1201. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78158 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 2:49 am

Dianelos:

Either reality is at bottom mechanical or it is at bottom intentional.

False dichotomy.

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

But you see the universe is not what is given. What is given is your experience of the universe, among your experience of many other things besides (say, how it is like to experience the universe).

Nothing wrong with studying the monkey suit. But there is a world apart. Science demonstrates that there are ways to see a little beyond our monkey mindedness.

1202. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78147 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 2:07 am

Dianelos:

You should have the mental flexibility of at least imagining that the truth may lie somewhere between naturalism on the one side (the idea that reality is at bottom mechanical) and naive theism on the other side (the idea of a demon-haunted world).

False dichotomy.

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

1203. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78146 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 2:03 am

Dianelos:

Well, the premise is that "both a religious and a non-religious model of reality are reasonable". So we don't know what is true, either worldview could be true. ...So, under this premise only a masochist would prefer to believe in a non-religious model of reality.

False dichotomy.

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

Oh? And where exactly did I claim belief in the 'blessed sacrament' whatever that is?

You defend the "blessed sacrament" when you defend "theism" without specifying how we can sift sensible theism from silly theism.

1204. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78136 by Dr Benway on October 12, 2007 at 1:42 am

Dianelos:

Surely there may be various emotional reasons that would stop them, but I can't see any "logical path" that would stop them.

There is a logical path from the holy books to harming people:

Stone adulterers.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.
Suffer not a witch to live.

There is no logical path from "no gods exist" to harming people.

This point isn't trivial.

1205. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77955 by Dr Benway on October 11, 2007 at 9:09 am

Dianelos:

Even then there is little doubt that to assume a religious model of reality is conducive to a better quality of life than the alternative. So if both a religious and a non-religious model of reality are reasonable only a masochist would prefer the non-religious model of a "hideous" reality

Can't remember if it's the red pill or the blue pill that gets you out of the Matrix. But to step outside these clay-based monkey suits, a habit of skepticism toward desire is essential.

What does desire teach? The taste of bananas, the joy of sex, the security of love, the fear of death. In sum: desire teaches not the world, but the workings of this monkey suit.

When Dianelos claims that God explains "the whole of our experience," he means it explains something about his personal monkey suit, which happens to be deferential to silver-backed alpha males.

Which pill cures, the placebo or the medication? To learn the truth, we must first blindfold our desire. Desire is the enemy of truth.

Desire can be expressed and fulfilled in the arts, literature, theater, music. These noble disciplines help us understand what it feels like to be a human being. Religion as a form of theater or performance art wouldn't be a problem. But religion as a means of learning about the world around us has proved a miserable failure.

1206. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77933 by Dr Benway on October 11, 2007 at 6:40 am

Dianelos:

Even Dawkins agrees that's the main issue. After all in his recent debate with John Lennox (IRC) he calls the natural evolution versus creationism question just a "skirmish" and that the profound question is "naturalism versus supernaturalism".

False dichotomy.

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

1207. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77844 by Dr Benway on October 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Eh? Was someone giving steve99 a hard time? Gosh, I miss all the fun.

The "naturalism vs. theism" stuff Dianelos repeats is in vogue. Even wee flea is chiming in with the same refrain. Not a new argument; just a new presentation. Get used to it.

1208. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77756 by Dr Benway on October 10, 2007 at 11:58 am

Dianelos:

Surely you must have heard the mantra that there is no objective evidence for theism - that's probably the single most repeated argument against theism. Well, it turns out that there is no objective evidence for naturalism either (and arguably there is some objective evidence against naturalism, but never mind). Similarly it's true that the God hypothesis is not necessary for science, but then again naturalism's hypothesis is not necessary for science either. And so on.

False dichotomy.

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

1209. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77690 by Dr Benway on October 10, 2007 at 7:16 am

I'd like to know what Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to do. She could do many things. She could remain at the AEI. She could return to Dutch politics. She could become an academic. She could involve herself in media production.

Keeping her safe may be a different problem, depending on her location and her work. If she can telecommute to conferences or meetings she won't need so much security.

Here in the woods of nowhere, she'd be a lot safer than in DC.

