1501. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #67237 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 10:07 pm

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "super fun" or "hurts my heart." Regional quirks. "Hurts my heart" is a bit churchy.

Up this way, we say "wicked" when we like something. And we say, "whaadahyou, retaahded?" to our friends.

Trust between believers and non-believers is strained for many reasons. Believers have always shunned non-believers to some degree, although non-believers have largely had a live-and-let live attitude. Recently that's changed due to religious right politics and Islam.

1502. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67235 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 9:56 pm

I think it would really help if we all said "We're idealistic deists. Now what?"

1503. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67230 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Veronique:

I have replied to Salley's email linking this thread and inviting her over:-).

Oh Jesus, Veronique. If I knew we were going to have company, I'd have put on some clean clothes and straightened up the place a bit. I have a few old Jungian books I might have dusted off for the coffee table, to make our guest feel a little more at home. As it is, I fear things might be awkward.

True, Salley slagged Dawkins, and she's got to accept that's not going to endear her to the crowd at RichardDawkins.net. But some of these post-moderns think anything is possible, including having your cake and eating it, too. Hate for her to be overly suprised by the reaction she generated.

Ah well. Life goes on.

1504. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67229 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 8:34 pm

steve99:

Again, my model is far better than yours. You have forgotten something - the software. Otherwise, their can be no processing. That software is equivalent to the fourth aspect - instinct.

As I see it, a coffee table with four legs is more perfect than one with three. A four legged coffee table can be long enough to place before a long couch. And four beers are more satisfying than three. And I have four limbs. Coincidentally, my cat has four legs. And get this: my car has four wheels.

The Divine manifests in four, and only incompletely in three.

1505. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67225 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 7:58 pm

PaulEmecz:

Okay, God isn't popular on this site, and I fully understand why. Ignore that for a bit. Let's pretend there is no God (not an impossible feat for most of you!).

Paul, we continue to talk past each other. To make my point, we must assume God exists. There is a God. He exists. He has lots of opinions about how we ought to behave. Are you with me?

Now, why should we have any interest in God's opinions about how we ought to behave?

If you think about this, you'll realize that the reasons we ought to care about God's opinions are the same reasons we have for wanting rules for ourselves.

To speed things along, I'll answer for you:

Paul-as-my-sockpuppet:
God made us; he knows what we need, what will lead to our deepest sense of fulfillment and happiness. He wants a loving relationship with us, and for us to have a loving relationship with each other. Rules against murder, stealing, and so on, support the kind of social stability required to allow attachment bonds and individual and family development... and so on.

The reason to pay attention to God is because it's in our interests to do so. How do we know this? We list our interests and confirm, from religious teachings, that God is in support of these interests.

Me:
Now you won't have any trouble imagining how humans can develop rules without reference to God.

1506. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #67164 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 10:11 am

Well my monkey cousin, twice removed, you just never know who's who on these Interwebs.

I might be David Bowie. Or a 14 year-old black girl. Or a disinformation bot.

Without gross evidence that people aren't who they claim to be, I generally take them at their word. Or I pretend to.

Presently I'm a lane agnostic. I once lived in Texas. There really are people who say things like "super fun" and "hurts my heart."

In any event, conversation remains possible.

1507. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67153 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 8:42 am

Here's an hypothesis: All phenomena can be explained by physical processes.

A hundred experiments are done. All results are explainable by physical processes. Does this lend support to the hypothesis? No.

One experiment is done, where results contradict the hypothesis. It's repeated and confirmed. The hypothesis goes in the toilet.

That's scientific progress.

1508. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67150 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 8:14 am

Salley:

As John Stuart Mill points out, it is a common error to presume because something is not provable that it therefore does not exist. Some things are not susceptible to proof or disproof.

PoMos who fancy sweet wishes
Buy stretch-waist reality britches

1509. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67147 by Dr Benway on September 2, 2007 at 7:38 am

Genius food review, Northern Bright.

