1301. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74360 by Dr Benway on September 28, 2007 at 8:32 am

Dianelos the equivocator:

But if you think that atheism's study of reality (beyond science's study of phenomena) is a useful enterprise, please state what testable predictions that study makes. Because if atheisim does not make any testable predictions then it can't be very useful, can it?

Concede that reasonable people ought to require evidence for some entity before believing it exists.

Stop the tiresome misdirection of shifting the burden of proof from the theist to the atheist.

Stop saying "naturalism" when you mean "atheism."

1302. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74355 by Dr Benway on September 28, 2007 at 8:12 am

...the frantic early church councils that decided which Gospels were "synoptic" and which were "apocryphal."

The quoties suggest this bit ought to be read tongue-in-cheek, with an attitude that bollocks is bollocks no matter how the hairs are split. Fair use of "synoptic" then, which has the general meaning of "presenting or taking the same point of view."

If Hitchens had written:

...the frantic early church councils that decided which Gospels were Synoptic and which were apocryphal.

CHeard's criticism would stand.

This quibble proves the audiobook can lose a little something in comparison to the written text. Although the reverse is likely true as well.

1303. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74342 by Dr Benway on September 28, 2007 at 7:38 am

Yorker:

Male lions are extremely tolerant of their own cubs and will defend them to the death, indeed, defence of his pride females and cubs, is the main duty of the male lion.

These words strike me as your animus in defending the RSS, and I do hope they're touched by your noble, masculine, protective instinct toward them.

That's why females allow him to sleep and screw most of the time...

The alpha male's wisdom is manifest in his laziness. Effort only when required.

Repeated defense of the RSS only invites restatement of old criticisms. This repetition isn't helpful.

One growl or perhaps two ought to suffice.

1304. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74327 by Dr Benway on September 28, 2007 at 6:40 am

Dianelos:

Are you are saying the Dawkins 747 argument was designed to refute the thesis that a designer is necessary? Well Darwinism refutes that thesis pretty unequivocally and on scientific grounds, so why would the world need Dawkins's philosophical argument on top? And why does Dawkins himself title the relevant chapter "Why there almost certainly is no [designer]", if his argument was only designed to show something much weaker, namely that a designer is not necessary? That makes no sense Dr Benway.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Therefore life must have been designed.

Dawkins responds, if life is like a 747, the designer is like the ultimate Boeing 747. If life requires a designer, the designer requires a designer.

Reductio ad absurdum. It's not all that fucking complicated to grok.

1305. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74294 by Dr Benway on September 28, 2007 at 4:19 am

Philip1978:

So what is Philip wiffling on about here, surely he has clearly lost it, or seemingly never had it.

Referring to one's self in the third person is often an early warning sign.

1306. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74220 by Dr Benway on September 27, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Dianelos:

...we all deep down know that anyway..

How can you know what I know "deep down"?

Or perhaps you are playing with words pretending there is no difference between "objective evidence" and "evidence". Because if by "evidence" you mean "objective evidence" then it's true that there is none for theism but then there is none for naturalism either.

I mean corroborative evidence.

You're arguing this: "I concede there is no corroborative evidence for my God. But you must concede there's no evidence for your belief that my God doesn't exist!"

The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the person asserting some entity exists.

Cheaters prosper not.
Yer pants are ablaze.

1307. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74006 by Dr Benway on September 27, 2007 at 4:21 am

steve99, Let's ask Josh to add a button for "excellent" or something like that. So if something gets flagged trollish, it can be returned to the full thread if someone else thinks it's excellent. There will have to be a majority opinion to keep a post out of the main thread.

1308. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73953 by Dr Benway on September 26, 2007 at 8:40 pm

wee flea:

If you seriously cannot prove that there is not an invisible elephant in your fridge then yes, there is no way I could ever offer you proof that there is a God. I cannot deal with such irrationality.

The invisible elephant is just another version of Russell's teapot. You can't rule out the existence of something unless you've looked absolutely everywhere. And if the entity comes and goes, you've got to look everywhere at every moment.

Maybe there are WMD in Iraq still. They're just extremely well hidden.

