1651. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62580 by Dr Benway on August 10, 2007 at 7:18 am

CHERRY PICKING IS NOT ETHICAL!

I'll send Dawkins two t-shirts with those words: one for himself and one to take round to Mr. Lawson as a gift. They can enjoy a cuppa tea as one whinges and the other twinges. Perhaps with a bit of humor and mutual respect, thought shall evolve.

If folks want their cozy "let's be nice" religion, they must disown the Holy Bible or the Qu'ran. The Unitarians have done this, so it is possible.

Without disownment, it appears that one is trying to have things both ways. You can't simultaneously enjoy the social status afforded by appeals to Holy Scripture, while denying that scripture has any divine attributes or authority over humankind.

We've a duty to remove bad laws and rules from our books, religious and civil.

For the most part, however - and certainly in the mainstream - the Christian churches have retreated to the safe high ground of ethics.

Dear Church of England,

Please prove that Mr. Lawson isn't having us on. Tell us that the Bible is of traditional interest but holds no legal authority, and that the modern Church is a place for the study and encouragement of ethical humanism.

We need you to speak on the record here, as many are apparently confused.

1652. Dissing Deism

Comment #62447 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 6:34 pm

I agree about deism. Dawkins wouldn't have bothered to write a book challenging a non-interventionist God. Some editor liked the alliteration.

1653. Dissing Deism

Comment #62443 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 6:20 pm

It was one of the funniest books I read last year. Anansi Boys and Running with Scissors also made me chuckle.

1654. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62442 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Bonzai:

What exactly do you do with these third person data?

Gosh. Where to begin...

We can study homo sapiens as we study any other animal. Many animals are interesting and it can be fun learning about them.

We can use aggregate human opinon to make predictions that generally will enjoy greater accuracy than any individual human opinion.

1655. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62436 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Wife: I don't like God!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your God. I love it. I'm having God God God God God God God baked beans God God God and God!

1656. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62432 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 5:34 pm

They left out Hitler.

1657. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62303 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 8:07 am

Bonzai:

I find it astonishing that some of you actually try to argue that literature, poetry and art serve absolutely no function in understanding the human condition and that science is all there is, that only a "third person" account of human experience based on neuro chemistry and biology is valid.

Depends what you mean by "valid."

Third person data are more than biochemistry, including verbal and other observable behavior.

1658. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62288 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 7:43 am

Google "Landover Baptist" or "Betty Bowers" for more of the same sort of parody.

1659. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62284 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 7:36 am

Totally Poe's law here. LOL.

You believers will warm the hearts of the satirists.

1660. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62268 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 7:12 am

Hilarious. Who are the evil geniuses behind this site? It has a Betty Bowers feel.

As a Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-America, Christian-Republican, Sam Brownback would never kill a cat and neither should you.

Vote for Sam Brownback in 2008 and again in 2012 to protect America and our cats from Atheists!

1661. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62263 by Dr Benway on August 9, 2007 at 6:56 am

steve99: Just consider psycho-active drug research and development.

BAEOZ: Indeed. But I think this is a problem with humanities, which utilize the scientific method. You are asking someone if a drug makes them feel better...

You have to translate 1st person data into 3rd person data in order to study it scientifically. For example, the experience of depression isn't studied directly. It's first translated into rating scale data, then that's studied. So technically, psychologists aren't studying subjective experience but observable behavior.

Yet 3rd person data are ultimately appreciated by 1st persons. Thus science is actually concerned with patterns in the phenomenological or subjective realm, not objective reality, which we can't know, apart from our own subjectivity.

I think it's important to define science by its methods, not its subject matter. Otherwise we give the con men elbow room to make truth claims about realms that allegedly aren't subject to scientific study.

NOMA might work for deism. But posit a God who intervenes, and NOMA doesn't work.

1662. The Out Campaign

Comment #62162 by Dr Benway on August 8, 2007 at 12:56 pm

People who don't want to be laughed at for their beliefs ought not have such funny beliefs.

1663. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #62122 by Dr Benway on August 8, 2007 at 8:42 am

Dianelos:

Only if you have adopted a naturalistic understanding of reality. If you adopt idealistic theism the famous paradoxes of quantum mechanics kind of disappear. That's why I have argued that idealistic theism works better than naturalism even in the context of science (see posts 1535 or #57571, and 1566 or #57761).

