1751. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58415 by Dr Benway on July 24, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Dianelos 1570:

Virtue is not a matter of definition, but a matter of similarity to God's character. And how do we find out about God's character? By looking inside our pants to see how we ourselves are built.

For years I heard humans saying things like, "I was never truly happy until I found God." And I had no idea what they were going on about.

Then I began spotting these blokes at the the local parks hiding behind trees. They'd open their pants, whip out their willies, and start stroking it lovingly. With their eyes closed, they'd mutter, "oh God oh God oh God..." That's when I figured it out: "God" is the pet name the humans give to their naughty bits.

A few enthusiastic humans tried to talk me into worshipping their God. I politely told them I wasn't interested. Some wouldn't let me be, however, and more than once I've had to say, "Look, just because you love your personal playground doesn't mean everyone else has to swoon over it as well."

Usually this gets me a blank look. But it ends the chit-chat.

Forgive me for saying, but you humans are a self-impressed, self-absorbed lot. I'm sure a penis is very nice. But must you insist that every living thing celebrate your special toy along with you? Did you not invent pants for a reason?

1752. Red Mosque Fueled Islamic Fire in Young Women

Comment #58403 by Dr Benway on July 24, 2007 at 5:40 pm

They too believed that if you died in battle you would go strait to heaven where you would sit at Odin's table and eat pork and drink beer for eternity.

Tomorrow be Wodanstag! Let all remember how the Allfather hung for nine days, pierced by his own spear, on the world tree.

1753. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58384 by Dr Benway on July 24, 2007 at 5:08 pm

So any statements about it being a disease, side effect or symptom are easily dismissed as being made in ignorance about homosexuality.

Is disease a bad thing? Remember: one man's weeds are another man's wild flowers. One man's parasites are another man's "lil buddies." And when conquering the New World, small pox was truly the white man's best friend.

We are full to the brim with infection, every one of us, at this moment, and could not exist otherwise.

Twin studies show genes alone aren't enough to determine sexual orientation. The environment does something. Infection is an environmental factor that can affect gene expression, and so may play a role in the development of many traits. Do people prefer some other environmental factor as causally related to sexual orientation?

I actually have no idea regarding how infection/immune reaction might impact sexuality. I just don't feel it's an obvious thing we ought to ignore. Perhaps if we knew more about how other environmental factors impact sexual development, it might be reasonable to forget about infection.

1754. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58240 by Dr Benway on July 24, 2007 at 5:31 am

steve99:

The problem is that, no matter what the context, this question stands out as one that can pretty easily be answered: to a reasonable degree of certainty - no!

OK, pretend research results: If you are male, and you were not breast fed, and you had more than one strep infection during the first 6 months of life, your odds of being homosexual increase by 20%.

Why would something like the above be impossible?

MagratGarlick:

The REALLY dangerous idea is the theory that all the 'obvious' differences between male and female humans can be attributed to socialisation.

You must have missed the 2005 story about Harvard's president, Larry Summers. He speculated that innate differences between the sexes might be one reason there are fewer women than men at the highest echelons of math and science. He was subsequently fired for this remark.

1755. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58166 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 7:36 pm

I think twin studies for homosexuality have concordance rates of about 40-50%. So the environment is chipping in for about half the cause.

What are environmental factors? Oh, gosh. Let's see. Off the top:
- Birth trauma
- Toxins
- Nutrition
- Infection
- Education
- SES
- Travel
- Stress
- Peer pressure
- Religion
- Oops! Nearly forgot about mom.

Infection early in life is an environmental factor on the table for stuff like sexual orientation, OCD, Tourette's, language delays, mathematical ability, schizophrenia, kitchen sink, etc.

How to get around your excellent point re: rates being constant over time and place:
- infectious agent accounts for only 10% of the environmental contribution
- prevalence of infectious agent is relatively constant
- effect on sexuality only noted if infectious agent hits at specific moment in development
- sixteen different infectious agents may have the same effect on sexuality

Lots of ways that a genuine causal factor can get buried in noisy data.

1756. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58164 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Suggesting that homosexuality could be caused by a disease...

Well the question is badly worded, as it suggests homosexuality is a disease. I'd have preferred, "Might infection or immune reaction during development contribute to human sexual orientation?"

I know of no data to suggest this might be the case, BTW.

1757. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58128 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 3:19 pm

I would have thought it would be difficult to prove a correlation....

Yes, because the correlation between any proposed cause and its effect is so low in the behavioral sciences. It's a muddle that's going take a long time to sort.

Example: If one identical twin is schizophrenic, there's about a 40% chance the other twin will be schizophrenic. What's accounting for the 60% who don't get schizophrenia, in spite of having all the same genes? Dunno.

You can publish in medicine even if your study might be the result of chance 1/20 times. For comparison, they don't let the physicists publish unless they've got results that couldn't happen by chance 1/10,000.

Physicists predict things using quantum mechanics, and get results matching to within 1/100,000. That's 100% correlation, from where I'm sitting. Behavioral science will never be that good.

1758. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58122 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 2:55 pm

It's an interesting idea, but surely by now somebody would have spotted a correlation?

Hehehe. Welcome to the fascinating realm of neuropsychiatry, where the graphs are so fuzzy, we must hide them from the physicists lest they beat the living shit out of us.

1759. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58114 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Or it may be the case that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is the consequence of several developmental factors, and in some cases, infection alters at least one of those factors in such a way that homosexuality is more likely. This mechanism would not require a "gay bug" causing gayness across species. Just some immune response altering something like testosterone levels at a crucial developmental moment.

1760. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #58082 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 10:48 am

Why on earth is this custom not dead in the US? Does anyone know?

Been a witness in CA, CT, TX, NH. Had to raise a hand and affirm my testimony was the truth. Never saw a Bible.

1761. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #58069 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 9:03 am

weavehole:

Surely, one can erect an eruv around one's wifes lady lumps for an hour or two a day?

Ooo. The man who patents the first "under-and-over wire bra" could make a mint with the proper target marketing.

ReligiousAndRational:

The rules of Eruv - which are amongst the most difficult and technical rules in Rabbinic literature - are not at all emotional. They are technical, impersonal laws to arrive at a technical, apolitical end.

