1251. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75683 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 10:14 am

There must be certain core competencies expected of all Oxford graduates, evidenced by exam or coursework. I could have gotten a degree in Religious Studies at the college I attended. Like all students at my college, in addition to the major area of study I would also need to complete:

3 Calculus courses
4 Physical science (Physics/Chemistry)
1 Biology
5 Humanities
1 American Culture
2 Social Science
1 Fine Arts
3 Foreign language
7 Minor, in area outside of major

Perhaps some of these general ed requirements are met by the A levels in the UK. Don't you have to take A levels to get into Oxford?

1252. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75651 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 8:06 am

Dianelos:

But the hypothesis that people are conscious beings is an unscientific hypothesis...

Glad we can avoid that whole tedious "consciousness is evidence for God" debate.

1253. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75648 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 7:55 am

I'm still not sure I understand the "school leaver" notion. If a university offers a bachelor's degree in, say, Art History, why would it matter whether students for that degree started at age 16, 18, 26, 36, 56? Doesn't the degree simply represent mastery of a body of work? Isn't age entirely irrelevant?

Russell: Other people who enter university - often older students who are studying part-time for more narrowly vocational reasons - have different expectations. But we want universities to give a rich educational experience to young students straight out of high school.

The "rich educational experience" is generally addressed by the required coursework toward the degree. Not a function of age or expectations, I would think.

Many US colleges offer degrees in Religious Studies, as distinct from Theology.

1254. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75586 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 4:55 am

Simon Packer, you quote the Bible a lot. Alan Turing would like to know whether you're going to condemn the bits that condone oppresson of homosexuals. I'd like to know whether you're going to eschew the bits that encourage male dominance of females.

That fucking books is so full of cruelty. If you're going to treat it as sacred without separating out the bad parts, you've got blood on your hands.

1255. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75565 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 2:39 am

Atheists and Agnostics.

1256. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75562 by Dr Benway on October 3, 2007 at 2:31 am

Dianelos:

Sure there are some people out there who suffer because of their religious beliefs, but this does not imply that most religious people feel like that and that in implication religion hurts people.

A useless statement, unless you can identify some variable that will help you separate the harm from the benefit. Seems that variable is faith, or belief without corroborative evidence.

Your three pieces of evidence for God are still crap.

1257. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75485 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 7:21 pm

L Crib, even in my drunken state, I can tell you're a good man. Nighty-nite.

BTW, that nasty shit in those holy books has totally got to go.

1258. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75479 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 7:07 pm

So Dawkins is saying fundies need moderates to feel good about their faith?

Communal reinforcement. Look it up.

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

1259. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75474 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Ninnie n+1:

Atheists recognize no moral authority over themselves...

Atheists, like other humans, are capable of forming alliances for mutual benefit.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You evil motherfucking monsters for Jesus, listen up: Alan Turing wants you to know that:

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

1260. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75445 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 4:34 pm

some ninny above:

...one day I break free, lose faith and fall into a brand of hedonistic atheism in which anything that feels good is good.

I looked for "anything that feels good is good" in The Big Book of Atheism. Not there.

1261. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75409 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 2:50 pm

The holy books are full of instructions to hurt people. That shit has got to go.

I'm happy to talk politics, economics, psychology and all. But it pisses me off when people point to non-religious causes of violence without doing anything about the religious causes.

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

We can't bend on that.

1262. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75380 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Anyone who can remember how to spell "Zapruder" was likely in on the assasination plot.

1263. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75377 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Dawkins is implying that average every-day moderate believers might, by virtue of the fact they believe in something irrational, some day do something akin to what the 9/11 terrorists did (I'm assuming he means on a much smaller scale and it may not actually involve killing people but it would be evil nonetheless).

No, that's not the argument. Moderates, being non-believers on some level, are unlikely to take their religion completely seriously, especially their more unpleasant scriptures. However they defend faith, and this defense provides a sense of communal reinforcement for more literal-minded believers. When non-believers challenge faith as a basis for anything, the moderates throw stones at them and thus empower the fundies further.

1264. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75373 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 12:17 pm

I'd leave out any comparisons between atheists and cultural minorities. Bad karma in dat memeplex, even with a 10 foot pole.

