1451. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69129 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 6:46 pm

PaulEmecz:

I did say God designed and created the universe, and it is a universe where certain laws can be discovered - this includes moral laws.

Ok, one more time: why should I embrace the moral laws of the universe as my own?

My earlier answer was something along the lines of God having designed us with a specific purpose

I think you're not appreciating the fact that even if God coded his "oughts" into the fabric of the universe, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should embrace God's oughts/rules/objectives/purposes/morals/plans as our own.

Imagine that God created humanity to serve as a slave-race for an alien lizard-like species on another planet. Once we've evolved sufficiently to be useful to the lizards, they'll arrive to pick us up. In this hypothetical, the Jesus story happens to be a fabrication designed to encourage enough masochism among the human population to ease the upset of our "day of redemption" by our greenish overlords.

Now, does it follow that we ought to accept our assigned roles in this drama? Personally, I'd like a bit more info before assenting to this distasteful scenario.

So I'm asking: why should I accept God's purpose for my life as my own?

1452. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69073 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Paul, you seem to be claiming something nonsensical.

God created stars.
God created flowers.
God created humans.
God created "oughts."

We discover the "oughts" by hunting about for them. This sounds like an inappropriate reification of "ought."

Note that you're saying something a little different from your earlier argument: You had argued that God designed us for a purpose. That purpose gives us our morality.

I asked, how does it follow that we ought to accept God's purpose as our own?

That's the question you've been dodging.

Go talk to Steve. But I won't forget.

edit: Steve, you beat me to it with the reification problem!

1453. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69065 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 4:14 pm

The methods of reason concern how the world is. We cannot arrive at "ought" no matter how many "is" statements we catalogue.

You've used the "is/ought" divide to shoot down the arguments of others here, and now you ignore that divide.

Concede that God's purpose in creating the universe cannot provide us with the "oughts" we choose for ourselves.

1454. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69054 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Lauregon, Goldy, et al: I have consistently asked Paul the same question for weeks. You can read an earlier example in post

1822 #63169 August 13, 2007 10:46 am.
1928 #64646 August 21, 2007 6:07 am
1943 #64875 August 22, 2007 7:05 am
2025 #66003 August 27, 2007 6:58 pm
2041 #66990 September 1, 2007 8:32 am
2045 #67026 September 1, 2007 11:42 am
2050 #67080 September 1, 2007 6:20 pm
2082 #67225 September 2, 2007 7:58 pm
2098 #67658 September 4, 2007 7:44 am
2117 #67732 September 4, 2007 2:37 pm
2120 #67751 September 4, 2007 4:00 pm
2147 #68456 September 7, 2007 7:56 am
2162 #68749 September 8, 2007 12:26 pm

Paul has not yet explained why we ought to embrace God's morality as our own. Do make note of this, as it is relevant to your points.

I predict that no matter how clever your justifications or explanations for morality, Paul will reply, "Not good enough!"

Is he holding an ace up his sleeve? Shall we ask him to show it to us?

1455. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69047 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 3:36 pm

JJ Ramsey:

You dodged the question: which brand of fascism is supposed to be analogous to Reform Judaism, etc.?

You dodged the question: what sort of man is like a Schwinn?

1456. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69036 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm

JJ Ramsey:

...which brand of fascism is supposed to be analogous to Reform Judaism? Which brand is analogous to, say, the Episcopalian Church? Or Buddhism? Or Jainism?

Some say a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle...but what sort of man is like a Trek? a Schwinn? a Motobécane?

I've been revisiting the 1913 Armory Show. Here's a reaction to Matisse, and his reaction to the reaction:

The Blue Nude, Le Luxe, II and Goldfish and Sculpture were chosen by students at Chicago's Art Student's League as the most appalling and blasphemous pictures in the exhibition. The charges brought against him were "artistic murder, pictorial arson, artistic rapine, total degeneracy of color, criminal misuse of line, general aesthetic abberation, and contumacious abuse of title." Further illustrating the contempt audiences had for Matisse is William Zorach's later recollection of the reaction to Le Luxe, II in New York: "Matisse's paintings seem to bother people most -especially one of a woman with only four toes."

