Your case may or may not be the so, but I think
you own analysis always favors the same outcome. I could be convinced
that society did indeed benefit from the aquisition of some kind of
religion. You are the one who refuses to see the other side. Even if it
were true that would of course prove nothing whatsoever the validity of
its metaphysical claims, i.e. that There is a God, that He/she/it authored
one of our magic books, that same entity takes an interest in the
humanity, that he spoke through an archangel truths to an illiterate
desert man with a penchant to shag nine year old girls and on and on.
None of that could be proven simply because religionn helped with this
thing you refer to as social cohesion. It could just be a placebo. You
could maybe insert any suitably resiliant belief system into the mix for
the sake of this desired entity.
You may be right on the issue of religions usefulness but wrong on its
metaphysics. Of course it is hard to point it out when you refuse to even
countance my evidence. Frustrating too.

That is all the atheist position really is. It is just an objection to
positive claims for something based on no evidence. People can go on
quoting anecdotes but those are useless because you have the problems of
our psychology to contend with. Our tendency to remember the hits and
forget the misses will do for an effective start. Theologians, even
soft-core ones like this Roawan or yourself start with conclusion.
Theology is one long argument on the unproved claim. Having taken two
such courses may not overly qualify me to make that claim, but I've yet to
see an adequate case made in the other direction.

The Archbishop believes, as perhaps you do too, that Jesus was born of a
Virgin, died on the cross, rose from the dead to name just a few
supernatural things he finds compelling. I happen to think his credulity
on these matters is nothing short of astounding. Considering that these
kinds of claims have been made throughout the ages, and the claims of
which show no signs of stopping even into the modern times with new
messiahs, and cults of personality popping up with the same regularity
that they have throughout the ages. The only reason why todays prophets
aren't accepted is because we have better tools of examination, more
magicians willing to expose the tricks, and more reason on the hoof to
shine a light into the vast darkness of credulity. Even still people find
themselves in all manner of cults and new age religions, that will waste
their time, money and perhaps lives. Yet despite all we know about these
phenomena Williams believes one above all. How does that make sense? We
are all atheists about most of the Gods that have ever been and mythical
creatures that ancients certainly didn't think of as metaphors. Why don't
you think these deep thoughts about unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the
garden, or a planet balanced stably on the backs of an infinte stack of
turtles? These claims are not, on their face evidently more silly than
the idea that Jesus rose from the dead, or was born of a virgin or healed
the sick or made alot of fish and bread one day. I think this is a deep
inconsistency on your part and one you continually fail to address. You
do believe supernatural things it seems and such belief enjoys no
justification, or at least no less than any other such claim.

You continue to state that Christians believe that morality predated the
inception of Christianity. This may well be. However in almomst every
single debate I have yet seen this bromide gets brewed and served to the
atheist. How do you know right from wrong? So tell your brethern this.
Though I know even you have asked me the question once eons ago, how do
you tell right from wrong? Which maybe different from the statement,
"morality existed prior to religious codification."

Now on to your Stalin points. It is commonly asserted by the religious
apologist that his regime was the odious thing that it was because of his
atheism. Now if you cannot see the simplistic picture that this creates
then you are not looking closely enough. The situation was a complex one,
that had far more to do with his dogma of communism than his atheism. And
the effectiveness of the switch from strange Christian Czarism to dogmatic
communism, it is argued- was made easier in part because of the well
spring of religious credulity that had been established. Stalin recreated
in many ways the mindset of the theocratic state. However nothing in the
position of "without theism" implies any moral code, or stance. An
athiest is free to be any number of unpleasant things in anycase. There
is no dissociation required for the atheist. The religious make the claim
that being so makes them better morally, more often good than not. They
make this claim strikingly often even if you do not. Hitler was clearly
not an atheist but some bizarre blend of german paganism and Christian
misunderstandings (his I mean) and Nietchien ideas. The targetting of
Jews was an off shoot of decidedly Christian nonsense. Whether or not
Hitler was an atheist or not we can be sure most Germans were Christians
and happily committed the atrocities against the jews and went home to be
loving husbands and such.