This is bullshit. No matter what metaphysical model you pick, you've still got the same phenomenological world to explain. "God did it" is not a mechanism, unless you can explain how God did it, in a manner that's predictive and repeatable.

Next time you say that theism explains QM better than naturalism, I'm gonna point out that your pants are on fire.

1664. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61996 by Dr Benway on August 7, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Dianelos:

Well it's pretty clear what the scientific method is, but "ordinary rules of evidence and argument" is quite a elastic concept, isn't it? After all the use of intuition as a premise is valid in the ordinary rules of argument, but when discussing naturalism ...

Stop jumping to metaphysical debate. Stop it. I'm not debating naturalism vs. idealism. How many friggin' times do I have to say? At this point, I've no respect for you, pulling the same deceptive shit for the umpteenth time.

If I told you your wife was having an affair, wouldn't you ask for evidence? Or would you say, "but what is evidence really?"

You challenge the notion of evidence, because you haven't got any.

Benway: I agree that "God is love" is a major Christian theme. But "God is lawgiver; God is just and righteous" dominates "God is truth" in the Old Testament. In fact, I can't think of a memorable OT verse that proclaims "God is truth." Islam like Judaism is a revelation of law and justice; beauty gets less airtime. Seek and ye shall find. And that's the problem.

Dianelos: Fair enough.

Meaning you agree, OT god=lawgiver, not "truth"; Islamic god same, not "beauty."

I still find it quite remarkable that the scripture of the three great monotheistic religions would contain phrases which according to my worldview exactly describe the three hypostases of God, but maybe it's a coincidence.

You just reversed your agreement with me. How do you function?

1665. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61988 by Dr Benway on August 7, 2007 at 6:33 pm

BAEOZ:

Christians think that lack of belief in christianity leads people to need to fill the void that christianity supposedly filled.

This is due to the Law of Conservation of Belief. Remember when you lost faith in the tooth fairly? Did you not feel a deep, painful cavity within?

If you studied fairyology more thoroughly, you'd know know about these things.

1666. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61725 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Yorker, are you not British? Need I say more?

1667. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61712 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 1:16 pm

robzrob, that article started out fine, but descended something that turned my smile into a frown:

Whether or not they (ID supporters) are right (and I don't know), their scientific argument about the absence of evidence to support the claim that life spontaneously created itself is being stifled — on the totally perverse grounds that this argument does not conform to the rules of science which require evidence to support a theory.

Still, with my avatar, I can turn that frown upside-down!

1668. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61706 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 12:59 pm

dhweaver,
Right click smile lady and save to your hard drive.
Click on your name at the top of one of your posts.
Login to the forum.
Click on "User control panel" near the top of the page.
Click the "Profile" tab.
Click "Edit avatar".
Upload smile lady.
Voila! You're a proud member of the Dawkins "FREAK OUT!" campaign.

I must say, the lower part of page 2 of this thread nearly gave me a seizure.

1669. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61703 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Dr Benway - please change your avatar, it's just too scary.

Mat, I'm merely supporting Dawkins and his FREAK OUT! campaign. Everyone ought to wear the psychic smile in solidarity for a day, or as the spirit moves.

1670. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61702 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Some Nobel prize winners bring up atheism in their autobiographical statements. An example is Paul Boyer, winner in chemistry 1997:

I firmly believe that our present and future knowledge of all that we are and what surrounds us depends on the tools and approaches of science. I was struck by how well Harold Kroto, one of last year's Nobelists, presented what are some of my views in his biographical sketch. As he stated, "I am a devout atheist--nothing else makes sense to me and I must admit to being bewildered by those, who in the face of what appears to be so obvious, still believe in a mystical creator." I wonder if in the United States we will ever reach the day when the man-made concept of a God will not appear on our money, and for political survival must be invoked by those who seek to represent us in our democracy.

Wouldn't it be cool to get a few laureates to volunteer a statement in support of naturalism, which we could YouTube up for the OUT campaign? Y'now, a few words on the screen going by, over a nice face pic? Something like this kid's piece

We could email some and see if there's an interest.

1671. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61696 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 11:46 am

Rusty:

...but these are fish that badly need to be shot.

Yes. Fish with a lead deficiency syndrome.

Wait, perhaps the homeopathic cure for lead deficiency would be a little less lead. Damn! The law of similars is tricky business. Must be why you need a doctorate in homeopathy before you can practice.

