1151. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79863 by Dr Benway on October 18, 2007 at 7:23 pm

VanYoungman:

Hitchens would make mincemeat of the flea and that I would enjoy watching.

Flea also would enjoy receiving a spanking from the Hitch. Have you not seen the "kick me" sign on the backside of that attention whore?

Rtambree, "hi Bob" is a drinking game. Quarters is a drinking game. Eleventy McGrathisms is not a drinking game for mere mortals with ordinary brain and liver functions.

Say, is that you Chris, in cognito?

I propose: "No discernable content, drink."

1152. God Hates the World

Comment #79852 by Dr Benway on October 18, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Nate, it's amazing you survived. I'm sure you know more about sadomasochism than most people you meet. That can be a lonely feeling.

Good on ya for getting out.

1153. Atheistic Denomination Struggles To Fill Void Left by Founder's Death

Comment #79850 by Dr Benway on October 18, 2007 at 6:03 pm

I can understand how this sort of thing helps a lot of people who crave a sense of community.

As a stuffy New Englander with too many weekend chores, I'm afraid I've no interest for myself.

1154. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79842 by Dr Benway on October 18, 2007 at 5:29 pm

eek, you mean like you pop your finger in the brain and tickle it and the patient laughs,I think i may just faint!! :)

It's pink and has a texture somewhere between firm yogurt and soft tofu.

It's important to map out language prior to left temporal lobectomy. That's why patients must be alert for the procedure.

Dianelos:

Well, I think "to have a privileged background" refers to how one compares to one's peers. Ali was certainly born in the top 10% of Somali society (and probably in the top 1%) so that makes her come from a privileged background I think.

Many theists unthinkingly reveal their actual beliefs in casual asides or off-hand remarks. In my lifetime alone, I cannot count the number of crass materialists caught hiding behind a beatific smile.

So it goes.

Ten points awarded to our Canadian friend Sharon for catching this bloke's number off the bat. Lauregon of course scores for her recurrent intuition about the "salesman" behind the verbosity. USA_Limey is a fucking genius. You need someone to head your HR department, he's your man.

1155. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79833 by Dr Benway on October 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Dianelos: I submit that the fact that so many people are naturalists is explained by the fact that they have not actually studied what naturalism implies

phasmagigas: im not sure what to make of that comment, does anybody?

Dunno. I'm not a naturalist. I'm a corroborationist.

1156. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79818 by Dr Benway on October 18, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Dianelos:

But the fact remains that the rights of gay men living in the UK, one of the richest and most liberal countries in the world, and with one of the most advanced Churches in the world on top of that, does not make it to the top 100 problems that humanity faces today, and probably does not make it to the top 1000.

She: "Honey, I think the waiter forgot to bring us our bread."

He: "Dearest, I'm afraid your lack of a dinner roll does not make it to the top 100 problems that humanity faces today, and probably does not make it to the top 1000."

One problem is your #3 above. The choice of these axioms, or so-called "basic beliefs", is too subjective for evidentialism to remain an objective epistemology. It seems that, like in mathematics, so also in ontology it's impossible to build a formal system to proceed.

So the mathematicians are fucked. Bummer.

Meanwhile, the corroborationists are merrily co-creating a shared map of the world, for their mutual benefit.

Interesting, no?

Not so much, no. I've had countless experiences with patients suffering disorders of consciousness. I've participated in neurosurgical procedures with awake patients. The correlation between brain stimulation, observed behavior, and subjective report is far more convincing than any thought experiment you might describe.

1157. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79665 by Dr Benway on October 18, 2007 at 5:25 am

Dianelos:

I want to know, and "I dunno" is not good enough for me.

Wanting to know arises out of recognizing "I dunno." Are you admitting your ontological agnosticism? Then welcome to the fold, brother!

I agree with steve99 and epeeist. You're strangely argumentative and that makes discourse frustrating. You want to view your opponent's position as absurd and misinterpret statements in that light. I could say I had a fried egg for breakfast and you'd quarrel with me for making such a preposterous claim.

First of all in politics some important decisions must be made at the absence of corroborative evidence that is directly applicable...

You essentially confirm my point. Decisions based upon uncertain evidence don't reliably produce their intended outcomes. Hence our motivation to do more science.

As we saw there is no corroborative evidence for the belief that other people are conscious beings. There is no corroborative evidence for the belief that the physical universe forms part of reality. There is not even corroborative evidence for the belief that objective reality exists in the first place.