Dawkins has a unique genius for inviting malevolent misunderstanding of his points:

"Selfish Gene" - "We are not all selfish at heart!"

"God Delusion" - "Religious people are not insane!"

"Brights" - "So he's calling us all 'dims' is he?"

"Influential Jewish lobby" - "Oh so he's an anti-semite!"

Please Professor. Don't say nuthin' more 'bout the "Jews."

1265. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75366 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 12:04 pm

...since the attacks of Richard Dawkins and others, ... they're [Moslems] beginning to get literal about the Creation for the first time...

I'm still angry with Karen Armstrong for a few stupid things she said in 2001. But, her statement as quoted above might be true and she might have evidence to back it up. I can't slag her until it's clear she's just pulling stuff out her ass to justify trotting out her favorite "whence fundamentalism" hobbyhorse.

1266. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75352 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 11:41 am

6 - So some religious people who normally act in moral ways (by Dawkins' standards) may in some circumstances break from those standards and do things Dawkins (and the rest of us) consider evil. Well, so may many humanists.

It's the holy books. They have mean stuff in them. The Big Book of Atheism has no mean stuff in it.

Sure, even if we got rid of all the holy books people would still be mean for a variety of reasons. But they wouldn't be mean because God's word commands it.

1267. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75336 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 11:20 am

Clarence Thomas will have to recuse himself as well. As a walking dildo he's got an a priori reason to oppose the banning of sex toys.

1268. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75274 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 8:08 am

The religious will respond, "Oh most religious people don't believe the nasty stuff in the scriptures."

Atheist response to that: If the religious are serious about that, they've got to update their holy books. They must delete the bad laws, or publish an authoritative document eschewing the bad laws.

Pete, I looked in the Big Book of Atheism, and I could find no path to evil deeds, nor could I find a path to good deeds. Damn book is hardly worth the paper it's printed on.

1269. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75268 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 7:51 am

The "let's hate Dawkins" fad is a disturbing example of middle-class anxiety, media repetition = truth, and the bandwagon effect. I find it depressing. Makes me want to live in a cave.

We need a public relations makeover. We've got to grab the moral high ground, which is rightfully ours. We need to dramatize how power corrupts, especially religious power.

Without God, we're a fellowship of equals. Honor, duty, sacrifice have meaning. With God, we can be obedient. Whoopie.

1270. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75264 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 7:26 am

brother john:

You're logic on the implications of what I said is way off - or I'm a rhinoceros!

I'm afraid you are a rhinoceros. Once you allow people a "supernatural" basis for their values, you are going to get people arguing that God wants honor killings, death to the infidel, etc. You might claim that they're wrong about God, but you can't prove they're wrong.

1271. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75261 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 7:03 am

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.

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

If you insist on using the term "naturalism" instead of "atheism," I'm going to point out that you are a naturalist as well. You just add a bit of God to your map of reality.

Everytime you argue against "naturalism" you shoot yourself in the foot. For without the natural world, meaning vanishes. Debate becomes nothing more than wotu jg0gu weri cs wto gaanvsdiut fadogtq heio!

1272. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75228 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 4:48 am

Dianelos:

The deist (or even the theist) God may not interfere with physical phenomena but may be present in our subjective experience of life...

Then there's nothing for us to argue about. I don't have access to your subjectivity.

1273. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75072 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I stumbled on "Creation Ministries International" today. Read a couple articles. Felt a bad Orwellian low. Bad. Apparently there are enough people with money out there to keep these kinds of propaganda mills running. Ugh.

The Rational Response Squad stand up cons like the ones running the CMI site. These liars for Jesus do not fight fair. Read a couple articles about Dawkins to get the flavor. Admittedly they're not an organized evil like the Scientologists who will "fair game" your ass if you give them any trouble. But I don't see why they wouldn't try similar tactics at some point.

It's possible to be principled, to engage in legal argument, and to use a degree of verbal force against your opponent as a way of highlighting his cheatin' ways, and to impress upon him that you're not going away.

Takes a certain kind of person to engage with the dark side. "Fucktard" may be adaptive when fighting people who don't don't play by the rules.

http://www.creationontheweb.com

1274. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75067 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Friendly atheist has some highlights up. Bits I liked:

Seeing Richard Dawkins stand in line to ask Ali the question, "May I nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize?"