Rusty, that barrel of fish has lead poisoning. Give 'em a little more lead, Dr. Hahnemann, STAT!

Hehehe. What might Dawkins think if he logs on to his web site and finds half the posts staring back at him with that goofy smile?

1672. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61695 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 11:34 am

But you may insist: "What God exactly are you talking about?". My short answer there could be: "The God absolutely all evidence points to – find out the details for yourself as you have the same evidence I have." - Dianelos

How do you explain the fact, if we've got all the same evidence, we're not reaching the same conclusions? Are you more intelligent, closer to God, more virtuous... what? If so, perhaps you ought to lead and I ought to follow.

Perhaps we need a test, so we can sort out those who are walking upon the true path toward God from those who aren't moving forward, those who may serve as our elder brothers and guides.

I hope you see where I'm going here. Thus the social consequences of elevating first person data to the same status as third person data. Not a pretty picture.

1673. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61689 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 11:00 am

Yorker, that avatar is freaking me out. *shivers*

They have "talk like a pirate day." That avatar would be perfect for, "smile like a psychic day." I think we all ought to borrow it for the sake of silliness, just for a day or so.

brb...

1674. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61672 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 8:57 am

pewkatchoo, what you say is important. Our differences likely arise from our unique backgrounds and circumstances.

I'm sensitive to accusations of anti-Islamic bigotry, American arrogance and imperialism. You're sensitive to provoking offense among the wool-headed, perhaps because you know people who share our distaste for religious bullying, but who also have some belief in homeopathy, psychics, etc., and so would be turned off by challenges to what they regard as harmless faith.

When divergent, independent points of view are combined, we get the best picture of how the public might respond to a particular argument.

1675. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61662 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 7:31 am

pewkatchoo:

If he continues with this he will start to come over as just one more interfering busybody, which will dilute his effectiveness as a spokesman against religion.

New Age beliefs are popular among liberal Christians who prefer a God with fuzzy edges. It's not so easy to separate supernaturalism into one thing or another.

Imagine a law against speeding that the police only enforced against red cars. People would conclude that the police don't like red cars for some reason.

If we oppose the notion of faith, we are duty-bound to apply that standard generally, else we will rightly be accused of bigotry, arrogance, "fundamentalism", close-mindedness, and other forms of unreason.

I personally dislike Wahabi Islam more than I dislike The Force of the New Age movement. But I'm not so arrogant as to assert that the truth must cater to my whims. I'm ready to look the truth straight in the eye, no matter how dangerous, ugly, or disruptive to society it might be.

This is our argument: faith, or belief without corroborative evidence, is not an acceptable basis for actions that might harm people.

Believers will always shift the focus from the basis of belief to the content of belief. They must do this or concede, for the argument is sound. Once we're talking Coke vs Pepsi, the discussion will descend to personal attacks against atheists for privleging one flavor over another.

It's reasonable to pay more attention to faith-based notions that result in greater harm. But harm is not our basis! Once it appears that we're debating harm, we've lost. We can't win a harm-based argument with believers, as measurement of harm depends upon what propositions are accepted as true.

We may say, "religious proposition X lacks supporting evidence and it encourages harmful actions." But beware saying, "we're campaigning against religion, particularly the ones that annoy us most."

Note that God's feeling squeezed within his ever-shrinking gaps in scientific understanding. Consequently, he's moving upstairs to hang with the metaphysicists. You'll see more Christianity/Islam/Judaism/etc. + "reality is merely an illusion" in the future.

1676. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61564 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 7:12 pm

cerad:

Perhaps we could avoid the negative consequences of diluting our efforts by embracing homeopathic atheism

Ah! Yes, by diluting our atheistic efforts, we make them more potent...

Seriously, I find the diluted God of the New Age a problem.

All those bad reviews of TGD published here, the ones complaining that Dawkins attacks a God no one believes in, that God is actually an energy/life force/love that guides us toward health and good behavior, and that Dawkins is being a fundie when he describes a man in the sky with a beard and a bunch of rules - those are the same folks who believe spirits can comfort the living, that an unseen realm communicates to us via coincidence, that certain items or places can hold a sacred energy, and so on.

These wool heads are in the way. They might talk a bit nicer than Falwell et al, but they're not our friends. They say, "faith is good," and that doesn't help.