Our modern world presents us with a number of difficult legal problems to solve. To name a few:
- Resolving conflicts between traditional religious laws which limit the rights of women, non-believers, etc., and the doctrine of universal human rights
- The status and juristiction of an international court vs national sovereignty; safeguards against abuses of global authority
- Free trade between countries with different labor and environmental laws resulting in excessive labor outsourcing from developed countries
- Holding multinational corporations responsible for abuses of power
- Balancing global environmental protection with the needs of the poor in developing countries

Instead of solutions to problems like those above, what do the brilliant minds of the religious world give to us? Goofy, useless crap like the burka-bicycle and the lightning-rod legal loophole.

Forgive us for feeling underwhelmed by your particular social club's recent contribution to the larger community in which you live.

1762. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #58068 by Dr Benway on July 23, 2007 at 8:44 am

ReligiousAndRational:

Surely Jewish law is no more ridiculous than, for example, wearing a tie, supporting a football team, high heeled shoes, gothic metal ear piercings, etc...

I doubt that you're conceding that the Eruv is an arbitrary social convention like wearing a tie, etc. Seems to me you guys actually believe God accepts the wire "loophole" that lets you work around sabbath rules.

But have you any credible evidence for your position? And if you have no evidence, I must ask: is blind obedience to tradition something human beings ought to admire?

Story I once heard: Someone was visiting relatives for Passover seder. She watched as her cousin cut a chicken in half, placed each half in two pots and put them in the oven. She asked, "Why do you cut the chicken in half?"

Her cousin answered, "That's how my mother taught me to prepare Passover seder. I actually don't know why." The cousin asked her mother, who happened to be in the other room. Her mother likewise said that's how her mother had always prepared the meal. Now very curious, the cousin phoned her grandmother, who said, "Oh, we never had a pot big enough for a whole chicken. So I had to cut it in half."

I do see a place for tradition. It can be a way of anchoring important memories and values from one generation to the next. But dead ancestors ought not live on as dictators; that's taking tradition too far. If there is a God, He must be a God of the living, no? Kahlil Gibran said it best:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

1763. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57927 by Dr Benway on July 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

Why is it obvious?

It's rude of me to guess Dianelos' answer, but rudeness hasn't stopped me yet: because of how it feels like when Dianelos thinks of it.

Dianelos quiets himself and consults his true self for such answers. He expects we'd agree with him if we did the same, as we're all made in the image of God.

:0)

1764. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #57924 by Dr Benway on July 22, 2007 at 10:48 am

ungodlytheist:

Faith, of itself, is not a bad thing - it is the content of the faith and the values that flow from it that make 'faith' good or bad.

I think I agree with nearly everything you wrote in response to my post, but I'm having a little trouble with the last bit. I think faith itself is a problem. It might serve as a basis for personal decisions where evidence is uncertain. But it's not a compelling basis for social policy.

The word "faith" is so murky, I think most of us would be better off using a more specific term in many contexts. "I have confidence in our new employee" is better than "I have faith in our new employee." "I'm optimistic about the future" is better than, "I have faith in our future."

What to do with, "By faith I know that Jesus is Lord"? The word "faith" appears to give the statement a ring of authority. Yet I don't see how this statement is more deserving of respect than, "I like apple pie." For this reason, I've a problem with "faith."

I'll mull over your distinction between "ordinary" and "moderate" believers. I've no problem with moderates as you define them. Your moderates do not try to have things both ways. I might call them deists, humanists, or pantheists rather than believers.

1765. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57917 by Dr Benway on July 22, 2007 at 9:34 am

Dianelos:

You mean what I propose somebody, who believes the right thing to do is to kill a gay person because the Bible says so, should do? Well, for me ethics is an important cognitive field, and that person is obviously suffering from some kind of cognitive impairment. Ethics do not really apply to people whose mind is deranged. What I propose that person should do is to visit a professional psychologist.

The Bible recommends capital punishment for a number of sins. Adultery is one; don't think homosexuality is explicitly mentioned. However, the Quran and Hadith do recommend death for homosexuals who don't repent of their behavior. I don't think you'll get everyone in favor of Shariah to agree to psychotherapy, however.

Psychotherapy wouldn't help anyway. Therapists try to maintain neutrality with respect to religious values.

You should do what you think is right.

I think you've failed to address the question regarding how we resolve differences of opinion regarding right and wrong.

I'm surprised at how often you fail to take seriously evidence that people disagree regarding God's will. The people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 were not mentally ill. Given the evidence available about these men, including written statements left behind, it appears that they sincerely believed they were doing the right thing.

...they only show that in some special cases we have the illusion that some action was caused by our free will, when in fact it wasn't

Not trivial. If at least some of the time free will is illusory, even if most of the time it isn't, how do we distinguish one situation from the other?

1766. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57912 by Dr Benway on July 22, 2007 at 8:29 am

Well done pewkatchoo in 204. What Ayaan Hirsi Ali has endured would break many people. I think she's noble and courageous. If she ever travels up to the woods of Nowhere, the better half and I will offer a corner of our tiny nest for her to rest in. The security detail, however, might have to camp on the back porch. S'got a lovely view, but best to come before winter.

Funny, I didn't have a problem with the generalizations from Ali or Avi Lewis. I didn't hear my-country-right-or-wrong from Ali, or "let's bash the US" from Avi. Perhaps because I've seen both Ali and Avi before, or perhaps because the context for this discussion was a short TV interview, I unconsciously cut both some slack.

"There is no Islamophobia" is a little strong. But I know what she means, I think. She means the term is most often used in bad faith by people who want to pretend Islam is "a religion of peace."

1767. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57825 by Dr Benway on July 21, 2007 at 11:17 am

HEY EVERYONE!

I just thought of this wonderfully evil meme campaign similar to Dan Savage's "santorum" happening. See spreadingsantorum.com.

This is it: We invent a new word that sounds just like "faith." Perhaps "fayth." We define it as, "a largely evidence-free, poorly examined, highly emotional but plainly unjustified basis for strongly asserted truth claims." Or for short, "stuff believed without a shred of evidence."