Aw. Dats so sweet.

Some say the man is arrogant and unappreciative of his fans. Some say he double-dips his carrot sticks in the ranch dressing. It's even possible that he **gulp** does not find Dr. Benway's humerous asides very amusing. Nonetheless, his heart seems to be in the right place.

Hearing Christopher Hitchens avoid answering one attendee's query by saying: "Your question didn't give me enough of an erection."

Hehehe. That man must get invited to a lot of parties.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/10/01/atheist-alliance-international-convention-2007-recap/

1275. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75064 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 2:47 pm

revcort:

And, if he's right, what do we need to do? Absolutely nothin'.

Not exactly true. Without orders from on high, we must decide for ourselves how to live in this world. We can agree to work together toward common goals. These agreements have a way of keeping us busy.

1276. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75062 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Revd Heywood:

Had I received an essay from a first-year undergraduate in which he admitted not having studied the position of his opponent, I would have insisted on it being rewritten.

Dear Reverend: Suppose, just hypothetically, God doesn't actually exist. Difficult to imagine, I agree, but for the sake of argument let's assume there is no God. Would theology then have any point?

1277. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75016 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 11:14 am

Christ died for all – when Hindu or Sikh or muslim or Jain or atheist or agnostic or Can't–figure-any-of-it–out...

Ah, now I recognize you Brother John. You're a universalist. Universalists live right next door to the atheists. Good neighbors.

If ever you need a cup of sugar, just give my door a knock. Mind, I'd rather talk about backyard bird feeders than Jesus. Hope that's not a problem for you.

1278. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75010 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 10:51 am

Would I be correct in assuming that the statement "its leading theological halls are not fit to admit school-leavers" is identical in meaning to "its leading theological halls are not fit to admit students"?

I'm happy to allow theologians the right to define their own field. Apparently those at Oxford describe their raison d'etre thusly: "We are committed to bringing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who don't know. In this land, that's 95 per cent of the people: 95 per cent of people facing hell unless the message of the gospel is brought to them." This doesn't sound like the sort of comparative religions work Bonzai's friend is doing.

Perhaps "theology" like "fanny" means something a little different this side of the pond.

1279. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74977 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 9:07 am

Dianelos:

In conclusion the God hypothesis is 1) reasonable and 2) non-scientific. ...Interesting, no?

No. Deism is a very boring win for your team. Not even worth "good job!" or "I'm proud of you!" or a single fridge magnet.

But the hypothesis that people are conscious beings is an unscientific hypothesis because science can explain all objective phenomena, including peoples' intelligent behavior, without making that hypothesis.

No. The notion that others process information in ways similar to myself is a more parsimonious explanation for behavior than otherwise.

But you haven't conceded that your three pieces of evidence for God are crap.

1280. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74952 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 7:53 am

A "school leaver" is someone who has finished secondary education.

Richard Dawkins is a school leaver then. Or do you mean someone who has completed the basics but hasn't done the A levels thing.

UK universities have separate certifications for teaching those who completed A levels and those who haven't? So the theology coursework isn't fit for the latter, but is for the former?

1281. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74940 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 7:23 am

Oxford University has just officially noticed that its leading theological halls are not fit to admit school-leavers, so these institutions will presumably be touting for mature students.

What's a "school-leaver"? Is the implication here that the theology profs will be out hawking their wares to the undergraduates, and so will be bumping into profs from other departments, like Dawkins?

Sorry I'm so thick. Brits just have a funny way of sayin'.

1282. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74919 by Dr Benway on October 1, 2007 at 6:11 am

bayareadude, come hang with the hobbits. The rich and famous are enormously fun to watch. But they do disappoint. Nine times out of ten, even the charming ones will forget you, stand you up, or take your stuff unthinkingly.

Why are the taller folk thus? Maybe they started out as driven narcissists, which explains their success. Or maybe the fawning goes to their heads. Or maybe it's too difficult for any human to manage a sense of relationship with the many who seem to want one.

The hobbits will try to cheer you up when you're feeling down. They'll visit you in the hospital. They'll invite you over for a barbeque.