The author of this piece has said as much as you that religion is could be
validly studied as literature, and as part of the history of ideas. I
certainy find it compelling as literature as our many discussions prove.
But theological perpectives can be debated about as easily as wrestling
with smoke or shadows. Theology should also be studied because so many
people find religion to be an important institution.

Now on to your unsubstantiated claim about the Atheist movement"It makes
assumptions that all we need is a continued "adjustment of our method" and
all knowledge will be available to us." This is a bald assertion for
which you have only the evidence of your gut instinct. This is not the
case. There may be things we will never, ever know. All I think the
atheist is saying, certainly all I am saying, is that we needn't be making
positive assertions about the cosmos, or the unknowable based on the fact
that it is unknowable, or saying frivolous things like well god might fit
here. And we certainly ought not take the advice of anyone who claims to
know the unknowable as gospel or grant them special authority.
I further know that you continue to assert that we cannot study various
things scientifically. However people are studying these very things so I
am content to review what they have to say when they have something to
say. Until then I will not take your default position that the ancients
have said all that is possible on the subjects of governance, happiness,
religion and science. It is good to remember that they had vast amounts
of ignorance going for them. Or rather going against them. You dislike
any evidence that our view of ourselves and our sense of morality and
"virtue" could be improved upon by the methods of science and again you
discount out of hand the idea that our knowledge could be improved. This
to me is a deeply strange position to take. In every other area of our
discourse and inquiry of what we know has vastly improved over the
ancients. Why do you cling to the idea that we couldn't improve their
ideas in areas of philosophy and religion. I don't say by the way that
I've proved my case when I cite evidence of offer hypothesis just that the
case isn't as simple as you like it to be. I'm not sure how my position
is of the fundementalist character.

Back in your court.
-max

1030. Fleabytes

Comment #138985 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 2:22 am

Would anyone care to argue the points of the following email. This is from my friend who finds the critiques of athiest and specifically the new athiest movement wanting. I've already responded. But I am curious if you will see things differently.
He said the following in response to the are atheist avoiding the real arguements article but i think it is appropriate for this forum because we are discussing the nature of our critique and the case for or against theology and atheism....