Matisse reportedly was so troubled by the public's reaction to his work that he implored in an interview, "Oh do tell the American people that I am a normal man; that I am a devoted husband and father, that I have three fine children, that I go to the theatre!" While Matisse maintained aspirations to bourgeois gentility, his work was seen by some as an attack on the progress of Western civilization as a whole.

Funny, isn't it, how things change. Matisse is entirely compatible with middle-brow taste today.

Everything will be all right.

1457. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69008 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 1:32 pm

papabryant,

I would agree with you that the skin condition known as "ringworm" is misnamed, as it is neither a ring nor a worm. But I don't see how your point pertains to Dawkins' arguments in The God Delusion.

Speaking of... I may be joining the circus. Haven't yet got the title for my humble oeuvre, but I'm considering: Rubbishing Dawkins: Part of Your Retirement Portfolio?

1458. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68996 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Paul,

Let's imagine that God is the author of something called "morality." To avoid the problem of how humans learn about God's morality, let's imagine that God re-incarnates in human form and sits down at a table with us to explain His morality in terms we can understand.

I'm still left wondering why I ought to embrace God's morality as my own. What is it about God's morality that, according to you, makes it sufficiently appealing that I ought to make it mine?

You will say something like, "You were designed for God's morality, and God's morality was designed for you."

I still must ask, what does this mean? Are you saying I'll be happier somehow if I obey God's rules? Is that it? Or are you saying I won't be happy necessarily, but God will be happy, and I ought to be happy for God?

1459. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68929 by Dr Benway on September 9, 2007 at 6:44 am

Pewkatchoo:

and here is the man himself: LINK

Holy Jebus! My eyes were not properly prepared for that frightful vision of Aqualung.

And yet with the strangely dainty hands...

Not only is this man's paycheck, but his very identity is wrapped up in ineffable holy vagueness. I'm afraid we've nothing to offer capable of competing with the game he's playing now.

1460. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68825 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Russell:

...but, dude, your deism sounds more like a tactical stance than something you really believe.

Ahem. Your point is?

The deist god has no hang-ups about human sincerity.

The deist version of The God Delusion will be several chapters shorter.

1461. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68820 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Russell:

I do wonder about one thing: are there any genuine deists left?

I'm a deist for health reasons. Metaphysical debate gives me a rash.

As a deist, I can side-step tedious theist questions like, "So where's your proof there's no God?" and "You can't explain why there's something rather than nothing; why isn't your position a matter of faith just like mine?"

As a deist, I can go right to questions of evidence regarding the interventionist God's alleged interventions. This is where the theist's position is truly crap.

1462. Bible Belter

Comment #68814 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Maybe the "no child's behind left" bit would be funnier in Britain if...

1. Some politicized educational program, like the "faith schools" I've been hearing about, were termed the "No Child Left Behind Act."

2. Brits were subject to many months and even years of the phrase "No Child Left Behind," and all the nauseating, insincere, for-the-children political gamesmanship inherent in such words.

3. Scores of faith schools happened to be buggering children.

I'd think, under these circumstances, the joke would be so inevitable that fence posts would be inventing it.

"Mammals" strikes me as self-effacing, and a form of calming and compassionate self-talk --i.e., "Sometimes the poor sods can't help the nonsense that comes out of their own mouths. They aren't more than mammals after all."

Might be how Hitch survived life with Peter.

1463. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68813 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Becky Garrison's next book is to be published in Saudi Arabia. It's called The New Christian Crusaders and Their Unholy War: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith in Allah. Has a picture of a Qur'an on the cover riddled with bullet holes.

1464. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68811 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 6:02 pm

This must stop at some point, no? OK, my response:

Mr. Howse,

I won't speak for Dawkins, but I don't hate the Christian God Yahweh any more than I hate Thor or Poseidon. They're all interesting, fictional characters.

I don't hate believers; I've been a believer and nearly everyone in my family is a believer. For the sake of peace in our increasingly global, nuclear society, I urgently want everyone to critically review those ideas that divide human beings into warring tribes.

I say: hate the stars, not the Sneetches.

Dawkins' and your interpretations of "neighbor" illustrate how the Bible can be twisted to support contrary positions. I'll give it a go: "Yes, love the alien, so long as he worships the Lord thy God." Convenient way to look at things if you'd like to slay the Canaanites.

Glad you brought up the Samaritan humanist, who acts out of compassion and human solidarity without appeals to religion or rewards in the afterlife. Quite noble.