1283. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74830 by Dr Benway on September 30, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Thanks monkey2 for that interview. Again with the usual ad homs for Dawkins - "interrupting" and "rude." Made me wish Hitchens were there.... cue wavy alternate reality segue...

"Sir: I won't bother asking for your scientific credentials, because it's quite clear you haven't got any. You really have some nerve, presuming to teach our children this nonsense about the Earth being 6,000 years old. How dare you. How dare you! We've put up with sort of thing long enough. We simply won't have it. Your idiotic Bronze Age myths have no place in our children's science classes. If you can't see that, you're beyond all hope. There's nothing I might say that could do you any good. Best they put you in a home someplace."

Funny how people expect blunt talk from Hitchens they wouldn't tolerate from Dawkins.

1284. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74819 by Dr Benway on September 30, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Hey tommcc,

Find out why your son wants to go to that particular church. He might have developed an important friendship with someone there. Or he might be seeking a trustworthy adult for some guidance. Most 16 year olds want some independence from their parents, and so often it's easier to talk to other adults about private worries.

I wouldn't get upset about his going to the church just yet. Find out more about it. Maybe go with him.

1285. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74814 by Dr Benway on September 30, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Never encourage pods to delve into psychology. Keep them as far from shrinks as possible. Therapy only polishes a few social skills and thereby makes them more effective cons. For the sake of the innocent, best that sociopaths stand out as rank assholes.

But enough about me. Let's talk about you. What do you think of me?

...at least you have had the courtesy to read what I have written and therefore you have earned the right to comment. Actually I look forward to your comments. (As an aside can anyone tell me why this website has not done a serious review – apart from calling us all fleas – of the various books written in response to TGD?)

1286. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74778 by Dr Benway on September 30, 2007 at 12:04 pm

wee flea:

In terms of proof that I get my own personal morals from the Bible – let me give you one example. I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right. I cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible.

Sociopaths actually do require firm, external authorities enforcing social norms. They lack the immediate, intuitive, fellow-feeling that discourages most of us from harming others.

Would life be more fun if we didn't have a conscience pestering us with self-doubt? Actually no. When you lose your sensitivity to guilt or remorse, you lose your capacity for contentment. There is a mild yet pervasive, simple happiness associated with sharing ordinary life with other people. We hardly notice it most of the time. But if we become alienated from our tribe, we'll painfully feel the lack.

You can't win a battle with a sociopath. By the time they reach adulthood, they know more about winning than we mere hobbits will learn in a lifetime. They can take any reaction, positive or negative, as proof of their own importance. They can win by being ignored, by being humiliated, and even by losing.

1287. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74754 by Dr Benway on September 30, 2007 at 9:24 am

Brother John:

KEEP OUT the supernatural from our moral principles and public policies. This is UNWISE CENSORSHIP.

You think you're holding open the door for Jesus. But guess what came through just now: Osama Bin Laden, clitorectomies, honor killings, and Fred Phelps.

Our collective need for corroborative evidence must take priority over anyone's subjective experience.

1288. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74709 by Dr Benway on September 30, 2007 at 4:33 am

Dialelos offered his three pieces of evidence for God. I rebut each. He then should have rebut me or conceded. However he did neither. Instead he pulled out his dog-eared copy of "I heart Jesus" and started wanking off to his favorite pages.

By providing him with the illusion of interactive debate, we're breathing life into his grandiose fantasies.

We're being used as porn. Don't know about you all, but I'm not getting paid enough.

1289. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74656 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 9:04 pm

wee flea:

The frightening aspect of this is seen in the language of both RD and Dr Benway. Religion is a virus. And people like me only ' seem human'. Such thinking will have severe consequences.

It's your sociopathy, not your religion, that limits your humanity.

Gosh, that poor dead baby. Must have been rough on you.

It's the pity play that gives you away. All sociopaths play the pity card when they're nervous. It's just too easy, isn't it. The suckers are so predictable.

J:

I hope you can do better than I would.

You'd do a thousand times better. Humanity is what counts, and you have it.

1290. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74629 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.

Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.

You also believe that natural forces are at work in the world. So we have that in common. You just add a bit of God to the mix.

So you didn't answer my question actually.

