Comments by Dr Benway

1001. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88723 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

epeeist 88612: No proofs needed for logic or mathematics or ontology, as you said in post #88172. If there are no proofs for ontological claims and no evidence is required then I can make up anything I like.
Dianelos 88623: ...you take something I wrote that is perfectly true and twist it beyond recognition to claim that I meant something as absurd as that "no proofs are needed for mathematics". Of course mathematical proofs are needed, and we have confidence in them even though they are based on unproved premises.

Dianelos, if you say "sometimes we need proofs; sometimes we don't" you imply that the matter of "proof" is arbitrary. If you don't want to imply that, you must explain when a proof is required and when it isn't.

Dianelos: ...an atheist must first have the mental flexibility to temporarily drop their naturalistic intuitions.
Benway: Translation: I want to cheat our immigration laws. Please look the other way whilst Jesus sneaks in without a passport. But if the door's open to Jesus it's open to Osama.
Dianelos: I don't see how what you write here connects to what I wrote above.

In spite of having been both a theist and an atheist, I'm afraid I wouldn't recognize a "naturalistic intuition" if it jumped up and bit me in the ass.

What I have is a rule-based method of inquiry. This method has halted polio over most of the planet and so is worthy of our respect.

Dianelos: But I found your last sentence striking, for it's very true. If you open the doors to Jesus you open them to Osama also. If you close the doors to Osama you close them to Jesus too. So we all have a choice to make here.

The choice is easy now that I've got Bathwater No Mo!©

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

With Bathwater No Mo! I can keep useful items like the golden rule whilst ditching unpleasantries like "kill the witches" and "be ye stupid as a sheep."

Sounds amazing? It is!

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.

1002. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88715 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Dianelos 88326: Right, and that was my point: Contrary to what many people think not all scientific propositions are falsifiable.

Wrong. All scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. That's why we often translate a positive hypothesis into a null hypothesis.

"Black holes exist" has the null hypothesis "No black holes exist." We can falsify the null hypothesis, and so arrive at our conclusion by the back door.

Dianelos 88147: If ethics were not objective then it would not be possible anyway to *determine* what is right and what is wrong, precisely because there would be no grounds on which to make such a determination.

You keep getting stuck here. Maybe if we change the word "determine" to "select"?

Analogy: You and I will have lunch. What shall we eat? You mention you haven't had pasta in a while. I say I know a place with good fettucini. We are agreed, then.

1003. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88711 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 4:03 pm

...back slapping cavemen who gather on a sunday

More like looking in the mirror and saying, "I love you God!"

1004. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88709 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Dianelos:

I am attacking scientific naturalism, not science.

But you use areas of scientific investigation to make your points. You feel that the several competing models of reality compatible with observations at the quantum level are evidence for the "failure of naturalism."

But science is all about building competing models of phenomena. This is old hat for scientists.

You may say, "Models of phenomena, yes; but I'm talking about models of reality.

The phenomenon/reality distinction is arbitrary. It's a function of context. You've reified it inappropriately.

Look, here's a glass of cool, refreshing water.

Wait! It may seem like water, but in reality it's a collection of H2O molecules.

But wait! It may seem like H2O, but it's really a mixture of atoms.

Wait! It may seem like atoms, but it's really a lot of quarks.

Wait!

1005. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87958 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Dianelos: "Subjective" characterizes those propositions that refer only to peoples' opinion. "Objective" characterizes those propositions that refer to something that is independently of peoples' opinion.

Absolute independence from any observer is impossible. We use relative independence from particular observers as our standard for "objective." We use corroboration to demonstrate independence. There are degrees of corroboration. There are, therefore, degrees of objectivity.

1006. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87957 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Diacanu: Prove it.

I think Dianelos clings to the hope that he can weasle around ordinary rules of evidence by appeals to everythingism - e.g., "the whole of our experience" or "worldview" or "ontology." Somehow if he wins a point at the highest level of abstraction, he's off the hook for particulars. This requires him to imagine that we're doing the same thing. We're trying to sell materialism, just as he's trying to sell theism.

But I'm not selling materialism. I don't even know what matter is exactly. Waves, particles, strings, tiny curled up extra dimensions - it's not a straight forward thing, this stuff we call "matter."