1677. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61543 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Consider the universe with its 500,000,000,000 galaxies, give or take.
Consider one galaxy, the Milky Way, with its 100,000,000,000 stars.
Consider Sol, a star near the edge of that rather unremarkable galaxy.
Consider one of Sol's satellites, Earth, formed 4.5 billion years ago.
Consider the living species upon the earth, presently numbering around 20,000,000.
Consider one of those species, homo sapiens, which emerged about 100,000 years ago.
Consider our lives, which last about 80 years if we're lucky.

In the setting of such unbelievable vastness, does it not seem strange to imagine that the universe was designed with us in mind, for our pleasure and betterment? When you put the story of humanity in its particular time and place, does it not seem like the teeniest of tiniest farts a dog can make?

This how it feels like when I think of reality, anyway. This is my intuition talking, my first person data.

Let's enjoy our moment together, as best we can. And let's give a thought to those who come after.

1678. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61539 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 4:29 pm

drive1:

This isn't the time to hoover the carpet.

Time to go for the jugular.

"Religion is bad" or "religious extremism is bad" will do nothing. Believers know unbelievers hold these opinions. This is why we go round and round about Stalin and Hitler. Believers counter with, "atheists do bad things too."

"Belief without evidence is bad" has some hope, because most believers agree. They just haven't thought things through completely.

If we say it, we have to mean it. No cherry picking.

Added: Teaching intelligent design in science class is a bad idea, not because it's a bad fact, but because the method of argument in support of ID doesn't pass muster. Bad facts can be fixed. Bad methods corrupt critical thinking in a fundamental way.

The same argument applies to alternative science/alternative medicine.

1679. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61505 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 11:59 am

discipline:

Belief in crystals or astrology isn't ruining American public school education, electing far-right born-again leaders, compromising civil rights and reproductive freedom, or compelling people to fly planes into buildings.

Alternative therapies cost Americans several billions of dollars annually. The existence of these therapies, like the existence of religious claims about the world, is symptomatic of a deeper social and educational problem.

What is the legal basis for our complaint against religion? Aren't we faulting believers for asserting claims about the world without evidence? Isn't this our entire argument, essentially? Don't we have a duty to apply that standard generally, if our argument is to be appreciated and understood?

From Bob Park's site 7-13-07:

The leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the U.S. Government, the Surgeon General is nominated by the President, and gets to wear a really neat white uniform. It is the SG's duty to educate the public about health issues. To make sure the SG gets it right, everything the SG says or writes is vetted by a White House political appointee whose job is to ensure that the President is mentioned three times on every page, and issues the President has already decided are not mentioned at all, such as stem cells, Plan B and global warming. It all came out this week as the Senate began hearings on the nomination of James W. Holsinger to the post. Richard Carmona, who served as SG from 2002 to 2006 under Bush, testified Tuesday that if science doesn't support the White House agenda, it's suppressed. Holsinger testified yesterday that he would not give in to politics.

It's one thing not to know how old the universe or the earth is. Factual errors are easy to fix. But how do you correct someone who believes it's appropriate to legislate which scientific results are appropriate or inappropriate for public discourse? How do you reason from evidence, when people don't seem to have a clue what "evidence" actually means?

How often do we hear, "science is just one way of knowing things" or "the Bible says... therefore I don't believe in stem cell research."

Religion is a symptom. Homeopathy is a symptom. "Evolution is just a theory" is a symptom. "I don't believe in global warming" is a symptom. "Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral" is a symptom. "We'll be welcomed as liberators" is a symptom. Unreason is the disease.

1680. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61464 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 8:44 am

drive1:

can we really afford to dilute our efforts?

By criticizing popular but unfounded claims in medicine and other areas, I think we clarify the nature of our complaint against religion.

Religious people frequently pretend that our beef with religion is due to "anger at God" or some other irrational hatred of something most of the world embraces. There's no better way to counter this accusation than by taking on unreason generally.

cry4turtles:

when I think of alternative or homeopathic medicine, psychics, faith healers, mediums, etc. don't come to mind. I think of using nutrition, supplements, stress reduction, and even some forms of visualization and meditation to heal and/or increase health. I know the latter to be very effective in many cases; however, the former group of people I simply know as kooks.

A popular misconception. There is no logical distinction between traditional and "alternative" medicine. There are only proven therapies and unproven therapies. Once a therapy is proven to work, medicine embraces it.