Deism and atheism are fine by me. But a rational person ought to demand evidence of God's interventions before accepting the notion of an interventionist God.

"Virus" is a metaphor for "meme." Look it up. You'll note similar use of the word in phrases like "viral videos."

People are people. Atheists can be boorish or selfish just like anyone else. But the cause of reason can't be furthered by physical force. Reasoned debate begins when all parties surrender violent methods of persuasion.

So I recommend you let go your worry about rationalists rounding up and murdering believers.

1465. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68749 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm

looks at watch, looks at Paul, looks at watch...

Oh! Perhaps you forgot the question I've been asking repeatedly (e.g. 2117): Do you concede that God's purpose in creating the universe does not provide us with the "oughts" that we choose for ourselves?

1466. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68748 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm

NMcC, if you were a religious person, I'd delight in your hypertensive, vein-popping Elmer Fudd ire, so easily provoked. Wee Flea suffers this weakness, and perhaps that's why he comes to mind.

My opinions are my own, arising from my particular experiences. I've no interest in a society of like-minded clones, and so I expect argument. But I must dissociate from my comrades-in-arms when I note bullying or efforts to shut someone up, lest my silence suggest tacit approval.

1467. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68734 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 11:05 am

NMcC, this is what you wrote on a public forum:

JemyM

This is the first post I've seen you make on this website.

I HOPE IT'S THE LAST!

Listen to yourself. And note how you chastise me for expressing my reaction to your harshness.

Might it be conceivable that you've a wee problem with your temper?

1468. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68731 by Dr Benway on September 8, 2007 at 10:35 am

My two cents prompted by NMcC's comment #68659, before I read later comments indicating the dust has largely settled. Please ignore me; just have that "get something off my chest" feeling.

NMcC, I'll defend your right to behave abusively toward someone under these circumstances:
1. someone has been rude to you and you're responding in kind
2. someone evidences gross or repeated intellectual dishonesty, and you've given the person an opportunity to clarify, particularly if the person's use of English isn't perfect
3. your comments are exceptionally witty

Your comment #68659 fails all three counts, I'm afraid.

1469. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68607 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 9:06 pm

This is what I don't get: Hitch aims a shotgun at religion, which he defines as claims to know the mind of God, what God likes and dislikes, and so on. Then some religionist jumps up from behind the bushes, shouting, "but that's not how I see religion..."

Wouldn't the proper thing for said religionist to do be something more like keeping quiet and laying low?

Mr. Hobson, if Hitchens isn't shooting in your liberal and fuzzy direction, why are you trying to draw his fire? Are you lonely? Masochistic? What?

1470. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68605 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 8:30 pm

It's not the Executive's prerogative to create a massive data base with the phone records of U.S. citizens.

Or emails. The feds appear to have our emails, or some subset of them, perhaps filtered by keywords.

No, take that back: they must have all our emails.

Quite depressing. Play this out: some mid-level bureaucrat gets pissed at you and does some data-mining and cherry-picking, to impress others that you're a jerk not to be trusted

1471. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68579 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Hehehe. How to get atheists to dogpile on someone: Say, "Look, the atheists are retreating!"

There are, like, a gazillion responses to Ms. Bunting at the Guardian. I started to read 'em, but felt a headache coming on. There's only so much of the fray one can take.

1472. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68569 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 4:05 pm

My comment:

I do not like:
- Honor killings
- Clitorectomies
- Gay bashing
- Theocracy
- Threats of hellfire
- "Of the Lord" verses "not of the Lord"
- Jihadis
- Reverence for authority
- Creationist science
- Anti-abortion vigilantes
- Religious bombings as performance art
- Anti-condom preachers
- Hypocritical televangelists
- Subjugation of women
- Fatwas on Rushdie
- Doctors on fire

Dawkins says we've been giving matters of faith a free ride for too long. If someone claims that God hates fags, for example, we ought to ask for evidence in support of that claim. By demanding evidence, we can set limits upon some of the irrationality promoted by believers. No evidence; no credibility.

I support Dawkins because I agree with him. My agreement doesn't make me a "follower" of Dawkins anymore than he might be a follower of me.