We accept propositions like these as necessary for conversation to take place between us. Otherwise aovsi ti308 fja afa[ ta04g dadaf !!? hae.

And please consider that even though in our personal life beliefs about the people around us play a very important role, these beliefs are not ultimately based on corroborative evidence either.

Subjective or personal experiences that leave no evidentiary traces others can appreciate may be compelling for a particular individual. But they are not compelling for others. Other people who can't check the accuracy of one's assertions are under no obligation to take them seriously.

1158. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79589 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Dianelos:

No, my basis is "it (hell) makes no sense".

To you. Other believers disagree.

I think you still believe in hell, although you're fuzzy about this. You've argued many times that good earthly behavior somehow pays off in the afterlife. Objective morality requires a means to even the score, no?

Maybe in Dianelosity there's no eternal barbecue. But some resurrected monkeys will get grapes; some, alas, will only get cucumbers.

IIRC regarding the study posted on this site, monkeys lost their fondness for cucumbers once the grapes became a possibility.

Cucumber hell; grape heaven. Fires of resentment and remorse.

1159. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79563 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Dianelos:

But naturalists are so clever they know better than theists what they mean. - Dianelos

There are no naturalists here, as you use that term.

I don't know why you bother to call yourself a Christian, Dianelos, as you reject central Christian teachings.

1160. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79560 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2007 at 5:36 pm

steve99:

What could there possibly be in the nature of the universe that could make 1 + 1 = 3?

1m + 1f = 1m + 1f + 1b

1161. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79402 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2007 at 7:16 am

Dianelos, perhaps you could call me a corroborationist rather than a naturalist. "Corroborationist" is a term I made up to accommodate my own beliefs about reality.

A corroborationist believes that:
1. we ought to place greater confidence in claims that can be corroborated rather than those that cannot be corroborated
2. we need not place any confidence in any proposition that cannot be corroborated
3. we may agree to accept certain propositions as axiomatic or as givens, if this acceptance facilitates the discovery or the communication of corroborative evidence

1162. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79395 by Dr Benway on October 17, 2007 at 6:51 am

Benway: No. You really don't know enough about the brain. Consciousness and language are largely in the left hemisphere.

Dianelos: Really? I thought there is not even good reason to believe that our brain produces consciousness.

Right middle cerebral artery strokes typically cause left sided paralysis. Surprisingly, many patients don't notice their paralyzed left arms. In contrast, left middle cerebral artery strokes are very upsetting to people, who acutely feel the loss of the right arm and often have some degree of aphasia.

When you talk to a person, you're talking to the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere is still there, seeing, feeling, thinking; it's just not well connected to language.

Our brains model all sorts of phenomena for us. We map out the 3D space of our house so we can navigate it in the dark. We model different possible futures. We model our own bodies. We model something we call "the self." That model of the self is consciousness, and seems largely a function of left temporal lobe processes. It's an inadequate model of who we are, however. Hence our need for terms like "unconscious motivation" or "unconscious feelings."

1163. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79303 by Dr Benway on October 16, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Go back to your island where Jesus tells you what to do, Paul.

Nothing bores me more than chit chat about "most people" or "society." Children have these sorts of discussions.

Insofar as you provoke my expectations regarding how you intend to act, I will hold you accountable. Insofar as you make promises to me, I will hold you accountable.

1164. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79287 by Dr Benway on October 16, 2007 at 5:53 pm

steve99:

Quantum mechanics proves that cheese is not there if you don't look at it, so cheese must be spiritual. It is well known that cheese haters are more evil. I am right about this as Dawkins can't contradict me as he is not an expert on dairy products.

Yes, Steve. The fundamental uncertainty of cheesiness is God's way of revealing his fingers in the dip, if you will. He, being the coyest of creators, both hides and reveals himself at the same time. After all, when contemplating a simple block of Swiss, we note that it there but also not entirely there. It's holy, is it not?

Hahaha, God made a funny for our enjoyment. He is the best person ever, and that's pretty neat :-)

The tastiness of cheese is an obvious and deep insight that explains the whole of our experience. Admittedly some cheeses are more upsetting than damp socks left too long at the bottom of the hamper. Some extremists go so far as to think Gorgonzola is a cheese. But those people are just silly. Introspection is as good as science, and by introspection I know cheese is objectively really much more like Brie.

Lactose intolerance is not my concern, so I would appreciate it if we would not waste further time discussing it.