Imagine the potential opportunities for amusement. During a lecture Q&A session, an audience member might ask a speaker if he meant "faith" or "fayth." If the meme were to spread widely, it might actually become difficult to use the word "faith" in a sentence without feeling self-conscious. Hehehe.

Anyone like the idea?

We would need to set up a web site similar to the santorum site defining "fayth" and explaining the purpose of the new term: to raise everyone's awareness regarding the basis of our beliefs, and to challenge the notion that matters of faith deserve a special respect. Then we'd need to spread the word around the blogosphere. We'd encourage people to be on the lookout for particularly amusing examples of someone reverentially speaking of "fayth," which we could record on the web site.

Maybe only nerds like us will laugh. Still might be fun.

Anyone know how to register a domain name? Might Dawkins like the idea and be interested in helping?

*******************
Old business:

Downunder:

DrBenway's 1497 re Lal Masjid. I sympathise with your anger but are you displaying an (instinctive) fanatic streak by throwing-in Dianelos and all religions with that crazy lot.

Appeals to the content of belief distract from the real problem, which is the basis of belief.

Dianelos shares the same basis of belief as the Taliban, which is faith. Sometimes faith gives you puppies. Sometimes faith gives you clitorectomies. Better to chuck faith and say, "We've no good evidence regarding God's will."

bouwe:

... I do tire of looking at the arse-end of that bird

After leading us along that gerbil trip through a gay man's ass, I must say I find your sudden case of the vapours at the sight of my cheerful, downy-soft and rose-scented bum a bit of a puzzle. No matter. You may take comfort in my fickle nature.

I am indeed envious of your parrots. May I visit?

steve99:

How embarassing! I really must tidy up the house in that case.

Know ye not how the Lord dwelleth in His children, the escherichia coli nestled within the skid marks there upon thy boxers, hidden 'neath thy bed?

1768. Face to faith

Comment #57812 by Dr Benway on July 21, 2007 at 8:29 am

...conservative religious groups are generally ineffectual in achieving their aims, whether through peaceful or violent means...

...in bed. Hmm. Often works for fortune cookies at least.

All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles. This needs to change if we want the voices shaping the debates about religion in today's world to be better informed and balanced.

Say something interesting and I'll pay attention to you.

1769. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57807 by Dr Benway on July 21, 2007 at 7:04 am

Dianelos:

I won't feel much remorse because my parents did not indoctrinate me with society's moralizing norms, and anyway knowing how my brain works I can always take the little blue pill that will eliminate any remnant of these uncomfortable remorseful feelings.

What's that little blue pill called? It's not likely to be effective, unless you take it forever. Even if numb during an act of cruelty toward another, the memory of the act will provoke remorse later.

Some phenotypes have a frequency of 100% within a population. Example: all humans have a heart for pumping blood.

Some phenotypes are more variable, as many structural and functional imperfections are still compatible with life, and most species' populations can tolerate a few dodgy members without paying too dear a price. Mammals must care for weak and non-productive offspring for a time, so it's not a surprise that a group of mammals can usually tolerate a few weak and non-productive adults.

In sum: nobody's perfect.

About 90% of people have stereo vision. Those who've never had the sense due to a "lazy eye" or developmental problems generally don't know what they're missing. But anyone who has lost an eye knows that more than an eye is lost. Stereo vision is one of those senses we take for granted, as it's not one of the cardinal five with it's own iconic body-part symbol. Patch an eye for a day, and you'll be amazed at the layers of damage to your sense of space, movement, and relationship. Adjusting to a monocular world actually can make you feel a bit anxious and depressed.

With respect to that intuitive sense of fellow-feeling we call a personal conscience, about 90% of people seem to have it. Those without don't seem aware of their deficit. And in contrast to the loss of stereo vision, people generally don't miss a conscience when it goes later in life due to brain injury, Alzheimer's, or mental illness, as self-insight goes right along with it. It's friends and family who do the suffering.

As miserable as life is for most sociopaths, a mild degree of sociopathy actually correlates with success. I suppose if you're too tender hearted, you avoid competitive situations, and you're probably a crappy boss. Leadership requires some skill at coercive interventions.

In sum: explicit ethical systems can help structure our debates about what is right and wrong. But explicit ethical systems won't insure that people always behave in a pro-social manner. The human population will always have a few amoralists in its midst scheming for a free ride. Lawful behavior probably depends upon at least 90% of the population having an intact sense of empathy and a rational legal system.

I must point out that widely accepted belief in God hasn't seemed to rid us of our amoralists. Many shady characters actually gravitate toward religion, where claims can't be corroborated against real evidence. Quite convenient if you like to make stuff up.

1770. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57797 by Dr Benway on July 21, 2007 at 5:23 am

Dianelos:

Therefore, by default, I believe that it's God who experiences animals' life as S/He experiences our life. So in the same way that hurting another person we hurt God too, when hurting an animal we are hurting God. And in the same way that giving joy to another person we give joy to God too, when giving joy to an animal we are giving joy to God. So both animals and we are in this sense part of God. But animals are not conscious subjects like we are.

So God's mouth waters as He gleefully bites my wing, and God chirps in agony as His wing breaks?

God's a useless fucker, I must say.

You realize, every right you claim for yourself you give to others. If you've a right to speak authoritatively about who God is and what He wants, so has Osama Bin Laden.

Better to say, "I don't know."

1771. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57716 by Dr Benway on July 20, 2007 at 5:43 pm

But J, we don't yet know about the cats! Aren't you curious to find out if they're on the path to virtue like the humans?

I'm hoping they're mere cardboard props here to inspire bravery among the titmouse. Can't see how those fangs might ever be something virtuous... *shivers*

1772. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57646 by Dr Benway on July 20, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I think this is what's called cognitive dissonance.

As in, "astonishing lack of."

1773. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57632 by Dr Benway on July 20, 2007 at 11:03 am

Dianelos: :-) Discussing is not really about winning you know; it's about learning...(diabetes-inducing pablum snipped)

You have a three year old, and so can be forgiven... I suppose.

Dianelos, I would enjoy talking fruitcake notions with you far into the wee hours, someday off these Interwebs. But the Jesus Meek and Mild act would likely put one of us in mortal danger.

