1101. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82394 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 8:17 am

The assertion that the blood of an innocent being can wash away sin and personal responsibility must be indoctrinated into children, as it's fairly offensive to adult reason and sanity.

1102. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82393 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 8:17 am

Much of the Bible supports slavery and the suppression of women. It does not support modern notions of democracy, liberty, and human rights.

1103. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82392 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 8:16 am

There are no original ethical concepts in the New Testament. The golden rule, charity toward the unfortunate, and the admonition not to return evil can be found in earlier writings.

1104. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82391 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 8:16 am

All believers pick and choose from their scriptures in some manner. But if we are capable of judging which scriptures are binding and which are for an earlier time, which are to be read literally and which metaphorically, then we don't need scripture to guide us. We have our judgment.

1105. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82390 by Dr Benway on October 26, 2007 at 8:15 am

Theists assert that either God defines right and wrong or individuals do whatever they want. They ask, "If there is no God, why shouldn't I cheat on my wife?" But neither personal feeling nor God can serve as a sound basis for moral standards. A moral answer requires input from the affected parties - e.g., one's wife, children, friends, and lovers, as well as one's self. Failing to include these others in the discussion rather misses the whole point of trying to establish behavioral rules in support of mutuality and relationship.

1106. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81096 by Dr Benway on October 24, 2007 at 4:30 am

Dianelos: But when I say that it is wrong to torture children for fun I am not talking about myself...

Prove that statement is based upon something other than personal feeling.

1107. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80935 by Dr Benway on October 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Goldy:

Moral deists.

Thomas Paine was a deist. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. I'm afraid there are no deists in Saudi Arabia.

I can't believe we're going through the whole child torture thing again.

When I was a wee thing, my grandmum explained to me that when people talk about their feelings, what they like and don't like, they're talking about themselves. So if someone says "I don't like you," that's a statement about that person, not you. The person might or might not have some criticisms you might want to consider, but that's a separate matter from the statement of feeling. Feelings belong to their owners alone.

Who would have thought that a grown man of middle years would seriously argue that his personal feelings are evidence of some "objectively true" fact about the world at large?

Dianelos makes the baby Jesus cry everytime he fails to consider the possibility that he is, in fact, a loon.

Isn't that again what new atheism authors are doing in a loud, polarizing, and demagogical fashion?

No. Insisting that power be constrained by corroborative evidence is egalitarian and protective of individual freedom.

Dianelos, you are free to place your own confidence in any batshit idea you like. You just can't take the rest of us along for a ride without corroborative evidence.

1108. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80827 by Dr Benway on October 23, 2007 at 6:21 am

Dianelos, you silly git. Idealistic theism is an idea in your head. You have countless ideas in your head - about politics, relationships, fruit, cats, vinyl siding, and so on.

The exigencies of our mammalian life unites us into one family, no matter the particular ideas in our heads.

If Jesus were here, he'd give you a frowny face for trying to split the humans into good guys and bad guys on the basis of which heads house which ideas. Most ideas are likely a bit dodgy anyway. Just look at all the nonsense our ancestors believed. Why should we be much different?

The method of science is more important than the conclusions. The method is self-correcting and progressive. Put your faith in that method and hold the conclusions lightly. "I dunno" ain't so bad. No one goes to war on the basis of "I dunno."

1109. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80822 by Dr Benway on October 23, 2007 at 6:02 am

We don't have royalty in the US. When we want someone to adore and identify with, we have to make do with celebrities and the Kennedy clan.

No one has been able to fill the handsome shoes JFK Jr. left behind, unfortunately. Yes, we have Arnold Shwartzeneger. He is fun to watch, but he's only a Kennedy by marriage so I'm not sure he counts.

Prince William is sooo dreamy. When he's king, everyone will want to be British. I totally hope he goes on tour over here.

1110. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80709 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Dianelos: Because if Hitchens is the model of a typical atheist (only more articulate and outspoken), then atheism is starting to look kind of ugly, not to mention kind of dangerous.

Assholes occasionally speak the truth, baby.

Shouldn't you be saying your prayers, or washing someone's feet, or donating your laptop to an orphanage?

