1351. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71764 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Rational thinking, did I say life has no purpose? Hardly!

1352. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71756 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I'll add to the list of purposes:

"Honey, I got some ice cream. Butter Pecan. Your favorite."

"Woohoo!"

1353. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71745 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Maybe He is just incredibly shy...

Clearly he wants us to live as atheists. And it's no wonder.

Without God we've only got each other, so we're forced to compromise and work toward mutual benefit.

With God, a few smarties will forever be playing suck-up, trying to get the Big Guy on their side so they can intimidate everyone else.

Collins and Dawkins need to get some sun. They're both rather green around the gills.

1354. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71723 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 2:39 pm

epeeist:

"I was only carrying out orders" was deemed to be insufficient defence at the Nuremberg trials.

With respect to orders "of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal" (US v Keenan). The Nuremberg defense remains viable for legal orders. The notion of "authority" itself would become meaningless were this not the case.

Had the marksman been ordered to shoot a four year old, he'd be in trouble. But this marksman believed his target was a matter of military necessity.

1355. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71584 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 4:43 am

Points I want to get on the table for use later:

A soldier and expert marksman in a special ops unit receives orders to shoot a man leaving a particular bank between 9:00-9:30 in the morning. He's given a careful physical description of the man. The orders don't explain why this man is to be killed. Such information is "need to know only" to prevent larger military plans from falling into enemy hands in the event of capture.

The war ends. The dead man's grieving family investigates the assassination. There appears to be no credible reason for it. He was a small businessman who made and sold gloves, with no particular political connections. His death was a mistake. Or perhaps a business competitor lied to someone and got him killed. Or maybe the man was sleeping with a married woman and the husband found out and... In any event, the death was not a justifiable military action.

Is the marksman guilty of murder? I think most people would say no. Someone higher in the chain of command must take responsibility for the marksman's actions.

Morality and authority

Point #1: Anyone under the command of another becomes an extention of the commander's will and may not be functioning as an independent, morally responsible agent.

Point #2: When two parties act in concert, the one with greater access to information holds greater responsibility for the result of their actions.

1356. The Bili Apes Are in Trouble!

Comment #71241 by Dr Benway on September 18, 2007 at 6:37 am

Is there really gold there?
And who buys ivory anymore?

Somehow we have to convince the politicians that a unique ecology is of priceless value. We need some documentaries that make money and can fund conservation costs. Tourism established in such a way as to not threaten wildlife. Scholarships and student exchange between Africans and prestigious universities.

How much money did that penguin movie make?

1357. The Dawkins debate

Comment #71233 by Dr Benway on September 18, 2007 at 6:04 am

Russell:

I'm happy to get widespread acceptance of something anodyne like "All the existing bodies of religious dogma are far too doubtful to form any basis for public policy or even for a publicly-accepted morality". One way to argue that is to argue that there are probably no gods.

I agree with you.

I don't want to rid the world of religion. For me it's enough to set firm limits upon it, as one does with an unruly child. But I see a place for those who say they'd like to rid the world of religion. Religion harms many people, and those harmed have a right to their anger.

The religion haters and the religion tamers may be more effective in combination than either party alone. Good cop, bad cop.

1358. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71225 by Dr Benway on September 18, 2007 at 5:11 am

I think a lot of people at different lonely stages of their lives appreciate groups that accept anyone and exist for the celebration of mutual caring. It's not as good as the more intimate caring you can share with family and close friends. But some people have no family or close friends.

Social networking is another benefit.

1359. The Dawkins debate

Comment #71050 by Dr Benway on September 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Quine:

However, I do not agree that people are "cemented" into these ideas as they get the mental tools to sort them out. There are many others here who have studied the brain and its development, and the property of neuroplasticity continues through adulthood (although usually gets slower).

The problem of wiping out an unwanted meme and replacing it with a more desirable meme in a population of individuals is actually fairly complex.

Meme conversion is a two-way street. People will revert to the older meaning of a word if others around them expect that meaning. To prevent widespread reversion, a large percentage of the population must robustly embrace the new meaning.

How many lack the cognitive capacity for nuanced, probabilistic estimations, or the shaded meaning of a phrase like "almost certainly is no God," yet can comprehend three mutually exclusive categories like "yes," "no," and "not sure"?

1. Nearly all preadolescents
2. IQ between about 40-90
3. Disabling mental disorder
4. Fronto-temporal brain injury
5. Most letter writers to The Times

I reckon the above add up to more than half the population.