Doctors must be rational. Many are not as rational as they ought to be, and all suffer the compartmentalization of understanding that results from having a modular brain. Still, why do so many exhibit a tolerant attitude toward alternative practice?

1. A frank, vocal stand against alternative practice alienates patients.
2. A number of alternative therapies incorporate proven interventions - stress management, better diet, positive attitude.
3. Many alternative therapies do little or no harm, aside from the loss of a few dollars.
4. Doctors try to remain neutral toward spiritual matters; many alternative therapies claim some spiritual basis.
5. Communal reinforcement: doctors won't speak out forcefully against alternative treatment, until many doctors do the same.
6. Patient visits are 9-15 minutes in length. There are more important matters to discuss.

1681. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61458 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 8:07 am

The limits are probably on what is phyically possible.

I've seen The Six Million Dollar Man. A laser light source could be mounted in an empty eye socket. I see no physical limitation here.

So it happens?

1682. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61450 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 7:46 am

Friend Giskard:

If we admit that all histories are equally real, we have to admit also that, in our own history, earth's biosphere may have popped into existence a mere few thousand years ago! (Or a few minutes ago.)

The physicists here will set me straight, but I've an impression there are limits upon those probability branch paths of the multiverse.

Is there a possible universe where I am David Bowie with the power to fire laser rays from my damaged eye, so that when I sing, "throwing darts in lovers' eyes," I can blind a few audience members for the sake of irony and dramatic effect?

The answer would be "no" I suspect.

1683. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61437 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 6:42 am

Dianelos:

Finally, I personally find it remarkable that in the scripture of the three great monotheistic religions, despite their individual imperfections and incompatibilities, we find three statements that precisely describe God: "God is truth" in the Jewish Old Testament, "God is love" in the Christian New Testament, and "God is beauty" in the Qur'an. So it's like the three great monotheistic religions were each especially inspired by one of God's hypostases, namely Judaism by the Father, Christianity by the Son, and Islam by the Holy Spirit.

I agree that "God is love" is a major Christian theme. But "God is lawgiver; God is just and righteous" dominates "God is truth" in the Old Testament. In fact, I can't think of a memorable OT verse that proclaims "God is truth."

Islam like Judaism is a revelation of law and justice; beauty gets less airtime.

Seek and ye shall find. And that's the problem.

Thinking begins when you seek that which you ought not find, if your hypothesis is correct.

Perfect memory is the one that remembers all that is good and forgets all that isn't. That's why every single act of love we do in this life, be it only a smile for a stranger, will form a part of reality for ever, and will become the indestructible treasure in heaven (see Luke 12:32-34). By doing good we become God's co-creators of permanent reality :-) As for the ugly things we do, these will be forgotten by God and will therefore utterly disappear from reality in the end.

When everything is loved, nothing is loved. When everything is beautiful, nothing is beautiful. When everything is good, nothing is good. Love, beauty, goodness are terms of distinction. Remove the distinctions, and the terms become meaningless.

1684. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61430 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 6:20 am

downunder:

which at some stage travels from wherever to the pouch. I assume therefrom that life insurance would have to be payable before departure from base.

A joey is a very primitive thing when it leaves the birth canal. It's got little nubs for arms and no legs. It's equivalent to a human at about 7 weeks gestation. You can see a picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo

For birthing animals and many others as well, development is a continuum. There isn't a specific moment when a fetus/baby is independent of the adult.

1685. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61345 by Dr Benway on August 4, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Hey Downunder,

According to your beliefs, when does LIFE enter a joey? Is it just after leaving mama kangaroo's birth canal, or later when it leaves the pouch?

1686. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61257 by Dr Benway on August 4, 2007 at 11:07 am

steve99:

Therefore, I have proved, according to your assumptions, that God is not benevolent.

Beware wishful thinking, eh? Reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Mankind":

Wikipedia: A race of aliens known as the Kanamits land on Earth and promise to be nothing but helpful to the cause of humanity. Initially wary of the intentions of such a highly advanced race, even the most skeptical humans are convinced when their code-breakers begin to translate one of the Kanamit's books, with the seemingly innocuous title, "To Serve Man." Sharing their advanced technology, the aliens quickly solve all of Earth's greatest woes, eradicating hunger, disease, and the need for warfare. Soon, humans are volunteering for trips to the Kanamits' home planet, which is supposedly a paradise. All is not well, however, when a code-breaker discovers the Kanamits' true intentions. Their book, "To Serve Man", is a cookbook.