You reminded readers of Dawkins' book, Unweaving the Selfish Watchmaker's Delusion Tale. Others you might have mentioned:

Mounting the Devil's Chaplain
Climbing Gene's Improbable Root
Rainbow Weaving for the Blind


Steve, click:
"Forum" above
"User Control Panel" near the top
"Profile" tab
"Edit avatar"

1510. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #67087 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 7:28 pm

devolved, science is concerned with finding evidence that we would not expect to find if our hypotheses are correct. This is how science moves forward. There's no progress in finding only that which you expect.

1511. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #67083 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 7:11 pm

lane,

You seem like a sincere guy. Often the religious people who post on this site are just taking the piss or trying to score points. Regulars, including myself, develop a cynical attitude. I'm sure that's annoying for those who don't deserve it.

I was a born-again Christian in my teens. Over the course of a year or so, I struggled with the notion of hell for non-believers. It just seemed so cruel to me.

Sure, hell can be defined as something less odious than the constant barbecue. But softer versions like "eternal separation from God" gave me no comfort.

Couple of years ago I heard the story of Pastor Carlton Pearson on This American Life. What he went through is much like what I went through. He finally decided there is no hell - not a popular position for his congregation, which largely abandoned him for more "Biblical" places of worship.

You can hear the show on "Heretics" at: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1111

1512. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #67081 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Bonzai:

It is exactly because life doesn't have a purpose that we are free to create it for ourselves

We think alike. One can seek an objective alone, and one can negotiate shared objectives with others. Goals might be set minutes, years, or decades into the future.

If you live too much in the present, you don't accomplish much. If you live for large objectives off in the future, you don't enjoy the little pleasures of today. Happiness requires a constant adjustment between many competing interests.

People who have been taught that nothing matters without God are anxious about imagining a life without God. But life is life either way. I have to say, I'm in favor of it. Top of my list might be sharing experiences with others where there's mutual understanding. And ice cream.

We don't understand the cosmic significance of things. Linear time is likely illusory, but I'm not sure about this. This moment is what I have; seems precious to me.

Do I know God's objectives? No. Even if I did, I'd still have to create my own objectives for my particular life.

1513. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67080 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 6:20 pm

PaulEmecz:

Put very simply, I believe God designed the universe, and therefore studying God's creation helps us understand what we are here for. This answers Dr B's question as well. God intended there to be rational, sentient beings in the universe. As such, it is our purpose to act rationally. It allows for the possibility of categorical imperatives.

Studying creation sounds like science, or gathering a number of "is" statements.

"God intended there to be rational beings" is an "is" statement, and a rather boring one. Why not just say, "rational beings exist"?

A long time ago, in another thread, you actually were the first to make the point that we can't derive "ought" from "is." I agreed. You were pleased. Yet, inspite of our happy starting point, strangely, you continue to assert that we can establish "ought" from "is."

I'm still waiting for you to concede that God does not help us with the "is/ought" problem of morality. With God or without God, we're in the same boat.

1514. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67078 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Words not spoken in the Times newsroom:

Editor: Salley, where to start. First, no one has any interest in your fantasies about angels. Personal confessions of this nature aren't something journalists do.

Second, referring to Richard Dawkins as "self-aggrandising" in the first paragraph, with no examples to illustrate your point, is strangely hostile and personal. Were you dating at one point? Did he stand you up or something?

You say that Cornwell faults Dawkins for dishonestly calling all religious people fanatics. A quote from the book here would help. But instead you say "loads of people" make this same point. It's difficult for me to tell whether you're trying to represent Cornwell's argument, or you're trying to stand as part of a mob of people who don't think much of Dawkins.

Frankly, I don't see why the mob is necessary.

You say, "Therefore, it is perfectly respectable to 'pick and choose' when reading the Bible..." Care to explain the basis for your expertise regarding Biblical interpretation? And for fuck's sake, why are we discussing your views of the Bible rather than Cornwell's?

Salley, this review says a lot about your personal feelings, but not so much about Cornwell's arguments. It's not at all clear to me that you understand how to separate your emotions from the material you're writing about.