1111. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80694 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 4:35 pm

You have to twist your brain into a pretzel, doing injury to your reason and the meaning of love to make "love your enemies" work. When everything is loved, nothing is loved.

1112. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80671 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 3:12 pm

For too long atheism has been the belief system that dare not speak its name. – Richard Dawkins in the HardTalk interview of 27 July 2007

Go figure :-)

Quoting authority figures works in religion. It's not so effective when talking to people capable of independent thought.

1113. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80638 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 12:39 pm

ADH:

we must ridicule and verbally harass them...

You're right ADH. There's absolutely nothing silly or ridiculous about a man who asks how electrons learned the rules they follow. No right thinking person would giggle at something like that.

If you'd been faithfully attending our weekly talking points meetings, you'd know of the Dark Lord's order to behave as mockers and scoffers. Laughing in unison at things that really aren't funny was at first quite challenging. But then we developed the secret code system we now deftly employ.

Look here for further insight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e647x8xFKTs

1114. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80630 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 11:56 am

Natural languages are fraught with ambiguities. So we rely on context and experience to sort out what people mean. Words like "capable," "can," "do," and "would" can be used to convey nearly the same thing, or quite different things.

Riley, you seem to hear the challenge as a statement of physical and mental capacity. I hear it more like a statement of character.

If your interpretation is correct, it renders both parts of the challenge moot. Hypothetical people, whether believers or not, posesses the physical and intellectual capacity for all sorts of deeds, both noble and depraved.

Imagine you're a casting director for a movie. You're looking for an actor to play the part of a kind, generous, honest hero, who goes out of his way to help a number of poor orphans. You develop an image in your mind's eye - body type, mannerisms, tone of voice, age, family background, religion, and so on. You see him as devout but not showy about it.

One of your assistants says, "Well, couldn't an atheist work in that part?"

You think, Hmm. Is there anything this character might do that an atheist wouldn't do? Well, an atheist can be moved by compassion. An atheist can express awe and wonder. An atheist can enjoy giving for it's own sake. So maybe an atheist might fit the bill...

Then you remember the scene where the hero must punish a boy for blaspheme. "No," you say to your assistant, "he's got to be a believer."

1115. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80586 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 8:53 am

Dianelos:

I understand that this puts naturalists in the uncomfortable position of actually having to defend their own worldview instead of simply ridiculing theism's worldview using strawmen more often than not taken from a literal reading of the Bible (as if theism entails the literal truth of the Bible).

Once upon a time there was a small town called "Religiton." This town had a charter which allowed the mayor to re-write the laws at any moment without argument.

In Religiton, over 90% of the time things ran smoothly. The mayors used their powers to efficiently instate some pretty good laws. Taxes were low and citizens were happy.

But occasionally some mayors would do strange things. One mayor outlawed coffee tables after he barked his shins against one pretty badly. Another mayor banned waffles after claiming they were using a disrespectful tone of voice.

Then came a day when one Religiton mayor insisted people cut a bit of skin off the genitals of all newborn babies. That was the final straw for the townsfolk. They realized that no matter how good most mayors seemed to be, they no longer wanted to live with the danger that some nutcase would use his authority to do something stupid.

So the people of Religiton re-wrote the town charter with several limits upon mayoral power. Under the new charter, proposed laws would have to be reviewed according to certain criteria before they might be added to the books.

Atheists are not attacking strawman theism when they point out crazy minority examples. Those examples don't have to be typical to be significant. Think of poor Vioxx. It only had to cause a vascular event in fewer than 0.1% of the people taking it before it was removed from the market. No doubt it actually did a lot of good for many arthritis sufferers.

Concede that pretend play sometimes goes horribly wrong. We have to set some limits upon it. But if we're able to sit in judgment over religion, we don't actually need it to guide us. We've got our judgment.

1116. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80564 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 7:07 am

Dianelos:

Even so it's not like theism = naturalism + God, because the official theistic position is not that the physical universe would exist, or indeed such existence would be possible, without God.

Ok, let me rephrase: theism = God + naturalism.
Or perhaps: theism = naturalism + a really important God upon which the physical universe depends.