People don't learn new information unless they're motivated to do so. The words "atheist" and "agnostic" do not occur with sufficient frequency in popular communication to motivate adoption of novel, more nuanced meanings.

These are the memes we have:
1. An atheist believes there is no God.
2. An agnostic isn't sure one way or the other.

We can't expect to change these dominant meanings among the general population. But we don't need to change them.

The agnostics are on our team, not the other one. We just need to let them know.

Smile and offer 'em some tea. There's a teapot 'round here someplace...

1360. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70962 by Dr Benway on September 17, 2007 at 10:40 am

The probability that Yahweh exists seems equal to the probability of any other similar, particular, supernatural entity, such as Poseidon. However, I can't say that the probability that some sort of supernatural intelligence exists is equal to the probability of a particular case, like Yahweh or Thor.

Rejecting the entire class "any conceivable God humans might imagine past, present, or future" is a stronger and more far reaching claim than any rejection of a particular God.

If the universe is "stranger than we can suppose," I hate to set unnecessary conceptual limits upon it. Science doesn't demand this from us - in fact quite the opposite. Science demands the God hypothesis remain on the table along with Russell's teapot.

No one need die or stop having kinky sex merely because we leave the possibility of an unknown creator God on the table. Some agnostics may vote for anti-gay laws; some may not. Socially conservative values cannot be derived from agnosticism any more than from atheism.

Let's grab those agnostics. That's all I'm saying.

1361. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70879 by Dr Benway on September 17, 2007 at 6:27 am

The 'environmental reality' is that the popular definition of 'atheist' is incorrect.

Agreed.

When popular ideas about the meanings of the words 'Jew', 'Woman' and 'Gay' were incorrect, painting those who bore those names as sub-human, did those people feel they had to abandon those words and think up new ones? Or did they try to educate people about the correct meanings of the words?

Different cognitive task. Russell's teapot is beyond the conceptual skills of an 8-10 year old.

You can teach an eight year old, "girls can be smart just like boys" or "Jews are nice just like anybody else." The jury is still out regarding "gay." Think I'll be dead and long gone before "fag" isn't tossed about on the playground.

Have you any idea just how ridiculous your suggestion appears to anyone who gives it more than a nanosecond's thought?

LOL. Kinda my point.

How do we get the ordinary people to realize their god(s) fall into the same category as Santa Claus -- made up by adults who must supply the rewards themselves?

My suggestion: first co-opt the agnostics onto our team. There are vastly more agnostics than atheists. The communal reinforcement value of large numbers can't be underestimated. Argumentum ad populum may not be logical, but it is persuasive.

The popular meaning of 'agnostic' is 'someone who considers that the probability that a god exists is not significantly different from the probability that no gods exist.'

You're welcome to do your own focus groups. But where I live, an agnostic isn't sure whether there's a god or not.

Probability estimation is beyond the conceptual skills of concrete operational children, and even many formal operational high school students. That's why you get that "50-50" error as a default meaning of "not sure."

oxytocin, can you back me up? People here seem skeptical; perhaps two brain experts are better than one.

1362. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70775 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Without relationship, there is no language. Very difficult to debate ethical decisions without language.

1363. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70773 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Right, Santa is the teapot argument. The people I meet don't feel the category "some sort of God" can be dismissed as we dismiss particulars, like Santa, toothfairy, or teapot.

1364. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70772 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Suck it Jesus!

1365. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70764 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Oh, I see your point sapient. And you're right. Blasphemers piss others off, not themselves.

Cheeky bastards, those blasphemers.

1366. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70761 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Well. My favorite beer comes from Canada. La Fin du Monde.

1367. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70756 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the madness of crowds by Charles Mackay" instead.

Too late for "instead." But I'll put it on my list.

1368. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70752 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 8:54 pm

sapient, I think Mitchell is saying the same thing in both excerpts: other people might view him as doing something blasphemous, but he wouldn't view it as such.

My guess is that's how everyone feels who takes the blaspheme challenge.

1369. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70746 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 8:35 pm

The Wisdom of Crowds is entertaining. The premise is simple but has far reaching implications. Essentially, groups under certain conditions can enjoy the benefits of signal averaging.

Signal averaging example: sound a tone during an EEG recording, and you won't see much. The brain's response to the tone will be buried in too much background noise. But sound the tone 20 times, average the 20 EEG tracings together, and you'll see an obvious response to the tone. With enough samples, the background noise cancels out.