Dawkins really embarasses himself with the poverty of cheese references in TGD. Many reputable newspapers quote loads of serious people with important titles expressing their feeling that Dawkins has gone completely crackers. I'm sure he doesn't like that very much. He really should think twice before writing any more books, for his own sake.

1165. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79108 by Dr Benway on October 16, 2007 at 6:30 am

Dianelos:

In any case a naturalist cannot on the one hand pretend that only objective evidence counts and on the other hand hand-wave away very relevant objective evidence by noting, as Dawkins does, that both Hitler and Stalin had mustaches.

If we insist upon corroborative evidence as the basis of our social policies, we limit the megalomania of our leaders. We can double-check the claims of our politicos. Authoritarianism is the alternative. Hitler and Stalin were examples of authoritarianism, not evidence-based reasoning.

epeeist:

Scientists didn't "believe" any such thing. It was one hypothesis about the universe, since disproven.

One of the reasons I'm annoyed that Dianelos constantly calls me a "naturalist", even over my explicit objections, is that in his mind a "naturalist" makes unfounded assertions about the ultimate nature of reality. That's not my definition but it's clearly his, and his sense of the word seems to be hermetically sealed and impervious to modification.

I subscribe to J.B.S. Haldane's assertion that the world is "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

We call those things "supernatural" that have no evidence in their favor and also seem to violate natural law. There's no sense arguing whether "the supernatural" exists. It can't, by definition. However some member of that set, such as angels, might exist. If we encounter evidence for angels, then angels graduate from the supernatural set to the natural set.

Perhaps Dianelos has no word to distinguish someone like me from his mechanistic naturalist. I define the natural world, which I might call "reality" or "the universe" or "the world" as "everything that exists." God may exist. Heaven may exist. Psi may exist. If any of these things exist, they're part of our reality.

1166. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79104 by Dr Benway on October 16, 2007 at 6:11 am

Dianelos:

Hell is just such a stupid idea. I wonder how long it will take for Christianity to outgrow it.

Once you get rid of hell, you're a universalist. Universalists in practice are quite nearly atheists. So I applaud your rejection of hell.

But I don't applaud your basis for rejecting hell. Your basis is "I don't like it." If you're entitled to assert what's true about reality on the basis of what you like, so is Osama Bin Laden.

1167. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79011 by Dr Benway on October 15, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Modest Mouse weigh in:

Woke up this morning and it seemed to me
That every night turns out to be
A little more like Bukowski
And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read
But God who'd wanna be?
God who'd wanna be such an asshole?

We sat on the edge of the river
The crowd screamed, "Sacrifice the liver!"
If God takes life he's an Indian giver
So tell me now why you'll tell me never
Who would wanna be?
Who would wanna be such a control freak?

See what you want to see
You should see it all
Take what you want from me
You deserve it all
Nine times out of ten
Our hearts just get dissolved
I want a better place
Or just a better way to fall
But one time out of ten
Everything is perfect for us all

If God controls the land and disease
Keeps a watchful eye on me
If he's really so damn mighty
My problem is I can't see
Who would wanna be?
Who would wanna be such a control freak?

All that icing and all that cake
I can't make it to your wedding
But I'll sure be at your wake
You were talk, talk, talk, talkin' in circles that day
When you get to the point make sure that I'm still awake, OK?

Went to bed and didn't see
Why every day turns out to be
A little bit more like Bukowski
And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read
But God who'd wanna be?
God who'd wanna be such an asshole?

Quine:

Did he give a handicapping spread?

sarcasm

Quine, you silly git. Those gods aren't real. Hey kids, let's sit 'round Dianelos' feet so he can teach us all about the real God!

/sarcasm*

*seems sadly necessary

I see you've got your popcorn smiley, Quine. I likewise am ready for entertainment. I wanna see a Dianelos vs wee flea death match. Whose ego would come out on top?

1168. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78991 by Dr Benway on October 15, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Rayy:

Where does our sense of beauty come from? Something that never ceases to fill me with a sense of awe and wonder is how a collection of molecules (you and I), can become aware and experience life in all its wonder; we seem to be more than the sum of our parts? How does the Atheist answer these questions?

I don't know where our sense of beauty comes from, but it doesn't seem to be exactly the same in everyone. I agree that existence is wonderous. I agree that we are more than a sum of our parts.

Hope this helps.

1169. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78989 by Dr Benway on October 15, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Define "reason" please Paul.