Might makes right is not moral. Obedience is not moral. Quite the opposite. Negotiating with other as equals, for mutual benefit, is moral.

1291. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74551 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 1:11 pm

brother john:

I realise demon possession may be a big problem for many, but, it is factual. I've read reliable accounts.

Better to say, demon posession is one hypothesis which might explain strange behavior in certain individuals. Other hypotheses might include psychosis, mania, borderline personality disorder, temporal lobe epilepsy, simple delusion, suggestion, or an intentional hoax.

1292. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74549 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Lauregon:

If he believes in the resurrection, then it logically follows that he almost certainly must believe in redemption achieved through vicarious atonement by means of the crucifixion (otherwise there's no point to the resurrection)...

Nope. He believes Jesus was moved by how bummed his friends were after his death so he materialized to cheer them up. He anticipated the obvious next question, by saying that Jesus had a special relationship with the humans he spent time with on earth. You and I, not so much teh special.

1293. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74545 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 12:37 pm

CHeard:

"Canonical" and "apocryphal" status are conferred by churches, but whether or not two books are "synoptic" is a simple observational datum, a textual analogy to the simple observational datum of whether two genes are "homologous."

OK you sold me. Hitchens fuzzed up.

Your point illustrates the problem of writing about a field of study from the outside when you don't think much of the topic. We see something similar among theists who post here referring to Dawkins as "Stephen" or "Derkins."

I recommend you write to Hitchens pointing out the mistake. Offer to proofread the book for the second edition if he will pay you, say $100 per error.

1294. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74538 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm

steve99:

It is the difference between someone who believes in the possibility of alien life, and someone who believes that aliens have knocked on his door and offered him a flight to Venus.

Explains why the carpet's worn a hole near the front door. Ever the repetitive mention of "theism" verses "naturalism." Rarely an admission of specifics and how he lives them out.

On some level he must know the whole package is daft. Perhaps until the final nail is actually in the coffin, engaging in debate makes his "worldview" seem nearly plausible.

I remember years ago when USA_Limey in his peculiar genius said: Enough with these metaphysical word games. Put up or shut up. What do you believe about God specifically? Dianelos then argued that one must first establish theism as reasonable before getting into details about God...yada yada yada.

And so it goes.

1295. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74536 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 11:31 am

epeeist 73393:

Yes, he still owes me an answer as to why my little hypothesis and its falsifiability isn't all there is to atheism. He claims there are other tenets, but he hasn't divulged these as yet.

I wish there were a way to search this site by commenter. I'm curious to remember the day you first asked wee flea this question. You've repeated it more than once.

Moms everywhere tell us that life isn't fair. Crooks go free and no one believes the rape victim. Yet there's still a way to wring an atom of justice from our frequently amoral circumstances: by bearing witness to the testimony of our own eyes and ears. We can declare for ourselves that we see the scoundrel's game and we won't forget.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt for as long as possible. But there comes a moment when one must call a spade a spade. People of good character do not habitually obfuscate. Moral character, like general intelligence and aggression, largely doesn't vary dramatically over the course of a person's life.

A small percentage of the human population lack the capacity for genuine empathy and mutuality. Many are charming and seem like exemplary pillars of decency. But in reality they're awful beings who leave a trail of misery and demoralization among their intimates. I think of 'em as pod people, as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They only seem human.

What can be done about them? Not much. They're likely the byproduct of other useful human qualities, like the wish to be loved or recognized. There's no point in telling them they're missing a screw, for they won't have any idea what you're blathering about and will assume you're an idiot. Just mind yourself. Don't trust. If somehow they can seem bigger by making you smaller, expect to be belittled.

1296. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74525 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 10:00 am

wee flea:

How is atheism a faith? Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable.

Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.

1297. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74520 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 8:33 am

Well Steve, at the risk of filling this thread with far too many ad homs, I must say the respect is mutual. I'm still mulling over things you posted weeks ago.

1298. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74502 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 7:21 am

irate_atheist:

It is my opinion that the existence of God is also clearly a scientific issue.

Care to comment why you so clearly think it is not?

The answer you get will likely equivocate between metaphysical and scientific notions. Scientific assertions are falsifiable. Meta-evidentiary assertions generally are not.