1210. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77555 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm

phil rimmer:

As Dr Benway suggested for himself a while ago, I would be happy to call myself a Deist just to skip unproductive discussions.

It's a comfort knowing the deist God has no hang-ups regarding sincerity.

I've a confession: I like crazy people. Not many stick up for them, so I occasionally make a pitch on their behalf.

Brains play tricks on people. You'd be surprised to learn how many people hear voices but otherwise appear normal. Many people learn to ignore the voices. Thus they can be both sane and crazy at the same time. Some epileptics feel God go through them. Some are visited by the devil.

Imagine if everyone in power were atheists. Imagine if it were socially acceptable to tell people that they don't feel God because there is no God. Imagine demanding that people deny real experiences they actually have. I don't see how this would benefit anyone.

Better to allow individuals sovereignty over their own subjectivity. Better not to coerce or pressure people into claiming God is not there, or God is there. So long as everyone recognizes our collective need to place greater confidence in things we can corroborate than things we can't, individuals ought to be free to see what they see, feel what they feel, and think what they think.

Of course such secularism offends organized religion, which is totalitarian in nature.

1211. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #77535 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm

PaulEmecz:

There are no 'oughts'.

No a priori "oughts." But they exist. We create them. We decide together upon them, in the context of our relationships with each other and our mutual objectives. It must be thus, whether God is there or not.

Agency is our burden and our right. Remove our agency, and we become things manipulated rather than persons. And without persons there is no morality.

Jesus' teachings on ethical issues strike a chord with me. Morality, with God in the picture, makes sense to me. I am unable to get any alternative view on morality to sit comfortably and consistently.

You and your invisible friend Jesus can live together on your desert isle. You will do as you are told, as you require for your own peace of mind.

For my isle, I'll take someone like Goldy, Lauregan, steve99, epeeist, J, Veronique, Philip1978, BMMcArdle, Corylus, Robert Maynard, newatheist... just about anyone here.* My partner and I will figure out how best to enjoy each other's company. We'll talk. We'll divide the chores and the coconuts in a way that seems fair to both.

Thus will be our morality. Time will prove its firmness. Like any two people in difficult and lonely circumstances, there's a good chance we'll form a bond of mutual caring that will become precious to both.

*Epeeist would be my first pick. He looks like someone capable of becoming an excellent hunter.

1212. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77523 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I can't get my head around this problem. Patients don't present with a neat set of symptoms as listed in some medical text. You get useful data mixed together with several red herrings. Plus a few lies of omission and otherwise. It's up to you to sift the useful stuff from the irrelevancies. To do that you need a working understanding of everything, including booze, STDs, and our tingly, naughty bits. Remove even just a few pages from the book of What Can Go Wrong With People, and you lose the ability to develop a comprehensive differential diagnosis for anything.

Someone old enough to apply to med school who believes that devout people don't drink or sleep around, ever, ought to be denied admission due to malignant naivete.

Am I hearing the bottom of a barrel being scraped? Did someone finally suck all the fun out of being a doctor? Is it now a job for the marginally qualified?

1213. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77506 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Dianelos:

Ontology (i.e. how objective reality is) may not be a field that is critical for becoming a usefully working member of society (knowledge about phenomenal reality is sufficient for that), but is obviously a very important subject matter nonetheless. And one cannot teach ontology without touching on two of the dominant theories about it, namely naturalism and theism.

False dichotomy.

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

1214. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77477 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 11:59 am

steve99:

Frequency of occurrence is not always a good guide to complexity.

Yes. My tiny analogy was concerned with the probability of a state arising in comparison to other possible states which might arise. Prevalence of any state is a function of more factors than mere incidence. Incidence is a better indicator of complexity than prevalence.

1215. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77402 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 7:56 am

Dianelos:

So let me suggest the "Ultra Super Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", that shows that God almost certainly exists: Theistic nature IS probable, by definition. And, before you ask, "theistic nature" is the measure of how probable the state of a being is. Therefore, as God has maximal theistic nature, God is also maximally probable ;-)

I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty with a simple concept. Compare a die with 6 sides to a coin. For one toss, heads will come up 50% of the time. Four will come up on the die 17% of the time. Four-up is more complex than heads-up.