Is Dawkins arrogant, a womanizer, unable to carry a tune, bad at selecting wallpaper, or lazy about the washing up? I've no idea, and I don't see how personal jabs alter his point about faith. Faith, or belief without evidence, is not a sufficient justification for actions that harm people.

If the post-modernists feel this point about evidence is too pedestrian, I'm happy to hear what they might say to the fundamentalists instead.

BTW:
"Virus" is a metaphor for "meme."
Religious indoctrination of children before they're old enough to think critically violates their right of informed consent.
Dawkins would agree that religious stories are myths.
Strawmen make the baby Jesus cry.

1473. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68490 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 9:33 am

I'm familiar with the meditation: conscious lie? unconscious lie? honest misunderstanding? It comes up now and again in the setting of some personal or professional relationship --often enough that I think it might be part of the human condition.

I find the meditation painful. Resolution one way or another is generally preferable to endless ambiguity. With resolution I can sort my contradictory feelings. I'll detatch from the conscious liar, whom I'll rarely trust again. I might pity the unconscious liar. And I may seek to mend fences where there's a misunderstanding.

But what if I'm wrong? How will I feel if I write off an honest person as dishonest, and ruin a valuable relationship? How will I feel if I allow a liar to get the better of me a second time, and the second injury is far worse than the first?

Experience has taught me to avoid the temptation to prematurely resolve the ambiguity one way or the other. Best to give others the opportunity to clarify their intentions. Sometimes good people have contradictory impulses, which they can work through if they don't feel under attack.

Reasonable people ought to accept a request like, "I don't think you understood my point. Allow me to try again" or "You seem to be saying X, which I find objectionable. Can you confirm your position?"

Ask 'em for a repeat. Give 'em enough rope. The ambiguity will resolve itself in due time.

1474. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68480 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 8:39 am

Donald:

...theories of physics have earned their place by predicting ...What does Idealism predict? It's vacuous.

Comparing physics to idealism is like comparing apples to oranges.

Physics is a body of knowledge and a method of investigation - "methodological naturalism." Idealism and materialism are metaphysical models. Idealists and materialists both embrace methodological naturalism.

Metaphysical models like idealism, materialism, and brain-in-a-vatism aren't particularly predictive. But predictive power isn't what makes them interesting. They're interesting because they are consonant with scientific observations, and yet are so different.

I've argued that one's metaphysical position is trivial. It's enough to have the scientific method.

The current metaphysical chatter among theists is a form of clever misdirection: it's much easier to argue that idealism is reasonable than to establish that someone named Jesus lived and rose from the dead. The former argument is metaphysical; the latter is scientific.

Concede idealism to prove that the argument for or against it is trivial.

1475. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68456 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 7:56 am

Benway: Perhaps you've not heard any convincing discussions regarding ethics, because you've been insisting that your pal, God, join the debate.

Paul: Maybe you missed my earnest request to leave MY beliefs aside while we got clear about atheism and morality. Forget God. The question, AGAIN, is how you can get at morality. (snip of Paul's summary of Lauregon's argument)

Lauregon isn't arguing my position. Strange you'd think so.

I'm willing to discuss the basis of morality sans God. But I'm only willing to engage with you about that after you first concede that the fact of God, and/or God's purpose(s) in creating the universe, does not resolve the "is/ought" problem of morality. This point is absolutely crucial and can't be glossed over.

Once you concede, the phrase "atheism and morality" will have to go. Theist and atheist are in the same boat. Better to say, "humans and morality."

1476. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68307 by Dr Benway on September 6, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Just saw this Dawkins quote on the left sidebar:

"The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'."

To be fair to Cornwell, I can see how he'd paraphrase the above with:

You refer to believers as "faith sufferers", and you refer to you and your associates as "we doctors".

1477. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68298 by Dr Benway on September 6, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Short interviews are very difficult, as you have to think about how much time you'll be allowed before you speak, and it takes some thinking to deliver the answer you'd like to give in just a few words. What I wish Prof. Dawkins had the chance to say:

"I've used the term 'virus' as a metaphor for how cultural ideas or 'memes' propagate amongst us. Some fads and fashions spread rapidly; some don't. We can appreciate what makes an idea more likely to take hold and spread, just as we can study what makes a virus a good replicator.