1687. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61225 by Dr Benway on August 4, 2007 at 8:48 am

How to encourage a love of science in kids?

In the pre-school years, I think sharing active exploration of novel things with an adult is important. Many parents sit kids in front of TV for hours, or they give the kids a toy, but then walk away to go make dinner. We're all so busy, unfortunately. But exploring something with an adult right there, making little comments and comparisons, lays a good foundation for the learning process. TV lays a foundation for being entertained.

Trips to see weird stuff help kids realize there's a big, interesting world out there. When I was 3, we went to an animal park and I got to ride on an elephant. Seeing, smelling, and feeling this enormous creature I'd only seen in pictures left an impression upon me. What do elelphants think? Is this elephant happy? What do elephant babies like to do? The curiosity wells up naturally when you're impressed.

Around age 7, my dad started taking me to the planetarium every month or so. Being enveloped in the stars is awe inspiring. The space program offers a number of great anchors for scientific interest: astronaut training, weighlessness, the problems of staying alive in a lifeless environment, rockets, astronomy, etc.

Objects that can be touched help focus kids who live in a high stim world now, where nothing stands still for more than a few seconds. I collected seashells, star fish, rocks, and pennies. What to do if you live in a small apartment? Well, after the touching and exploring of something interesting, perhaps a digital pic uploaded to a flickr collection would suffice. I've started one for my backyard birds here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tuff_titmouse

Drawing encourages careful observation. You have to sit still and look closely at things in order to draw them.

When I was a kid, you could ride your bike around the neighborhood, and you could make friends with adults without people suspecting something weird was going on. Kind, smart, funny adults intersted in the world and willing to talk with a kid without condescension are an inspiration.

In high school, I had a class in logic and rhetoric. We learned about logical fallacies and brought in examples from popular media for discussion. Invaluable. I was in the midst of my Christian phase at the time, and this class forced me to recognize that my "rational" arguments in support of faith were cribbed from others, and actually were all post-hoc. The real basis of my faith was emotional, and I had to admit that emotion isn't a good guide to factual truth.

1688. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61175 by Dr Benway on August 4, 2007 at 3:23 am

we cannot love them without trusting them.

This is the sort of statement sociopathic teens use on their parents all the time, to get their hands on the car keys.

Trust and love don't always match. Trust is built up by degrees over time. It can be lost in an instant, but might again be recovered given time. Love, caring, a desire to help can still be there, even when trust is low. Ask anyone with a substance abusing relative.

After all, a benevolent God would not create us with the cognitive capacity to form meaningful questions we can absolutely not answer, would S/He?

Tinkerbell can't die! She just can't!

1689. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61133 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Yawn. Wake me when they write, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Idiocy.

1690. The Out Campaign

Comment #61131 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 7:43 pm

geckoman, I will bake you some self-esteem cookies. They're chocolate chip. Very tasty.

1691. God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy: 'No' Says God

Comment #61130 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Steve Madding:

It's not the reader's fault that no matter how hard you may try to sarcasically portray religious belief, you still can't make it absurd enough that people will be certain you're kidding.

I must disagree. God gives an interview here. If people don't smell something fishy in that, they're not reading; they're skimming. Or English is a second language.

1692. The Out Campaign

Comment #61124 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Henri:

I'm proud to say that my ancestor, Gorme the Olde (father of Harald Bluetooth - from which we get 'Bluetooth' technology), fought the Christianisation of Scandinavia vehemently. I aim to follow in his footsteps.

Henri, if you like the old stories, you might enjoy American Gods, a novel by Neil Gaimen. S'got Odin in it anyway. And the protagonist, Shadow, is probably Baldr.

I downloaded the audible version a few months back. It was fun. But I think I liked Anansi Boys even more (also audible format). Lenny Henry is an ace reader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods

1693. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #61121 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Yorker:

I dislike his pretentiousness and find him irritating.

Colbert is a parody of Fox talking heads like Bill O'Reilly, whose self-satisfaction knows no bounds. Fox is very popular, although I find the channel overstimulating. Stewart/Colbert help ease the pain.

I note that you Brits laugh more when cultural relativism is being lampooned. We must suffer different annoyances.

I like the irriducible complexity retort. Can't remember it exactly, but something like: "So without the catch, all you have is a piece of wood, a spring, and a bit of metal, and those things have no use whatsoever."