In short: there's nothing irrational about the problem of proving non-existence.

I'm not going to ask for your proof against the existence of the smallish, invisible elephant who allegedly visits Northern Bright's fridge from time to time yet is kind enough to mind the butter. I don't see how you could invent one. I assume you erred when you claimed you could.

1309. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73931 by Dr Benway on September 26, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Gotta love the mammals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNhMlKv4aA

Standing in between extinction in the cold
and explosive radiating growth
So the warm blood flows
Through the large four-chambered heart
Maintaining the very high metabolism rate they have

Mammals, mammals
Their names are called
They raise a paw
The bat, the cat
Dolphin and dog
Koala bear and hog

Placental the sister of her brother Marsupial
Their cousin called Monotreme
Dead uncle Allotheria

Mammals, mammals
Their names are called
They raise a paw
The bat, the cat
Dolphin and dog
Koala bear and hog
The fox, the ox
Giraffe and shrew
Echidna, caribou

1310. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73928 by Dr Benway on September 26, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Corylus:

...In the distance he (Peter) can hear all the partying going down, the joy and the shaking of funky stuff etc, and there he is...

Yeah, dude is never gonna live down that "I don't know Him" thing. Me, I'd have cut Pete some slack for trying to keep it on the down-low after that heavy bust in the garden. But hey, I ain't a straight-edge whacked muthafucka, fer shizzle.

1311. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73909 by Dr Benway on September 26, 2007 at 2:40 pm

revcort:

Don't worry walk, I'm certain that eventually someone like yourself will prosecute me.

Fear not. Your person is not under attack. Just your batshit crazy notions about the Bible.

Were you confronted with believers in Lord Xenu and the body thetans, or Joseph Smith and his magic underware, or Heaven's Gate and the comet space ship, you'd easily shred their unfounded assertions to ribbons with a bit of logic. You'd do that because you're a good man. And you care.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

1312. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73891 by Dr Benway on September 26, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Remember "connect-the-dots"? Buncha dots on a page with little numbers beside them. You draw a line from one to two to three and so on. When you finish, you've got a line drawing of a bunny or a truck.

Dianelos looks at a buncha facts. He connects the dots and sees a happy, divine daddy smiling down on him.

Atheists: "Well to get a picture like that, you have to assume there's a few more dots on the page than those we've actually discovered so far."

Dianelos: "So what. You can't prove those extra dots don't exist."

Atheists: "But why not be honest and say, 'I dunno'? Why pretend we know something we don't?"

Dianelos: "But look! The picture comes out awesome this way."

Atheists: "That may be. But we don't like adding stuff to our shared map of reality without corroborative evidence."

Dianelos: "My intuition is evidence. My feelings of ethical empowerment are evidence."

Atheists: "Not everyone feels the same as you apparently. That diversity of opinion is also evidence. And notice how humans often hallucinate agency where none actually exists. Perhaps your brain is playing tricks on you."

Dianelos: "I can't believe that you don't feel something when you look at this beautiful picture of Jesus loving us."

Atheists: "Seems beside the point."

1313. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73773 by Dr Benway on September 26, 2007 at 6:10 am

I accepted Jesus as my personal lord and savior when I was 13 years old. It was my best friend's doing.

Normally when hounded to go to church, I replied, "No thanks. I'm an atheist." But we'd had a bad argument one day, and later after some apologies and in a moment of weakness, I got suckered into praying. A few days later, I'm tagging along to church. Thus begins my weird two year journey into Pentecostalism.

The convincer for me was a rather wonderful feeling-state that worship could induce. Others seemed to share it, and would use phrases like "the presence of God" or "sense of grace" to describe it. It was quite intense and enduring for about two weeks after my conversion. A year later, the experience was much less frequent. It came and went unpredictably, but was more likely when I was in a group than when I was alone. I constantly wished to have it again. The mere memory of it was enough to keep me hooked for another year.

I understand these experiences quite differently now and recognize degrees of it in many circumstances: worship across many religions, meditation, falling in love, bipolar mania, personality disorders, head injury, drug experiences (particularly X), sadomasochism, fan fanaticism, temporal lobe epilepsy, hypnosis. It's an hallucination of an all-good other. The capacity for it, like the capacity for seeing colors or tasting something salty, lies within the brain.