Wise crowds are made up of truly independent parties, each with access to information relevant to some probabilistic question. The predictive power of an appropriately diverse group over time will outperform any specific expert's predictive power.

If ever you find yourself in a group of the like minded, don't linger.

1370. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70739 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Medicine is psychiatry.

But no matter the department, being a patient is not fun. And you're not treated any better if you're a physician. The machine is what it is.

I could tell you of my two trips to the ER this past week, and my "oh shit is it cancer?" moments, and pain, and an ultrasound on a Friday afternoon that looked sobering, and no physician around to review it...

"We don't have your ultrasound."

"It was done yesterday afternoon."

"The radiologist hasn't dictated it yet."

"I see. Will he be in later? Can I wait, or come back?"

"The results will go to your doctor."

"I understand, but I'm worried about this, and I won't see my doctor for a couple of days. I really need some answers."

"There's nothing I can do."

"Please, can I get a copy of the CT report from last week?"

"Why?"

"Because I want to read it. I want to understand why I'm still in pain."

"We don't have that here."

"Of course you do. I had it done here last week."

"Well I dunno..."

"And I'd like the ultrasound I had done last year, for comparison."

"We don't have that."

"It was done at this hospital. It should be in my chart."

"Your chart isn't here."

"Don't you call for a patient's chart when they come to the ER?"

"No."

"Then how... why... Well, things sure seem different now compared to when I was a resident."

"Even if we had that, you'd have to make a formal request through the records department to see it."

Fucking wankers.

1371. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70732 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Spinoza, ever read The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki?

1372. Alex the Parrot

Comment #70729 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Yeah, I'm no expert, but I heard the "free range" thing was a joke. The chickens are in pens from hatchling to slaughter just as with the mega-farms. At a few weeks of age, a small door opens allowing the chicks to go outside into a small runway area. But they don't bother; too unfamiliar to them. Two weeks later, they're slaughtered.

So it goes.

I daydreamed once of visiting Dr. Pepperberg's lab, to see Alex in person (I've a background in language acquisition in infancy). He was a special creature. Dr. Pepperberg must be devastated.

1373. Alex the Parrot

Comment #70719 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Etcetera, you might enjoy Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin. Dr. Grandin is autistic, and quite eloquent in explaining the apparent differences between her mind and non-autistic minds. She feels her brain is more like that of an animal. Much less top-down inhibition of sensory input.

Dr. Grandin has a unique sensitivity to what animals see and hear, and she's proven herself by saving the cattle industry millions with her insights. Nice video here: The Woman Who Thinks Like a Cow

Alex gets a mention in her book.

For decades I've been using my imagination to peer out through eyes much different from my own. Yet Dr. Grandin's book was a revelation.

It's a little frightening to recognize that human consciousness isn't radically different from the consciousness of animals. We are voracious predators and I don't see that changing. But at least we can be as humane as possible toward the mammals, birds, and others we consume.

1374. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70711 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Chayanov:

Just yesterday a religion scholar I know told me that Dawkins is reductionist and hateful. She's never read a word he's written or listened to an interview with him...

Either all these people are batshit crazy, or something else is going on. I think the problem is "atheism."

Ordinary people are puzzled by anyone claiming "there is no God." How can a mere mortal make this assertion? Such arrogance! People know "you can't prove a negative," even if they're not familiar with that phrase. Thus anyone claiming to know there is no God must have an axe to grind.

That's what's happening. It's very unfortunate.

I'll repeat myself: among ordinary people, an atheist is someone who is certain there is no God. An agnostic isn't sure one way or the other. A theist believes in God. Yes, no, maybe. These are the three mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories in most human heads. People learn this stuff as kids several years before they're able to appreciate qualifiers and nuances. Memes that are stable in a person's head for a few years turn to cement.

Among ordinary people, the atheist position is irrational, full stop. You can't logically prove a negative. No need to read further. Why waste your time? Would you read a book by someone claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine?

Things we can do:

1. For two or three generations, avoid teaching children the words "atheist, agnostic, theist," until high school when they're capable of appreciating things like Russell's teapot and the continuum from "hard atheism" to "soft atheism."

2. Change our self-definition to incorporate the uncertainty represented by the agnostic position. Perhaps we might refer to ourselves as "the atheists and agnostics."