1216. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77372 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 6:38 am

Quine:

A few years ago, I was driving along listening to a radio interview with the, then, US congressional leader Tom DeLay.

Tom DeLay sent me several invitations to be on a congressional healthcare advisory panel. The invitation came with a facsimile of an elegant certificate with the words "United States Congress" at the top, suitable for framing. I would be chairman of the panel.

Of course I thought, what is this shite? I called a number in the letter. If I were to donate $1000 dollars to the Republican party, I was on the panel. Hahaha.

Two years later DeLay was out due to shady fund raising tactics.

While gazing at your doctor's ego wall, if ever you come across a certificate like the one I describe, awarded around 2000-2001, your doctor is an idiot.

1217. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77238 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 8:20 pm

My problem with the word "atheist" is the popular view that an atheist is certain there is no God. The agnostics get all the uncertainty. Entirely unfair, but there you have it.

I see an advantage in calling ourselves, "atheists and agnostics." Two words are not as neat as one. But on the plus, we snag some of that sweet, sweet uncertainty. Four out of five metaphysicians surveyed recommend it.

1218. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77229 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 7:58 pm

PaulEmecz:

I think there is an inherent danger in deliberately trying to form a 'movement'. What Sam stands up for is rationality. Let's use reason, then. Let's not try and form such a large group that we start believing and accepting things without question.

On our team now? Or just trying your hand at concern trolling.

1219. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77148 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I agree and disagree with Sam. Many do not feel, sense, or believe in God, and may self-describe as "atheists." I see no harm in that. Theists often do feel something they call "God." In a secular world, we could all say, "vive la difference!"

I just spoke with a 10 year-old boy who's been hearing devils whispering to him during the day. The devils say things like, "kill him!"

I do not believe the devil is speaking to this boy. I think his brain isn't working properly. Luckily in this case, both he and his adoptive mother agree with me. No killing is likely to happen.

Is it possible I am wrong? Do devils sometimes whisper to children? Perhaps. Seems unlikely however.

For the sake of argument, let's imagine that occasionally, devils actually do whisper to people. Were I to insist otherwise, I'd be trampling on someone's real experience with my preconceptions. I'd be like those townspeople telling the young boy that he's not actually seeing the Emperor's bare butt.

I'd prefer not to make that mistake if I don't have to. And I don't.

Secularism is the answer. Yours, mine, ours. Those things we can corroborate are "our truth." Those things only you can corroborate are "your truth." Where your truth contradicts our truth, I will favor the latter, and I expect you to do the same when the shoe is on the other foot. Evidence that can be independently corroborated deserves greater respect than anyone's purely subjective experience, given how quirky our brains can be.

Perhaps God reveals Himself to a few lucky or unlucky souls, inwardly, in their feelings and thoughts. When someone tells me of these events, I form an opinion. But I recognize that I can't corroborate another's subjectivity. I don't presume to judge others with the same confidence as myself.

An atheist bears witness to his lack of subjective evidence for God's existence. Does an atheist insist that God is likewise absent from everyone else's subjectivity? He may suspect that's the case, that what people call "God" is something else entirely. But he can't corroborate anyone else's subjective experience. He can't present his opinions or suspicions as established fact.

I am an atheist. But I have no interest in converting others to my point of view. Others must bear witness to their own subjectivity, which might or might not contain something called "God." If God is there, let's hear about Him or it. Better to bear honest witness to something strange than to hold back for fear of bullying. Let's not build a world where conformity is a higher value than honesty.

BTW, if ever God reveals Himself to me, I will try to give an account to RD.net. I will likely add the caveat that either I encountered God, or my brain was playing a few tricks. As a secularist, I will allow you all the right to form your own opinions.

If everyone, religious or not, recognized our collective need to favor claims we can corroborate over claims we can't, real peace might become a possibilty.

1220. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77035 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 9:03 am

Dianelos: I mean you agree that there are objectively two particles out there (even though they share part of their quantum state), correct?

Geraint: Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Isn't the nature of what's out there what we're trying to ascertain? You seem to be demanding before we start that the fundamental objects must be particles.