I've been trying to get Dianelos away from the "ontology" stuff, which looks more like hermeneutics to me than science. Science progresses by counterfactuals. It's not really about fitting a grand narrative to a large set of observations.

1007. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87800 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 7:19 am

The black hole thing is just Russell's teapot. Typically, one uses something we haven't seen to make that particular point about the falsification problem. I found it strange that Dianelos would use something we have seen.

The metal thing is just a point about the sample vs population problem - i.e., when are we justified in accepting a proposition regarding a population on the basis of some sample from the population? I would have picked up on this if he'd said "alloy." Metals, being a finite population, don't have this problem.

Is Dianelos trying to say that all positive scientific assertions are non-falsifiable and so are non-scientific, therefore he's entitled to be equally self-contradictory and wacky? Seems a long walk for wackiness, which needs no justification (although perhaps clinical care).

1008. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87795 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 6:36 am

Organizations usually have a mission statement and they typically keep doner or membership statistics. Therefore, in theory it should be possible to state how many are represented and what those people want.

Organizational leaders who speak publically in favor of any agenda that goes beyond explicit organizational policy should be held accountable by the membership. If the membership won't do it, the public may, at the expense of the organization's credibility and political effectiveness.

1009. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87787 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 5:59 am

kieth: when it comes to this love - hate polarity, the people I know who I'd call caring are caring to almost everyone.

Hate's on the back burner ready to go when love is threatened.

Imagine you have a toddler asleep in his bedroom and you happen to see Mr. Creepy Sexual Predator sneaking in through the window. If you're like most, that mental image ought to get you in touch with your inner hater.

For myself, I've no doubt I'd do anything -- no matter how violent, repulsive, or dangerous -- to stop that bastard from getting to my child. And fuck you all if you have a problem with that.

Hate keeps our babies safe and sound and so deserves our thanks. It's such a powerful feeling we've arranged our lives to minimize provocative false alarms.

I'm not sure how closely this is related to empathy since this kind if altruism is simply one that benefits the group that the altruistic person belonds to, and for this you don't need to put yourself in the shoes of other group members. The fact that your group benefits is enough.

Game theorists typically don't speculate about what people are thinking when they behave one way rather than another. So you're correct: linking altruism to empathy is likely beyond the scope of this article, which I haven't read either (any AAAS members here who can grab it for us?).

People tend to express empathy via altruistic action so there likely is a link between the two. However, as you point out, one can act altruistically without empathy.

1010. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87768 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 4:15 am

Hi epeeist. Analogous to the null hypothesis we often assume without making explicit, we often oversimplify falsification because we know what we mean and we're busy. We say, "you can't prove a negative," when we really mean that it's far easier to falsify general propositions concerning things that aren't as compared to things that are.

Dianelos seems to have missed these contextual nuances.

1011. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87760 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 3:47 am

One must reason to one's own satisfaction and not to other peoples' satisfaction.

Any proposition that cannot be corroborated deserves less confidence than one that can be corroborated. You know that. That's why you're here.

an atheist must first have the mental flexibility to temporarily drop their naturalistic intuitions

Translation: I want to cheat our immigration laws. Please look the other way whilst Jesus sneaks in without a passport.

But if the door's open to Jesus it's open to Osama.

It's a fact that the kind of scientific naturalism that Dawkins expounds is full of growing holes and paradoxes (which are holes and paradoxes of that particular paradigm of reality and not of science I hasten to add once more).

Remember: we're all talking about the phenomenal world, not the deeper reality that creates it.

I'm hopeful that if you drop your mantra about "reality" for just a short while, you'll begin to appreciate that the "phenomenal" vs "real" distinction is contextual and not absolute.

1012. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87757 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 3:41 am

epeeist:

Unfortunately you wouldn't. You have to look both back and forward in time as well.

Please forgive and allow me to rephrase: If you examined the entire universe and you didn't see a single black hole, you'd falsify the proposition, "black holes exist (in the universe at this time)."

1013. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87756 by Dr Benway on November 13, 2007 at 3:36 am

Dianelos:

The idea that one needs evidence for all claims is wrong

Who is claiming one needs evidence for all claims? There are a few we accept a priori as they are necessary for communication.

objective reality exists

Accepted as necessary for communication.

the world did not start 5 minutes ago

Not necessary for communication. If no evidence exists to distinguish an old universe from a 5 minute universe, the proposition can be ignored. (It also can be rejected by appeals to parsimony, part of the inductive method - see below.)

the inductive method is correct

Necessary for communicating predictions to each other.

idealistic theism is a better explanation than scientific realism

Not necessary for communication. Evidence?

