1401. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70381 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 7:32 am

oxytocin:

They will eventually morph into molecular biology...

Tinyism, or the belief that large things can be explained by smaller things, is soo last century.

Where did the coffee molecules in my cup go? I could tell you I was thirsty, or we could talk about Brownian motion, hydrogen bonding, gravity, thermodynamics, etc. Both explanations would be correct, but one won't bore you to tears.

Robotaholic, you might like Beyond Freedom and Dignity by BF Skinner, a strict empiricist like yourself. It's amazing how much animal behavior can be explained and predicted without any appeals to mental structures. No id, ego, superego. No guilt, love, joy. No effort to guess at what's inside the black box between our ears.

Once you grok Skinner, you'll enjoy the little spots where the model breaks down (clue: language acquisition). This brings into focus the hardware-software boundary. The black box ain't empty.

Sally's a good egg. She's on our team.

Robotaholic, are you at UCSD? Just wondering, as you mentioned the Churchlands. Back in the day, I used to sneak into afternoon neuroscience lectures at the Salk. Ah, good times.

1402. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70378 by Dr Benway on September 15, 2007 at 6:52 am

Maybe the author means, no clash people worry about. The details of God's plan still fit nicely into current gaps in scientific understanding.

1403. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70280 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm

steve99:

If I were an author who wanted to respond to a popular and controversial book, I would wait a year or so...

You're a cool dude, steve99.

But imagine: a popular book by some respected, charismatic person regarding global warming takes off arguing we've nothing to worry about. I'd be happy if someone rapidly published any honest refutations of the points in the book.

So long as a book contributes a good argument it justifies its own existence. Bad books filled with misdirection may take from the popular spotlight without contributing anything of value. That's what makes them parasites. Not their timing or cover art, IMHO.

1404. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70224 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 11:53 am

Northern Bright:

I'm not sure about this, Dr Benway.

Oh these blokes want to have their cake and eat it, too. They would be horrified to be called out as atheists.

But that's why it's fun to do just that.

1405. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70218 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 11:41 am

How is any book justified? I think it's enough that an author felt moved to say something he believed true and useful. Doesn't matter whether he's responding to something popular or not.

But if the author writes a pack of lies about another's work? Well, then his work can be accused of parasitism, as it adds little of value to the world.

1406. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70214 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 11:21 am

The flea thing strikes me as a bit of tit for tat, firstly directed at McGrath then the other one, who both stand accused of offering more snotty ad homs and intellectual dishonesty than useful argument. So I've no problem calling them fleas.

But it is unfair to apply the term to all and sundry who write a book about The God Delusion. I see nothing wrong with a book about a book.

However, there's now a trend established, as each new book about TGD seems yet another example of straw men and other dishonesties. Flea seems too kind a word for these writers.

Accusations of plagiarism are totally unjustified. The word seems to be used carelessly to mean use of another's intellectual property rather than theft. Still, it's not ideal to see the word used wrongly here.

1407. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70212 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 11:05 am

Imagine you're a soldier bunkered down in some trench and catching a glimpse of one of your mates passing crates of munitions over to the enemy. That must be how religious people feel when they read apologists like Stanford and Cornwell.

"Religion isn't about facts." Right through your own goal posts fellas. Much obliged!

1408. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70208 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 10:50 am

The only way I have found to maintain complete materialism without any form of cartesian theater or dualism is to be eliminative materialist.

There's probably a pill for that.

Subjective or first person data can be translated into third person or objective data, and so studied via the scientific method. I may not directly observe another person's pain, but I can observe verbal reports of pain.

1409. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70198 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 10:04 am

Dianelos:

Dawkins claiming that religious fundamentalists never change their minds when many people posting in his own site describe how they used to be fundamentalists but are now atheists.

The statement "Fundamentalists never change their minds about anything" is not true.
The statement "Fundamentalists hold certain religious propositions accepted on faith as perfectly, eternally correct" is true.

Dawkins means the latter, not the former. His point stands.

Harris: The point is that religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not (and cannot) know.

If that's the point of "new atheism" then it's factually wrong. Hasn't Harris ever heard of astrology and the hundreds of millions, maybe billions, who believe in it?