You've found the heart of the problem, Geraint.

Coke or Pepsi? Democrat or republican? Theism or naturalism? The latter only works if "naturalism" is made something more than, "show me the evidence." Naturalism must be made a religion, a belief system about the cosmos.

Now, it may be true that some people who call themselves naturalists or atheists actually do walk around with firm convictions about tiny billiard balls bouncing off each other at the bottom of the garden. But this is not necessary or desirable. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "we know this and this, but we're not yet sure about that."

There is a second reason the theism-vs-naturalism dichotomy is false: theists are also naturalists. Theists believe in the natural world with its physical laws. Theists figure out why the car won't run using the same problem solving skills as scientists. If you tell a theist his wife is cheating on him, he'll want evidence. Only when his beliefs about God are questioned will you get the metaphysical dance, "but what do we mean by 'evidence' really?"

In sum, "theism" vs "naturalism" is a misdirection. "Scientific worldview" vs "religious worldview" is a misdirection. The real dichotomy is simply this: some claims are supported by corroborative evidence and some aren't; some evidence is subject to corroboration, and some isn't.

Dianelos must add a few extra ingredients to most of his posts:
1. Nine sentences used to massage "we've no evidence for God" into "naturalism-is-a-religion."
2. Seven sentences used to destroy the naturalism strawman.

I scanned the Plantinga web site Dianelos has mentioned. Same extra ingredients there.

1221. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77024 by Dr Benway on October 8, 2007 at 8:06 am

steve99: It was Dawkins' intent to counter Hoyle's scientific argument using exactly the same kind of scientific argument to get a reductio ad absurdum.

Dianelos: Scientific arguments use numbers, Steve.

Where appropriate. Some arguments work for a wide range of values and in that case a variable might be used rather than a value.

In my Ultimate Cat and 1 Kilo Diamond argument, I used X to represent the probability of the universe arising by chance. X is some number close to zero. The actual value is irrelevant to the reductio I illustrated, which is analogous to Dawkins' reductio of Hoyle's abiogenesis argument.

Your demand for numbers proves you're not understanding the 747 reductio, which works no matter how small the actual numbers happen to be.

Yes, that's exactly naturalism's worldview: that deep down everything, including personal intent, reduces to mechanical laws.

"Reduces to" is tricky. I favor an interactionist model, in which higher orders of abstraction interact with lower levels, and vice-versa. Brownian motion moves atoms; love moves atoms. Atoms move love.

A bird sings and a pastor's wife explains, "That's Jesus saying 'hello' to you dear." That is likewise reductionism: all reduces to Jesus. Either sort of reduction, to Jesus or to atoms, impoverishes the richness of the actual, living bird on the branch singing.

But what I tried to explain here is that there is much more to the human condition than just the observation of physical phenomena that science so successfully studies. Religion is the study of all of it, of the whole of the human condition.

And where do we put art, theater, literature, music? Are you saying religion is one of the humanities? I would be content with that. But religionists have a habit of stepping over the line from fiction to non-fiction.

We've all seen the lie many times: when pressed for evidence, religionists will argue that God or spirituality is beyond or outside the realm of science. Once the questioner backs away, the religionists return to factual claims about historical events, water-into-wine, psychology, sociology, health, natural disasters, and so on.

1222. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #76856 by Dr Benway on October 7, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Stuff isn't always as local in the brain as these popular articles might imply. For example, that bit that makes you good helps you do a lot of other things.

In any event, morality is an onion of many layers. Relationships are so important for human survival that several complimentary systems have evolved to support pro-social behavior.

- "Be good or else" is a basic layer.
- Utilitarian reasoning, which requires some ability to weigh probable outcomes, is a layer.
- Feelings of pride or shame before one's imagined social group is a layer.
- Empathy is a layer.
- Application of the "reasonable person in this situation" rule is a layer.
- Abstract, language based ethical reasoning is a layer.

So long as we have children, criminals, and people like wee flea, we will need "be good or else" or "try that again asshole and you're dead."

1223. The Squirrel Wars

Comment #76841 by Dr Benway on October 7, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Well SilverTiger, even sadists have their ecological niche to fill. Lunch would be far less delicious were it not for a few unblinking humans working the slaughterhouse.