Say, are the cats here in God's Matrix to achieve virtue as well?

1774. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #57623 by Dr Benway on July 20, 2007 at 9:45 am

ungodlystheist:

Harris does in deed claim he wants all fundamentaists to be moderates, but then he turns around and blames the moderates for the fundamentalists.

Seems to me that many moderates want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to cherry pick scripture, but they'd also like to assert that scripture is the word of God. "Word of God" has a nice, authoritative ring to it that confers certain social advantages.

But if scripture is subordinate to our evolving sense of human decency, then it's no more the word of God than any literary work that moves us to care about other people.

I wish moderates would tell the fundamentalists, "Faith, or belief without evidence, is never an acceptable basis for actions against others." When moderates speak in defense of faith generally, I do think they provide communal reinforcement to fundamentalist believers. Fundies feel moderates would be on their side if they were self-consistent. They hope the moderates will overcome their apparent hypocrisy, as do I. I just want them off the fence in my direction.

Communal reinforcement is the sense that many others share one's views. Strong inhibitions against extreme behavior generally can't be overcome without communal reinforcement.

There's a large Muslim population in the US. Why isn't the US experiencing daily suicide bombings as we see in the mideast? My guess is the US presently doesn't have a cohesive community of like-minded people actively normalizing the notion of martyrdom in a pervasive and repeated manner.

If the moderates would assert in plain language, repeatedly and with conviction, their rejection of any appeal to faith as a basis for actions that harm others, I think the fundamentalists would pause. I'd like to hear, "Faith is too subjective," "Faith isn't enough." Stuff like that.

The demotion of faith as a virture will not solve all the world's problems. But it ought to make public discourse easier.

1775. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57548 by Dr Benway on July 19, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Silly devil! There's no anus on a titmouse.

1776. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57489 by Dr Benway on July 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I give this article

* * *

three woolies!

1777. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57463 by Dr Benway on July 19, 2007 at 12:33 pm

PaulEmecz:

Is there really any SHOULD for you?

Why yes Paul. Below are the three fundamental "ought" statements that form the basis for my ethical system:

1. Promises ought to be made in good faith
2. Some version of the golden rule (universality, equality)
3. Seek to sustain the survival of humankind and its future generations.

I argue that these are not arbitrary values. Below is the brief version of my argument in support of this point:

No humans=no morality, and our discussion becomes moot.
No promises=no human relationships, and our discussion becomes moot.

Human beings can agree upon these things, and do agree upon them. Here's proof: name a society in human history that:

- felt it was OK to make promises without an intention of keeping them
- didn't have some version of the golden rule
- believed the destruction of humankind is an acceptable objective.

1778. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57406 by Dr Benway on July 19, 2007 at 8:07 am

phasmagigas, I likewise would have felt terrible for keeping the wallet, and I'd have enjoyed making the worried person who lost the wallet feel better.

Life without a conscience might seem appealing. Imagine the freedom of being able to do anything without suffering remorse.

But sociopaths aren't happy people. Most of the time, when not enjoying brief victories in their games of dominance, they're bored.

Empathy adds a layer of happiness to living you can enjoy all day long. For example, ice cream tastes better when you've a friend to enjoy it with you.

It's possible to deaden that instinctive empathic feeling. Sometimes it's necessary to do so, as when a doctor must give a screaming child a shot. But as with vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, the sense of empathy is dear and worth protecting from lasting damage.

1779. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57395 by Dr Benway on July 19, 2007 at 6:56 am

Paul: No answer to my question regarding God's rules, which you have championed ad nauseam in several threads on this site.

I was guessing you'd have referenced the ten commandments. I was going to follow-up with a question regarding your basis for believing God Himself was the source for your proposed rules. You'd already stated that you pick the parts of the Bible you feel are right and ignore the parts you feel are wrong. I would have asked you what you use to guide you in sorting the good bits from the bad bits. It would have been my hope that you'd see that God doesn't actually help us much in determining right from wrong on a practical level, due to the problem of hearsay.

This is my proposed social contract:
1. Promises ought to be made in good faith
2. Some version of the golden rule (universality, equality)
3. Seek to suststain the survival of humankind and its future generations.

Once we agree upon these three "oughts", we can derive more specific behavioral rules from this foundation, which is not arbitrary. Morality itself requires these imperatives. No humans=no morality. No promises=no human society=no morality.

I posted this contract in other discussions where you raised questions regarding a moral basis, such as "Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation" and "Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book." I hope this third attempt to represent my proposed contract to you is more successful.

**************
Numbers don't matter when you've got nukes.

**************
Dianelos, what argument would you use to persuade the Taliban away from their theocratic agenda?

I had an apostate Muslim friend who felt he must pretend belief for fear of "one or two nutters" at his mosque. This was pre-9/11. At the time as I tried to understand what seemed to me a weird situation, I searched for Muslim apologists who might provide a legal position in defense of apostacy within an Islamic framework. There is one sura in the Quran that states there can be no compulsion in religion. But you can't build much upon it because too many hadith clearly describe apostacy as a serious crime.

The standard argument from the moderates to the Islamists and fundamentalist Christians has been: "You are too extreme in your interpretation of scripture." But a mere glance at scripture proves this statement false. It represents nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the moderate, who seems to be in denial about the teachings of his own holy books. This unreasonable, unpersuasive argument ought to be abandoned.

Only one argument makes sense: we must criticize faith as a basis for confident belief, the sort of belief that justifies actions that hurt other people.

Ideas we hold on faith deserve a bit of skepticism. Just as we wouldn't convict a man of a crime without good evidence, we ought not believe Allah wants us to throw acid into the faces of young women without evidence of an ordinary, court appropriate quality.

I want moderate religionists around the world to say, "Faith, or belief without evidence, is not a sufficient basis for actions against others. We're all human and we can't claim to know the mind of God with certainty." In this way, moderates can enjoy their carefully picked cherries, while removing the shelter of apparent communal reinforcement that they provide to those who accept scripture as God's word.

I have observed that when non-believers attack faith as a basis for belief, the moderates generally attack the non-believers and defend faith. Then the moderates disclaim responsibility for supporting their more fervent religious colleagues. I don't think you can have things both ways.