Hope that helps.

Really? If there is one thing all naturalists agree is 1) that no supernatural beings exist, and 2) that all god-concepts describe supernatural beings.

That's not a doctrine but a conclusion based upon evidence we've gathered to date. That conclusion is always subject to revision.

As we've discussed, "supernatural" is a wastebasket containing many things which
1. lack corroborative evidence in their favor
2. violate natural laws as we currently understand them.

Examples include psi, God, angels, ghosts, Chi, healing touch, fairies, Satan, Holy Spirit, and so on.

It's a mistake to reify "the supernatural" as some otherworldly realm that itself exists or doesn't exist. If we find sufficient evidence in favor of any entity in the supernatural wastebasket, it will be removed from the bin and placed upon the shelf right next to other discoveries.

the article you quote conflates methodological naturalism (i.e. the scientific method) and metaphysical naturalism in a most confusing way.

"Naturalism" in my experience generally means methodological naturalism. The method restricts us from overstating the data. Metaphysical assertions largely overstate the data and must be rejected, unless there exists some practical reason for accepting them (e.g., communication). Thus anyone who embraces the method cannot assert the metaphysics as any sort of factual description of reality.

In any case I have assumed the burden of justifying my claim that idealistic theism works much better than naturalism as a description of objective reality.

All you've offered is a post-hoc "goddidit" for phenomena that are difficult to understand (QM, consciousness). Post hoc goddidits don't pass muster. You need to formulate an hypothesis, a null hypothesis, predict some findings, and find them, before anyone takes you seriously.

Maybe deep down they realize something is seriously wrong in their worldview that everything is ultimately mechanical.

If you think about the meaning of "mechanical" or "physical" or "natural law" you'll soon realize you're stuck in a tautology that really says nothing about the nature of "ultimate reality" which likely is "queerer than we can suppose."

1117. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80551 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 6:25 am

Dianelos:

Finally, the historical fact remains that atheists in the 20th century have committed by far more crimes against humanity than theists.

No, that's no better than "people with mustaches have killed more people than the clean shaven." What you want is, "authoritarians have committed far more crimes against humanity than egalitarians."

So how exactly do you suggest can science falsify a particularly naive God-hypothesis namely that of young Earth creationism?

Same way as we've discussed:
1. Write down the hypothesis in the most specific manner possible.
2. Establish the null hypothesis, e.g. "Yahweh does not exist."
3. Describe some consequence specific to the positive hypothesis.
4. Make your observations.
5. Reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Hypotheses are always paired. In casual conversation, usually only the positive hypothesis is mentioned and the null is assumed.

1118. Devil of a problem

Comment #80465 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Initial theories that the disease was caused by a virus have been discounted. Some scientists believe it may have started with rogue cancer cells in a single devil.

Infectious cancers, like the lymphoma caused by EBV or cervical cancer by HPV, typically are due to viruses. Never heard of cancer spreading directly from one individual to another. Usually the immune system would attack the foreign cells.

1119. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80461 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 10:47 pm

The pie was quite good. I'm afraid you wouldn't much care for what it has since become.

Language is difficult, literally and otherwise. Some say language is a virus from outer space and we merely serve as its hosts.

I wonder: is missing the forest for the trees similar to missing the troll for the bridge?

1120. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80458 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 10:38 pm

I made it to the part where the Church invented Aristotle. Then the gravitational pull of my dick somehow caused a warping of the time-space continuum and my computer went tits up.

At the start of the video, D'Sousa looked something like Brad Pitt. Then bam! I'm looking at a deeply tanned version of Mr. Rabbit from Pooh Corner.

1121. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80454 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 10:18 pm

BAEOZ:

Of course you have empirical backing for this claim?

My dick is so big it won't return Jesus' calls.

1122. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80447 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 9:57 pm

Riley:

...pay attention to the distinction between "can" and "do" / "capable" and "incapable".

I think you're being too literal. Many atheists likely are capable of blowing up a busload of Jews in Gaza. Many are capable of shaming kids for masturbating. But those acts would be outside the expected character type.