Perhaps we ought to move you over to the food section.

1515. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #67044 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 2:10 pm

rar:

She was an intelligent, skeptical Christian who realized life is meaningless without God, but could never feel His presence around her.

Had she realized that life is meaningful without God, she might have been spared the agony her doubts seemed to cause.

1516. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67042 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 1:41 pm

steveroot:

Dr. Benway: Did you used to work for the CIA? ;-)

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

I just figured, if Salley is entitled to cherry-pick from the Good Book, then I'm entitled to cherry-pick her review.

"THIS BOOK IS A PIECE OF SHIT" is clearly her deeper meaning. If I recall correctly, loads of people have already said as much. Anyone who argues with me is being overly literal and fundamentalist.

1517. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67026 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 11:42 am

PaulEmecz:

The universe could have been created differently, where 2+2=5, but it wasn't. Just as it is right to reason logically, I believe it is right to act morally.

When you say "ought statement" is like "is statement" you are equivocating. The two things are not alike. That's the point of Hume's guillotine.

I really wish you would stop doing this.

The statement "2+2 is 5" may be true or false; someone can check and let us know, if we need to know.

The statement "2+2 ought to be 5" cannot be true or false. How could we even check such a statement?

The word "right" is an imperative or a command. "Right" means "what one ought do." The basis or the reason/purpose/intention for the command has not yet been stated.

Care to state?

1518. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67016 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 10:45 am

epeeist:

Personally I would prefer using the word dogma - "an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority"

I like "dogma" for many occasions. But "ideology" compliments certain moments.

"Ideology" carries a connotation of a political group with a social agenda. When talking to religionists apparently oblivious to the political implications of their belief systems, this connotation can be useful.

The chap who says, "I'm not an educated man. All I know is Jesus touched my heart in a profound way, and I'm no longer living in the pit of despair" would like to appear friendly. He's not worried about his beliefs seeming inflexible or insufficiently reasonable. But he'd prefer you didn't notice the gun in his hand.

Added:

Just noticed something. Look at the article's first sentence:

THIS BOOK IS A PIECE OF SH eer heaven. IT...

Coded message?

1519. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66999 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 9:31 am

Religion as disease, and more pertinently, the religiously inclined as disease-carriers, this is dangerous talk. Dawkins might try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" for "religiously inclined" and he would see why.

I wish people viewed religion more like a political or economic ideology rather than something involuntary, like race or ethnicity.

Phrases we might consider using:
- according to your religious ideology
- those with a supernaturalist ideology
- the Christian ideology asserts
- in accord with Muslim ideology
- within the Mormon ideology
- the humanist ideology holds that

I'd avoid "atheist ideology," as atheism is simply "no God" and doesn't necessarily imply a set of values or claims about the world.

1520. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66994 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 9:11 am

Standing up for truth has always seemed a better plan than tempering truth with lies to make it more palatable.

On the other hand, people within a religion go through a process of distancing from dogma before they let it go. Hearing arguments in support of more liberal, science friendly religious positions likely makes the process less upsetting.

Before you fell a tree, you cut in a little on the opposite side, so as to guide the direction of the fall.

I had a biochemistry professor who once said, "We do teach you a few lies, because we haven't time to tell you the truth. But the lies pave the way toward the truth."

1521. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66990 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 8:32 am

Me to Paul in 2025:

God's rules might be an objective fact about God. But they're not our rules until we accept them as our own.

And why should we do that?

1522. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66988 by Dr Benway on September 1, 2007 at 8:15 am

I left a comment under a fake name pretending to be a believer taking Ms. Vickers to task for cherry picking. She knows more than the prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit? Hubris!

1523. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66873 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 10:25 pm

People pick examples like genocide, child torture, rape, and abortion to make ethical points. It might be better to use something less intense as an example, like the rule about not taking the last bit of cake before everyone has had a slice.

1524. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66870 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 10:10 pm

I've been reading these reviews for months now, and I've developed some sort of condition, manifest by overwhelming fatigue in the face of arguments like "lumped together all religion," "can't judge all by a few bad apples," nobody believes in the OT God," "science doesn't know everything." Might be an allergy to hay or something.