If head bonking the grays would save the reds it might be a reasonable intervention. Seems unlikely, however.

The slight difference in habitat preference between the gray and red squirrels suggests that the red might be saved by expanding dense forest growth. Perhaps global warming will help.

1224. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76820 by Dr Benway on October 7, 2007 at 11:26 am

Dianelos:

In short, beyond Dawkins's naive understanding of religion, the question is not: "Is there something supernatural beyond the natural world?", but rather "Is the world natural or supernatural?" Or, as I like to put it: "Is the world fundamentally driven by mechanical laws or by personal intent?"

Personal intent is part of this natural world. The entire ladder of abstraction is true all at once, top to bottom: quarks to atoms to chemistry to biology to psychology to politics to ...

This may seem an odd thing to say here at RD.net, but I find your frequent reference to Dawkins strange. You and I and steve99, Lauregan, others, are chatting about a few ideas. I offer an argument; often your response will include a phrase like, "this just shows how Dawkins..."

At times you appear over-confident in your ability to think for yourself about some issue (e.g., quantum mechanics). On the other hand, you also seem to lack self-confidence and will revert to an argument from authority, or will reference some authority's viewpoint.

When I was a kid, I liked to explore empty buildings with a few friends (don't tell mom and dad). Wandering in a dark, unfamiliar, unlit basement could be scary in a fun way. You start by touching the wall near the door, and you talk a little to hear your voice bounce off things, but you listen for sounds of mechanical or biological life. As you walk, you push back the darkness in your mind's eye. Each new inch of wall gets added to the inches you've already uncovered. In this way, you slowly expand the borders of your mental map of the basement.

Now, imagine exploring a basement you'd heard a few rumors about. Someone says there's a room at one end, behind some boxes, and in that room is snorgel. What's snorgel? Hard to describe, because it's nothing like the usual stuff in a basement.

You think, sounds interesting. And you look forward to finding it.

Smart explorers make a distinction between things they've actually encountered and rumors or speculations. The "found" and "not yet found" distinction is useful. Does the "snorgel" verses "non-snorgel" distinction add anything? Not really. The distinction assumes snorgel exists, and that can't be certain until it's found.

Science is like the systematic exploration of an unfamiliar, unlit basement. The supernatural is snorgel. If we can find it, we'll incorporate it into our map of reality. There's no reason to imagine we wouldn't.

But let's be honest. James Randi still has no takers for his million dollar prize. "Supernatural" seems to be the brain's attempt to survive death, nothing more.

1225. The Squirrel Wars

Comment #76810 by Dr Benway on October 7, 2007 at 10:51 am

Head bonking will keep a few sadistic old farts with more money than sense off the streets several days per year.

Where I live, the grays own the lightly wooded areas while the reds are more prevalent deeper into the forest. Perhaps if Britain had sufficiently wide runways of unmolested forest north to south, the little buggers would recover.

1226. The Squirrel Wars

Comment #76779 by Dr Benway on October 7, 2007 at 8:27 am

You Brits ought to come get a few of the reds from my back yard. In spite of their small size, they're twice as fierce as the grays, perhaps due to long, close association with their larger rivals. I have video evidence.

I've got one pic of a red and gray squirrel together in my flickr collection.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tuff_titmouse

1227. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76630 by Dr Benway on October 6, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Bonzai:

Antony Flew's God is a classical god of the gap.

The latest: Flew has renounced deism. He's advocating for pancakes to have the vote.

1228. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76625 by Dr Benway on October 6, 2007 at 1:11 pm

The Lord shines His favor upon the nations that aren't constantly sucking up to Him. He can't stand a brown-noser.

Fides, the agnostics, pantheists, and vague transcendentalists belong to us. You may have Haggard, Fred Phelps, Osama, and that Anglican Bishop who said God flooded a few towns that weren't sufficiently oppressive toward gays.

1229. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76609 by Dr Benway on October 6, 2007 at 12:32 pm

The distinction between scientific and non-scientific methods of discovery is not useful. Misunderstanding of science is widespread and will throw a spanner in the works everytime (I've heard this notion that science can't study the past; someone ought to alert the cosmologists, geologists, and paleontologists).