Expected character type. Prejudice. That's the heart of it.

Note that the Hitchens challenge follows on the heels of the "How would you feel meeting a group of men on the street in a strange town? What if you knew the men had just come from a prayer meeting?" challenge.

That earlier challenge likewise concerned expected character type.

1123. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80444 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Seems Christianity is responsible for all good things - science, freedom, Aristotle, and my ass. Did you know Jesus made my dick bigger than everyone else's? Surprising, but true. Praise His name.

1124. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80377 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Dianelos:

Right :-) but then again I am sure you're not wondering whether waiters are at the root of all evil. Neither are you suggesting that we should make away with all waiters, even those who serve us well.

No. I only oppose those waiters who believe in using The Force rather than proven mnemonic techniques.

1125. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80374 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 1:56 pm

So I take it that Hirsi Ali is in favor of the war?

From AHA's talk at the AAI conference, I gather she's in favor of responding to attacks in kind. She also said we need to be smarter than our enemy.

Given that Iraq had not attacked the US, and that those who planned the invasion and occupation do not appear more clever than the enemy, my guess is she's not crazy about the execution of this particular war.

The more important question now is what ought to be done with this clusterfuck. I don't really know myself. Who might? I would guess that the military people and contractors in Iraq now, the ones who've been there many months, might have the best sense of what's possible, what's reasonable, and what's needed. Those people stand to lose the most for any miscalculation, so I would tend to trust their opinions.

1126. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80366 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 1:15 pm

GBG, she blames the west for blaming the west.

1127. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80358 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Any chance Johnny Rotten might one day become Sir Johnny?

1128. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80343 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

phil rimmer:

Because Hitchens is actually addressing a real theist MINDSET and no-one wants to unpick it. Its part of what makes theists feel good.

That's how I understand the challenge as well. It's a counter to the deep, discriminatory attitude believers have toward atheists. It's analogous to asking a chauvinist, "why couldn't a woman make a good president?" Whether or not the chauvinist had said anything about female presidents prior to the question doesn't really matter. By making someone conjure a mental image contrary to his expectations, you hopefully soften his prejudice.

Perhaps if Riley had accepted Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, and had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he would understand how his fallen nature stands against the love and guidance of the Lord.

It's true that some atheists can behave in nice ways. But spend any time with them and you'll soon learn how arrogant and selfish they really are. Everything is an intellectual game with them. They'd rather be right than caring, because they have no heart. They reject God because they want to be God. You wouldn't want to get stuck on a deserted isle with any of them, I assure you.

Below is a typical Christian teaching contrasting the character of those who walk with the Holy Spirit and those who don't:

Question: "What is the fruit of the Holy Spirit?"

Answer: Galatians 5:22-23 tells us, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control..." The fruit of the Holy Spirit are the results of the Holy Spirit taking a role in the life of a Christian. The Bible makes it clear that everyone receives the Holy Spirit the moment he or she believes in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14). One of the primary purposes of the Holy Spirit coming into a Christian's life is to change that life. It is the Holy Spirit's job to conform us to the image of Christ, making us more like Him.

The fruit of the Holy Spirit are in direct contrast with the acts of the sinful nature in Galatians 5:19-21, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21 is what people are like, to varying degrees, when they do not know Christ and therefore are not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Our sinful flesh produces types of fruit (Galatians 5:19-21), and the Holy Spirit produces types of fruit (Galatians 5:22-23).

The Christian life is a battle of the acts of the sinful nature with the fruit of the Holy Spirit. As fallen human beings, we are still trapped in a body that desires sinful things (Romans 7:14-25). As Christians, we have the Holy Spirit producing His fruit in us and the Holy Spirit's power available to us to conquer the acts of the sinful nature (2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13). A Christian will never be completely victorious in always demonstrating the fruits of the Holy Spirit. It is one of the main purposes of the Christian life, though, to progressively allow the Holy Spirit to produce more and more of His fruit in our lives - and to allow the Holy Spirit to conquer the opposing sinful desires. The fruit of the Spirit is what God desires our lives to look like...and with the Holy Spirit's help, it is possible!

http://www.gotquestions.org/fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html

1129. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80202 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Some people react to words primarily. Some people have a feeling they struggle to put into words.