I've lost the will to respond. I feel only deep sympathy for Dawkins. Teachers don't enjoy patiently explaining ideas to rocks refusing to understand.

How do I send a bottle of something tasty to Dawkins? I'm not going to the thing in DC, but maybe there's a hotel that could receive and hold a small gift?

1525. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66849 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Emotion clouds ethical debates. One point gets blurred into another and people get hot and bothered.

Seems the topic on the table is the definition of a person.

If "person" is defined as "member of the species, homo sapiens," then an infant would be a person.

If "person" means "a rational, self-conscious being with a sense of its own past and future," then an infant would not be a person.

If "person" means "a being that is or is likely to become rational," then an infant would be a person.

1526. A Matter of Faith

Comment #66821 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Well, if it isn't here, it's not the greatest, so I probably wouldn't want it anyway.

I think St. Anselm needed to get out and about more. It's not good for the mind to invert upon itself like a Moebius pretzel.

szymonroch, I wonder if Catholicism is of value to you, in part due to the Church's strong stance against communism.

1527. A Matter of Faith

Comment #66817 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 4:21 pm

But where's my coffee table?

1528. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66813 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm

lane:

But I guess the promise of an eternity with the God that I have fallen in Love with is just too compelling for me to live without. Everything about this life just seems so temporary and fleeting. I just don't see how anyone could live only for this.

If you must believe something in order to live, you've got a gun to your head.

If someone held a gun to my head and ordered me to profess belief in Allah or die, what would I do? No question: I'd profess belief in Allah.

In short: when a man's got a gun to his head, you can't trust what he says.

1529. A Matter of Faith

Comment #66810 by Dr Benway on August 31, 2007 at 3:11 pm

szymonroch: If God is something, that nothing else is greater than it, then it has to exist in our imagination as well as in reality, becaouse if it existed only in our imagination than there would be many things greater than God, for they would exist in both real and imaginary world.

Imagine the greatest coffee table ever. One with at the very least, the following excellent qualities:

- long as a long couch
- rack for two computers under the surface
- shelf where you can stow wireless keyboards (keep the cats off)
- two retractable, elegant monitor arms with a long reach and made of shiny, finely machined aluminum
- hidden wire management trough
- silent, heat-pipe cooling system for each computer

Now, do I own such a coffee table? No, I do not.

This imagined greatest coffee table suffers a serious imperfection, in that it is not mine. Therefore it cannot be the greatest.

To be truly great, it must be in my living room causing me deep contentment, which it is not doing.

Everyone, please try again: imagine the greatest coffee table ever...

1530. The importance of doubt

Comment #66657 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 8:40 pm

steverootcanal:

A mi me gusta mucho los sesos.

So say the zombies.

1531. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66653 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Richard Morgan:

I'm so frightened of silly people harming a cause that is so vitally important to me...

Remember that soon you and I will be dead, and the kids will be running the show.

The teens and twenties among us don't fret their dignity so much. And they're more in touch with what's likely to catch on. To serve the cause of reason among future generations, we ought to empower the young 'uns on our team.

1532. The importance of doubt

Comment #66649 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 8:16 pm

I like "no sesos no pesos." Not Latin, but still a romance language.

1533. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66580 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Global cooling due to particulate matter in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight away from the earth, and global warming due to greenhouse gasses trapping heat, both occur. The relative importance of warming has become more pronounced the past two decades.

Nothing wrong with not being an expert about something. Problems arise when people claim to be certain about important matters that affect all of us, without corroborative evidence.

1534. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66579 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Quetzalcoatl:

I'm only young (24)

A mere babe, and already a god! Yer mum must be so proud.

1535. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66573 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Oh goodness.

Look, dewy-eyed fans gush. That is what they do. It is a bit embarassing. This is why cynical old crusts roll their eyes and laugh.