Insofar as advocates for astrology assert that their claims are evidence-based, they can't be accused of encouraging people to claim knowledge of things they cannot know. Any proposition contingent upon corroborative evidence can be tested. Insofar as astrologists assert that their claims are matters of faith, they are religionists, and Harris' point stands.

You see, minds that believe that a clearly flawed as well as self-contradictory book is the literal Word of God are not minds characterized by logical thought and which would make all the logical inferences from their religious beliefs.

I don't think this extrapolation is fair. Many honest, reasonable, intelligent, functional people hold a few contradictory beliefs. They may admit they don't know how to work through the apparent contradictions, but believe in time, or once they're in heaven, everything will make sense.

OK. Let's overlook the fact that what people say they believe is often not really what they believe, but what they think is expected of them to say they believe.

People can negotiate explicit meanings. They cannot negotiate implicit meanings. If a disconnect exists between words and reality, that disconnect can be repaired by taking words seriously. It cannot be repaired by ignoring written or spoken words.

The cause of peace requires us to take the written words seriously.

1410. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70189 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 9:40 am

And religion is hard to fit in to that agenda, for it simply isn't about facts.

This is my favorite one of these things yet. The author says, essentially, that Dawkins is an idiot for not realizing that religious people are actually atheists.

Brilliant.

edit: just noticed I'm saying exactly the same as others above!

1411. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70109 by Dr Benway on September 14, 2007 at 5:18 am

The notion that charitable giving is a measure of moral character seems dodgy to me. If I were to hire someone to watch my children, I'd want to know if the person had been convicted of any crimes, or had a credit report full of unpaid bills, or had a history of quitting or being fired from jobs after a short period.

Americans give more to charity that Brits not because they're more compassionate, but because of tax law differences. Philathropists give for public recognition. Scoundrels give to buy trust or to feign generosity or riches they don't actually have.

I doubt there's a correlation between charitable giving and character.

1412. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #70034 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 7:15 pm

That may have something to do with the fact that music is _haram_ in Islam.

You might be thinking Grammys. Emmys is different.

1413. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70033 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 7:07 pm

PaulEmecz:

I think we should do what reason dictates.

Reason provides us with a set of "is" statements, and methods for checking the self-consistency of the set. Reason cannot provide us with "ought" as one cannot derive "ought" from "is." Thus "we should do what reason dictates" is meaningless. Reason issues no commands.

1414. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70004 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Dianelos:

Isn't according to "new atheism" all religion supposed to be the greatest danger facing civilization and threatening even the very survival of humanity, and so on? And now it's only arguable that religion causes more harm than good?

If 9/10 times religion gives you puppies, but 1/10 times it gives you clitorectomies and honor killings, is it worth it? I would say, only if you can figure out how to separate the puppies from the rest.

Insisting on corroborative evidence for claims about our shared reality ought to help, I would think.

1415. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70001 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 3:09 pm

j:

But then the next one - about love - nudges the door ajar again for a consoling religion.

Religion as a branch of the humanities could be a pretty cool thing. Theater all day long. We could have debates over esthetic rather than scientific truth - e.g., who's epic story-of-everything is more beautiful?

If you can tell the difference between real and pretend, you can enjoy both. It's only when you can't that someone needs to set some limits upon you.

1416. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69924 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 7:33 am

The question is whether people actually think in terms of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity, not whether in the abstract they could recast these terms into more basic ones.

There are three questions:

1. Describe group mores.
2. Which groups are fucked up?
3. How do we stop the madness?

You appear to be interested in #1, less interested in #2, and interested in #3 insofar as you note that people are less receptive to folks yelling at them than otherwise.

1417. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69922 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 7:26 am

Its president, William A. Donohue, was paid $334,143 USD in salary and benefits.

Nice work if you can get it.

1418. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69918 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 7:12 am

PaulEmecz:

You seem to suggest that God may have designed us for His own selfish pleasure – like the hammer. You may be right – it would then be pointless trying to fulfil God's purpose for us. But what if God designed us to have the best life possible?

Now we're getting somewhere.