Brains hooked on that drug aren't going to walk away from it just because some smarty-pants offers up a seemingly clever argument. All addicts are deniers and liars. Every need shall bow - including the need for truth - to the Great Need.

After my conversion, if someone had shown me examples of this experience outside of Christianity, I might have guessed the non-Christian joy was false or illusory, or even demonic. But if someone helped me see the underlying neurology, the basic schemas the brain uses to represent self-other relationships, I'd have been impressed. And I'd have been reassured that I could enjoy those feelings from time to time in my life without devotion to a particular religion.

Perhaps there's a TV documentary in there someplace.

1314. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73640 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Dianelos:

And, indeed, from the (claimed) fact that we people living in the natural world (and we are designers too) have been designed by a supernatural designer it does not follow that that supernatural designer must "surely" be designed too. That's all really very bad logic.

Atheists don't believe God was designed. That's not the point. The point is the whole "first cause" argument is silly. It merely shifts the "explanation" over one notch. Turtles all the way down, as they say.

If you mean that the premise of the book is that naturalism is true, then you are right that I am unwilling to accept it.

"Naturalism" as you use the term = "atheism." One doesn't have to prove atheism. We don't believe in entities without evidence.

A 100% supernatural God would be undetectable. A God who interacts with nature in some manner ought to leave evidence of this interaction within nature. Anyone claiming that an interactive God exists holds the burden of proof.

You keep trying to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers. This is cheating.

Cheaters never prosper.

Your pants are on fire.

1315. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73618 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Dianelos: Dawkins in TGD claims that all these designers of our universe "almost certainly" do not exist.

Me: Do you understand the point that argument was designed to refute?

Dianelos: ** crickets chirping **

Me: Necessity. The argument that a designer is necessary.

1316. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73614 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 2:24 pm

CHeard, that last bit was nice. I could be a Christian in an "I am Spartacus" way, if you needed someone to stand beside you in your challenge to fundamentalism.

Alas I can't actually make myself a Christian anymore than I could make myself a Mormon or a Scientologist. My brain seems to reject the little boxes and cluster of necessary contradictions.

Universalists in practice can't be distinguished from atheists in any real, political sense. Hell does indeed make a difference.

1317. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73612 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I'm with you, Flagellant. If she's reading this (although I don't know why she'd bother), I'd like her to know that I'm sympathetic to everything she's written in this piece.

I'm not one of those atheists on a mission to erase religion from everyone's head. My objective is simply to encourage a little self-questioning and uncertainty among the true believers. We're all human and slightly crazy. Case in point: this thread and how it devolved into pistols at dawn.

A little, "maybe I'm wrong."
A little, "maybe I don't know everything."
A little, "sometimes I need forgiveness so I'll forgive."
A little, "poor mammals; they got it rough sometimes."
A little, "gosh life is short.

Doubters don't blow shit up. Makes them rather endearing.

Richard Morgan, you joke around a fair amount. When I read something pointy from you, I figure you're just hitting the argument ball back and forth in your curmudgeonly way. But I did feel that slagging the new guy for the pseudonym was a bit harsh. You're easy to forgive, in my opinion, so no worries from me.

Oh and Prufrock said something nice about me. I've nothing but praise for the gentleman in all his endeavors.

My personal netiquette:
Give someone a chance to say something sensible before flaming them.
Insults ought to be at least mildly amusing.
Don't tell people to shut up or go away; that's what moderators are for.
Privacy deserves our respect.

1318. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73537 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 7:59 am

...the things you have brought into doubt are things that no believer has ever doubted.

Listen to yourself. Listen to the narcissism in those words.

You're whistling in the dark. But in reality, life without the magical power of "I believe" isn't so bad.

1319. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73525 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 7:34 am

Richard Morgan is actually Neisha Johnson, a precocious 14 year-old black woman from Alabama. She's just taking the piss, as she does from time to time.