1014. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87652 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Ooo sounds interesting Cartomancer.

1015. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87650 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Well if you examined the entire universe and you didn't see a single black hole, you'd falsify the proposition, "black holes exist (in the universe)."

1016. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87639 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm

fides et ratio: Interesting also that the author has chosen to ignore the longstanding Christian tradition of valuing and providing education for its own worth.

What you need is "Bathwater No Mo!" Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water. It's guaranteed to remove useless and sometimes harmful things like "Christian tradition" while retaining worthwhile items like "education."

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

1017. Exorcism death shocks archdeacon

Comment #87632 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 4:19 pm

When you're not getting enough oxygen, shortly before you die, you thrash about violently. People sometimes mistake this agitation for out-of-control behavior that must be subdued. They'll press the person down, further compromising breathing.

1018. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87628 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 4:04 pm

notsobad: "four out of five Americans say they have "experienced God's presence or a spiritual force."
Mat7895: Strange, the number correlates with the number of fat people.

And the number of dentists recommending Trident for their patient's who chew gum. Trident: Poseidon loves it!

1019. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87621 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm

North Going Zax:

It is always difficult to deal with closed-minded people, who are not prepared to be open to other possibilities than their own fixed ideas, or who are not prepared to look at themselves critical or to challenge their own opinions.

South Going Zax:

It is always difficult to deal with closed-minded people, who are not prepared to be open to other possibilities than their own fixed ideas, or who are not prepared to look at themselves critical or to challenge their own opinions.

Those who eschew dogma in favor of corroborative evidence will build a freeway over both.

1020. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87573 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 1:47 pm

keith: Surely a gain in empathy would reduce warfare? I've heard you say before that we can't have love without hate. If it's true, why is this? Do both extremes have to exist in individuals or does a loving person throw into relief a hating person? I actually have lots of questions. Do you fancy expanding a little on it?

Below is a publication hot off the presses. Would be nice to hear what Dawkins thinks. Too bad this fascinating topic had to come up in a fucking Chomsky thread.

Science 26 October 2007 Vol. 318. no. 5850, pp. 636 - 640

The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War
Jung-Kyoo Choi and Samuel Bowles

Altruism—benefiting fellow group members at a cost to oneself—and parochialism—hostility toward individuals not of one's own ethnic, racial, or other group—are common human behaviors. The intersection of the two—which we term "parochial altruism"—is puzzling from an evolutionary perspective because altruistic or parochial behavior reduces one's payoffs by comparison to what one would gain by eschewing these behaviors. But parochial altruism could have evolved if parochialism promoted intergroup hostilities and the combination of altruism and parochialism contributed to success in these conflicts. Our game-theoretic analysis and agent-based simulations show that under conditions likely to have been experienced by late Pleistocene and early Holocene humans, neither parochialism nor altruism would have been viable singly, but by promoting group conflict, they could have evolved jointly.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/636

1021. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87564 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm

How many pray for Hoof Hearted to win, place, or show in the fifth?

1022. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87552 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Anyway, I destroyed his whole dumb worldview down to the subatomic particles several pages ago, so I dunno why this is still going.

Funny, ain't it.

I made the point about the relative meaning of "objective" before. Something is demonstrated to be "objective" by independent corroboration. The easier something is to corroborate by independent observers, the more objective that thing is.

But it's like Dianelos hasn't heard a word. He's still defining "objective" as meaning totally independent of any observer. Which is not a very practical standard.

Why he do this? Perhaps he forgets we're here.

Dianelos: Prove then the objective existence of the moon. Or of the Statue of Liberty if you prefer.
steve99: When I talk to other people, I get consistent reports of what those objects are and where they are.
Dianelos: But what other people say is the very antithesis of objectivity: something is supposed to be objectively true independently of peoples' opinion.

"Opinion" isn't the same as "observation."

1023. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87534 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 11:51 am

kirsking: I think these kinds of people who profess to follow Jesus need to read his words more carefully and see how graciously he dealt with all kinds of people that the legal and religious authorities of his day condemned.

Many of your co-religionists would disagree with you. How will you resolve your disagreement?