Although Archbishop Williams has a problematic way of
expressing his position on many things, he is
absolutly correct on this issue. The long refutation
laid out by the writer of this email makes the same
mistakes. To me the problem with the "atheist
movement" is that there has been zero attempt to
understand theology on it's own terms. I don't blame
the movement for this, because if one has made an
initial assumption that a point of view is senseless,
why engage with it? The real problem here is that the
movement insists on a certain type of knowledge. A
knowledge that relies (so it thinks) on empirical
research. The theological perspective DOES take into
account many subjective experiences as well as aspects
of reality that cannot be accounted for through
empirical research (the problem for instance that we
cannot really get beyond our own subjectivity because
we are always tied to our own consciousness/ego). The
theological perspective requires an ability to
integrate a variety of very human experiences and
these are not always obtained through studies in the
labrotory (a study of the brain will tell us how the
brain reacts when we read a poem that moves us.....but
not WHY it moves us and if that is an illusory
experience). There is a qualatative experience of
life that cannot be studied with exact methodology
(you can't "point" to politics or virtue or dissect
it) There is no question that the "fundamentalist"
perspective in theology sits on rather rocky ground in
terms of it's method. However the "atheist movement"
rests on similar uneven ground. It makes assumptions
that all we need is a continued "adjustment of our
method" and all knowledge will be available to us.
This is what I dispute and what any believer would
dispute. Ironically the athiest movement has much
more in common with the fundamentalist movement than
with tradtiional thological perspectives. For example
Christopher Hitchens talks about the ridiculous notion
that there was no morality until the ten commandments
arrived. He is right that that is a ridiculous notion
and except for the rare occasion that i run into a
fundamentalist, I have never met a christian that
espoused that belief. (christians DO believe that the
code of Hammurabi existed though you might not think
so) A grounding in christian theology begins with the
foundation of hellenistic thought, mainly Plato and
Aristotle. I have come to the conclusion that debate
on the issue is impossible with the movement because
it's "goal" is to discredit religion. When one has a
goal like this nuance goes out the window. (that's
also why you find such venomous responses from the
fundamentalist stripe). I have a great distrust of
anyone with a settled position, (in the tradition of
Socrates who expressed better than anyone our
relationship with truth and how we get to it) and
although it includes fundamentalists I'm afraid it
must now include this movement which is more motivated
by it's subjective desires and motivations that it is
aware and seems to have lost the capacity for critical
analysis of it's own positions. I say again that the
center must hold.......precisly because the human
ability to make blind assumptions and miss the
evidence that our position is mistaken is not just
reserved for the religious. If there is a human
proclivity for dogma.......then we should take
Socrates advice and examine our own positions as much
as we can by seeking to understand the other side and
how it thinks and not just make sweeping statements
about the other side's beliefs. I find solid evidence
that the movement works hard to prepackage the facts
to fit the (already decided upon) position. For
example there is an assumption that ANY time there is
violence or opression there MUST be some religous
dogma at play and the slightest evidence that there
was some connection with religion bears this out even
if crimes are commited in the name of athiesm
(Stalin). It's a splendid twisting of the facts that
makes the position absolutley water-tight (don't
fundamentalists do that?) The catholic church for
instance also likes to twist history to make it seem
that it's own claims are totally historically
consistent.....when any historical generalization
should be suspect. Or when an atheist (the late
stephen Jay gould) made the statement that either
religion and science are not mutually exclusive or
half of my colleagues are idiots (that is not a quote
because I was recreating it from memory so if you find
that it is incorrect in it's exactness...my apologies)
rather than consider Gould's idea dawkins simply said
that he was engaging in "political correctness". I
suppose there just really isn't a chance that the
"four horsemen of athiesm" are wrong. Because all
positions that don't fit with their own are just
quickly dismissed even if from a fellow athiest. But
let's face it.....that's what happens when a great
scientist decides to become a populizer instead of a
scholar. (Richard Dawkins)


In terms of dealing with the body of his argument:
Discussing religion is more like discussing the
humanities or finding something compelling in one of
Shakespeares characters. It is not an exact science
but that doesn't mean that there is not a kernel that
is worth something that is worth digging for. For
example I was told by teachers that Shakespeare was
worth examining when i was in high school. I couldn't
see why........now I can. But I see that not by
taking my teachers word for it......but by immersing
myself in the text without a promise of return.
(although the thought that others found something of
worth kept me curious) If there are those that find
such inspiration from religion that why should it be
rejected out of hand? I would say that if one were
true to empiricism (a RADICAL empiricism) then the
religious expereince should be taken as a phenomenon
to be viewed objectively. (and not JUST by studying
the neural reactions of the religious) And it should
give one pause the number of brilliant minds in
history that did not subscribe to an unthinking
atheism. (I am aware that Einstein was not a theist
nor was Spinoza and many others.......but i count
non-theists as allies quite happily because they
recognize the profound problems with pure
materialism). But until the atheist movement is ready
to join the seekers (who DONT have absolute confidence
in their postiions if they are honest) then perhaps
Richard dawkins provided us with good advice in his
position towards fundamentalists: "why waste your
time with those clowns?"

1031. Fleabytes

Comment #138919 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 12:25 am

LOL,
Sorry if I keep sensing it. But it does seem as if you and bonzai are knocking on that door. Maybe just softly.

But after reading your last post I sense that you are just intrigued that it is neurons rather than some other system and that it should involve feeling at all.

I wonder if the notion of feeling didn't arise with sociality. Maybe our ancestors needed some way to discuss what was going on in their heads with each other as they might derive various darwinian benefit from gaining friendship, sympathy etc from their compatriots. It may be that we didn't have things like feelings until we joined social groups.