1320. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73508 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 6:22 am

Nice creed, Northern Bright. Here, I'll give it a go:

I believe that biological organisms behave in ways that are selfish, altruistic, and bloody-minded. These three strategies serve the welfare of living things under a variety of environmental conditions.

Bloody-mindedness is evident when social beings misrepresent their subjective experiences to others. Humans have found this deception so useful that they've cultivated it into a refined art form termed "religion."

When an individual faces an adversary of greater status or political power, bloody-mindedness can level the playing field. Example: "You demand that I honor your authority, but I must honor God who holds far greater authority than you."

Those who are not dead yet owe their lives to the precious trinity of selfishness, altruism, and bloody-mindedness. Therefore all thanks and praise be unto these noble three!

1321. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73497 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 5:36 am

Wee Flea:

...religious moderates are the ones to blame because they are the ones who allow religious fundamentalists

Here's how you can stop enabling the fundies: admit that ideas based on faith are subjective and can't be corroborated. Consequently, it's not proper to appeal to faith when arguing for social policies that affect us all.

You can keep your job. Just remind your flock that faith must not over-reach reason. Example sermon I'd find reassuring:

"The life of Christ inspires within us a hunger for righteousness and virtue. But we must recognize our own frailty, lest in chasing after a glimpse of heaven we become blinded to the exigencies and contingencies of this earthly life.

"As St. Paul said, we see through a glass darkly. Confusion between fantasy and reality is part of the human condition. We must allow that scripture is read by imperfect, human eyes. Its meaning is understood or guessed at by imperfect, human minds.

"Therefore let us not use scripture to impose suffering upon others, lest we do so in error. Faith awakens our hearts, but reason and corroborative evidence must guide our hands."

I wonder if you've made such an idol out of tilting at Dawkins that you now require your fantasies of enmity.

1322. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73485 by Dr Benway on September 25, 2007 at 4:48 am

Wee Flea:

Let anyone contradict the Atheist creed...

Guess I missed the memo. "No God" is hardly a creed. Please explain what you mean by "Atheist creed."

1323. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73127 by Dr Benway on September 24, 2007 at 7:44 am

What's wrong with a short weekly "Atheist News" program?

Yes. And after 30 minutes of updates regarding the gods atheists don't believe in, we could have a show about music most of us don't listen to. Maybe even a cooking show about foods we don't normally eat.

1324. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73088 by Dr Benway on September 24, 2007 at 4:48 am

Dianelos:

Dawkins in TGD claims that all these designers of our universe "almost certainly" do not exist.

Do you understand the point that argument was designed to refute?

1325. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73085 by Dr Benway on September 24, 2007 at 4:19 am

the probability of life arising on Earth = 1

Actually that's false. Perhaps you did not read about Hoyle's idea I mentioned in post 132 above.

Let's collapse a different wave function.

Q: Before dropping our trousers, what's the probability that my dick is bigger than yours?
A: .5

Q: After dropping trou, that probability would be...
A: 1

Dianelos:

But then why did you write up in post 114 a good analogy for Dawkins's argument and then rebut it yourself in that same post?

I didn't rebut Dawkins. I showed what happens when you play the "if naturalism isn't true" game. You end up with no truth standards. Pleasant for people who like to play fast and loose. However as they say, live by the sword, die by the sword.

As you write the analogy works only "if naturalism is true", so you actually illustrate that Dawkins is begging the question – which has been my main point all along.

He's not trying to establish "if naturalism is true."

BTW I can't stand your "if naturalism is true" shite. Huge time sink and gets us nowhere.

Now on your knees before the Java God your Lord, slave. Obey or despair!

1326. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72995 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Dawkins:

Normally church makes me queasy and sleepy. However for a reasonable, ahem, stipend, I'd be willing to grab some religious street cred. Maybe join the Unitarians, make a generous donation, write an article for some crap Unitarian publication. Take me about six months.

Once my feet are firmly planted inside the stained glass, I'll start writing opinion pieces as a self-described moderate religionist. In that voice I'll offer enthusiastic support for this "new atheism" thing. I'll say all the usual vague nonsense about the unknowable ineffability of life, the universe, and everything. But instead of chiding you for slagging my pretty wooly thoughts, I'll praise you for defending them against the threat of fundamentalism and all those overly rigid, Philistine traditionalists who wouldn't know a metaphor if it bit 'em in the arse.