You argue that we ought to accept God's purposes as our own because God wants us to have the best life possible. If, however, God had some purpose other than the best life possible for us, we might want to reject God's purpose.

Have I summarized your point properly?

1419. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69916 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 7:05 am

Corylus:

Yes "what is good?" is a hard question. However, it is a superior question to "what should I do?" for the simple reason that it is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive statement.

I'm not sure I understand your distiction. "Good" means "that which one ought do." The word "good" hides an imperative meaning within it.

Descriptive: "Fred believes he ought to give to charity."
Prescriptive: "We ought to give to charity."

1420. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69898 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 5:54 am

J, I think the helpful bits in religion are analogous to the helpful bits in the arts. Humans seek to be part of a group sharing important experiences. The arts give this to us, and that's why we can't do without our stories, plays, and paintings. Religion is a special case. It's like a play that continues outside the theater all day long.

Yet if only we could punctuate the suspension of disbelief at intervals sufficiently long to stop the actual killing.

Here is my argument for bending the knee at the altar of corroborative reality rather than the altar of fantasy:

Love in the general sense of mutual caring and involvement requires a shared reality. Reality itself is a more consistent, reliable common-ground between two people than pretend play, no matter how ritualized the play.

The experience of love is the best proof we have that life is worth living. A life without love is painful. Yet hope that love remains possible can make it bearable.

1421. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69889 by Dr Benway on September 13, 2007 at 4:57 am

Paskoo, I appreciate your comment. I had a friend in the greater Boston area, an intelligent, older Muslim doing translation work, who had largely lost his faith but was too afraid to be open about this. He kept going to Friday prayers, although not consistently. He told me apostacy was a capital crime. I didn't believe him (this was pre-9/11). I said, "But you don't live in Pakistan; you're in the US!"

He said, "Yes, but Muslims don't respect any law but the law of Allah. There are one or two nutters who'd be willing to do something."

He was impressed by the American students from respected Boston families who converted to Islam. I remember him telling me about some just back from the Haj. They wore leather socks and used a miswak. He found them ridiculous, but baffling. Why would smart people with every advantage convert? What went wrong?

He rubbed shoulders with engineering and science students from Pakistan. He told me of two who bragged about going home on holiday and shooting a rifle at Hindus across the border.

After 9/11, he made a lot of snarky comments about people like Karen Armstrong and all the others insisting Islam is a religion of peace, and that violence has nothing to do with the religion.

In answer to your question, I don't know of any group. But I'm out of the loop. I've lost touch with my friend. Sharing your experiences with others anonymously on the internet is probably a good start.

1422. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69787 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 7:29 pm

We aren't even talking about a straight-up disavowal here, but a far more unconscious process. As is usual with human cultures, there are the stated rules, and then there are the often unspoken rules that people actually use.

Well, tell 'em to wake up. They've work to do. Chop chop! People are dying. Jihadis are planning. We've no time to waste.

1423. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69784 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm

travismc, I just watched those clips. The first cut involving the close up of the delicate old fossil clearly showing an ancient platypus with teeth while Sir David explains that modern platypus lack teeth, is strong visual evidence in support of evolution. If I'd seen that at age 10, it would have made a lasting impression upon me.

Perhaps Sir David isn't troubled because the series taken as a whole remains convincing, in spite of the edits. I don't know.

Still, it's weirdly Orwellian to see meanings manipulated to serve an ideological agenda, particularly involving an icon of science like Sir David.

If time were the issue, couldn't they cut some of those fly-over bits instead?

Evil idea: Photoshop a Bible under Sir David's arm while he's talking, then put it up on YouTube.

1424. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69779 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Don't assume that their Scriptures, however revered they are, are really a good measure of what to expect of them.

That's got to stop. People have to take responsibility for their written policies & procedures. If they disavow something, they have to put that in writing if they want to prove they're sincere. We are sick of the bullshit.

1425. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69764 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

"Griffin's reaction to the imbroglio, according to a statement issued by her publicist: "Am I the only Catholic left with a sense of humor?"

Yes.

1426. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69761 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Well, whatever JJ. I'm not sufficiently interested in your tiff with PZ to bother with details.