On second thought, don't bother. Reason concerns "is" statements, or facts about the world. Reason cannot provide "oughts," as we've discussed.

You'll assert there are no "oughts" without God. You won't explain why humans should accept God's "oughts" as their own. You'll say something vague about God's oughts being our purpose, without noting the circularity of your argument.

You are completely blind to love and relationship, unfortunately. Best you keep you God, lest you kill someone.

1170. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78976 by Dr Benway on October 15, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Dianelos:

#78812: So, and I hope you (steve99) won't take this too badly, there is the concept of "cry-baby" to ponder.

Yeah, steve99 is such a cry baby. Along with Ayan Hirsi Ali. And that Salman Rushdie guy. And those gynecologists working at Planned Parenthood. And... oh, but who cares about all that.

It must be awesome, hanging out with the Perfect Person. Just trippin' on love and stuff. Getting more and more perfect all the time.

God is whatever makes Dianelos happy. Which means... Dianelos is God!

...which means that the brain does react to painfully stimuli but at the absence of some actual experience of pain.

No. You really don't know enough about the brain.

Consciousness and language are largely in the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere is still you, but it's largely unconscious. It's still a part of awareness, but it's not well connected to language and sense of self.

Note that Dennet says, "both will merit moral attention." Why would unconscious pain merit moral attention, if it doesn't hurt?

1171. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78735 by Dr Benway on October 14, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Dianelos:

...ontological questions are a) meaningful; see how strenuously Dawkins and many others argue the ontological proposition that God doesn't exist, and b) important because ontological beliefs affect the quality of our lives and the way we behave...

Matters of fact affect our lives. Regardless of one's ontology - naturalism, idealism, dualism - any claim about the world is subject to the same rules of evidence. Your constant appeal to theism vs. naturalism is a red herring.

Theists feel justified in accepting God as a fact although no corroborative evidence for God has been demonstrated. Some feel their subjective feelings are sufficient evidence. I don't have a problem with this, so long as the theist understands that this basis is not compelling. The theist ought not expect anyone else to take his beliefs seriously without corroborative evidence.

Dianelos, your assertion of moral superiority in the setting of your untroubled narcissism is truly something to behold. Subjectively, I bet you feel you're radiating virtue and love toward us all.

But it doesn't feel like love on the receiving end, I assure you. Anyone who suggests that his subjective experience has the same sort of validity as corroborative evidence comes across as quite the asshole.

1172. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78702 by Dr Benway on October 14, 2007 at 11:26 am

Dianelos: ...and it's understandable that ancient tribes would mix their ideas about God with lots of mythology as well as with superstition and nationalist nonsense, don't you agree?

Steve: Yes. What puzzles me is why you do it (apart from the nationalist bit, of course).

Dianelos: I am not sure how you mean this "you"; I am not part of an ancient tribe.

Another screw has come loose. To restate the above:

Dianelos: X does Y.
Steve: Yes, but why do you also do Y?
Dianelos: I am not X.
Steve (presumably): WTF?

1173. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78695 by Dr Benway on October 14, 2007 at 10:46 am

Dianelos:

Theism and naturalism are opposing ontological views about objective reality.

No, that's not true. Naturalism is just the notion that reality is coherent and subject to study. The "supernatural" vs "natural" is tautology and a red herring. Theists and non-theists live their lives as naturalists; the theist just adds God to his mental map of reality.

Benway: Still today the God hypothesis remains on the naturalist's table. However, until someone demonstrates a clear counterfactual to the null hypothesis, i.e., "a creator God does not exist," we've no reason to grant the God hypothesis any special confidence.

Dianelos: Well, I am not sure that methodology always works.

That's the only methodology we have for establishing a shared map of reality. If you cannot think of any way to disprove the hypothesis, "No gods exist," then you've admitted you've no evidence for God.

1174. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #78664 by Dr Benway on October 14, 2007 at 6:54 am

thowes26:

Dr. Craig was trying to show something very simple with the brain in vat comment, that some things we believe are held in faith, regardless of who we are. One of my biggest arguments against Dawkins is his ignorance about the nature of what faith is. I'll agree with him that blind-faith with no evidence is foolish, but thats not the sort of faith reasonable people hold to.

I might be a brain in a vat. My guess is, I'm not. Is guessing "faith"?

The "even atheists have faith" gambit is typically the set-up for the dishonest suggestion that because proposition A is accepted on faith, it's perfectly reasonable to accept propositions B, C, and D on faith as well. Games of bifurcation and tu quoque ensue, until frustration provokes a few amusing ad hominems. Rinse repeat. Is this trip necessary?