Who are the atheists? A tiny group of people busy with living and generally not bothering about religion. Who are the so-called moderates? Most of the world's population. Oh how I wish the moderates would join with the atheists in challenging faith as a basis for firm conviction and action in the world! It's most disappointing when the moderates respond to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by bashing non-believers and defending faith.

As I wonder how to change things for the young women in danger of being disfigured by acid, please refrain from sending me red herring issues and telling me to calm down. Patronizing insults will be returned in kind, but with greater panache.

1780. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57292 by Dr Benway on July 18, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Okay Paul. I get it. You don't like humans deciding for themselves what is good. Fine. You've convinced me by your own perseverative refusal to consider any other solution to the problem of moral authority, apart from God's authority.

I want to live according to Yahweh's rules. Do please remind me of them.

1781. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57232 by Dr Benway on July 18, 2007 at 3:59 pm

PaulEmecz:

Can you imagine any context where gratuitous torture would be wrong?

When lovers don't respect the other's safeword. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword

1782. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57224 by Dr Benway on July 18, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I just read this in the Lal Masjid thread:

On April 12, to terrify the last few hold-outs, the Lal Masjid mullahs declared in their FM radio broadcast that Quaid-e-Azam University had turned into a brothel. They warned that Jamia Hafsa girls could throw acid on the faces of those female university students who refuse to cover their faces.

This stuff makes me angry with Dianelos and his ilk. There are vastly more moderate religionists in the world than atheists. If these moderates would say, "even personal faith must be subordinate to our collective need for evidence based thinking," we might have hope. But the moderates don't do this. Instead they attack nonbelievers and defend faith.

Example: a few posts back, I alluded to my fear of the Lal Masjid crisis in the setting of Pakistan's nuclear capability. Did Dianelos share this concern with me? Oh no. Rather, he accused me of hypocrisy and proceded to list many US crimes over the past several decades.

The titmouse has a headache still from that pile of red herring dumped upon its head. Nasty, stinky, "shut the fuck up" herrings are never a welcome gift.

The crisis at the Red Mosque is a crisis over beliefs about the will of Allah, and it must be faced as such.

Dianelos, your faith is an extra coat you don't actually need. You can be happy without it. I, and all the females, fags, and free thinkers of the world beg you to give it up.

C'mon, Dianelos. Make Jesus proud. Give up that coat.

1783. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57183 by Dr Benway on July 18, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Dianelos 1475:

But please observe that in each of the cases you quote I am speaking of gaps or problems of naturalism and not of science. Those who respond consistently confuse naturalism with science and therefore respond as if I were talking about problems or gaps in science.

When you, steve99, and epeeist were referencing QM, I believed you were talking physics. QM is part of physics, no? It may be the case that today physicists are generating hypotheses that can't yet be tested, but that doesn't mean they're talking metaphysics. I think physicists hope they'll encounter some implication of their new ideas that can be tested one day.

Dianelos 1456:

I agree that engineers building an airplane do not need such first-person data and shouldn't use them, but here we are not doing engineering. Rather we are trying to understand how reality is, the same reality that produces all data we have, both third-person and first-person.

Why the double standard? Why is corroboration important for engineering data, but not important for things like Jesus' resurrection from the dead?

Added: Oops! J beat me to the punch with the 1475 comment (toopid, slow, hanging server at work).

1784. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57060 by Dr Benway on July 18, 2007 at 8:16 am

Dianelos 1462:

Dianelos has pointed to current problems in theoretical physics and cosmology which he feels are illustrative of science's limitations and therefore somehow supportive of theism.

You must be thinking of some other Dianelos :-)

Below are examples of Dianelos' reference to gaps in the explanatory power of modern physics that he feels serve his theistic worldview:

steve99 503:

Did you know that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that there are many physical universes where you and I will never die? It seems to me that naturalism works really badly even in its own natural subject matter of the physical world.

I know the different interpretations of quantum mechanics in some detail. You are simply making an arbitrary value judgement here. You find this interpretation odd, so you claim that is a sign of the failure of naturalism. But that is an opinion, not evidence. Your substitution of God here just doesn't work. Whatever you think of the Many Worlds interpretation, it is a useful tool in some physics work. This does not mean it is right - just that it helps work things out. But your God hypothesis can't replace that tool. You just can't hand-wave away the need to do quantum mechanics!

steve99 535:

It's here that an increasing number of increasingly fantastic descriptions of physical reality are proposed, and it's here where the problem of consciousness for naturalism arises.

No, it really doesn't. The problem with your argument is that we know that increasingly fantastic descriptions of reality are almost certainly true. If you use GPS to navigate, you are using both quantum mechanics and general relativity - some of the wierdest descriptions of reality. This should show you that your judgement of what is too fantastic to be true is flawed.

Dianelos 541:

Epeeist (474): My version: There are some problems that science has not yet solved or are in a domain where science is not appropriate. This gives me a gap into which I can insert god.

That's not so bad for a really short version :-) But let me improve on it, for example I do not claim any as yet unsolved problems by science itself. So here my really short version: There are some serious problems that a naturalistic understanding of reality cannot solve, and they leave a perfectly God-shaped gap.

epeeist 591:

And as for naturalism's descriptions of reality, things appear to be deteriorating right now.

My quantum mechanics is decades out of date but when I did my Ph.D. looking at the tunneling of rotational tops on small molecules we were getting correlation between theory and experimental results in the parts per million range. With QED that improves to the parts per billion range, as Richard Feynman remarks this is like measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles with an accuracy to the width of a human hair. I don't see this being a failing description of reality.

You seem to think that science is a done deal and that the physicists put forward hypotheses (not even theories) that are actual descriptions of reality. They may turn out to be, but at the moment they are the initial attempts of fallible human beings to describe something that is extremely complex.

steve99 806:

In fact I wish people would learn more QM and learn about how naturalists tried to find ways to describe a physical reality that would produce the quantum phenomena we observe, because this would help dispel the myth that naturalists have pretty much figured out everything, or that naturalism is a basically workable worldview.

This is terrible debating technique.

First you set up a straw man: No-one is claiming that naturalists 'have pretty much figured out everything'.