You're seeing nuances in the fascism thing that don't seem significant to me. But that may be because I'm a bastard.

I occasionally say things like, "I'm not up to dealing with the chart Nazis today." I said this in a meeting recently, then remembered my co-worker from Germany beside me. So I, being evil, added, "No offense I hope."

My co-worker replied, "None taken; Hitler was Austrian."

And everything was okey-doky.

1427. Alex the Parrot

Comment #69757 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 3:08 pm

You can see a video of Alex the parrot here: http://www.pbs.org/saf/1201/video/watchonline.htm

3rd one down

1428. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69728 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Bite me, Catholic wankers.

hmm... no lightning bolt

1429. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69682 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 7:23 am

Northernbright:

Finally, and as a nod in the direction of getting the discussion back on topic, is anyone else struck by the resemblance to the difficulty between atheists and theists over the use of the term "evidence"? ;-)

The key point about "evidence" for me is the inconsistent manner in which it is used on the theist side.

When sorting out why the furnace won't work, or whether to elect for surgery plus radiation verses chemotherapy, or which car is a better value, theist and atheist mean the same thing by "evidence." But when talking about miracles, or Jesus, the theist gets to use a more elastic definition of the word "evidence." There's a misapplication of hermeneutics to scientific questions.

Is there actually a god as described in the Bible? Did Jesus die for our sins? These are questions about our shared, factual reality - scientific questions.

In contrast, here's a non-scientific question: "Are we bound by the ancient mindset when we interpret scripture, or are we allowed to extract a deeper principle from within the text that might apply to our modern circumstances?" This is a literary, ethical, and perhaps legal question. There might be several nuanced answers. Each answer will place scripture in a slightly different relationship with other social and cultural structures.

Different groups of people will hold certain values as more or less important. Appreciating these different points of view, or subjectivities, is integral to the process of answering this question. What did Paul mean in 1st Timothy when he admonished women to be silent in church? What was important to men and women in the first century? Has that changed? Why are sex roles different today? Are women clergy allowed now? From a practical viewpoint, if women were barred from the clergy today, might the congregation be inadequately served? What attracts women to the clergy? Yada yada yada.

Now, science tries to remove as much subjectivity as possible from the process of enquiry. Does water boil at 100 degrees? Is there a feminist, minority, economic, religious, or political point of view for this issue? No. The imagined scientist-subject answering this question is as generic as possible - no particular sex, age, race, or class. Issues of framing or textual deconstruction really don't add much to the discussion when you're asking, "does X exist, or not?"

Religious claims about reality have taken a terrible beating over the years. Religions that have endured are largely self-referential and any specific factual claims are difficult to verify. Terms are defined and re-defined, and definitions are split apart, as apparent contradictions are worked through.

In the scientific literature, you don't see nearly so much argument over definition. Someone might define "the normal force" without getting into how the word "normal" is used in other contexts, or how scientist A worded the definition differently than scientist B. Words link to phenomena in the world that a generic subjectivity can appreciate. You could call a given phenomenon anything you like, so long as you're clear how you are using the word.

If a scientist asks, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" he's expecting an answer involving historical records - i.e., words linking to real things and real events. He's not expecting, "The entirety of our experience proves this is true..." followed by poetic and personal anecdotes - i.e., words linking to other words.

Once you cut the chords between mental representation and reality, you find yourself in the realm of dress-up or pretend-play. What matters is how satisfying it feels to play one's part in the group drama. The fact of the group drama provides a context for the individual actor, and truth is determined by the overall, emotional coherence of the part. Would Hamlet weep while holding that skull, or not? Which answer feels most emotionally authentic? Which answer is most self-consistent?

When you walk the stations of the cross, you're invited to meditate upon the sufferings of Jesus. This is theater. It's experiential and emotional. It's quite different from asking, "Is it likely that a woman could wipe sweat from a man's face, and an imprint of the man's face would be left on the cloth? How could such a phenomenon occur?"