Do you think the question of God's existence is a philosophical matter, or a scientific matter?

If God is offered as an explanatory hypothesis for some natural phenomenon or historical event (e.g., He provoked the big bang singularity, He guides evolution, answers prayer, catalyzes moral development, causes subjective states of love, peace, joy, died for our sins, rose from the dead on the third day, gave Mohammad (pbuh) victory over idolators, punished heathens with natural disasters, etc.) then yes, God is a scientific hypothesis.

If God did not and does not interact with the natural world we experience, then no, He's not a scientific hypothesis.

Deism requires no evidence. An interactionist God is something else. Reasonable people ought to require evidence of God's interaction with the natural world before accepting claims about His interactions.

1175. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #78600 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 6:09 pm

gr8hands, you're essentially confirming my point. You do not believe God can punish a community for someone's sinful behavior, because you do not believe God exists.

But to understand believers who do harmful things in the name of love, you must pretend the believer's factual claims are literally true.

You can lock believers up. You can threaten to lock them up. You can kill them. Those are your options, if you can't find a way to reason with them.

But how to reason with a person operating from a different set of facts? Firstly, you've got to get the believer to agree that faith, or belief without corroborative evidence, must be rejected as a justification for communal action.

1176. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78599 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 5:53 pm

PaulEmecz:

It is possible to reject the views and values of those around us. Society can get it wrong. There is a perspective from which we can judge society - society is not the source of meaning and values.

Oh do tell, Paul. What's the proper perspective for judging "society"?

1177. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #78593 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Hi gr8hands.

You must crawl inside the factual reality of the believer to appreciate why they do things that non-believers find cruel. Believers do not view themselves as cruel, but noble, compassionate, and virtuous.

1178. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78586 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Benway: Pre-linguistic creatures experience pain, clearly.

Dianelos: I agree, but that's clearly not what Dennett himself says in the article I linked to in post 342.

No. He's using "consciousness" to refer to self-representation, or selfhood. From the article:

If selfhood develops gradually, then certain types of events only gradually become experiences, and there will be no sharp line between unconscious pains (if we may call them that) and conscious pains, and both will merit moral attention.

He's not denying that pre-symbolic creatures feel pain; he's speculating that pre-symbolic creatures do not have an awareness of the self, and thus no awareness of the self-in-pain.

1179. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78570 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 4:15 pm

In other words no matter how well a naturalist writes a book on ethics, that book will not make as much sense as a book on ethics written equally well by a theist

Dianelos, I shall write a book on ethics just for you. It is short:

1. Claiming you know stuff you don't actually know is bad.
2. Defending "theism" without appreciating the range of damaging theisms out there is bad.
3. Constantly classifying people as "theists" vs "naturalists" is bad.
4. The whole heavenly brownie point system trivializes kindness; that's bad.
5. Failing to consider the real possibility that you might be missing a screw is bad.
6. If fantasy Jesus prevents you from being more of a dick, fine. But some people are capable of love and are better off without the bullshit.

Shuggy:

But if we have some way of defining "wicked behaviour" that we can test these systems against, why bother with the systems at all, and not just go straight to our test?

As Dianelos has not yet offered a test for sorting good theism from bad theism, I'll again propose my Turing Test: If claim X were widely accepted in society Y, what would happen to Alan Turing? If Alan Turing's life in society Y would suck, we must reject claim X.

1. A society that believed in Jesus and the resurrection would revere the Bible, the source document for these claims.
2. Not so great for Alan Turing.
3. Dianelos' Christian theism fails the Turing test and must be rejected.

1180. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78521 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Dianelos, you view ontology as a kind of everythingism. You put on theistic socks in the morning. You brush your theistic teeth with a theistic toothbrush. You eat theistic toast. You kiss your theistic wife goodbye. You are late for a theistic appointment!

You believe that I, in contrast, have a naturalistic cup of naturalistic coffee. I eat a naturalistic bran muffin and have a naturalistic poo. Oh look! There's a naturalistic woodpecker at my naturalistic feeder. Now where did I put my naturalistic car keys? Shit, I'm naturalistically late to my naturalistic meeting.

1181. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78517 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Dianelos:

For example when naturalists say something about the objective physical universe...

Stop doing this. We are all sneetches. The stars on the bellies are not as fundamental a "worldview" difference as you suppose.