My warm deism will reassure the McGrath types of their essential economic security. Subtly I will suggest that an era of questioning and doubt provides certain rewarding opportunities for learned, well-read types who know when to nod sympathetically during any conversation.

Once those Science and Religion blokes catch on, the heat will be off. Your weekends will be restful and carefree once again.

Seriously, if Vickers can stand up as a voice for refined believers, why not moi?

If my stealthy black-ops meme campaign intrigues you, I recommend you have your people call my people at your earliest convenience.

1327. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72971 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Robert Maynard:

A pre-universal, singular deity does not enjoy this benefit, and must necessarily be tremendously more complex than anything it may create, precisely because anything it devises, it devises on its own, in a single 'generation'.

I believe God must be more complex than His creation. But I haven't pondered the matter long enough to feel confident of my belief.

Still I maintain that God's relative complexity is largely beside the point. He got some 'splaining to do, even if He toopid.

1328. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72932 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm

edit: Oh Janus, you beat me to it!

I asked myself, where did this thread go wrong? Think I found the problem:

Janus #72606: Positing an intelligent being (i.e. a complex and orderly being) to explain orderly complexity is beyond stupid.

Dianelos: Why do you think that an intelligent being must be complex, or at least more complex than anything it creates?

Janus said the creator must be complex. Dianelos introduced the more specific (and therefore more difficult to support) claim: "at least more complex than anything it creates." That's how we got stuck in that irrelevant debate about whether stupid engineers can create clever computers.

We need not specify God's relative complexity. "Pretty damn complex" will suffice. Janus' original point stands.

Janus:

...here's an easy way to prove me wrong: Give me one example of a supernatural "explanation" which doesn't amount to giving up on explaining complexity and order.

Couldn't have said it better.

1329. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72906 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Also in this context I wonder: what evidence would be sufficient for you?

Can I play? How about:

1. Autopsy of all deaths this day forward reveals the words, "Yahweh here. Yes it's all true. Read your Bible!" inscribed on each femur.

2. A two-foot translucent pop-up window floats in the air over my head for the next several years saying, "System alert: You are in a Matrix simulation."

3. Jesus returning in clouds of glory with a sword in his mouth.

Any evidence will suffice which:
1. violates known physical laws
2. can be corroborated by anyone over a significant period of time
3. can be repeatedly captured by video, audio, or photographic record on a variety of instruments
4. uses symbols to convey an intelligible meaning

Dianelos:

The fact that you are there drinking your morning coffee only evidences that something is suitable for your morning coffee, not that something from your kitchen is suitable for it.

Did I not say:

But if the coffee-God prepared this java-joe moment for me, maybe no item was actually suitable.

Don't rebut me with my own point. That's something a dishonest person would do to create the appearance of responsiveness, while actually giving no response at all.

I'm not fooled by such antics. And I'm no longer giving you the benefit of the doubt. Ignorant people change their ways when people repeatedly point out their mistakes. But liars never change. At least that's been my experience to date. I would love to be proved wrong in your case, but I'm not holding my breath.

1330. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72891 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 10:54 am

...and generally teach a cherrypicked christianity that would basically show it in a very bad light.

When life gives you lemons, make lemon-aid!

I quite like the idea. Given Poe's law, you probably could get away with a batshit crazy parody of Christianity, without anyone being sure of your actual intentions. The uncertainty would be delicious.

Of course the danger is the fundies might flock to your school in response to your Biblical fidelity.

1331. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72885 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 10:34 am

bluebird:

Joyeux Equinox

With the equinox, the great migration is underway. Countless birds and butterflies have packed their bags and headed south, some traveling thousands of miles.

Monarch butterflies winter in a few specific sites in Mexico. Individuals don't live long enough to make the journey, but their great-great grandchildren will get there. When they return to the north in spring, quite often they'll land on the very same tree their ancestors vacated the preceding fall.

How's that for amazing, mysterious, and improbable.