"Religions contain a number of ideas that make them good replicators. For example, the notion that children ought to be indoctrined in a particular religious tradition before they're able to think critically about the belief system - this notion helps religious memes to spread from one generation to the next.

"And yes, I do feel this is child abuse. By labeling children as members of a religion before they're old enough to decide what religion makes sense to them, we're effectively removing their power of informed consent. We're depersonalizing and dehumanizing them.

"In some ways, this dehumanization is worse than being on the receiving end of inappropriate affection or touching from an adult, but perhaps my comparison to pedophelia is unfortunate. Pedophilia is a strongly emotional issue for most people, and emotion can distract from the point of an argument. My point is, children have a right to think for themselves about their own relationship to reality.

"We allow children the right to make up their own minds about politics and economics - for example, it's absurd to speak of a Marxist child or a capitalist child. So why can't we do the same with respect to religion?"

1478. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68228 by Dr Benway on September 6, 2007 at 12:31 pm

There's a reason hearsay ought not be taken seriously.

Anytime a journalist allows an interviewee to represent a third party's position, that third party ought to have the opportunity to weigh in somehow. Particularly if the third party seems to be promoting something shocking or ignorant.

At a minimum, the interviewer ought to ask, "Have you spoken to Mr. X, and has he confirmed that your representation of his position is accurate?"

Even when the third party's words are written; there ought to be some effort to confirm that those words truly reflect what the person meant to say.

1479. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67885 by Dr Benway on September 5, 2007 at 4:24 am

What about a bit of Poseidon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFIBsO5w4Fs

1480. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67858 by Dr Benway on September 5, 2007 at 2:35 am

Secularism: yours, mine, ours. Information in the "ours" set must be corroborated. No other way to prevent nutty leaders from ruining the planet.

1481. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67787 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Bonzai:

Psychiatrists typically don't do counseling, they just pump their patients with pills.

Typical situation I see: someone says, "Mr. X has been getting a lot worse. He went off and five staff got hurt yesterday. Maybe his meds need to be changed?"

The expectation, then, is I will meet with Mr. X, change his meds, and all will be well. I sigh and wonder why things never change.

Mr. X likely will be non-verbal, or unable to tell me a coherent story about what happened yesterday.

I tell the behaviorist, the psychologist, and the nurse, we have to figure out what's causing this change in behavior before we do anything. Diagnosis before treatment, right? And before diagnosis, we need a clear description of the problem. So what does "getting worse" mean exactly? More aggressive? How are we tracking that? Incident reports? OK, looks like there were about 20 aggression-to-person events per month the past couple of months, and maybe 35 the past two weeks. Restraints are up, and time in restraint is up. Well, that does look like a change.

So why? Let's think this through per "bio-psycho-social."

Biology always comes first. Mental problems are diagnoses of exculsion. Bad form to treat cancer with antidepressants or CBT.

What's biology? It's sleeping, peeing, pooping, pain, illness symptoms. So I ask how that's going.

No change in sleep cycle; no daytime drowsiness. No change in continence. Why is that important? Because incontinence is a marker for cerebral disinhibition, which can be a marker for excess CNS sedation from meds or some other process.

Appetite OK? Change in weight? Last physical? Treated for otitis media about a month ago; resolved. Labs are fine. Last psychotropic med change was six months ago.

Nothing biological seems to be going on.

Psychological - strengths, weaknesses, fears, hopes. Friendship ups and downs? Disappointments? Change in behavioral protocol? No. This is an autistic boy who likes to play video games and that's about it; no real friendships. Has seemed stressed and anxious lately; caught masturbating in the hallway several times this past month.

Social/environmental - New female admission about a month ago; initially getting along ok, then some conflicts. Fairly high staff turnover. Family visiting about a month ago; visit ok.

Working hypothesis: Not acute mania, depression, or psychosis; new female admission a focus of fascination; more than this limited boy can handle.

Notably, the female peer will be moving to a group home in about a week.

Plan: See what happens after the peer moves, then re-assess.

In summary: I do "bio-psycho-social." I don't pump people full of pills, even though that sounds like it might be fun.

1482. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67754 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Paul,

Perhaps you've not heard any convincing discussions regarding ethics, because you've been insisting that your pal, God, join the debate. You apparently missed the memo from the Union of Reasonable Ethicists clearly stating that no guns and no gods allowed into the room during negotiations.