1024. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87533 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 11:48 am

Y'all talkin' shit.

1025. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87497 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 9:43 am

In your first paragraph, what is the difference between information being passed on culturally and it arising out of an interaction between organism and environment?

The hexagons we see in beehives are not the result of information about hexagons in the DNA or bee culture, but the interaction between "turn in a circle while pressing your head against the wax" and the spacial properties of all those holes pressed together.

Information costs energy. DNA info is the most expensive. Culture number two. Info that results from interaction between organism and environment over time is the cheapest. If info can be passed on reliably in more than one way, over time the cheapest way will be favored.

Surely a gain in empathy would reduce warfare?

Analogy: discriminatory attachment bonding in babies is most intense at the same time as stranger anxiety becomes most intense. Discovering "I love you mommy" goes hand in hand with, "Hey, you're not my mom!"

I think there's a game theory model that illustrates how altruism is beneficial provided it is discriminatory - i.e., there are two groups and altruism is restricted to one's own group. If I can steal a few minutes from actual work, I'll try to troll around for a reference.

1026. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87494 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 9:35 am

Dianelos: Also suppose you found yourself alone on an island with no possibility to speak with other people: Would that state of affairs make it impossible for you to think about objective truth?

"Objective" is not a yes or no. There are degrees of objectivity.

Repeated, independent observations increase objectivity. One can repeat one's own experiments. Greater independence of observation is demonstrated when someone else repeats the experiment.

1027. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87486 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 8:56 am

Far be it from me to interfere in UK politics. But this is the sort of thing I'd say to my MP if I were there:

Dear Sir:

For centuries the soil of our small island has sponged the blood of believers fighting believers. Yet we found a way beyond the miseries of those earlier times. We discovered that in separating matters of conscience from political power, a lasting civic peace became possible.

Today, earthly police are not burdened with the duty to enforce the laws of heaven but the laws of the land. Britons take for granted the notion that our neighbor's private sins are not our business. We don't take seriously political leaders who presume to speak for God, and so we avoid struggles over irreconcilable claims regarding God's will.

On 11-11-2007 the Telegraph had this article: Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension. His comments suggest a political agenda contrary to the progressive values Britons enjoy. He favors the moralism of sharia over our established secular way of life. He doesn't appear sensitive to the years of bloodshed our land endured before we discovered a better way.

Dr. Bari's views as an individual would not worry me particularly. But he speaks as the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organization recognized by our government and apparently representative of British Muslims generally. And he's not merely recommending pro-sharia values for himself, his family, or his fellow Muslims. Apparently he wants the UK generally to move in a direction toward sharia. His prominent position affords him considerable power, and therefore I feel our government ought to challenge his views bluntly.

Ideally, I would like for the Muslim Council of Britain to renounce Dr. Bari's regressive, anti-secular agenda. I would like them to replace Dr. Bari with someone who embraces the belief that earthly powers ought not intrude upon matters of personal conscience. I hope you, as my representative, share my position.

AdrianB #87433:

"If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London"

Adrian, what are you quoting? I didn't read that statement in the article above.

1028. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87464 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 7:42 am

Leadership of national organizations that enjoy contact with the government must endorse some basic standard of human rights. The UN agreement is a reasonable example. Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to obliterate freedom.

PrimeNumbers, the problem isn't his views per se, but the fact that he's denouncing liberties Britains enjoy and supporting backward values as the head of a national organization recognized by your government.

1029. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87455 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 7:13 am

This is what you have to do: someone in the British government talks to the leadership of this Muslim organization (not this guy), and says, "You have to renounce the crap in that interview and remove Dr. Bari from his position. Immediately. Otherwise, your organization will no longer enjoy contact with our government."

That bad toupee and the fact he's working so far afield of his PhD suggests he might not work and play well with others. There may be several Muslims near him happy to see him go.

He has to go, or the nutters will be more emboldened than they already are. You can't have that.

Individuals are entitled to their own opinions and can say whatever they like. But Dr. Bari is speaking for apparently 2 million Muslims.

The response to Dr. Bari has to be rapid to have the right kind of impact on the Muslim community. Write your MPs today, no later!

1030. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #87337 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 10:36 pm

I would suspect that Marcus R. Ross is a clever fraud across the board. Lots of profoundly dishonest people fly under the radar. Good people are ready to make excuses and give the benefit of the doubt when things don't add up. Academics in particular don't have a sensitive nose for cons.