I'm not sure I could think so fast on my feet.

edit: oops! Aidan86 beat me to the punch. I shouldn't make a snack and hit 'submit.'

1694. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #61059 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Riley:

Are all these perspectives equally valid?

To answer your own question, ask, "What is the replicator?" A replicator is a unit of information capable of making exact copies of itself, given the right equipment.

Factories may produce widgets without widgets being replicators. Likewise, cells can produce nucleic acids, but this doesn't make nucleic acids replicators.

1695. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61049 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Dianelos,

The legal basis is everything. Sure, people can be hypocrites and lawbreakers. We still have a duty to remove bad rules or laws from our books, religious or civil.

I don't think it's helpful to think in terms of religious vs atheist. Better to think legal vs illegal. Rational vs irrational. Non-theists can be irrational. That doesn't mean theists are allowed to be irrational. When it comes to civil discourse about the complex problems we face, everyone ought to be rational.

The "we" comes from a shared understanding of the scientific method and ordinary rules of evidence and argument, as used in court. This is how I define "rational."

If one person is allowed to assert first person data as equivalent to third person data, then everyone may do the same. If we allow you, we must allow Osama Bin Laden.

There are two ways to pursuade: reason and force.

I googled "sam harris torture" for the link; don't remember what it was.

Sam may not be impressed with the circularity of your argument, i.e., ethics, or that which we ought to do, is about being virtuous, or doing that which we ought.

1696. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60972 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 8:03 am

Riley:

There is a good reason for having this legislation: if the people being targeted by the crimes are a vulnerable group then there is a danger of the harassment becoming an entrenched community problem.

Why do laws against criminal threatening and harassment not suffice? Why must we also have hate crime laws?

1697. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60913 by Dr Benway on August 3, 2007 at 5:46 am

"Succor" in US; but "sucker" is cute.

1698. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60724 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 6:36 pm

One moment he's claiming you can't study god like you would the possibility of water on Mars, and next he's claiming the validity of using observation and theory to justify the existence of the remote and directly unseen. How … inconsistent.

Hey, don't knock this sly strategy of equivocation. I've seen What the Bleep Do We Know? I know about The Secret. This flavor of bullshit can run many more years before everyone catches on. See Dianelos on the McGrath thread for a further taste.

The trick is to equivocate between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Here's the game:

1. Establish that materialism, idealism, and deism are all reasonable metaphysical positions. Establish that science cannot offer any evidence to distinguish one metaphysical position from the other. Say, "God is outside science," or "non-overlapping magesteria."

2. Once you've got a metaphysical God on the table, a God outside reality, a God that cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method, do a slide from metaphysics to physical reality. Give the metaphysical God interventionist qualities. Assert that your God became a man, died, rose from the dead, answers prayer, provides an inner knowing, etc.

3. Fail to note that an interventionist God becomes a part of our shared phenomenological world, and thus ought to be studied as we study all other phenomena. Fail to note that you've got no evidence for this God - a fatal flaw for your side. If anyone points this out, jump back to #1. Bamboozle.

4. Say, "Theism has more explanatory power concerning:
- those wacky QM observations
- consciousness; so mysterious!
- (insert other gap in scientific understanding).

Theism posits that God causes reality and consciousness. Naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) can't posit anything because naturalism (methodological naturalism) has all those ugly gaps!

5. Conclusion, an echo of #1 but with a twist: "Theism (interventionist God, part of physical reality) wins and naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) loses!"

6. Epilogue: Jesus, holy ghost, crackers, nice bits of the Bible, Dawkins is a fundie, buy my book, etc., etc.

1699. The Out Campaign

Comment #60693 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Everyone: Henri wants us to re-read his awesome post about Kant. Just in case you forgot how totally awesome it was.

1700. The Out Campaign

Comment #60689 by Dr Benway on August 2, 2007 at 5:33 pm

kkant:

Your ass and eye are the eyes. It falls into place pretty easily from there.

Okay. I'm sorta seeing something. The bird's tail is like something sticking up from the middle of warrior's forehead. The bird legs make the "V" at the top of the warrior's robe. There's a funny little white ring in the middle of the bird's butt, that's the nose. The darker areas each side of that are the eyes. The bird's head might be a knot at the back of the head.

But I don't see how the bird's eye might also be the samurai eye. And what I see is so indistinct, it can't compete with the bird image. So I must be missing something.