It's in the bylaws. Gotta wait outside if you're armed.

1483. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67751 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Paul,

You believe in "objective morality" but you think the term is not helpful. This looks like a contradiction to me, but I'm willing to ignore it for now.

The primary point: God (whom I like to call "the Great Beetle") may have some purpose in creating the universe. But we cannot derive an "ought" for ourselves from the fact of the Great Beetle's purpose, unless we have some reason for accepting Its purpose as our own.

Why ought we do that?

As I've said previously, any reason we might give will reference our own interests. Therefore, we serve our interests, not The Beetle.

Beetle unnecessary for ethics. QED.

1484. The God Delusion One-Year Countdown

Comment #67740 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Richard Morgan:

#35 is the number below which it must not drop.

"This is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put!" - Churchill-ish

At least we don't speak middle English any longer.

1485. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67733 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 2:52 pm

devolved:

As for believing in things for which there is no evidence we're all 'guilty'.

Yes. But don't take a mile when grudgingly handed an inch. We've no room for body thetans or Lord Xenu 'round here.

1486. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67732 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Paul,

I see above that you now reject the notion of objective morality.

Do you concede that God's purpose in creating the universe does not provide us with the "oughts" that we chose for ourselves?

I cannot engage in a discussion regarding how we develop our rules, while someone remains under the mistaken impression that God makes the process easier somehow.

1487. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67677 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 10:25 am

Donald:

Word games.

Almost. There are constraints. Any metaphysical model must account for the phenomenological world we share. Materialism, idealism, brain-in-a-vatism do this.

It is possible to invent metaphysical models that fail. Mind-over-matterism fails pretty badly. The Church of Christian Science had a nice run, but is closing down in two nearby towns.

You can't win an argument against idealism. But this doesn't matter.

Because any metaphysical model remains constrained by the same phenomenological world which we study via the scientific method, the theist gains no points with idealism. They often think they do. You seem to think they do as well. I'm merely trying to hand you some good news. Far be it from me to wind you up.

1488. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67675 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 10:10 am

Donald:

The whole point of materialism is that matter does have such rules, and they enables predictions of how things behave. No such theory for ideas.

You're missing the point about the inbetweenie thing: phenomenon, which is us-as-experiencers-plus-that-which-is-experienced.

Matter is phenomenon. The phenomenon of matter and its rules remains the same whether you're an idealist or a materialist.

1489. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67661 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 8:04 am

Donald:

The reason I reject Idealism is that it is too wide, too general, too open. Anything is possible, and it makes no predictions.

You might say the same thing about materialism, as we don't know what makes "matter" the way it is.

My point is: science is concerned with the phenomenological world, which lives between our subjective experience and actual reality. Speculative metaphysical ideas about that actual reality must not contradict what we know about the phenomenological world. Ergo, none of them matter. Idealism, materialism, beetlism - all the same.

Beetlism is a deep insight that just came to me, as I pondered the enormous variety of beetles upon our planet. Beetlism holds that an infinite number of meta-beetles help keep all the quarks as quarky as possible. If they didn't do this, nothing would seem real. Things do seem real. Ergo, beetlism.

Steve can tell you which "infinite" applies when we speak of "infinite beetles."

1490. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67658 by Dr Benway on September 4, 2007 at 7:44 am

Paul:

Your argument seems very strange. You have found the catapult, and have found that, after careful examination, it works really well at projecting small objects. You now argue that this somehow makes the designer of the catapult irrelevant!

The designer is totally irrelevant. What need have I of a catapult? I'm going to take apart that catapult and build a house for my dog.

If you're using God as designer, you know what he supports by working out what he designed things for.

He's apparently fond of beetles.

I referenced "religious teaching" as a means of avoiding a huge theist problem that would be distracting at this point. You apparently want to make the point we don't need the teachings; we can read the mind of God from nature. Well...

1491. Enemies of Reason

Comment #67570 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 8:38 pm

An oldie but goodie: Revolutionary New Insoles Combine Five Forms Of Pseudoscience (link)
Excerpts:

...According to scientific-sounding literature trumpeting the new insoles, the Contour Points™ also take advantage of the semi-plausible medical technique known as reflexology. Practiced in the Occident for over 11 years, reflexology, the literature explains, establishes a correspondence between every point on the human foot and another part of the body, enabling your soles to heal your entire body as you walk.