My tiny point is: be yourself, and let other people be as they are. It's ok to laugh at silly statements. But telling people they ought not produce them is going a bit too far.

Do the crime, do the time. That's all I'm saying.

1536. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66568 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

lane:

I don't really know what to say about the multiple religions and the claims that may have made. ...It doesn't seem to me that any of that really matters in my relationship with God.

For the sake of argument, let's say there are 5000 religions in the world and one of them is correct while 4999 are false. You claim you've stumbled upon the right one, although you know nothing about the others. Hmm.

According to traditional Christian teaching, the non-Christians are all going to hell where they'll experience torment for all eternity. Ordinary human empathy requires some concern for their suffering, I would think.

I could easily see myself donating to a cause that you hold important without absolute proof of the correctness of your claims.

There's no absolute proof. There are only degrees of confidence, expressed in phrases like "preponderance of evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt." Someone saying, "take my word for it," is about as weak as you can get. I'd hope you'd expect more than that before sending me thousands of your hard-earned dollars.

If someone asks for a dollar for charity, I'm not going to grill them for specifics. The consequences of being misled are limited. But some decisions have grave consequences - e.g., death penalty cases. Weighing evidence rationally is a duty honest, responsible people accept.

1537. The importance of doubt

Comment #66558 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Quetz, fides is trolling for rude replies. One wonders why. To prove that atheists are angry, militant, or ill-behaved? To signify... what? That God exists?

The Big Book of Atheism lists no rules regarding:
- eating bacon
- drinking alcohol
- rubbing your naughty bits
- genocide
- netiquette
- taking the bait
- not taking the bait

Clearly, advice re: the piss taking of trolls must arise from a source other than the BBA.

If I remember correctly, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot also consulted the Big Book of Atheism for guidance during difficult times. Not finding "genocide" in the index nor the table of contents, each derided the BBA as useless crap not worth the paper.

Dawkins apparently missed the humor of "If I remember correctly," which everyone knows is an old college dorm drinking game. For the professor's benefit, I'll explain: You say, "If I remember correctly," then finish the sentence with something nearly plausible. If anyone doesn't believe you, you say, "My mistake," and take a drink.

Best to play with skeptics if you're thirsty.

1538. The importance of doubt

Comment #66548 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 11:30 am

fides_et_ratio is Latin for "I know Latin."

1539. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66539 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 10:53 am

lane:

I'll never be able to prove that there is a God. I don't even feel like I need or want to. Something happened to me when I accepted Christ. I don't really understand it but there is something there that is real.

You do not need to prove Christ so long as you make no claims about reality and no demands upon anyone's time or resources.

But I've never met a Christian who didn't have a long list of demands.

If I were to demand a few thousand dollars from you in order to support my campaign against polyester, which I claim causes gradual hearing loss, wouldn't you want evidence? If I said that my hearing was getting worse until I stopped wearing polyester, would that suffice? If I said I had an uncle and a sister who could say the same thing, would that do?

Look at all the religionists who claim "something happened" in their lives once they believed. Christians, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Bahai, Hindu, Occultists, Scientologists - humans have invented thousands of religions. They can't all be right.

God apparently cured your depression. Too bad He didn't see fit to do the same for Theresa. Perhaps He loves you more. Or less.

1540. The importance of doubt

Comment #66517 by Dr Benway on August 30, 2007 at 7:35 am

wim_vandenberghe:

I think RD (and other prominent atheists) should concentrate more on epistomology and less on deontology when it comes to dicussing religion.

I think you're right. Dawkins does this in TGD at the outset, by pointing to "Einsteinian religion" or pantheism, or deism, and making clear he's not concerned with these positions. But the point seems lost on many reviewers. Perhaps it's eclipsed by the "ultimate Boeing 747," which challenges the notion of a creator-God generally, whether the interventionist God of traditional religion or not.

The weakness of the "ultimate 747" argument is time. The notion of first cause melts into absurd self-reference when time is the thing being created.

Parsimony remains an argument against a creator-God as opposed to a spontaneous universe without God. But it's a weak argument. We can't weigh the complexity of an hypothesis for a spontaneous universe, when we really haven't worked out the mechanics of it.