Read some Piaget. Brains are very different at 10 years verses 16 years. "Atheism" is a concept learned several years before high school.

We're talking to 10 year-olds. That's what jumps out at me when I read all those responses to Dawkins in the Times.

1375. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70706 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 4:57 pm

I feel I know the type who might volunteer for a martyr's job: those who can't resist a challenge, have a hunger to be loved, are moved by idealistic visions, and are sexually a bit S&M (mostly M).

Still, they wouldn't strap C4 to their chests without an entire community supporting and sharing fantasies glorifying noble self-sacrifice.

Religion intensifies the in-group/out-group conflict. People can move from one group to the other when God or Allah aren't defining eternal group boundaries.

1376. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70693 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 4:07 pm

James Randi:

I think that's blasphemy, and I'm proud to have that in my record. If it doesn't meet your standards, I would be happy to expand on it in any way you see fit, so that I may stand as a recognized, committed, dedicated, confessed, blasphemer."

Randi is one cool dude. I worry about him a little because he's getting up in years. I sure will miss him when he's gone.

Follow your bliss, everyone. Life flies by faster than summer vacation.

1377. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70618 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 10:20 am

PaulEmecz:

Did you see my example of a friend who had wanted his ashes sprinked over the sea? His wishes count for something. What has planet to do with it anyway? The last human couple on Earth make certain promises to the other. The woman dies. The man, maybe rationalising as you did, breaks all his promises. Not only does he not bury her, but he preserves her body and continues to share her bed as though husband and wife.

You've added flesh to my bare-boned argument. Note that both your examples concern relationships. A relationship is a necessary aspect of moral action.

Perhaps you're arguing that both entities in a relationship must be living. I don't see why that's necessary.

1378. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70615 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 10:03 am

Goldy:

I'm really confused on this "ought/should" thing. Is that related to "must"? As in "or else"? What is the big deal?

"Ought" is distinct from "is." Indicative statements describe reality as it is. Imperative statements are commands. Words like "ought" "should" "must" "right" "wrong" "good" "bad" "moral" "immoral" "value" "purpose" "will" all convey the voice of a commander, directly or indirectly.

Commands cannot be derived from facts. That's the "is/ought" problem in a nutshell. However, once a command is accepted, facts can be used to execute the command.

Who issues the command? You do, for yourself, as you act in this world and so long as you are self-aware and faced with choices.

Others may tell you how to behave. Those commands might be facts about the other person(s), but they don't become your commands for yourself until you accept them as such.

Example: my mother won't allow shoes on the couch. That's a fact about my mother. It's like "my mother is five and a half feet tall" or "my mother has brown hair" or "my mother prefers coffee to tea."

If you visit, you'll have to decide for yourself what to do with your feet. That's your "ought."

1379. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70601 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 9:06 am

Is it unfair to paint all (insert ideology/religion) with the same extremist brush? Depends whether violence is explicitly mandated by the ideology, or occurs in spite of the ideology.

Any reasonably coherent ideology will be expressed in written documents. Some documents will be highly esteemed and difficult to amend; others will be derivative and subject to debate and revision. Finally, some customs will be unwritten and variable between communities.

If some violent practice is a matter of custom or subject to dispute, people within the ideology can appeal to higher principles to change the practice. So long as a higher principle in support of peace exists, it would be unfair to judge the entire ideology by the behavior of a few.

But what if an ideology mandates oppressive or violent practices at the highest level, in the most sacred, authoritative, and legally binding documents? Well, we're in trouble. Even if most people ignore those mandates now, one day some clever politician will insist the law be honored. So I think we must condemn the ideology itself under these circumstances, regardless of common practice.

A disconnect between words and deeds can be fixed by taking words seriously, but not otherwise.

1380. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70591 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 7:34 am

If time and space resulted from the Big Bang, asking "what happened before the Bang?" is like asking, "what's north of the North Pole?"

However, one can ask, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Stenger answers that nothing is unstable. But there's room to quibble over the meaning of "nothing" I reckon.

So long as we've a gap in our understanding of why there is something, we can't eliminate the God hypothesis.

1381. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70587 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 7:14 am

Perhaps we ought to refer to ourselves as "atheists and agnostics." Thus we can inform people that metaphysical certainty isn't a prerequisite for our team.

1382. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70573 by Dr Benway on September 16, 2007 at 6:03 am

I'd like to see the RSS do a bit more editing for the sake of my limited attention span. But that's a minor criticism.