The kinds of stories I'd expect to hear:
- His advisor gives him couple hundred bucks for travel expenses, supplies, whatever. Coincidentally, Ross' wallet is then stolen and the money is lost.
- He's around the department working someplace, but often people aren't sure where
- His CV, when subjected to fine scrutiny, reveals embellishment
- Often he explains that he "misspoke" or you "misheard" him
- Stuff is often late
- His early life includes a few tragic anecdotes that provoke pity
- "That cop who pulled me over was a complete asshole"

I would love to find out if I'm right about this.

Kurt Wise is a similar character:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,115,Sadly-an-Honest-Creationist,Richard-Dawkins,page1#54320

1031. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87332 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 9:24 pm

mejdrich: One day, our telescopes will be advanced enough that will be able to say with certainty that there is no teapot circling the sun.

There are millions of teapots in orbit around the sun. One happens to be in my kitchen.

1032. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #87318 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 7:47 pm

What about the old chestnut of, "God moves in mysterious ways". How can this be countered?

Yes, Thor can be a moody bugger.

1033. Holy communion

Comment #87298 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Are gay people funny?

He's not queer. He's happy.

I don't bat an eye when a public figure is lampooned in the press. If this cartoon were in the Guardian, the New York Times, etc., I'd hardly notice it.

But it's in an atheist publication. What the fuck is up with that? Why are our friends so pissed off?

1034. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87297 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 5:19 pm

I extend my personal contempt to you and all others who drape themselves in the cloak of rational free-thinking but in practice stand on no firmer ground than the typical theist.

No more crack pipe for you.

1035. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87290 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Dianelos: Feel free to continue conflating phenomenal and objective reality...

I don't recommend conflation. Pretend we're concerned with phenomenal reality as you describe it. Pretend we're not asserting anything about a deeper reality, as you describe it.

...but let me point out that even famous naturalist philosopher Bertrand Russell taught that it's important not to conflate them. In his "The Problems of Philosophy" (page 29 of the Oxford University Press paperback edition) he wrote: "When it is said that light is waves, what is really meant is that waves are the physical cause of our sensations of light. But light itself, the thing which seeing people experience and blind people do not, is not supposed by science to form any part of the world that is independent of us and our senses".

Just to clarify: the wave property of light we observe with our instruments is, according to you, also phenomenal.

1036. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87266 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 3:47 pm

steve99: Indeed, which is why 'somebody other' needs to be qualified.

Extra credit for you for reading a chapter ahead.

But let us take a moment to savor my earlier point: Dianelos alone cannot determine what is right and what is wrong. No matter how it feels like when Dianelos thinks about it, he cannot establish behavioral rules for the human beings all by himself.

1037. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87262 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 3:38 pm

You Brits are in deep shit. Muslims aren't so brave over here.

PhD in physics working as a special needs teacher? Something is wrong with that dude.

1038. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87258 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Several people pondering deep questions and coming to the same conclusion can lead to 9/11.

All parties involved would include the 19 martyrs plus 3000 New Yorkers, passengers on 3 planes, all the Pentagon employees, me, Afghanistan, etc.

1039. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87252 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm

GSP: I have yet to see a good argument on this board as to why those that have beliefs in something other than the empirically-knowable natural world should be banned from holding public office.

Consider this dictum: "People ought to be free to swing their fists in the air, provided they don't hit anyone." At first glance, this might seem a statement in support of a lot of fist waving. But in fact, it supports quite the opposite.

Now consider the consequences of this dictum: "People ought to be free to believe in any god(s) they choose, provided their belief does not impinge upon anyone else's freedom of belief."

1040. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87242 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Dianelos: That there is nothing intrinsically wrong, wrong in itself, in torturing instead of helping a person in need. Dr Benway in another post put it concisely: Ethical precepts only refer to facts about how people think and nothing more. Fine. I can hardly imagine how one can really think this way, but then again everybody is free to believe what they like.

Did you ask the person being tortured for his opinion? Did you ask the torturer? Did you ask me? Was agreement upon the rules established anywhere?

Dianelos might think that he discovers right and wrong by going into his bedroom and pondering deep questions. But in fact, ethical rules are established by agreement. Somebody other than Dianelos needs to be involved in the process.