Why clutter up the school day with scripture and worship when we've got such a fascinating world around us begging for our attention?

1332. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72884 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 10:28 am

Thanks to MagratGarlick and Roger Stanyard. Couple comments: In the US, "infancy" is birth to the second birthday. The term is never used to describe students. And "grammar school" is synonymous with "elementary school." And to clarify: in the US, a bachelor's degree takes four years. Two year degrees are called "associate's" degrees.

If you've an hour to kill, this is entertaining: British vs American English

In the UK I must remember never to say, "I'm stuffed!"

1333. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72866 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 9:22 am

The import of the anthropic principle is this: the probability of life arising on Earth = 1. Thus those theists who view the anthropic principle as somehow supportive of God's existence are mistaken.

In TGD, IIRC, Dawkins doesn't use the anthropic principle to prove God's non-existence. He concedes he can't prove that. So I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

I might mention that the probability that I might eat a piece of fresh strawberry pie for breakfast, with a grayish kitten curled up beside me, while gazing at a perfectly blue sky on this the autumnal equinox of 2007, also equals 1.

1334. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72852 by Dr Benway on September 23, 2007 at 8:38 am

...first year of high school (we were eleven!)

Eleven? Hmm. I struggled to make a point in another thread about kids not being able to understand certain concepts until high school; now I see the problem: high school means different things in the US and UK.

I'd appreciate an outline of the UK educational system. I hear terms like "A levels" and "6th form." I have no idea what's going on.

THE US SYSTEM (with approximate ages)

2-4: Preschool: optional, self pay, no real standards.
5 yrs: Kindergarten: largely state funded, mandatory in most states.

Junior high system:
6-8: Early elementary (1st, 2nd 3rd grades)
9-11: Elementary (4th, 5th, 6th grades)
12-14: Junior high (7th, 8th, 9th grades)
15-17: High school (10th, 11th, 12th grades)

Middle school system:
6-10: Elementary (1st, 2nd 3rd, 4th, 5th grades)
11-13: Middle school (6th, 7th, 8th grades)
14-17: High school (9th, 10th, 11th, 12th grades)

Completion of high school results in a high school diploma. High school drop-outs can sit for an exam called the "GED" (General Educational Development), which is accepted by most, but not all, employers and colleges as equivalent to a diploma.

18-19: Two-year trade school programs resulting in a certificate or AA degree (plumbing, electrician, HVAC, machinist, engine repair, practical nurse, law enforcement, bookkeeping, many others). Self-pay.

18-21: College undergraduate (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior years). Self-pay, and very expensive for most people. Students take out loans with deferred interest. Most people don't finish in 4 years --more like 6, due to need to work, switching major area of study, or life problems. Graduation from college results in a bachelor's degree.

22-?: Graduate school, usually 3-6 years; might be supported by a grant and part-time work as a teaching assistant. Law school is 3 years; self-pay. Medical school is 4 years; self-pay.

25-?: Post-doctorate training. Medical residency typically is about 4 years.

29-?: Fellowship in a specialized area is usually 1-2 years.

1335. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72757 by Dr Benway on September 22, 2007 at 5:19 pm

I think most doctors could give a rat's ass about a patient's "spirituality." But in the US, JCAHO, the body that certifies hospitals and health care facilities, requires one to ask these questions. Something to do with being holistic, sensitive, or culturally aware.

Health care may be a screwed up system. But the meta-system concerned with regulating and/or fixing it, is nuts as well.

Humans.

1336. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72693 by Dr Benway on September 22, 2007 at 10:05 am

Regarding the "what to write in the religion box" question: I recommend flying under the bureaucratic radar. Put "none." Don't be clever, cute, or interesting.

Remember that privacy is a thing of the past. What you write goes into a large database which can be cross referenced with other information about you.

I'm sure most of us lead dull lives and have little to hide. But you might one day find yourself in an adversarial relationship with a person who can access these data stores, and who might query for inconsistensies, dirt, or anything that might paint you in a negative light in someone else's eyes.