1383. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70528 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Russell:

Dr Benway Wasn't steve's point that the church, rather than agnosticism, provides (purported) moral certainties?

I would think those "certainties" founded upon God's will would be uncertain for an agnostic. My guess is, homophobic agnostics in the CofE would still be homophobic as atheists.

1384. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70522 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Fair enough; we can stop.

One last point: Patients lie. Or they're not skilled at describing their feelings. I agree that the verbal reports may not capture the patient's subjective event very well.

But the patient's words can be recorded on paper, or using video cameras. They are indeed natural phenomena others can witness and corroborate objectively, like a knee jerk reflex.

1385. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70514 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 8:53 pm

When patients translate their subjective feelings into words, those words become objective phenomena others can observe and study.

Many medical conditions are detected by a careful history of patient experiences - e.g., how intense is the pain? when did it start? how often does it happen? anything make it better or worse?

1386. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70512 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 8:43 pm

PaulEmecz:

I know someone who argued that abortion was acceptable in some circumstances. She also argued that killing an innocent human being was always wrong. She accepted that at birth, a foetus was a human being. She also accepted the premise that at no point from conception to birth does the foetus become a human being. She readily accepted that a foetus was innocent. However, she said that in the case of rape, abortion was not wrong.

Once you have an "ought" you can reason out which actions will best fulfill that value or purpose. But reason itself won't provide you with the initial "ought."

In your example, the "ought" is "don't kill innocent human beings." This "ought" is not dictated by reason. It's there before any reasoning happens.

Yes, I believe there is a valid basis for fundamental "oughts" we can use to guide our ethical discussions.

Notice that morality involves, at minimum, two persons: someone acting, and someone being affected by that action. A planet with only one sentient being would be amoral.

1387. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70509 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 7:45 pm

steve99:

...it seems to provide moral certainties, and back their personal prejudices.

**scratches head** I can understand general moral certainties like the Golden Rule. But how does an agnostic argue for particular moral certainties, like sexual mores? Using appeals to "nature"? I'd think the vanilla population's reluctance to give up oral sex might prove a stumbling block to that argument.

Perhaps "agnostic" is used a little differently this side of the ocean. Here, agnostics sleep in on Sundays, for the most part.

1388. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70499 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 6:21 pm

BlazingArrow:

One either believes, or does not believe ... For those who waver in the middle, they DO NOT-YET believe

I wish that were the common view. Perhaps if we didn't have the "agnostic" category, that's what we'd see. But that middle category sucks away all the uncertainty from the other two options.

1389. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70498 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm

steve99:

I personally would like to promote atheism... agnosticism does not provide sufficient distance from the machinations of religious organisations in my country.

Interesting.

Here we have Episcopalians fighting over gay rights. It's my impression the anti-gay side are all theists, and the more liberal side is a mix of theists and agnostics. The argument against allowing gay priests appeals to God's will. Haven't heard any other argument.

The Unitarians have a lot of agnostics. I think you can shag anything you like as a Unitarian, no questions asked.

1390. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70496 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 6:06 pm

BlazingArrow74:

It appears that this is all a problem of semantics...

Indeed. My personal definition isn't of interest. I'm trying to convey my sense of how the word "atheist" is used among ordinary people, particularly children.

Here's what I see among the 10 year-olds:
"Theist" believes in God.
"Agnostic" isn't sure there's a God or not.
"Atheist" doesn't believe in God.

The agnostic enjoys all the lovely uncertainty, with none left over for the atheist, sadly.

Sorry if I've misunderstood you, Quine. The Einstein example holds for grown ups; not so much for kids.

1391. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70491 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Problem is Quine, people learn what an atheist is around 8-10 years of age (at least in my sub-culture). The "almost" in "almost certainly" is too qualified for children of this age. The definition will revert to the simpler form "an atheist doesn't believe in God." And there it will stay.

1392. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70488 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 5:39 pm

I appreciate your view, steve99. I'm arguing my gut feeling, based upon my experiences. You likely have different experiences.

Agnosticism is an easier sell in my world than atheism. Certainty seems too arrogant. I get a lot of, "How can anyone be sure there's no God?" Dawkins does too, apparently (see above).

1393. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70484 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 5:33 pm

The environmental reality that isn't going to change is this: among native English speakers in the US and possibly further, "atheist" = "person who is sure there is no God."