If you look at most other social animals, wolves, elephants, dolphins and of course chimps gorillas and orangutans (but not those insensitive brutes the cats) at we see various commnications that seem very like our language of emotion. That is a leaky just so story but it points, I think to a way for the whole edifice of our emotional life to arise.
Just a thought.

1032. Fleabytes

Comment #138910 by MaxD on March 5, 2008 at 12:12 am

Steve Zara said:

I think it is more like.. the problem of why it is like anything at all to be self-aware.

I guess my major hang up with a statement like that is its vaguery. Of course it contains mystery, but to my mind not much to suggest a research program. I think you guys can continue to cite lower level order(by that I mean the realm of physics and not lower as in easy or anything perjorative) as a barrier to understanding consciousness, and brain function. But you have already I think had much of the argument lost long before this conversation even started as any kind of dualism began its slow death at the hands of a mis handled dynamite tamping rod.

As I said consciousness can be altered, personality, and perceptions can be changed dramatically by chemical events, head trauma, neurological disorder. So what ever the basic mechanics are they seem to be arising in a deep way from the way brains are organized.
I'm no expert here, I am just a bird nerd who has a mean flying armbar. But I think on the main points it is clear that "we" arise from the activitiy of the brain.

1033. Fleabytes

Comment #138887 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 11:28 pm

LorianRyan,
I lost a dollar on Henderson this weekend. Fedor is a beast. And Wanderlei is too. I am partial to Minotauro Noguera because his Jiu-jitsu is so slick, and he has a chin harder than pre-med calculus. Anderson Silva has the most brutal knees I've ever seen. OMG.

Allow me to recommend what I've come to think is a good conditioning program run by the guys who came up with the program that got the actors fit for the atrocious film 300.
try out crossfit.com. Its free. I'm like an evangalist for it.

1034. Fleabytes

Comment #138879 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Steve Zara,
No worries,
I was just curious about how that might work. I'm quite convinced that dualism has failed and the history of head trauma seems to have cinched that for us. Along with other disorders that alter personality and consciousness and subjective experience.
I am cool with mystery.
And I still maintain that I have a sense of humor.

1035. Fleabytes

Comment #138877 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 11:09 pm

lorienRyan,
Wing Chun was amazing but if there is an atheism type thing in Martial Arts I think its gotta be Jeet Kune Do man! After all Bruce Lee was an atheist! See we get all the best people.
Though Wing Chun has to be like the Spinoza of the martial arts!
I do MMA now, pretty heavily focused on Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and Judo. I have also taken up coaching boxing.

1036. Fleabytes

Comment #138873 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm

But if your correlates continue to hold the same relationship with a high level of statistical significance shouldn't that give you some greater confidence at least that there is some significant relationship? You may not be able to adduce cause and effect yet but certainly it points to further avenues of research?

Steve am to understand that you feel less than confident that our consciousness is not a phenomena of our brains?
I just want to be clear here. This is seems like it may have the potential to be interesting.

1037. Fleabytes

Comment #138866 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 10:56 pm

I just realized that both my explanations were of the accident of history variety.

1038. Fleabytes

Comment #138864 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Steve,
I'm not sure I am following your conversation here. But it could just be one of those accidents of history. Of selection never favored to more than one major processor of information. One could imagine I suppose that the ganglia in a snail had grown into major information processing stations and enabled "super evolved" snails to perform the necessary calculations to make the jump to hyperspace with a navicomputer. But it is just as possible that haveing more than one brain type thing would be like haveing too many chefs in one kitchen. Brains are expensive bits of hardware to keep up, to run etc, it would be alarge expense to have too many parts doing the same kind of thing that could be done by one.

That's one way to think of it.

Another is that nervous tissue was already in the service of responding and coordinating systems in the body and muscle tissue was on the road to being about mechanical movement well past the point where it could have been pressed into the processing info in any but the most rudimentary of ways.

OF course I could be way off your topic here.

1039. Fleabytes

Comment #138858 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 10:35 pm

hmmmm. Damn. I was hoping that Clearthinker would address his misrepresnetation of the bible quote that he used in the service of making his dubious point.