1337. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72665 by Dr Benway on September 22, 2007 at 6:34 am

Dianelos:

Here is his reasoning (page 136): "The great majority of planets in the universe are not suitable for life. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it." Of course there is no reason to believe that there is even a small minority of planets with just the right conditions for the naturalistic rise of life, unless one begs the question and assumes that naturalism is true. If conversely theism is true then there are zero planets where life can arise naturalistically. So Dawkins commits an obvious logical fallacy here.

The great majority of items in my kitchen are not suitable for my morning coffee. However small the minority of items just right for my coffee, it must be in one of them, because here I am drinking it.

That is, only if naturalism is true. But if the coffee-God prepared this java-joe moment for me, maybe no item was actually suitable.

You dolt, Dianelos. You reek of intellectual dishonesty. Just another liar for Jesus.

Here's a hint: when someone makes a point against one of your arguments, try saying "I see your point" or "perhaps you are right" or at the very least, "I'll think about what you've said."

1338. Yes, it's a Hobbit. The debate that has divided science is solved at last (sort of)

Comment #72588 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Indonesia's an active place geologically. Bet that island hasn't always been the same size.

1339. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72576 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 6:14 pm

CHeard:

Is cherry-picking really a crime, if you're a legitimate heir to the cherries? ;-)

Cherry picking vests greater authority in the picker than the thing picked. It's not a crime in itself. But doing it while pretending that scripture is some sort of special, divine revelation is trying to have things both ways. People who try to have things both ways are universally recognized as vile beings. You wouldn't want to share a flat with any of them. Believe me.

1340. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72568 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Dianelos:

In short TGD is becoming useful for demonstrating how intellectually deficient popular atheism really is. Perhaps in the end, and with the help of all the negative response it elicited, TGD may help raise peoples' consciousness that the question of whether theism or naturalism is the best description of reality is in fact far from simple and far from settled.

SONG OF DIANELOS

Dianelos: "Science has gaps. Naturalism isn't the only possibility. Deism and idealism can't be ruled out. Oh, and by the way: I've got something amazing in my pocket. Looks like insights into QM's deeper meaning, Jesus, political passivism, a virtue score card, and the Divine Mind Matrix. But ignore all that for now..."

Atheists: "Jesus? The Matrix? WTF?"

Dianelos: "Forget that. Look, science has gaps and deism is reasonable."

Atheists: "What's the point of this QM business..."

Dianelos: ** shakes head incredulously ** "Lots of smart people recognize that science has gaps and deism isn't batshit crazy..."

Atheists: "Hold on a sec. I'm not following this collective mind notion of yours. Where's your evidence for any of this?"

Dianelos: ** chuckles condescendingly at this Philistine request for 'evidence' ** "You'd think someone like Dawkins would trouble himself to find out what oodles of smart people have already established: that science has gaps and deism is not the root of all evil."

Atheists: "Does this metaphysical wanking have anything to do with the price of eggs in China?"

Dianelos: "Oh you atheists. Bless you. It really is curious how you fail to appreciate that science has gaps and deism has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden or Jerry Falwell!"

Atheists: ** eye strain now forcing most to quote-scan Dianelos ** "WTF?"

Dianelos: "God is a person. A very nice person. I'm sure one day, when you're really really ready and your soul has progressed far enough along the path toward Virtue City, He will put a quarter in the clue machine on your behalf."

1341. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72551 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 3:14 pm

revcort:

When someone does well in Christianity, God is given the glory for all that He has done in this person's life.

People with the good sense not to brag about themselves sometimes will over-indulge in playing the proud father or mother. Ever been subjected to more detail than you wanted about some kid's recital, or classroom antics, or amazing athletic performance?

Ego can be more than the actual, physical self. Ego appears in tokens or icons of the self, such as one's child, one's car, one's home, one's sports team, one's country, one's religion, and yes, even one's God.

"Lord, I am a sinner so unworthy of Your love. And yet You reached down and lifted me up. I was like a chocolate among many chocolates sitting in a sampler box. You might have reached for the mint, or the cherry cordial, or the peanut brittle. You might have even lifted up the marzipan, which only grandma will eat. You had all those choices. And yet you picked me. Praise Your Holy Name!"