Your rabid in-group/out-group hatred holds you trapped. You can't seem to escape it even for a second. This theism vs. naturalism mantra you obsessively repeat illustrates how religion divides us. It truly poisons everything.

1182. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #78513 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Eric Blair:

In either case, the remedy is straightforward, if not always easy. We do not need to apologize for applying the same principles and laws of liberal democracy to religious people as to anyone else.

Your blindness to the obvious problem with this approach suggests that you've never been a true believer yourself.

For the most part, believers and non-believers share the same values, such as compassion, honesty, and fairness. Believers and non-believers generally have the same level of impulse control and emotional stability. Where believers and non-believers part company is with respect to matters of fact.

If indeed it were the case that my neighbor was behaving in a manner that would likely invite God's wrath upon my community, would I not be justified in seeking some means to restrain him?

For believers and non-believers to achieve a rational meeting of the minds, both parties must agree upon basic rules of evidence. When is a proposition factually established, and when is it mere opinion or supposition? "Faith" is far too elastic a justification for any factual claim to ever be taken seriously by any reasonable community.

Moderates who defend faith are removing the option of working toward rational agreement with sincere believers. Those of us who prefer argument to force find this to be a problem. Those of us who have been believers know that the spell of "faith" as a basis for factual certainty can be broken, given time and a little less constant reinforcement from one's fellows.

1183. A Revelation

Comment #78510 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 11:17 am

Eric Blair:

"Mr. Dawkins" is common North American journalistic style.

Quite right. "Dawkins" without the honorific might even be more common now.

In my earlier remark I was responding to the conversation between MartinSGill, Vendetta, and Matt7895, about when to address a person as "professor" verses "doctor" in the US verses UK. Specifically, I was questioning this assertion:

So it's settled. To anyone from the UK, 'Professor' holds significant meaning. To anyone from the US, 'Professor' simply means teacher. That's a big difference, and it explains why he's known as Dr. more in the US.

1184. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78508 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 10:57 am

Richard gives the pot a familiar stir, as our Lord teaches us: "Blessed are the cheesemakers."

Great teapot serves a round of tea with a side of wry toast.

1185. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78502 by Dr Benway on October 13, 2007 at 9:39 am

Dianelos:

The person who most revolutionized our idea about how the world can be understood through objective study is Newton, also a theist.

Your theism vs. naturalism is a false dichotomy.

The "naturalism" of Aristotle and Newton would have included God as an explanatory hypothesis. Still today the God hypothesis remains on the naturalist's table. However, until someone demonstrates a clear counterfactual to the null hypothesis, i.e., "a creator God does not exist," we've no reason to grant the God hypothesis any special confidence.

1186. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78426 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 8:06 pm

PaulEmecz:

Okay, so if I have a preference that my corpse should not be violated, this counts for nothing? Why?

I ask myself: as an upright citizen in good standing in my community, have I a duty to protect Paul's fetid corpse from some sorry, twisted pervert stealing a furtive moment of sexual release from his abandoned, rigid, and increasingly pungent carcass? I think not.

Now, if epeeist, or steve99, or USA_Limey, or J, or that cute little mouse Corylus were to die, and were any of them to entrust their bodies to my care, I would respect their wishes, assuming they had any. They're a diverse lot, but I sense that each has some capacity for mutual relationship. In them I haven't seen power plays, manipulations, triangulations, "I'm gonna tell Daddy on you" or other emotional blackmails.

Were Paul not a bully clinging nervously to his absolutist club, things might be different. I'm quite reasonable when approached as an equal.

1187. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78405 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Dianelos:

Dennett claims is that they aren't conscious of anything, including pain.

"Conscious" has a technical meaning here, not to be confused with "awareness" or "sensation." Pre-linguistic creatures experience pain, clearly. But they may lack a self-representation, and thus an ability to represent the self-in-pain.

I'm skeptical of this viewpoint, BTW. I feel we've a lot of self-other hard wiring that predates language. In fact, I suspect language is a particular elaboration of these self-other schemas.

Self-other schemas drive language development, not the other way around. Errors in self-other representation impair language acquisition, as we see in autistic children.

I say to a patient, "Jesse, are you going to earn all your tokens today?"

He replies, "Yes! I'm going to earn all your tokens today."

I am sorry, I don't know enough about all the various religious positions in your list to answer which of them offer a logical path to wicked behavior.