Bit like sex: takes at least two. If there's only one, it's not sex.

1041. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87181 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 11:51 am

Benway: Try this: pretend that we're all talking about the phenomenal world.

Dianelos: :-) It's kind of difficult to pretend that. After all when Dawkins in TGD claims that there is no God he is not making a claim about phenomenal reality, but about reality...

It's as easy as falling off an idealistic horse, which, strangely, is just as easy as falling off a materialistic horse. Go on, give it a go for one week. A little experiment in mental flexibility won't kill ya.

Think this thought: Dawkins claims there almost certainly is no God. No phenomenal God.

You might be tempted to ask, "Is Dawkins claiming there is no God in the deeper reality that creates our phenomenal world?" But you must stop yourself from venturing into such speculations. Imagine Dawkins is entirely agnostic about the machinery of deeper reality. Dawkins is talking specifically and exclusively about the phenomenal world.

As you read this board over the next week, remember that steve99, epeeist, myself, and others, are all talking only about the phenomenal world.

Now, go have a phenomenal cuppa and enjoy the phenomenal sunshine before it's phenomenally gone.

1042. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87169 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 11:29 am

But the steak was delicious, Steve.

1043. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87166 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 11:22 am

Who knows? Maybe there is more to existence than the time we're alive.

Experiences that discourage my confidence in this notion:
- Cooking a thick steak and noting the similarity between the meat and my own body
- The utter failure of magical thinking
- The mammalian nature of my species
- Nice people transformed into jerks by head injury
- The obvious, predictable lies of believers and their blindness to them

1044. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87156 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 11:03 am

Still though, there is something to contemplate that is worse than death.

Make-believe can cost you in this life, not just the hereafter.

This actual, physical world we live in provides the medium for sharing experiences with others. Insofar as fantasy contaminates perceptions of reality, one is alienated from others.

Real sharing - the thing that gives life its sweetness - requires some effort to subordinate wishful thinking to reality.

1045. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87150 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 10:47 am

Non-existence isn't a pleasant thought, I admit. But I didn't exist for billions of years already. What's a few billion more?

I'm married to the best husband in the world. It's a comfort to have by my side a friend and partner who values honesty, even when it's a little scary. Being able to talk about death, fears of death, everything, without pretense, is pretty wonderful.

Were I alone and really afraid, I might regress to childish hopes. I'm just a mammal and I'm not amazingly tough.

1046. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87142 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 10:17 am

I am surprised that the people in this forum seem more interested in picking hole in my puny arguments than in asserting their own view of truth.

My truth:
1. I have not seen, heard, or felt God.
2. I've reviewed the arguments for God's existence and found them fallacious.
3. Disputes over factual reality that cannot be resolved by appeals to corroborative evidence must be recognized as mere opinion no one need take seriously.
4. A rational objection to Islam, which I view as a serious threat to peace, necessarily entails opposition to faith generally.

1047. Holy communion

Comment #87136 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 9:50 am

BaronOchs: I'm not bothered by the cartoon, British newspapers tend to feature crude cartoons of politicians and other people in the public eye.

Yeah but the humanists are our pals, our buds, no? S'not the same as the newspapers. How would you feel if your best mates drew a pic of you looking retarded and passed it round?

Chinese footbinding finally dwindled away in about the 1920's.

Well that's encouraging, innit?

1048. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87131 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 9:27 am

Bonzai: Just because someone is religious it doesn't follow that (s)he cannot see there is a boundary between the private and the public.

I've said as much many times, and likely will continue to do so. But just between you, me, and the lamp post: I don't believe it.

I say things like, "Yes, of course you can have God, so long as you respect everyone else's right to their God at the same time." I avoid drawing attention to what happens to God as time passes in a society that embraces such a value.

The tactic is a bit like saying, "Of course you can chew your gum, provided you bring a piece for everyone else."

1049. Holy communion

Comment #87121 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 8:50 am

Here in the US, we are literally GENERATIONS from the kind of pure scientific rationality espoused by Richard.

I agree with you. But I'm afraid we can't wait for reasonable progress at a reasonable pace. Humans are now a geological force upon the planet. They best wise up quickly or game over.

I'm curious: how many generations did it take for the Chinese to stop binding the feet of baby girls?

1050. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87117 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 8:31 am