Deism is as reasonable as atheism. It's fair to concede that. And I think it's in our interests to do so, as it allows us to move the conversation away from abstract, metaphysical arguments for or against God, to matters of evidence. We're not opposed to a God who doesn't act; we're opposed to the notion of an interventionist God, as we've seen no evidence for these alleged interventions that couldn't be explained by natural causes.

I don't know about you all, but I'm sick to death of the endless language games theologians play in realms unfettered by ordinary questions of evidence. I'd like to say, "I've conceded that there might be a creator-God. You're explaining to me your evidence for John Smith as His true prophet, rather than Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or Sai Baba. So... let's have it."

1541. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66363 by Dr Benway on August 29, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Richard Morgan:

How undignified!

There's dignity in saying what you honestly feel. And so long as you take it on the chin if someone laughs or looks down a nose (i.e., no whining), you'll never lose your dignity.

The world would be a better place if people didn't feel obligated to keep up a false front so much of the time. Look at Theresa. Maybe she wouldn't have been so miserable if she could have openly shared her doubts with others.

1542. Another view

Comment #66360 by Dr Benway on August 29, 2007 at 7:21 pm

If it ducks like a quack...

1543. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66359 by Dr Benway on August 29, 2007 at 7:19 pm

James Bond vs. Elmer Fudd.

1544. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66244 by Dr Benway on August 29, 2007 at 12:38 pm

lane:

The fact that Mother Teresa had spiritual doubts at times and seemed distant from God, to me is just proof that her faith was real and based on a genuine Love of God.

Two points for your own good:

1. Reserve the use of capitals to the first word in a sentence and proper nouns. "Love" is not a proper noun. Improper capitalization announces a poor education.

2. Your God cannot be falsified. This makes Him irrelevant with respect to our collective understanding of reality.

I would be more of an asshole, but I don't love you quite that much.

1545. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66084 by Dr Benway on August 28, 2007 at 1:28 pm

I once knew a chap from Nantucket. But that is neither here nor there.

If Dawkins were to interview Haggard again, you can bet Haggard would still accuse him of arrogance. He'd do this with convincing sincerity. Not a blink.

I've never known anyone blind to the inner mirror who ever joined the human race. Pod people, the lot of 'em.

If you buy the Christian notion that everyone can be reformed, your judgment of character will suffer.

1546. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #66005 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm

So even astrophysics can have moments of little girl slap fight.

1547. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66003 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 6:58 pm

PaulEmecz: The rules of chess clearly aren't objective.

The published rules are objective. One only needs to look them up to check.

However, you can play a different game. You don't have to play chess.

Any person's rules can be viewed as an objective fact about that person. Example: my mother won't allow shoes on the sofa. You can check for yourself whether this is true or not, by calling me mum and asking.

However, that's me mum's rule. You might embrace it as your own, for your own home, or not.

Likewise, God may have some rules. Those rules are an "is" about God. The rules we accept for ourselves, the "oughts" are a separate matter.

You can't derive "ought" from "is." God's rules might be an objective fact about God. But they're not our rules until we accept them as our own.

And why should we do that?

1548. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65994 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Public profession of belief at odds with Catholic doctrine is grounds for ex-communication.

1549. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65990 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 6:05 pm

What irks me most is the 'made-to-order' comment. Do I call Professor Dawkins' beliefs 'made-to-order'? How would that look... - PaulEmecz

If you call yourself a Catholic, yet you disavow teachings of the Catholic Church, that's a serious "cake and eat it too" problem.

1550. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65967 by Dr Benway on August 27, 2007 at 3:51 pm

keith: $100 + $75 = $175

The US dollar has seriously tanked, hasn't it.

Even at the discount rates you quote, when you throw in dinner, drinks, hotel room and cable porn, the shit can add up.

Oh, and I forgot about the ex-boytoy hush money. And set-aside money for the Mrs., so she stays calm at least while she sorts her options.