Atheism might be defined as the position that god(s) do not exist. Seems straight-forward. But the theist will insist that atheism is much more. There's a stereotypical atheist character-type with a particular mind-set. A casting director needs more to go on than "no god(s)" to cast someone for the role of God Denier in the grand, heroic, theist drama of redemption. So much effort at personality representation is unnecessary for science, which represents the world from the vantage of a generic non-personality.

There's nothing wrong with art or theater. It's the confusion over where pretend-play ends and reality begins that's the problem.

1430. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69670 by Dr Benway on September 12, 2007 at 5:53 am

Thanks mixmastergaz.

I wish we had a little nook here for some of these reviews of the reviewers, a handy way to pull up a summary of the arguments in these books. Trolling threads for specific posts is difficult. After about a week, I can't remember where anything is.

1431. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69543 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Jesus Chavez is the ex-boyfriend who left her for another woman.

1432. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69534 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Corylus, I'm outraged that you would show us something like this. And I'm doubly enraged that an allegedly learned man like Dawkins would allow something so offensive to decent sensibilities to be displayed here. Here, at this eponymous web site bearing the name of Richard Dawkins. Herr Professor must be held to account for the manner in which his electrons are being used to perpetrate hate.

Soon the depraved minions will gleefully draw all the wrong conclusions from this rubbish, as is there habit. A few calmer voices may whisper, "Come, let us reason together." They may point out the unfairness of the display, which cannot in any way, shape, or form be described as typical of fish fanciers generally, or the manner in which the vast majority of ordinary citizens integrate a fishy spirituality into their daily lives.

But will these kind and selfless voices crying in the wilderness have any effect upon the hard-hearted crowd here in this desolate, demented, wasteland of Dawkins? I fear not, for these fish-deniers are as blind as they are giggly.

Lord, I pray you remove the scales from their eyes, so they might see clearly, as We now see, how this lot are NOT "all that and a basket of chips."

Humbly I follow in the footsteps of the Fisher of Men. The way is often crusty, but I am reassured by the crappie I keep stapled to my shoe. Like my Lord, I will bravely face the hateful rabble poised to crucify me and yes, even ridicule me. But it is not my bravery that pushes me onward; it is His. It is not my righteousness that will quicken their consciences; it is His. It is not my awesomeness that will totally overwhelm their teeny little minds; it is His.

It's been said before but it must be said again: Fish don't kill people. People kill people.

The kind of unprovoked wet-halibut smackdown depicted in this video represents the actions of a small minority of crazed extremists. Most fish fanciers are gentle and hardly any trouble at all. I, for one, am an example.

Fish fanciers enrich our culture. Some say it's a old wive's tale, but many swear by the practice of chasing away the rainyday blues by slotting a minnow between each toe. And for centuries, children have learned of the Great Walleye who watches over them while they slumber. They've played "pass the bluegill" and "pants scallops" at recess. And who has not delighted in the sight of the sun shimmering off a rainbow trout balanced on the end of an old man's nose?

Call me daft, if you will. But I know what's objectively right. And your video, Corylus, is NOT it.

1433. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69506 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 2:07 pm

JJ Ramsey:

BTW, don't think I didn't notice that you substituted the weaker term "authoritarian" for "fascist."

Right. I was too uncomfortable saying that some religions can be like fascist organizations.

JJ, I now understand why you're in PZ Myer's killfile. I read his note:

Wouldn't normally have been subject to banning, but chose to insult my daughter here, several times, after being warned. If you must insult my family, do it to their faces so they can kick your ass; it's cowardly to try and do it in front of me.

Maybe you should hook up with Rage Boy. You two might have fun knocking the chip off each other's shoulders.

1434. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69500 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 1:49 pm

weeflea:

You don't seem to realise that it is the basis on which you don't believe in God which is itself a faith.

I don't believe in Yahweh fo the same reason you don't believe in Neptune.

Empirical science as all, and logical positivism are two of the basic tenets of most atheists.

Shouldn't you be churning some butter or something? Interwebs is kinda sciency business.

1435. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69424 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 8:02 am

diamat1:

Shouldn't we be referring to the authors of these books as "The New Christians"?