Having been around the block more than twice, I'm not terribly impressed by any of this "humbly before the Lord" wank.

1342. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72491 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 9:21 am

J:

...the fish that swim near the surface are simply a little more likely to get caught.

Reminds me of that alien book To Serve Mankind which surpisingly turned out to be a cookbook.

The Fly-Fisher of Men is hungry for soles, and it's nearly tea time.

1343. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72488 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 9:10 am

revcort:

...man is like a fish who needs to be able to fly. He is free. He is free to swim, not fly. Therefore, he must be transformed into a bird in order to be able to fly.

Swimming fish turning into flying birds. I'd like to see that. Wonder why I never have.

1344. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72465 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 7:17 am

PaulEmecz:

Are we assuming that it is morally acceptable to shoot someone in cold blood?

No. Military necessity is something like the principle of lesser harms.

After 6 months, I decided that I wasn't happy just following orders.

Even civilians follow orders.

A man holding a gun tells a shop keeper to put all the money in the register into a paper bag. The shop keeper would like to refuse. But he doesn't.

Morality and authority

Point #3: Real consent is only possible when there's no gun pointed at your head.

1345. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #72451 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 6:21 am

whatthe:

What WAS helpful to me was talking to atheists who could care less what I believed, so long as it didn't interfere with their lives (which is pretty much my take now, although if I do get in a conversation with a theist, I'll tell them what I think and why).

I agree. Brings me back to "yours, mine, ours." It's good to reassure people that we respect their right to their own thoughts and experiences, just as we want that right for ourselves.

But with respect to social policies that affect us all, we've got to insist upon corroborative evidence.

I think the only difference between new atheism and old atheism is 9/11.

1346. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72400 by Dr Benway on September 21, 2007 at 1:48 am

Russell Blackford:

I don't think her age is an excuse - she's been saying stuff like this for a long time now, after all.

Next on my list then might be be alcoholism, post-concussive syndrome, or perhaps bipolar disorder.

To get an honorary PhD, she must have keen social skills. I'm betting she's consumed her fair share of quality beverages over the years.

Speaking of, I hope Hitchens cleans up. I'm not looking forward to the day when he starts sounding like a wind-up doll trotting out memorized paragraphs only tangentially related to the questions asked of him.

1347. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72274 by Dr Benway on September 20, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Aw shucks, walk. **blushes**

I'm ever for the underdog. So anyone who says something about feeling picked on - even in jest - rouses my attention.

RD are you feeling down? Your pals are here to turn that frown upside down!

The lesson of Mary Midgley is this: you've likely got twenty years, give or take, before your brain starts doing embarassing things in the newspapers.

1348. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72250 by Dr Benway on September 20, 2007 at 3:11 pm

steve99:

There is almost certainly a genetic tendency for a proportion of the population to be gay that is universal in humanity.

Freaky, eh? Know what else? Seems about 10% of humans are very short. In fact they're so short that nine out of every ten people they meet are taller.

1349. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72182 by Dr Benway on September 20, 2007 at 1:50 pm

...according to wikipedia the woman is 88 years old...

Might explain the associative thinking, which is all that's left when abstract, analytic reasoning is lost.

Next year's version of the same letter:

That Dawkins. Always 'natural selection this' and 'natural selection that.' On and on about our selfish genes. I can hardly fit in my jeans any more, least since my birthday and all those boxes of sweets. People can be so sweet.

Except for that Dawkins. He gets people very upset, you know. Going on and on about how we're all meant to be selfish bastards. Well bugger the Tories and their nasty, monitarist notions. Life is about so much more than mere money. But try telling that to Mrs. Thatcher! Anyone with a hair-doo that lofty and weather-proof has some explaining to do, no question about it. Has science got the answer? Not even Darwin would claim that!

1350. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72039 by Dr Benway on September 20, 2007 at 7:37 am

Richard Dawkins:

Do you ever feel you are being picked on?

Professor, anyone who writes an entire book about selfishness must be very wicked and unpleasant. I'm afraid you've only yourself to blame if no one likes you very much.

Try discovering a few scientific facts that people might find cheerful and uplifting. You'll get more dinner invitations, I'm sure.