When I was a Christian, I had an immediate feeling of trust and solidarity with other Christians. I felt lonely with non-Christians. The in-group/out-group division was profound, pervasive, and moral in nature.

Without thinking it through, I intuited that non-Christians were not trustworthy. I felt that something dark or blind was inside them. I believed that they weren't open to the touch or guidance of the Holy Spirit. They weren't "of the Lord."

Hitchens' challenge breaks that sort of hypnotic spell, and for that reason I like it.

Keith, I still think any noble act a Christian performed vastly more often than a non-Christian would be a significant answer to Hitchens' challenge. This isn't a legal game here. It's about who can be trusted.

Mistrust is what divides us.

Riley: That claim taken in combination with the claim that believers are far worse when it comes to immoral behaviors is what I understand is being used to make the case that religion is toxic. Correct me on this if I'm wrong.

"Far worse when it comes to immoral behaviors" makes it sound like believers aren't basically good people. The problem is more specific than that: there are a few acts that good people wouldn't normally do, except for religion. Mutilating the genitals of babies might be one example.

1130. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80149 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 8:03 am

One lump or two, good monkey?

Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?

1131. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80144 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 7:28 am

keith:

Yet there is a loophole that he has so far failed to squeeze through, the one that lies between Hitchens' claim on the one side and Dr. Benway's 'Then you agree that we don't need god to do good'. The loophole exists in the difference between 'can' and 'do'.

I think a probablistic answer would count. If a believer argued something analogous to, "sure, the Chicago Cubs could win the series*, but how often does that happen?" I would take note.

In any event, Christians have offered a couple of answers to the challenge:
1. pray for someone
2. love one's enemies

Enlightenme: [1] Proposition; God made all men.

Whether humans are often good because they've evolved thus, or because God wrote His law on the heart, or some other reason, is not relevant to the matter at hand.

Hitchens could have made his point without the rhetorical device of the challenge, perhaps like this: "I presume we all agree that atheists are just as cabable of noble, kind, and generous deeds as believers. But note that many believers do a number of harmful things for the sake of their religion that no atheist would ever dream of doing."

*Outside US, substitute appropriate football club and league.

1132. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80138 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 6:59 am

Dianelos: Because they do not think critically, and they moreover implicitly trust the opinion of other people they fancy are authoritative. Which, as far as I am concerned, is the same reason why many people are impressed by TGD.

Dawkins won't remove ground in dirt or grass stains, and leaves your whites looking gray and your colors dull. To really get clothes clean, you need Dianelosity! Now with EEE™ or "Extra Ethical Empowerment"!

Really, what purpose the tacked-on snarky asides re: Dawkins et al, if not marketing?

1133. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80133 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 6:05 am

it is important to maintain a civilized discourse and not resort to dehumanising the "other".

In general that's true. But real combat requires killing, which is hard. There's an ever present danger for most decent, ordinary people, of mistaking the courage of the knife for the courage of the blood.

If you can call someone "vermin" without wavering, you might be capable of slitting his throat. If you can imagine feeling relief and even pleasure at his death, you might be able to kill him. It's not an easy thing to do. The conditioning against murder for most of us runs pretty deep, thankfully.

1134. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80130 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 5:51 am

Riley, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I do not view Hitchen's question as a strawman. Note that the banal question about good deeds is a set-up followed by a punchline: name an evil act that a believer would do that an atheist would not do.

The intent of the device is simply to drive home the point: we do not get our morals from religion.

Religionists do have a habit of splitting humanity into two camps: believers verses infidels, saved verses unsaved. Goodness ain't evenly spit between the two groups. Some religionists are quite explicit about which sort of human you ought to trust; some are more murky. But that divide is a major part of religion's poison.

1135. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80123 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 5:13 am

It's not like theism = naturalism + God.

Theism is naturalism + God. Your additional bit, idealism, is irrelevant, as an idealistic universe is indistinguishable from a mechanistic universe.