Quelle dommage! Ah, and I so wanted to be fair to the Quakers and any others like them, however they are like. But with no guide to help me sort the good theisms from the bad theisms, I'm afraid I can't allow any of the lot through my front door. Far too risky these days.

Do let me know if you discover a means of sorting Dianelos approved theism from the non-approved.

1188. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78401 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Dianelos:

All other things being equivalent a naturalist has one less reason to behave ethically than somebody who believes in some kind of personal afterlife where somehow justice is satisfied (as all religions theistic or not postulate).

Obedience to authority isn't ethical. It's mere "might makes right."

Granted, a small percentage of the human population are sociopathic and require coercive methods of social control. Perhaps a few gullible criminals are frightened by stories of hellfire, and without religion they'd be more trouble.

On the other hand, this notion that God wants humans to utterly surrender, trust, and obey a higher power is infantilizing. It impedes the development of mutuality and negotiation between people as equals. It excites the primitive, fascist drives of our monkey brains, and makes us more vulnerable to manipulation by corrupt leaders. It hardens our instinctive xenophobia and makes peace between people of different gods more difficult.

Your theism vs. naturalism is just another version of in-group/out-group fear and loathing. Crypts and Bloods, essentially.

1189. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78391 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Dianelos:

So if a particular theistic theory predicts that we won't observe moons orbiting the planet Jupiter then that theistic theory is falsified when we do observe such moons. And if a particular naturalistic theory predicts that space is absolute and that we should be able to measure the speed of the light rays reflected from Jupiter in respect to the movement of the Earth and such measurements fail to obtain then that particular naturalistic theory is falsified too.

You keep trying to sneak in your false dichotomy. I don't see how the words "theistic" and "naturalistic" add any meaning to the above.

So we need other methodologies and other criteria to decide which ontological theory is the most reasonable to adopt.

What's wrong with "I dunno"?

1190. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78388 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Dianelos:

Of course you are not answering my question about whether you agree with Dawkins's proposition that all God hypotheses are scientific hypothesis.

No, not all God hypotheses. To be scientific, the God must have at least one interaction with this universe of ours. There must be a way to formulate a null hypothesis that can be falsified, at least in principle.

The Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Gods all have an alleged history of interacting with the universe. They triggered the big bang, inspired scriptures, and continue to telepathically communicate with many humans. Thus it ought to be possible to formulate a scientific hypothesis regarding their existence.

Serves them well; both naturalists and theists were too quick to make affirmations beyond what reason justified.

Hope you're hearing what you're saying, Mr. Jesus-Resurrection-Matrix Man.

1191. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78345 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Dianelos:

My argument here is that not even harebrained Biblical fundamentalism is as deficient as atheism* in that particular sense (telling people how to behave). I am afraid atheists are accustomed to only notice the mote in other peoples' eyes and not the beam in theirs ;-)

*"naturalism" misdirection replaced with more honest "atheism"

Disappointments abound. Earlier I was hunting around the house for a few absolutist rules to blindly obey. To hand was Simon & Schuster's Guide to Dogs. Totally useless. Then I picked up the Audobon Society's Familiar Trees of North America. Utter waste of time. My DVD drive had Placebo's Soulmates Never Die concert loaded. Not a single divine moral imperative in the entire fucking show.

Guess I shoulda stocked up on harebrained Biblical fundamentalism when I had the chance.

the great teapot: All we ever do is what we think is right? How does one come to terms with that?

By negotiation. Agreement is a profoundly more honorable basis for our shared behavioral rules than "might makes right."

1192. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78329 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Dianelos: First of all there obviously is no logical path from religion to wicked behavior in general.

Benway: That's a relief. So how do we sift apart good theism from bad theism?

Dianelos: What has that to do with what I wrote above? I simply claimed that there is no logical path from religion to wicked behavior in general. To substantiate this I only have to give an example of religious belief in which such logical path does not exist. So I suggest that Quakerism does not offer any logical path to wicked behavior. If you think otherwise please explain what that logical path is.

It would be wrong of me to condemn all theisms if some are truly good and do not logically lead to wickedness. I'm so glad Quakerism is a good one.

So to distinguish those theisms I ought to condemn from those I ought not... we make a list? Best get crackin' then!