Good point, diamat1. Except it's not clear to me that the authors are Christians in the traditional sense. Many seem to disavow God as described in the Bible. They themselves may not believe all the nonsense in the old scriptures, but they feel others ought to go on believing without being bothered by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc.

Perhaps they're the "New Condescenders" or the "Newer Atheists."

1436. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69420 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 7:47 am

Good on the Dutch. They've carried a torch for freedom of conscience for a very long time. America owes a great debt to men like Adriaen van der Donck and the early colony at Manhattan.

Islam will have to change from within. People within the religion must insist on their own freedom of conscience. Once there's a critical mass of Muslims and ex-Muslims insisting upon the right to question, including the right to leave the religion, the nutters will quiet down.

1437. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69408 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 6:47 am

JJ Ramsey, when I asked for clarification of your point, I didn't expect a link to the thread we're discussing. That's not a particularly useful response.

I suspect that either you're being deliberately obtuse and argumentative, or you have a history of head injury.

Some religious organizations are very authoritarian.
Some corporations are very authoritarian.
Some schools are very authoritarian.
Some deli owners who serve soup are very authoritarian.

No one denies the above. Except you seem to take exception to the notion that religions can be like fascist organizations. Which is strange. I'd think the truth of that statement would be self-evident.

But stranger still, you're missing the primary point of the parody, which is more concerned with the fallacious arguments offered in response to TGD.

If the parody had been a review of "The Zeus Delusion," we would not be having all these denials that a comparison of Zeus and God was being made...

Hah! You got me. I thought you were being serious, but now I see you actually can be quite funny.

1438. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69396 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 5:38 am

steve99:

I am not convinced [universe can be designed so intelligent life emerges]. I mean, it looks very much like we are alone in this galaxy, and it is not surprising if you look at how unlikely our sort of intelligence is. For 3 billion years or so, there was nothing but bacteria.

I think I understand your point about QM and determinism. But scale changes predictive power. The behavior of one water molecule may be unpredictable. Yet a glassfull may be highly predictable, as random variation at the atomic level will average-out over a large number of particles.

Chaotic systems are unpredictable at a fine level of resolution (e.g., weather conditions two weeks from today). However, at low resolution (climate trends) they may be predictable.

Low-resolution predictive power might suffice if the designer has a general interest in creating "intelligent life." But such a blurry-eyed god would prove scarce comfort to the average believer. This god's relationship with a human might be something like my relationship with a particular E. coli sitting in my rectum.

To ascend further into sci-thi (science-theology) might be fun. But alas, duty calls.

1439. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69391 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 4:40 am

BMMcArdle:

None of these arguments individually can prove that the cause, designer or perfect being were one and the same - they could be three different beings.

Uh oh. The dreaded number three. This can mean only one thing...

1440. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69388 by Dr Benway on September 11, 2007 at 4:25 am

Dianelos:

And I believe that some people become atheologians simply because they cannot conceive of God being exactly as the Bible describes, which in some places is not far from perfect bastardhood. It seems that we are built in a way that we cannot even conceive of, and much less believe, some utterly wrong views about reality. (In other words our intelligence is limited but not too limited.)

Hey kids, can you see the contradiction?

I hesitate to reply to you Dianelos, because you contradict yourself all the time. Then you'll say it's not really a contradiction, because... and your reason will be something that makes sense in your head, but not in mine. If I point out why the contradiction remains in spite of your rationale, you'll put up some paid-by-the-word thing that serves only to muddy the waters. Then we're faced with a few more contradictions to fix.

It's like you have a shifting blindspot, where A and not-A can both be true, as you don't quite see them both at the same time.

1441. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69314 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 7:49 pm

All fine points, steveroot. I'm arguing something a little different, having to do with authority and morality.

A good God would have to vanish.

1442. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #69285 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 10:00 am

Guess that Shermer article didn't make a strong impression.

1443. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #69283 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 9:50 am

'What did the framers intend', is a frightening question.

It's a standard method of textual interpretation.

The Constitution can be amended. It can be argued that amendment is a more rational method of updating the document, as opposed to adding meanings to the words that didn't exist at the time they were written.

1444. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69276 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 9:36 am

JJ Ramsey:

Trouble is, several of the arguments don't work as well for fascism as they do for religion...