The deistic founders of the United States of America were advocates of naturalism. Deism admits a transcendent creator of the universe but denies that the creator interferes with Nature. Hence, understanding God is unnecessary to understanding the world.

Pantheistic philosophies—such as that of the ancient Stoics, John Scotus Eriugena (Ireland, 9th century), Giordano Bruno (Italy, 16th century), and Spinoza (Holland, 17th century)—are naturalistic. In pantheism, God is the world.

Naturalism does not deny the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, or influences that are supernatural.

http://skepdic.com/naturalism.html

And if there were an easy way to find out by corroborative evidence whether theism's or naturalism's basic description is the correct one then we wouldn't be having all these books in pro and in contra, or all these debates between theists and naturalists (which – quite objectively speaking – naturalists are not clearly winning, to put it mildly).

Teapot.

...several dozens of different and mutually contradictory descriptions [1], b) each one is rather bizarre and paradoxical...

No one is compelled to accept untested hypotheses.

1136. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80090 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Lauregon:

You take slight issue with the warning of "weeping and gnashing of teeth to come," but cheerfully overlook what the story actually describes: cowed, servile people living under a tyrannous and rapacious master.

Word.

1137. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80087 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 10:38 pm

So true, Riley, so true.

I just pulled a fresh, homemade blueberry pie from the oven. I'm not kidding.

Ah, life is good.

1138. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80081 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 10:03 pm

No, Morro. PZ was commenting on a speech at another conference in the midwest.

Riley, after the moral compass bit, you get the "new man in Christ" bit. There's the dichotomy between those who are "of the Lord" and those "of the world." Read your Bible.

1139. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80065 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Riley:

The Hitchens Challenge relies on that false claim about the Christian faith.

Well you're falsely claiming he's falsely representing some Christian assertion. So that makes you both even.

But whence this Hitshins obsession of yours? Forget that silly git.

You're among friends. Look, I've made a cake of goodness. You may have a slice, if you like. Have a cuppa.

I've no quarrel with anyone who agrees we don't need God to be good.
_____________________
Epilogue:

Riley pulled a Barney Fife. He hoped to collar Hitchens for jaywalking. But while fumbling with the cuffs, he handed over his gun, badge, and kindly deputized the Hitch.

If we do not need Jesus to be good, we do not require the atonement, the resurrection, the Bible, the 72 virgins, Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, or any of the rest.

BTW, Hitchens wasn't jaywalking. His challenge is not a representation of a particular Christian claim, but a test of the widely held belief that our morals come from religion.

1140. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80050 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Russell Blackford:

Sometimes the point is made and there's no more to say; the interlocutor either "gets" it or doesn't.

And what a point it is: we do not require God to be good.

More tea?

1141. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80046 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Riley, it's not my impression that Hitchens is quoting any believer with his challenge.

I remain pleased as peaches that you and I agree one does not require God to be good.

1142. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80038 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Riley: Have any of those people made the claim that Christians are capable of performing moral acts that non-Christians are incapable of performing?

Ah, so you'd like to re-arrange the deck chairs for a bit longer.

1143. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80029 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Humans can be good without God.

The merry quibblers slowly fell silent as each considered the implications of the proposition on the table, agreed to by all.

Suddenly their remaining items of dispute seemed trivial. The impetus for the fight between the God fearing and the godless was behind them. Everyone could now go home for a bit of dinner.

Hurrah!

1144. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80022 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Riley, never mind that nasty blowhard Hitshins, or whatever. It's so refreshing to meet a Christian who agrees that we don't need God to be good.

Here, allow me to pour you some tea.

1145. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80013 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Riley:

Christians have never asserted that believers are capable of performing moral acts that non-believers are incapable of performing.

So we don't need God to be good. Glad that's settled.

1146. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79995 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Rtambree: Examine their behaviour.

Sinbad: That's neither controlled nor scientific. Moreover, it's predictive power is limited by people's ability both to deceive and to change their mind.

Therefore a better way to judge the character and intentions of another might be... what? What are you proposing?

1147. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79961 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 9:08 am

newatheist: (*sorry Dr B).