Then you use the 'argument from incredulity': You don't like the implications of Quantum Mechanics, so you claim it is not a workable worldview. That is no argument at all.

What you neglect, again and again, that QM is not used because of its worldview, but because it allows predictions of unparalleled accuracy - because it works. If you don't like its worldview, then you are free to ignore the fact that the computer that you are using to post these comments would not work but for QM, so it seems a bit bizarre!

1785. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56885 by Dr Benway on July 17, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Hi Elli.

A quick summary of the debate so far from a titmouse's perspective:

Dianelos entered with a defense of theism vs. naturalism. A case for God can be made at the metaphysical level, where a proposition doesn't live or die by concrete evidence so much as by appeals to self-consistency and parsimony.

Now, when you notice that a metaphysical case can be made for your being a mere brain in a vat stimulated into believing there's a real world around you by an unseen, mad scientist, you may lose interest in the debate before you start. A metaphysical win is about as satisfying as tying a race with only two runners at the start.

It took several hundred posts before I began to realize that Dianelos slips and slides in his use of the word "naturalism." Sometimes he means methodological naturalism. Sometimes he means metaphysical naturalism. A few definitions may help you to avoid the confusion that has gone before:

1. Methodological naturalism is the scientific method - rules of evidence, probability theory, logic, peer review, and all the tools people use to sort and test hypotheses about the world. The doctor ruling things out of his differential diagnoses, the detective solving a crime, the repair man fixing a broken machine, the physicist trying to understand gravity, the mathematician seeking a proof of some theorem, the engineers designing more efficient solar panels, the psychiatrist testing new antidepressants, etc., are all engaged in methodological naturalism.

2. Metaphysical naturalism is a belief that nothing apart from nature exists. If one day we discover evidence of the supernatural (God, angels, spirits, etc.), we will incorporate this evidence into our understanding of nature. Naturalism might be disproved, if the relationship between nature and the supernatural is such that the two aren't well described holistically. I think if Jesus returns in clouds of glory and eliminates physical reality as we know it, no one will be a naturalist.

3. Materialism is similar to naturalism, but takes a stronger stance against the supernatural realm. Materialism rejects the idea that we will ever find evidence for the supernatural. Matter and energy are all that exist. This position can be disproved if we discover solid evidence of supernatural phenomenon.

4. Deism posits a creator God who doesn't interact with His creation. We wouldn't expect to find physical evidence for or against this position.

5. Theism apart from deism posits an interactive God. This position might be disproved, if the theist posits a particular God, like Thor, and we encounter evidence for an incompatible God, like Jesus. But without such evidence, it's difficult to disprove theism. However, a reasonable person ought to expect evidence of God before accepting the notion that God exists.

6. Idealism posits that the material world does not exist; only the experiencing mind is real. This position can't be disproved by appeals to evidence, something of a plus. But it looks a bit lonely, which is a minus.

7. Idealistic theism is idealism with everyone somehow sharing the mind of God. Less lonely than idealism I suppose, but weird. Probably not disprovable in the same way that theism isn't disprovable.

As you can see, debate at the metaphysical level is relatively safe for theists. All fine and good.

But metaphysical bombs do not explode airplanes. Metaphysical clitorectomies do not harm women. And I speak from experience when I say that physical beers are far more refreshing than metaphysical beers.

At the ordinary, non-metaphysical level, the atheist asks the theist, "What do you believe about the world, and what evidence do you have for your beliefs?"

Some theists answer in a straighforward way, by referencing the testimony of the Gospels, or historical correlates to things mentioned in the Bible. Clever theists know where these discussions will end. Consequently, they avoid them, as USA_Limey has reminded us more than once.

Clever theists say things like, "What do you mean by 'evidence'?" or "You're thinking like a fundamentalist when you require 'evidence.'" Before we've even opened a single, actual beer, we're talking metaphysics again. Not a refreshing experience, I must say.

Now, what would you think of your doctor or mechanic if he said, "What do you mean by 'evidence'?" You'd think something fishy was going on, as well you should.

It's possible to engage in methodological naturalism without espousing a particular metaphysical position. I'd like to concede all metaphysical positions as potentially viable, in order to move on to more concrete issues. Many have said the same. Yet, somehow, our debate reverts to theism vs. naturalism. Hmm.

Dianelos has pointed to current problems in theoretical physics and cosmology which he feels are illustrative of science's limitations and therefore somehow supportive of theism. Steve99, epeeist, and others have answered him, but he seems unmoved. He has expressed a feeling that a gap, or an area of human ignorance about something, is proof of "naturalism's" shorcomings. I think this has been soundly refuted, but I don't recall Dianelos' saying, "You're right. A gap is an area of ignorance and we ought not fill it with ideas that themselves lack supporting evidence."

I have been most interested in the ethical implications of Dianelos' theism. If you don't look closely, Dianelos' notions of God sound nice. But religious propositions divorced from the ordinary rules of evidence we expect for other propositions are socially dangerous. They're dangerous because they claim our attention and loyalty more strongly than other propositions. Nationalism is likewise dangerous, but the nation state can't compete with God when it comes to claims upon our sense of duty.

We really can't let anyone off the evidence hook. Not even sweet little old ladies. No evidence; no credibility.

Speaking of evidence, this is what Dianelos has offered:
- ethical empowerment
- how it feels like when he thinks of it
- science can't explain everything

If this basis becomes generally accepted as reasonable, I envision a future where some animals are more equal than others, and many young fags meet a tragic end.

1786. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56778 by Dr Benway on July 17, 2007 at 7:37 am

Downunder 1425:

I agree with your "nothing" insofar that nothing can be seen to enter. Nevertheless LIFE once entered is an observable, demonstrable fact. LIFE may or may not enter at birth into the hitherto alive foetus. Where that LIFE comes from is THE BIG question which Richard D. and his mates is, and have been for generations of scientists, trying to discover. And, life disappears at death leaving behind an empty yet visibly complete earthly shell.

Life emerged on Earth 4 billion years ago. Life doesn't need to enter a baby at birth, as it was already there before its birth.