I'm lost. Are we talking about arguments for fascism, against fascisim, against Dawkin's criticism of fascism? Too many turns of the table. Perhaps a specific example would help?

Most believers wouldn't find this funny because they would see the obvious implicit analogy that nearly all of you are trying to pretend isn't there, and they would see it as over the top.

You mean, that religions can be like fascist organizations? Lots of things can be compared to fascism, often with humorous effect, e.g., Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi."

I think your over-reaction says more about what you might be pretending isn't there.

1445. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69262 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 8:08 am

No. Evil, if knowing God's purpose, you choose another.

Begs the question I'm asking. "Evil" means "that which you ought not do."

1446. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #69257 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 7:55 am

AtheistAttorney, the US courts are asked to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. There are different methods of interpretation.

One basis is, "What did the framers intend?" To arrive at this basis, people appeal to other evidence of how the authors felt about related matters.

So, if it appears that the framers of the Constitution had no problem with the Christian religion in the public square -- e.g., by opening government meetings with prayer, or referencing the Bible as an authoritative basis for some social policy, it would seem that a literal reading of the establishment clause of the First Amendment was not their intention.

1447. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69254 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 7:26 am

phil rimmer:

We need to know if Dr.B is Truly Evil and if not then....

Evil for questioning whether God's purposes ought to be my own? Is back-talk naughty?

The wise do not surround themselves with yes-men.

Imagine a tool designer who crafts a hammer for pounding in nails. By some trick of gamma rays or something, this hammer becomes self-aware.

One day the designer reaches for his hammer, and he hears a metallic voice squeaking, "Listen guv, when you bash my head against those metal pointy things, it gives me the worst migraine. Could we work out some other arrangement?"

I suppose the designer might growl at the hammer, "Thus have ye been made by your Lord. The flames of my furnace can remake ye, if ye've any further comment!"

But such a response would indicate to the reader that this character is one of the Bad Guys.

Apologies to Veronique for the Socratic method, which admittedly is moving us down the road at a snail's pace. I'm hoping to make a point regarding the nature of morality and authority. Eventually.

Paul, concede that you've no argument for why I ought to embrace God's purposes as my own. Or, if you have an argument, let's hear it.

If you again say, "I gave you an answer; you just didn't like it," I shall be disappointed.

1448. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69237 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 6:13 am

Oh goodness. The "communism" vs. "fascism" point rather misses the point also. Any topic that allows for a parody of the fallacious criticism against TGD will do. I can't predict a priori which might be funnier; just depends.

Here's a parody of one specific criticism, i.e., "Dawkins bashes a God I don't recognize; my God is entirely different!"

For me, God is mashed potatoes. What have atheists got against mashed potatoes, which I and a majority of the world's citizens find quite delicious? Mashed potatoes are not "the root of all evil." Mashed potatoes don't "poison everything." Silly atheists!

from http://richarddawkins.net/article,1381,Wont-anyone-stand-up-for-God,Daily-Mail

One might ask, what variety of spud corresponds to Reformed Judaism? But I don't think anyone would answer.

1449. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #69232 by Dr Benway on September 10, 2007 at 5:40 am

Beachbum, doubtless praise or other decorations mean little to you, a man sufficient in the virtue of his own actions.

But I hearby award you The Purple Eyeball, for voluntarily reading painful dreck and removing its false claim to legitimacy.

How many would rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than weather through such utter bollocks? You, sir, have unburdened many.

Round of applause for the Bum!

1450. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69145 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 7:23 pm

JJ, religion isn't *like* fascism; that's not the comparison. The comparison is between critics of The God Delusion and critics of The Fascist Delusion. Both parties use the same arguments. But the arguments are funnier in the latter setting, because people don't have the same warm, fuzzy feelings toward fascism that they have toward religion.

Imagine these versions:
The Bicycle Delusion
The Fish Delusion

It always feels deeply wrong, having to explain a joke. But I fear someone will say, "Dawkins is calling religious people fascists!"

Anyone wanna bet some apologist will say this, regardless of anyone's attempts at clarification?