No worries. I'm not Dianelos ready to jump on the mere appearance of disagreement - particularly when the quibble is irrelevant to the matter at hand; I know what you mean.

Morality happens in relationships. Social mores are the epiphenomena of these many interconnected relationships. Society is more the result than the cause of morality.

Asking, "why shouldn't I cheat on my wife?" without including one's wife, children, friends, and lover(s) in the discussion rather misses the whole point of trying to establish moral standards.

1148. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79958 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 8:53 am

PaulEmecz: Ben is beginning to over-ride his inclination to lie and he tells the truth.

Raised Catholic myself, I understand the feeling that God is necessary for goodness to exist. The Church teaches that all are born in a state of original sin. Human nature is corrupt to the core. God's grace and one's own efforts to remain mindful of the need for God allow for personal transformation and the development of a genuinely virtuous nature.

A Catholic might expect children to be natural liars who only learn honesty through adult guidance and encouragement. But three year olds generally do not lie. Kids start getting the hang of deception around age five. Interestingly, lying seems to be a necessary aspect of mentalism, or the ability to represent other minds to one's self.

Indoctrination regarding original sin and God's grace starts very young. No wonder Catholics have a difficult time seeing morality and the question of God's existence as separate matters. No wonder Catholics seem so fearful of the notion of human society without widepsread belief in God's existence.

I don't know if you've seen a program called House. I can really recommend it. It shows, as I see it, what a rational approach to human behaviour would be without believing in God.

You're getting the cart before the horse.

Dr. House is a hero in the tradition of ancient Greek drama. His atheism is a mere signifier of something else: his super-human drive for truth no matter how discomforting.

Human physicians would never condone many of House's methods, such as his minions' crimes of breaking and entering in nearly every episode. But we the audience appreciate that House is no mere mortal, so we suspend our disbelief.

Like all Greek heroes, House is tragically flawed. The cane he carries works very well dramatically as an ever-present icon of his drug addiction, alienation, and suffering.

Without the tragic flaw and the suffering we would have to kill him, as it is written: the gods must die.

1149. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79943 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 7:37 am

phasmagigas: details aside, theists have a world view, god is there, and non theists view is the opposite, theres really only 2 versions

That's not a world view. That's a god view. Theists see gods. Non-theists do not see gods. This notion that everything in the world is different for the two camps is a subtle lie.

steve99: I shall go cold turkey with DG, and I will need firm words if I falter...

I've been late to a consulting gig a few times, due to reading RD.net threads in the morning with my coffee. That "WTF?" feeling in response to some erroneous or unfair claim is hard to resist. But also I enjoy the gang of regulars here.

If you're ever in the greater Boston area, I'll take you out for a few grapes that have soured happily.

1150. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79932 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 6:15 am

Benway: I could say I had a fried egg for breakfast and you'd quarrel with me for making such a preposterous claim.

Dianelos: It's true that philosophers often challenge people to explain both what exactly they mean and how they justify even commonplace propositions.

It's also true that cons have a habit of shifting the point. So which be DG? A lover of wisdom or a pitch man?

Dianelos: One can have a conversation with an automaton in the absence of consciousness.

Alice failed the Turing test rather quickly. Conversation without mutuality is mere button pushing.

Dianelos: Your claim that the non-existence of gods is falsifiable by science is not a rebuttal of my claim that the existence of gods is not falsifiable by science :-)

Dianelos deserves a spanking for that one. "Mom, I know you said I couldn't watch TV, but you didn't say I couldn't listen to TV."

Positive claims are tested indirectly via the null hypothesis.

And when I repeatedly tried to get your position in respect to Dawkins's basic claim in TGD that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis (and hence falsifiable by science) you consistently avoided answering.

Epeeist answered many times, as did I. His said yes, it's scientific provided it is formulated thusly.

I noticed that Dianelos originally over-stated Dawkins' claim by using the word "all", i.e., "all God hypotheses are scientific." Perhaps he was fishing for a Dawkins criticism; otherwise I don't know why he bothered with this train of thought.

As a salesman of Brand Y, it makes sense that he'd want to slander Brand X.