1040. God, power and money

Comment #138850 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Uh fatmax,
The point of a book tour is to sell your fucking book.
Dawkins doesn't always hawk his book as you say, but he does mention it frequently on his book tour very often because people ask about it. Of course I can see how you might find that equivocal to the kind of thing Benny Hinn does.
Though....I've not seen Dawkins engage in lieing, cheating , stealing, explaining to people if they didn't find what he did awe inspriring it was their fault, or hawk religious icons designed to bring healing or greater money, I've never seen Dawkins pal around with other frauds to increase his earning capacity. But yeah other than that they are exactly alike.
Well spotted.

1041. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138843 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 9:33 pm

i think the ArchbishofCant Mr. Rowan Williams was trying to defend his own institution by suggesting that Muslims get invited into the fold of special treatment under the law. It will be the Siks next then the Hindus, but clearly the easy way out of all this special pleading for exemptions, inclusions and sensitivity is to seperate religion and government. That will be an end to the special treatment that the Anglican Church recieves from the British government.
I suspect such cynicsim from the clerical mind.

1042. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138838 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 8:50 pm

If the guy was dealing with satan as the religious authorities charge this satan is more charming, and inventive than I have ever given the entity credit for being. And lets not forget opptimistic. I mean what tempter in their right mind would say, "what's the best strategy for Malayasia?...Hmmmm a big fucking tea pot and and compound I'll call 'The Sky Kingdom!"

Do these muslim authorities ever stop to think about how silly their actions and offense taking is?

1043. Fleabytes

Comment #138835 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 8:36 pm

LorienRyan,
What kind of Gung Fu do you practice? I did Wing Chun for a few years then Jeet Kune Do.

1044. Fleabytes

Comment #138822 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Clearthinker (would that this name were more indicative of you)

You begin your rebuttle of point six as follows:

Paula, Thanks for your admittance that you are not remotely qualified to comment on this subject. And of course you choose Stenger because he supports your atheism. However that can hardly be cited as a review or evena refutation of my book.

I'm not sure how that wasn't calculated to stir up an emotional response. Stenger's book is fine and draws a great many points you would do well to dwell on before you go spouting off your own-baseless-certainities.

Moving on.

2. Big Bang must have been caused by God you can't explain it any other way

No. You can explain it another way. It just does't make much sense.

This is a simple assertion on your part for which you have no proof other than the fact that you want it to be so. I find it odd that nary a physicist I know, and as it happens I know more than few, feels the need to invoke any extra step in the Big Bang or any other aspect of their physics. In fact we find atheism quite high among them, higher I think even than among biologists. Regardless I was wondering how qualified you were to be writing about this and then I read this.

3. Chaos


If the universe had a beginning (such as an act of creation), it would have had to have begun in a state of high order necessarily imposed from outside. Stenger demonstrates that our best current cosmological understanding shows that, at Planck time (i.e. 6.4 x 10-44 second after Big Bang) the universe had "no structure or organization, designed or otherwise. It was a state of chaos."


Exactly. That is precisely what the Bible says. In the beginning the earth was �quot;formless and empty, chaos' - Genesis 1:2.

.

It was at that point I realized you weren't very qualified. Not even to quote the bible. Or to understand that which you were quoting did nothing to help your case. The Bible actually says; 1In the begining God created the heavens and the earth.
2. and the Earth was formless and void and a darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3. Then God said, "Let there be light."
Okay enough of that.
Nothing about chaos, though maybe your translation has that bit in there. What you will note though is that light came after the waters, and Earth, and this we know with a very high degree of certainty that light came before earth, and water and complex atoms came after (very much after if you must know) the light in the nuclear furnaces of stars. Okay nice try though with the Bible verse. But as you hopefully just learned we can all trot that out!
And you will note that what you said was not precisely what the bible says and that the bible didn't precisely say what you wanted it to say about the Big Bang. No doubt where it is errant we will find the magic of the metaphor!

I'm beginning to see why people find you such a slippery character.