Better to speak of corroborative evidence and evidence that cannot be corroborated. Anything that might be witnessed by more than one person can be corroborated, at least in principle if not in practice.

Science is a method of establishing facts that can be corroborated by any properly trained individual.

1230. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76537 by Dr Benway on October 6, 2007 at 5:50 am

Lennox has done damage to my opinion of Oxford.

1231. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76534 by Dr Benway on October 6, 2007 at 5:43 am

devolved:

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion". I agree. But they do terrible things in the name of all sorts of causes including patriotism and science.

The "people are bad m'kay" argument doesn't solve anything. Like "godditit" it's just throwing in the towel.

Most popular religions are very authoritarian, and support large groups of trusting followers easily coopted by clever politicians. Authoritarianism, or misplaced confidence in bad leadership, leads to evils on a massive scale.

Religious people must take responsibility for the cruel teachings in their holy books. They must take those teachings out, or publish some document explaining why we're not to take those teachings as God's word today. Without explicit disavowel, those teachings are ticking time bombs some leader will exploit one day.

1232. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76175 by Dr Benway on October 5, 2007 at 1:21 am

Dianelos:

You imply that for you only scientific hypotheses are worth debating...

Claims that can be corroborated can be settled by re-corroboration. But what criteria shall we use to judge the merits of claims that are not subject to corroboration?

I propose a Turing test: We ask, "If claim X is widely accepted in society Y, what happens to Alan Turing?" If Alan Turing's life in society Y would suck, we reject the claim.

You claim the Trinity, Jesus, and the resurrection. In a society where these claims are widely accepted, what happens to Alan Turing?

1. The Bible, which is the source for the claims, would appear to be a divine revelation, at least in part.
2. Not so great for Alan Turing.
3. Your claims fail the Turing test and must be rejected.

1233. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76172 by Dr Benway on October 5, 2007 at 12:55 am

Dianelos:

But even though the corpse is as improbable as the living body, clearly it does not possess the living body's "organized complexity".

They could have used you on the Titanic when they were re-arranging the deck chairs.

The Ultimate Cat and 1 Kilo Diamond:

There is a universe with a complexity X. The probability of this universe coming into existence is extremely low, nearly zero. It's very hard to understand how it came to be.

Not to worry. I have an explanation:

There is a 1 kilo diamond with a complexity Y which created this universe. The probability of this diamond coming into existence is extremely low, nearly zero. It's very hard to understand how it came to be.

Not to worry. I have an explanation:

There is a cat with a complexity Z which created this diamond. The probability of this cat coming into existence is extremely low, nearly zero. It's very hard to understand how it came to be.

Lapsing into "theism vs. naturalism" takes us round and round in circles and establishes nothing.

I fail to understand why you think that. Theism and naturalism are positive and opposing theories about how objective reality is, and hence directly comparable.

Any "naturalist" who bumps into God will incorporate God into his map of reality. Naturalism doesn't say "God doesn't exist." Naturalism says, "show me the evidence."

1234. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75980 by Dr Benway on October 4, 2007 at 7:53 am

Look, I understand Hoyle was expressing his maths metaphorically with the junkyard 747. The reductio ad absurdum works even then.

Hoyle's maths are known as "Hoyle's fallacy." You can google on that.

1235. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75977 by Dr Benway on October 4, 2007 at 7:33 am

Dianelos:

And my argument in this thread has been that Dawkins's book is not a good book...

You are free to dislike the book. But you have not convinced me that you understand the arguments within it.

"Ultimate Boeing 747" is reductio ad absurdum applied to Hoyle's 747 argument. I've made this point a few times but you've ignored it.

1236. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75972 by Dr Benway on October 4, 2007 at 7:27 am

Dianelos:

Sure, but I think to realize that reality can't be physical is a big step in the right direction.

Define "physical."

Dawkins quotes Haldane's "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose." I'm content with that.

Dianelos, you seem to want us to believe something more specific about ultimate reality, more specific than "queerer than we can suppose." You have the burden of proof for any specific claim.

Lapsing into "theism vs. naturalism" takes us round and round in circles and establishes nothing.