You can't map a complex meaning only some can understand onto a word that has a widely accepted simple meaning everyone understands.

You must create two distinct words if you want two distinct concepts.

1394. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70479 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 5:11 pm

BAEOZ, I'm hoping to read Stenger's book soon.

Still, I think it's a waste of time to argue with agnostics and deists. There may be some unknowable big something I don't know about. Fine. Let people have that. Nothing follows from it.

The focus of our argument must be against claims of an interventionist God. You know, the fag-hating, sex-phobic big Guy in the Sky who does magic.

Most people will have a hard time following arguments categorically rejecting any God. They will conclude that the hard atheist making these arguments is being irrational. That's what will happen.

Unfortunately, this sense of atheist extremism will impede our efforts to teach the best argument, which is quite simple: "What evidence do we have that Poseidon heeds the prayers of sailors?"

1395. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70476 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Yeah, we've got 'em by the short hairs with any specific interventionist God. Argument at that level is a lot more productive than argument about "God" as a category.

I'm happy with "almost certainly is no God" = "atheism." But that's not our social reality. The meme has been cemented down as "an atheist is someone sure there is no God."

Better we adapt to our environment than insist it change. Cuz it won't. Take it from someone who knows something about cognitive development.

1396. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70474 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 4:47 pm

dae, this is the problem: in many cases we've no documents or legal arguments to help us separate the vast majority of kind Muslims from the jihadis, or the oppressive Christians from the live-and-let-live Christians.

The moderates need to formulate their written docrines, so everyone is clear about what they actually believe.

The Unitarians are quite clear that they reject the Bible as God's word. So good on them.

1397. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70472 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Your version of the teapot argument is sound, Quine, but it's difficult for eight year olds to grasp. Eight year olds think "atheist" means "sure there is no God."

Another problem with the teapot:

I've noticed that many people don't see how a generic monotheistic God would fall into the set of "gods invented by men." I think that's because the standard definition appeals to general concepts of being - e.g., "all knowing, all powerful, ultimately good."

Russell's teapot is an effective counter to an argument concerning a specific god, like Allah, or Yahweh, or Jesus. But Generic Monotheist God is akin to the notion of "any God whatsoever." The teapot isn't quite the right analogy for this. We can knock off Jesus, but can we categorically knock off any conceivable God? I'm not so sure.

1398. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70469 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 3:59 pm

As a kid, I learned that an "atheist" believes there is no God and an "agnostic" isn't sure one way or the other. I thought atheists must have an axe to grind. How can anyone be sure there is no God?

No one told me about Russell's teapot.

Most people in the US will view anyone who asserts firmly that there is no God as strange. Being certain about something uncertain connotes arrogance and yes, fundamentalism.

The "hard atheist" default definition for "atheist" will not change. You can't map a nuanced meaning that depends upon a high school education onto a concept that fourth graders understand.

So the word "atheism" isn't going to get us where we want to be. Sorry to break the news to y'all, but these responses support my position.

We're going to need a second wave movement that incorporates the agnostics. Perhaps "nonbelievers."

1399. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70458 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 2:54 pm

I admit, robotaholic, I'm a little confused by the psychiatry vs. neurology point you're making. The boundary between these two specialties is fuzzy. Head injury, aphasia, epilepsy, Parkinson's, migraine, depression, autism, learning disabilities, chronic pain, sleep disorders - all are proper areas of interest for doctors in both specialties.

Many medical syndromes - not just in psychiatry - have uncertain causes. We used to blame stress and diet for ulcers; now we blame h. pylori.

Many medical syndromes are checklist based, e.g. lupus.

Research methods in psychiatry are no different from other areas of medicine.

1400. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70388 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 8:26 am

Russell Blackford:

But alas, I often feel the same way when I see people who claim to have no religious faith themselves tut-tutting about nasty, strident atheists, and calling for the preservation of warm, cuddly religious beliefs.

I'm with you. Playing stupid happens to be one of my hobbies. Example:

Dear Mr Stanford,

I enjoyed what you wrote in the Independent last week. You're quite right: religion gives us an intuition about life being more than meets the eye, but "nothing more tangible."

Too many religious people take their myths as factual accounts of the past. The parties of God won't stop killing each other until they realize that religion is really much more like poetry than history.

I've read about this movement of atheists like yourself and Professor Dawkins standing up for clear-thinking. I just want to say thanks and keep up the good work!