But while other insoles have used magnets and reflexology as keys to their appearance of usefulness, MagnaSoles go several steps further. According to the product's website, "Only MagnaSoles utilize the healing power of crystals to re-stimulate dead foot cells with vibrational biofeedback - a process similar to that by which medicine makes people better.

...The resultant harmonic energy field rearranges the foot's naturally occurring atoms, converting the pain-nuclei into pleasing comfortrons.

"I twisted my ankle something awful a few months ago, and the pain was so bad, I could barely walk a single step," said Helene Kuhn of Edison, NJ. "But after wearing MagnaSoles for seven weeks, I've noticed a significant decrease in pain and can now walk comfortably. Just try to prove that MagnaSoles didn't heal me!"

1492. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67556 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 7:39 pm

I ask a person, what's your support system? Who do you call when you're feeling down? If a religious group is part of that, and if it's not driving the patient crazy, I'm glad it's there. It sucks to be depressed. Any source of human kindness is welcome.

1493. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #67550 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Goldy, I've had the experience. It's like the early stages of falling in love. A quick sketch:

Conjour a little of the falling in love feeling from memory, if you've got it. Then close your eyes. Breathe slowly and deeply. Relax. Imagine falling endlessly backward, with a warm bright light before you. Surrender.

It's quite nice actually.

1494. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67541 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 6:44 pm

What do these atheists understand of religion?
What do the brow-beaten understand of bullies?

1495. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #67539 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Ah walk, I could say more. But I'm weird about privacy.

Speaking of: Talked to a professional translater friend of mine. He recently had an extended surprise visit from the FBI, who were concerned about a few documents he'd translated for an overseas company which contained references to nuclear energy. The strange part: the agents had printouts of my friend's emails in a folder.

1496. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67527 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm

devolved:

can you please give me one piece of evidence to support your belief in evolution as a process that increases the genetic information content of a living organism?

Well, if some of our earliest ancestors were single-celled organisms, and we have more cells doing more things, that looks like more info to me.

1497. The New Atheists

Comment #67509 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 4:01 pm

DV82XL:

Those that call for a dialog between moderate deists and atheists forget that it is moderate faith that is the incubus of extremism.

I propose the secular pledge: "In any civil discussion, our collective need for corroborative evidence is more important than personal belief."

Any believer willing to take the pledge is ok by me.

1498. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67491 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Think I'll wait for Salley Vickers' review.

1499. In God we doubt

Comment #67481 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Northern Bright, your question re: why isn't reason winning hands-down is a good one. About to eat dinner, so only a quick response:

People can tolerate a LOT of cognitive dissonance. How do they do it?
1. Postponement - "I'll deal with this later."
2. Communal reinforcement - "No one else seems too worried about this."
3. Authority - "People smarter than me have resolved this."
4. Spite - "I don't care if Dawkins is right; I can't stand him"
5. Denial - "What conflict?"
6. Dissociation - "Dawkins makes so much sense" - blink - "I love Jesus!"
7. Escapism - "Where's the remote?"

Communal reinforcement shouldn't be underestimated. You can get people to believe the loopiest nonsense if you first convince them that "loads of people" they might admire support that nonsense. Works no matter the person's IQ or education. Sometimes a little less effective with high functioning autistics or people with ADHD - i.e., people who often lose the forrest for the trees.

Nature decided that group solidarity ought to trump reason most of the time. This is why science actually is difficult.

1500. In God we doubt

Comment #67406 by Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 10:33 am

Mr. Humphrys, your defense of subjectivity is unnecessary.

People differ. Some like country music; some prefer rock 'n roll. Only the most egocentric insist that everyone's taste must be the same.

Insofar as religion admits a subjective, personal basis, it's not a problem. But religion which goes beyond the subjective - religion which makes claims about our shared reality - is a serious problem in our increasingly global society.

If you've ever shared a flat, you know how personal space differs from common space. You can play any music you like in your room. But you've got to check with your flat mates before you crank up the radio in the kitchen.

Likewise, we must insist upon corroborative evidence when arguing for social policies that affect us all. Personal experiences which can't be corroborated can't be taken seriously in the context of civil discourse. This doesn't mean that these experiences aren't real or important to the people who have them