When a car stops running, you can say that the "vroom" has left the car. But this implies there's a "vroom" somehow separate from the car that can come and go from it like a ghost. This notion may be misleading, as we have no evidence for any "vroom" existing apart from any car.

The movie, "It's a Wonderful Life" illustrates how the dead live on among us. The living are meme creators and replicators. The memes one creates or copies can be passed on to others, and so can survive one's death.

1787. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56773 by Dr Benway on July 17, 2007 at 7:05 am

Dianelos:

...naturalists often say things that only make sense under the premise that naturalism is true (for example they may say things like "The human brain produces consciousness" or "Evolution by natural selection really happened"). Should I, by the same measure, criticize them for doing so? Or maybe argue that they believe in naturalism without having any evidence at all?

Oh dear. Where to begin.

"...that only make sense under the premise that naturalism is true..."

Do you need a metaphysical position before you're able to observe when the tea is ready? No! Likewise, one may be uncertain of theism vs. materialism, yet still be capable of observing natural selection in things like antibiotic resistance.

Survivors tend to survive better than non-survivors.

Dianelos, I think you regress to metaphysical debate because you prefer it to evidentiary analysis.

1788. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56755 by Dr Benway on July 17, 2007 at 5:52 am

Dianelos 1426:

Pakistan is a nuclear power, so this is serious stuff.

Oh? And the fact that Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and atheist countries are nuclear powers is not serious? (snip bucket of red herrings (link) and accusations of titmouse hypocrisy)

All that bilgewater distracted from my original point concerning the basis of belief. When a belief is based upon an inner knowing, a quickening of the Holy Spirit, faith, etc., that belief ought to be afforded a low level of confidence, in comparison to a belief based upon evidence that can be independently corroborated.

The Red Mosque Taliban pray to be truly guided by Allah. They sense this guidance within and test it against the Holy Quran. Reminds me of your "how it feels like when I think about..." hearafter known as "the Dianelos test."

To the Taliban I say, "Faith is not a sufficient basis for taking action against others."

What would you say to these believers?

1789. The New New Atheism

Comment #56622 by Dr Benway on July 16, 2007 at 3:28 pm

...those who think they can refute belief in God by showing that the Bible abounds in demonstrably false and self-contradictory statements.

The self-contradictory statements proves the Bible false. That deserves a pause.

What baby are we in danger of tossing if we chuck the bathwater of religion? Can't we have nice buildings, rituals, art, community, charity, celebration, and all without the woowoo?

1790. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56584 by Dr Benway on July 16, 2007 at 1:31 pm

What does the author of this article believe about God, Jesus, etc., and what is his evidence?

Put up or shut up.

Meanwhile...

Poop!

1791. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56556 by Dr Benway on July 16, 2007 at 11:49 am

Luke 3:11:

He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Dianelos 1304:

Actually it's have 2 coats, give 2 coats. True, and of huge ethical significance. To understand this is to understand the beauty of reality.

Dianelos, some might praise you for trumping Jesus in the charity department. But I see only an endless game of two-coat ping-pong.

Based upon how it feels like to think of Dianelos' closet, Mr. Uber-nice has about eight coats.

1792. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56552 by Dr Benway on July 16, 2007 at 11:23 am

Dianelos 1419:

...and because I find this claim is what best explains the evidence - the whole of it, both third-person (the gospels, the early history of Christianity, etc) and first-person (how it feels like when I think about it). So I do believe in the incarnation of God in Jesus, I do find special meaning and relevance in Jesus's life, and I do believe in the bodily resurrection as experienced by the closest disciples.

"How it feels like when I think about it" is the kind of subjective test one would expect in a manual on flower arrangement. Imagine if engineers decided upon the shape of an airplane wing by virtue of "how it feels" when thinking about it. Imagine yourself, one day on trial for a crime you didn't commit, and facing a wool-headed jury about to convict you on the basis of "how it feels" to think about you doing some terrible deed.

If only people weren't dying for the sake of "how it feels" to think of Ali as the rightful successor of Mohammad. Today I read that bombs "kill dozens" in Iraq.

Theology urgently needs a demotion. It claims to be about historical and ultimate truth. It would be better if it claimed to be about the art of living joyfully, or how to pass the time when you've got nothing better to do, or something like that.

1793. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56551 by Dr Benway on July 16, 2007 at 11:00 am

Downunder, per you request:

1. Starting with your "No pulse=death". If the foetus' heart is beating OK in the womb and it stops beating at birth, can the heart then usually be started again by slapping babe's bottom or by some other more scientific application, and breathing may then also start?

On TV hearts stop and start. In real life, they mostly just stop. Starting them again depends upon why the heart stopped in the first place. Cardioversion (those electric paddles) can interrupt some arrythmias, but can't fix everything wrong with the heart.

2.Was your answer to my question ".....to scientifically determine the instant when functioning starts....", presented by your comment "But there is no evidence for any life substance entering the body at birth." That is an interesting relevant observation but it raises the question: What then does enter to start the new human?

Nothing. The human is of the human species and is alive from the time of the egg, to zygote, to fetus, to baby. The major change at birth is a shift from using the placenta for respiration to using the lungs.

3. the question remains: is there often a moment-of-waiting before pronouncing that the baby is alive?

No. We can tell if the baby is alive prior to birth, by feeling fetal movements and listening to the fetal heart.

4. yet to be answered: When all is well on leaving the mother, has anyone ever determined at what stage a bodily functioning foetus, does indeed have those functions completed by starting to breath and crying?

The process of getting the baby's shoulders, bottom, and feet out, suctioning the snotty stuff from the nose and mouth, cutting the cord, and wiping the general bloody goo off takes a few minutes. The doctor later approximates a time somewhere in the middle of all that for the paperwork. I think only astrologers worry about an exact time of birth.

5. Can breathing be used as scientific evidence of the new arrival?

Sure, I suppose. But the fetus is "breathing" via the placenta prior to birth.

6. My unanswered question about "legal" death, I will now re-phrase. At the number of deaths you have attended, have you seen evidence then of any life substance departing? One moment life is still there, then it has gone. Something definitely left in between.

No. What's the difference between a car that runs and one that doesn't?

Life is a song that's been playing on Earth the past 4 billion years. Everything alive today, as far as we know, came from something living. Life is and has been a continuous process without starts and stops.