I've got "Quakerism" down under "good." Now where do I put:
- Mormonism
- Jehovah's Witnesses
- Sunni Islam
- Wahhabism
- Orthodox Judaism
- Conservative Judaism
- Reformed Judaism
- Sikhism
- Jainism
- Zoroastrianism
- Wicca

1193. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78314 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Theism too is compatible with science, except for the most naive versions of theism. And if science falsifies these most naive versions of theism, the much the better for theism. Maybe you are unaware of how often science has falsified older versions of naturalism too...

Theism vs. naturalism is a false dichotomy. The real dichotomy is this:

Some hypotheses have been proven false; some have survived repeated tests.

1194. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78302 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 11:40 am

Dianelos:

Never mind logic 101, black swans, and all that. What about some clarity from your part: I have made clear that I disagree with Dawkins's proposition that all creator God hypotheses are scientific hypotheses, and have indeed proposed counterexamples. So what is your position in respect to Dawkins's proposition?

epeeist has concisely illustrated how hypotheses are formulated for scientific study: one translates a positive hypothesis into a null hypothesis subject to disproof.

Example:
1. Hypothesis: Prozac is better than a placebo for the treatment of depression.
2. Null hypothesis: Prozac is no better than placebo for the treatment of depression.
3. Double blind study follows.
4. If patients given Prozac and patients given placebo show similar outcomes, one fails to reject the null hypothesis OR
5. If patients in the two groups have significantly different outcomes, one rejects the null hypothesis.

Your example:
1. Hypothesis: A creator God exists.
2. Null hypothesis: No creator God exists.
3. Predict some observation that would have to follow if the null hypothesis were true.
4. Show results contrary to the predicted observation and reject the null hypothesis OR
5. Observe predicted observation and fail to reject the null hypothesis.

1195. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78283 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 11:06 am

Dianelos:

On the other hand one cannot reason while doubting one's own basic cognitive capacity.

I do it all the time.

Again, it's a good exercise not to think of any ontological theory by itself, but only in comparison to others.

Why bother? What's wrong with "I don't know" when asked about things that can't be corroborated or are beyond one's direct experience?

1196. A Revelation

Comment #78269 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 10:31 am

My American experience with formal style:

As a high school student taking a few classes at a community college, I addressed my instructors as "Dr. X." I assumed that instructors at large universities might be either "Doctor" or "Professor", the latter being more formal. I didn't understand tenure then.

As an undergraduate, I addressed tenured instructors (associate and full professors) as "Professor X." Others I called "Doctor X."

I addressed all medical school instructors as "Doctor X" whether tenured or not, MD or PhD.

I never addressed any instructor older than myself by a first name.

I would have addressed Dawkins as "Professor Dawkins."

I would never write an article for print that included "smarter remarks" or "he says he realized" unless for humorous or ironic effect. Such colloquialisms advertise a shoddy education.

1197. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78248 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 9:14 am

Dianelos:

First of all there obviously is no logical path from religion to wicked behavior in general.

That's a relief. So how do we sift apart good theism from bad theism?

But maybe I am wrong and there is a logical path naturalism offers away from wicked behavior.

Dunno 'bout "naturalism." But the Big Book of Atheism says nothing about paths to wickedness or righteousness. What copy are you reading?

I looked in another book on my shelf, Fish of North America. No paths to good or bad I'm afraid.

I looked in the Bible and found commands from God to stone adulterers.

1198. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78201 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 5:46 am

Well. I s'pose I'd shake hands with the Muslims who wrote me such a letter, provided that they signed a statement in support of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

1199. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78198 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 5:33 am

epeeist: What I am not going to do is find out where they live and go around and drowned their children.

Too OT. The NT way: cause yourself to have an incredibly shitty weekend, thus atoning for their sins by magic.

Dianelos: If God directly produces the phenomenal world, or if small invisible angels move planets and airplanes around and manipulate physicists' measuring devices, or if we all live in a computer simulation, or if any of the dozen or so current interpretations of quantum mechanics is true, or if only one is conscious and all other people are zombies – all these ontological alternatives make no difference whatsoever for science.

Matters of dogma we can ignore then.

1200. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78191 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 5:05 am

Dianelos:

Take the best naturalistic model you can find or think of, take the best theistic model you can find or think of, and then compare them one to one using a consistent set of criteria. Once you're done choose the model that fares better as the model of reality that is more reasonable to adopt among these two.

False dichotomy.

Some evidence can be corroborated; some can't be corroborated.
Some hypotheses have been proven false; some have survived repeated tests.

Nonempirical entities which do not allow us to resolve disagreements other than by authority or opinion are not in the realm of science but rather are dogma.