Robust, non-falsifiable metaphysical models below:
1. Materialism and its variants (naturalism, physicalism, pantheism)
2. Idealism and its variants (brain-in-a-vatism, solipsism, idealistic theism)
3. Deism and its variants (supernatural realm distinct from natural realm, some dualisms)

Theism is a tricky bugger. It can pop up in any of the three categories above.

If God incarnates in human form or if God moves matter around somehow, God is natural, at least in part. The proposition that an interactive God does not exist is indeed falsifiable and thus is scientific. A materialist might find evidence of God's footsteps in our material world and so become a believer.

Same thing for an idealist. Except an idealistic God isn't incarnating in matter and isn't moving matter around. He's moving illusory matter around. The illusion is as if a material world exists. Thus we go on with science in the same manner as idealists just as we would as materialists.

The deist god establishes the nature of reality and its laws, but never violates any of them. He's outside the system and largely irrelevant to our understanding of it.

Sophisticated theists equivocate when discussing "God." One minute He's outside nature (God3) and you're silly for expecting evidence for His existence. The next minute He's answering a prayer to save a child in a plane crash (God1). Or perhaps He's manipulating our illusion of reality (God2) to give us a warm, fuzzy feeling when we're nice to poor people.

If God2 is under discussion, the theist is baffling you with bullshit. He's hoping you won't notice that he still has the same evidentiary burden for claims about God2 as for God1, assuming God2 interacts with His illusory reality (reality2) in a specific sense.

1299. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74487 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 5:32 am

Dianelos's evidence for God in 74435:

1) the impossibility of a non-designed first biologically viable organism
2) the fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants
3) the existence of morality (which evidence he (Dawkins) completely misunderstood – more about this, maybe, later)

Your first piece of evidence is a bold claim that hasn't been established. Most concede that life is improbable but aren't willing to claim that life is impossible without God. Elsewhere you've conceded that abiogenesis likely happened naturally. So I guess you're just playing devil's advocate when you argue #1 above.

Your second piece of evidence is, at best, a gap in our understanding of why the physical constants are as they are. The "God of the gaps" argument is recognized as fallacious.

I define morality as those behavioral rules we decide to live by as social beings. I don't see how this is evidence for God.

1300. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74481 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 4:51 am

Dianelos,

Corylus gave a link to an article on physicalism in the McGrath thread, which fits fairly well with how scientists seem to think about reality.

But we're not quibbling over fine distinctions here between naturalism vs. physicalism. The part of naturalism you're interested in is "don't assume any supernatural entities exist." That's atheism.

When you replace the word "atheism" with "naturalism" you introduce confusion on a couple of levels. We've talked about the methodological naturalism vs. metaphysical naturalism problem. You've conceded that you accept methodological naturalism. Yet, still steve99 and others will respond to some point you make regarding "naturalism" with what looks to my eyes like a defense of methodological naturalism. You typically will counter with criticism of metaphysical naturalism, but you will muddy the waters with evidentiary language - e.g., naturalism has no stronger an evidentiary basis than idealism (goes without saying as both are meta-evidentiary models). The whole conversation then becomes a blur.

Please don't drag us all through thousands of posts like this. Please say "atheism" when you mean a reality without gods.

Please feel completely free not to assume any burden at all and believe anything you like without explaining anything.

Your sarcasm suggests that I want off the hook. That's not the case. I gladly assume the burden of proof for my positive assertions. So must you. Those are the rules.

Reasoned debate is rule-based. You kick against the rules for Jesus. That makes it frustrating to debate you.

Earlier you asked for a formal version of the "ultimate Boeing 747" argument. Remember that this argument is a response to Hoyle's 747 argument. So you have to present Hoyle's argument first. Then you take his argument and apply it to the designer. This implies a designer's designer, and so on. This form of argument is known as "reductio ad absurdum."

It's not a new argument, but it has a novel shading. Dawkins added the bit about complexity being the result of an evolutionary process. God, being complex, must have been the product of an evolutionary process.

If I had the opportunity, I'd ask Dawkins about the problem of time. Evolution is temporal. God is presumed to exist at all moments in time at once. Either this means there can't be a God, because He couldn't have evolved and so couldn't have become complex, or we don't understand enough about time to really comment.