1237. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75956 by Dr Benway on October 4, 2007 at 6:31 am

brother john:

1..."Once you allow people a "supernatural" basis for their values... Your word "allow" Hasn't you use of that got TOTALITARIAN implications? I think it most definitely has. Perhaps, probably unintentionally.

Oh very much on the contrary. Corroboration is our best defense against "might makes right." If politicos are limited to making claims that can be corroborated, then others can double-check their claims. If they're allowed to claim things no one can corroborate, they will abuse the privilege.

Individuals are free to be as daft as they would like. The corroboration rule insures this. You may claim to hear the voice of an angel. No one can contradict you or force you to say otherwise, as no one can offer a claim about your subjectivity that can be corroborated.

But note that someone claiming to hear the voice of an angel ought not expect others to accept his claim without corroborative evidence. Our collective need for corroboration takes priority over any individual's subjective experience.

MEN HAVE USED ANY AND EVERY REASON GOING (RELIGION INCLUDED) - OR NO REASON AT ALL -TO JUSTIFY THEIR DESIRE TO PERPETRATE THE MOST HORRENDOUS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Agreed or not?

Agreed. Humans rationalize all the time. However there are two problems with God as a rationalization, in contrast to others:

1. To corroborate the hearsay assetion that God commands honor killings, we need God's direct testimony. Rather hard to get.

2. If someone uses a non-supernatural rationale for honor killings, e.g. that honor killings will insure sex happens only within matrimonial bonds, that patriarchal societies are most consonant with human nature, and so on, we can argue about these things and perhaps reach a meeting of the minds. But if someone asserts that God demands honor killings, we've no elbow room for debate. God is the ultimate authority and none can stand against His will.

When we can't persuade by reason, we've only force as an option. I greatly prefer reason to war.

1238. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75946 by Dr Benway on October 4, 2007 at 6:12 am

Dianelos:

Anyway I am curious, what did you understand when Dawkins wrote about "organized complexity"?

You keep leaving out Hoyle. It's his argument. Things too improbable to be assembled by a whirlwind in a junkyard are complex.

1239. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75942 by Dr Benway on October 4, 2007 at 6:02 am

Dianelos,

Science builds on what has gone before. So far, we've no corroborative evidence for things that allegedly exist in a supernatural realm. However, if we were to encounter psi or angels or something like that, we'd incorporate our understanding of it into the other things we understand.

Your "naturalism vs. theism" is a huge misdirection. It's a false dichotomy and an attempt on your part to deceive.

I believe in the natural world; you believe in the natural world. You just add God to your map of reality and I don't.

I make no claims about ultimate reality. Dawkins doesn't either.

1240. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75940 by Dr Benway on October 4, 2007 at 5:59 am

Dianelos, your assertion that arguments against a proposition somehow lend support to that proposition is so irrational, so out of bounds, I think you are indeed a loon.

Person A writes a book full of nonsense.
Person B writes a book saying, "A, your book is nonsense."

This in no way lends support to Person A's thesis. Doesn't matter if person B is an authority figure. Doesn't matter if person B makes his argument in print or on the web. The arguments have to be evaluated on their own merits.

I find many theist arguments repetitive more than difficult. The wish to believe keeps 'em coming back for more.

1241. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75842 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot: authoritarianism, not atheism, was responsible for those millions killed. Legions of politicos blindly obeying their leaders led to those disasters.

And where does religion go wrong? When followers are enticed by their leaders to obey instructions, allegedly from God, to do harmful things.

In both religious and non-religious examples, authoritarianism, not atheism, is the problem.

"Without God there is no foundation for goodness": No a priori foundation. Yet we can decide for ourselves what is good. We can negotiate agreements with each other, for our mutual benefit, and we can honor those agreements. Honor is far nobler than obescience to power.

1242. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75825 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 7:13 pm

salanor:

The point is, in the face of human suffering, we can afford to ignore the loonies, as effectively they have little or no bearing on it.

Can we ignore Islam? Can we ignore Allah's command to kill apostates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

The shit in the holy books has to go.
The shit in the holy books has to go.
The shit in the holy books has to go.