Clearthinker said:

4. Because we do not see a cause does not mean there is not one.

True but just because we don't know yet what may or may not have caused the universe's instantiation doesn't give you carte blanche to just posit any thing you like, or that every explanation is likely to be of equal probablity.

5. The laws of phyisics just happened - yeah right!

More of that Cosmology qualification I see.

6. Stengers arguemtn re fine tuning is here farcical. Paul Davies, Polkinghorne etc just don't understand physics?! Even RD has the sense to recognize the fine tuning argument.

Paul Davies is impressed with the apparent fine tuning. And it is important to note that it-the universe- isn't all that fine tuned. Life as it happens isn't all that abundant and most places in the universe, 99.99999999 % seem down right hostile to the prospect of replicating entities. But go on marveling at how fine tuned the universe is for life.

7. Who said that the Universe's purpose is humans?

Well I didn't. You're the one droning on about how fine tuned the universe is for life and as all we know is that life has arisen here on Earth its really all we can talk about. I thought your God had created the heavens so that we could marvel at his greatness. But that is your area of, uh, expertise.

All in all Stengers arguments are very weak and could only be made by someone who starts with the presupposition that whatever else, we cannot allow God. His arguments only appeal to his fellow believers and thus it is no surprise that Paula cites them - but they have nothing to do with either my book or TGD.

All his arguments? Even his rather reasonable objections to dualism? To his collegue's insistance that the supernatural is off limits, that parapsychology has been studied its just that the claims of ESP, remote Viewing, Qi (chi) have all just been flat out falsified or the methodology is so terrible we must reserve judgement.
All of them? Come the hell on boyo!

1045. Fleabytes

Comment #138665 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Clearthinker,
It is hard enough to explain the universe with out getting side tracked by inserting some question begging non-answer like God. Because in so doing you still have alot a' splainin to do.

Try this formulation. The universe is very hard to explain with inserting Odin.
or without Ra
or without the Flying Spagetti Monster

You could, I think, say all those things with equal crediblity.

1046. Fleabytes

Comment #138652 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Paula Kirby,
You brought up emotional states and the drive to faith. Would you or anyone else care to comment on what I think is a valid observation.

I think I have noticed that there seem to be different faith stances practiced along socio-economic lines.
Wealthy people seem to practice a very subdued religion (from my observation)
Middle class folk have more varied theologies that can be very liberal, or very traditional and everything in between.
A great many poor people seem to be locked in spiritual warfare and deeply a part of god's plan and cannot wait for heaven.

Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

1047. Fleabytes

Comment #138574 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Steve Zara said:

Sorry, MaxD. But I have to support Bonzai here, in the area of imagination. I can't imagine any thinking child would not ask questions like "why am I here?", "why am I me?". If that child is lucky, that questioning will be allowed to continue as they are an adult. If they are unlucky, someone will say "because of God", and large parts of their minds will shut down, possibly forever.

No that is fine, and I have actually heard those questions that you just posed, "why am I here," and "Why am I me?" I'm sure I asked them.
Those were not the same as the questions posed by bonzai earlier.

I think that business of minds shutting down forever was just the tiniest bit over dramatic though.

I've got a fine sense of humor, but sometimes the jokes don't translate the same on the written page as they would in freer more fluid exchange.

1048. Fleabytes

Comment #138562 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 2:14 pm

And bonzai I think you have provided me with just such and example of unwarranted conclusion making,


bonzai said:

But most beautifully, God is not around to give order and demand worship once his job is done.

1049. Fleabytes

Comment #138560 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Why conscioussness isn't blended among individuals and why it is seems like a question that could be addressed by evolutionary analysis.

I'm not sure it is terribly profound even still. Nor is it any reason to presume to insert God into the gaps of our understanding or believe the host of nonsense that accompanies religious conviction.

Simply posing frivolous questions and saying see science can't answer them thus some room for faith is allowed seems like catastrophically sloppy thinking. Especially when it seems that such thinking leads to positive assertions about the cosmos.

1050. Fleabytes

Comment #138555 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Well now I know two people who asked those questions.
That still doens't address the point I made about them not necessarily being useful.