Life has many qualities. Chief among them is this: a living organism can make a partial copy of the set of information contained within it.

As for the Monty Hall problem, note that it involves two trials in series:

1. pick 1 of 3 doors
2. pick 1 of 2 doors.

If the two trials were independent from each other as two coin tosses are independent, then the chance of getting the car in the second trial would be 50%.

But the two trials are not independent. Information is learned in the first trial that has relevance to the second trial.

1794. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56352 by Dr Benway on July 15, 2007 at 8:28 am

PaulEmecz:

I told them that I have rejected those things that I think are wrong, and only believe those things that I think are right.

If alleged divine revelation is subordinate to a human sense of what is good, then divine sources of information are not needed.

Most metaphysical models are defensible, including materialism, naturalism, deism, idealism, brain-in-a-vat-ism. I concede all these positions.

An interventionist God is more problematic. A God who moves things around in our universe ought to leave evidence of Himself. Reasonable people require evidence that can't be accounted for by more ordinary explanations.

Christians who appeal to the Gospels, the Holy Spirit, and personal feeling are using the same basis as the Islamists, who also use sacred scripture and an inner knowing as a basis.

In defending Christianity, Islam is likewise defended, unless the apologetic makes clear how the basis for one is different from the other. An appeal to the content of the belief system is irrelevant here. What matters is the basis.

Pakistan is a nuclear power, so this is serious stuff.

I want all religionists to say, "Faith, or belief without evidence, is not a sufficient basis for actions against others."

We must require evidence that can be corroborated.

1795. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56079 by Dr Benway on July 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm

OCD is treatable.

1796. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55872 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Well Lime, I've my addictions as well. More than once I've over-invested myself in a hopeless situation, or I've tried to make an obviously bad relationship work. More than once I've thought, why didn't I catch on sooner?

Narcissists typically are what provoke my fascination. I find myself saying, "Hey, you feel entitled to speak for God. You feel entitled to tell everyone what's moral. You feel entitled to judge true faith from theological error. Why can't other people who disagree with you do the same?"

The other says, oh I'm not doing what you say... then does what I'm saying but doesn't seem to see it. Makes me nuts.

I don't know if Dianelos is a narcissist or not. There's no way I could judge that. I speak only about myself.

If he is, then you're absolutely right, Lime. I've been feeding a drug addict, which is a stupid thing to do.

1797. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55866 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 5:09 pm

...I have estimated the complexity of the territory only...

How will you compare notes with me regarding the territory, without any notes? Without any words? Without any symbols?

What we have between us is a map. We can discuss the complexity and coherence of the map. We cannot discuss the territory.

I have never said or required that "God decides what is good". What I said was: "God is what's good, we are made in the image of God, and therefore we have the capacity to decide what's good"."

I see no practical distinction between the above and "We decide for ourselves what is good." Fine if you want to refer to yourself as "God." Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

What I did (or tried to do anyway) is to show that theistic idealism explains everything that naturalism explains plus much more. I don't think mine is the "argument from ignorance" :-)

You point to gaps in current scientific understanding, and you say, "Room for God!" This is formally known as the argument from ignorance. It is fallacious.

Not one person on this thread has asserted a belief in metaphysical naturalism. I've been explicit in my rejection of both theism and naturalism. I'm a "wait-and-see-ist." So go kick metaphysical naturalism if you want. Not my dead horse.

1798. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55859 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Limey:

This has, in the end, been rather depressing I feel.

You big crybabies. Humans are driven by non-rational forces. So what? Go have a pint or something.

Example 1: A baby monkey loves bananas and being with mama. One day the monkey tries to get some bananas above her in a tree. Suddenly mama jumps away, tree to tree. What to do? Time for a rational cost-benefit analysis of mama vs. bananas? No! Instinctively, baby monkeys know that mama is more important than food.

Example 2: President Kennedy is on the red phone to Khrushchev about some nukes in Cuba. Several rational solutions have been proposed by the experts. Kennedy ignores them. He tells Khruschev, "One nuke comes our way, and I will send every fucking thing we have at you all at once." This isn't rational. This is planetary suicide. Was it the best thing to do? I dunno. But we're all still here.

Example 3: If I lived under an atheistic totalitarian government, I imagine myself claiming to have a personal relationship with God. My way of saying, "I know the real boss, and it ain't you." It would be bullshit in one way, but true in a gut-feeling kinda way.

Example 4: Prisoner Number 6 says, "I'm not a number. I'm a free man!" Brilliant series, but WTF?

Example 5: Dadaism

So what if Dianelos doesn't concede? We remain mammals, here and ever-ready to nip at his ankles for the cause.

1799. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55851 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 3:35 pm

J:

...it only has to describe people and their immediate consciousness, not all of the rest of the stuff of the universe.

I think we are both victims of this debate format, which isn't easy. Here's the sequence from my vantage point:

D1: The God-model is simpler, because God doesn't bother with quarks no one sees.
B1: Atheist and theist grad students use the same map of reality, which doesn't bother with every quark either.

D concedes. But offers:

D2: Theist grad students can avoid wasting time thinking about how physical reality is, as there's no such thing.
B2: The parsimony argument applies to the map, not the territory. Your point is moot.

When you re-asserted D1, I believed you did this because you felt it had merit. You weren't willing to concede. So I tried to frame B1, my response, in various ways to convince you it did not have merit.

Now I see you were saying Dianelos was not being self-consistent. However, if he conceded D1, which I felt he had, he can't be accused of this.

1800. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55836 by Dr Benway on July 12, 2007 at 2:29 pm

J:

Which means that Dianelos, studying his physics PhD, might be nodding along with his atheist colleagues as to the rules that govern the universe's stuff, but he actually regards that stuff as non existent unless a conscious person is actually there directly experiencing it.

The parsimony criterion can only pertain to reality once that reality is represented somehow. That representation is "the map." We cannot discuss reality. Discussion = language = map!

The parsimony criterion DOES NOT pertain to:
-reality
-someone's thoughts about reality
-someone's thoughts about someone's thoughts about reality
-someone's thoughts about someone's thoughts about someone's thoughts about reality.

MAP!