1243. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75823 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Russell Blackford:

It's not especially ageist to think that one thing a university should do in addition to providing formal training is provide one kind of passage into adulthood for people who start in their late teens. There should be dances, guest speakers with all kinds of views laid on, clubs and societies, all sorts of stuff ...

If the dances suck, does the university lose its license?

The marketing of Yale, Harvard, and many small liberal arts schools involves phrases like "the Yale experience," and glossy brochures with nice pics of the pizza place, the pool, the beautiful woodwork in the dining halls, walkways past nice trees, etc.

Well, even Shit U probably has "the Shit U experience."

Licensure must be based upon objective, measurable, minimal criteria. Ambience can't be one of those criteria.

1244. A New Debate

Comment #75794 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Yes J. That preacher used a tone that conveys, "Listen up: what I'm about to say is shockingly wise and life transforming." But the content was a string of trite banalities. "Parents, you can set limits on how much you spend on the wedding."

At least the Catholic priests didn't work so hard to keep you from falling asleep IIRC.

1245. A New Debate

Comment #75785 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Hey kids,

Dawkins live debate 8-10 pm tonight EST at THIS LINK

1246. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75771 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Dianelos: The fact remains that many naturalists including Dawkins take theists' evidence seriously enough to write books arguing against it. Which shows two things: that evidence for God certainly exists, and that it's not trivially easy to counter.

Benway: So all those anti-Scientology web sites are actually evidence for Scientology?

Dianelos: I was not talking about websites, which are a dime a dozen. I was talking about books written by eminent naturalists and which try to counter the evidence for theism.

So an argument made in a book by someone you deem an "eminent naturalist" is the only thing that counts.

You are a loon.

And you do shoot yourself in the foot when you pretend you're not a believer in the natural world.

...the disdain for those who disagree...

No. It's disdain for someone who pretends to have evidence for a god of sufficient quality that I ought to feel compelled to believe in this god, and who then fails to produce this alleged evidence, and who then berates me for not believing in his god. Where I live, such people are described as "egocentric" or "assholes."

1247. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75713 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 12:30 pm

I like the adultery story. It's my understanding that bit was added to the gospel later than the rest.

So, truly all deserve death...

I'm introducing a tangent y'all prolly should ignore, but any legal system that declares everyone guilty is a bad system that can only serve totalitarianism.

1248. A New Debate

Comment #75712 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Of course, if the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan or Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons, we will have an environmental crisis that will be a whole lot worse, very, very quickly.

Well I dunno. The global cooling resulting from all the atmospheric fall out might help slow global warming...

I joke!

A "science debate" might be cool. I'd only do it with two or three candidates, each given plenty of time to answer. The parade of soundbites is a bad format for science.

In any debate people can ask things like "Some say hydrogen cars aren't practical, because it takes more energy to create the hydrogen than you get back when you burn it. What do you think?" People can ask about ethanol, global warming, energy subsidies, ways to inspire kids about science, etc. I'd ask why the science advisory panel to the energy department was shut down last year.

1249. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75702 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 11:28 am

revcort, imagine a Scientologist was trying to convince you of his beliefs. You might hear about Lord Xenu, and all the criminals who were dropped into Earth's volcanoes and blown up with "atom bombs" which somehow created all these disembodied "thetans" that are causing so much trouble in our world.

Wouldn't you ask for evidence? If certain church documents were viewed as special revelations, wouldn't you question that?

After questioning the Scientologist, what would you think if he said, "So you refuse to believe me. Fine. I suppose you'll want to stalk me and my family, maybe harass our church."

Wouldn't you go, "whaaa?"

This week I think we're planning to stone an adulteress...

Hahaha. So God wanted us to do that a long time ago, but we're not supposed to do that now. Right?

1250. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75697 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 11:09 am

blah blah blah "lots of people do evil things" blah

The Good Book commands us not to suffer a witch to live. If this is not God's will, the believers need to get those words out of their holy book, or at the very least they need another authoritative publication that says, "ignore that bit; it's not holy, just literature."

If they leave it in and they say it's God's word, the day will come when someone thinks someone is a witch. The witch's death will be the logical result of that scripture.