1851. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54556 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 6:17 pm

PaulEmecz :

God doesn't need to stand before us and speak for us to believe that there actually are such things as universal human rights.

It appears we agree. In our effort to articulate a shared understanding of morality, we're leaving God out of the discussion. Unless, of course, God decides to drop by and put his two cents in. We certainly will give Him a listen then.

1852. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54552 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Like the bald eagle? The peregrine falcon?

Fire ants all the way to California now, in spite of batshit crazy years of heavy pesticide use.

Environmental answers are never simple. The Aussie's will back me up on this.

1853. Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

Comment #54542 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 5:30 pm

J:

As a species, we have a track record for jumping wholesale onto scientifically questionable bandwagons and later wishing we hadn't (Banning DDT, anyone?)

Off topic: DDT was bad for birds. That's all I'm saying.

You may continue.

1854. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54538 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 5:24 pm

rebby:

...he also looks (and sometimes sounds) like an aged Darwin.

Hey Darwin died in 1882. How do you know how he sou...

God? Is that you?

1855. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54527 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 4:21 pm

He-Man, the writer of this article was oblivious to the bleedin' obvious, obviously.

Prize goes to you.

1856. Rats influenced by the kindness of strangers

Comment #54506 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 2:44 pm

gordon:

Maybe the reporting isn't up to scratch.

Reporters generally are a disappointment. They're often don't know what they don't know. And they're prone to over-emphasize controversy.

I'd be surprised if the scientists themselves made this claim:

In doing so, they provide the first evidence of an unusual form of altruism that appears to violate evolutionary theory.

1857. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54499 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 1:43 pm

BAEOZ:

Dr. Benway, what happened to the mooning bird?

Hi Taz. A bloke asked me to change my avatar. He worried it might give visitors to the respectable, intellectual, all-grown-up professor's "Oasis of Clear Thinking" the wrong impression.

Standard operating procedure dictates that I drop a wet one on requests like these. However, the chappie posted that he's in his 80s and the doctors don't give him much longer, poor bastard.

Hate to be the straw, y'know. One day Meals on Wheels are late. His Depends get in a twist. He fires up the computer, catches a glimpse of the wee tit's downy underparts, then BAM! He's travelling down that long tunnel with the bright white light at the end.

1858. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54488 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Interesting how the author admits that God is just a construct, made up and tailored for whatever the current zeitgeist would deem 'good'.

LOL.

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

Isn't it strange that God and He still attract capitals?

Germans seem to capitalize everything. English speakers capitalize proper nouns. This holds even for fictional characters like God.

Convention holds that God is nameless and thus every term for him is effectively a pronoun or placeholder. So for clarity, "He, Him, His" are capitalized as well as "God."

1859. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54479 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 11:51 am

Poor God. No one will stick up for Him. That's so sad, innit?

1860. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54453 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 8:04 am

Dianelos:

If there is no will in what sense can a person be responsible for their actions?

Behavioral contingencies shape behavior. Coercion is in service to the future, never the past. There is no atonement.

As I have explained before for me "objective" means "pertaining to reality, and hence independent of anybody's personal opinion".

I think that's too extreme. "Objective" is operationally defined as "that which has been independently corroborated." The more examples of corroboration, the greater the objectivity of those observations. Thus there are degrees of objectivity. Remove all subjects from the concept, and the concept becomes something I don't understand.

When you fly all the way off our collective map of reality, you'll find yourself in the center of a Rorshach test. If you go long enough without some corroboration of your experiences, fantasy or dreamlike material will intrude grossly into your feelings and perceptions of the world. If you're hoping for insights into various mental disorders, this is an invaluable experience.

1861. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54395 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm

At least in part I do that, yes. Why shouldn't I? If it fits, it fits. People (be it in the context of math, or in the context of science, or in the context of searching for a mate) often make a hypothesis and then test it by working backwards to see how well it fits. Working backwards is a big part of reasoning. Come to think of it, working forwards into the unknown hardly ever works.

Fallacy of affirming the consequent.

1862. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54393 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Sharon:

Either people convince themselves that they REALLY know what god wants, or they convince others that they know, with the motivation of gaining personal power over others.

Word.

When God gets His ass in here to speak for Himself, we will all listen politely. Until that day, claims about who or what God is and what God likes or does not like are all hearsay.

Hearsay is the refuge of the scoundrel. I repeat: the scoundrel! Believe me, I've lived long enough to know.

I can forgive hearsay evidence if folks admit that's all they've got, and they're humble, uncertain, and not at all pushy. But when folks make a big fucking "worldview" deal out of hearsay, then I poop on their heads.

Thus is the noble code of the tufted titmouse.

1863. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54369 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Let people sit in a tub of warm water and read the dictionary backwards while rocking from side to side. See where the brain lights up. Then, conclude that this behavior is biologically embedded.

LOL

1864. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54344 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Henri:

That then means that your social contract is founded upon a prior (hidden) morality which states that if you do not agree with and follow the social contract you are being immoral. This is the faith you have, implicitly.

I'm stopping at those three axiomatic imperatives. I'm not arguing that these three statements have any basis other than mutual agreement among persons. I'm defining morality thus, full stop. Nothing is hidden. No circular argument is made. Agreement factually exists, or it does not, and thus no faith is required.

A person who says, "I am entitled to make promises I've no plan to keep" is, by definition, a person not to be taken seriously. Nothing such a person says can be believed.

A person who says, "You may follow the golden rule, but I plan to do you harm," likewise deserves no hearing.

A person who says, "I'm in favor of the destruction of humankind," is in no place to make demands upon us.

So, in principle, one can "opt out" of the social contract. But doing so ends all reasonable discourse. One might as well decide to stop using language --yet another social contract. But good luck arguing your way out of that one.

1865. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #54320 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 11:06 am

Googling Kurt Wise brought me to this page: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4044/

Dawkins places the cut-up Bible story after the PhD. But the essay from the above web-site places it much earlier.

Wise begins the 8th grade looking forward to a science fair event that happens at the end of that year. He devotes the entire school year to an ambitious display illustrating the theory of evolution, with a little help from his dad and his pal Carl. He finishes the grand production a day before the fair opens, and so finds a few minutes to reflect:

Since that day was set aside for last minute corrections and setup, I had nothing to do. So, while the bustle of other students whirred about us, I admitted to my friend Carl (who had joined me in the project in lieu of his own) that I had a problem. When he asked what the problem was I told him that I could not reconcile what I had learned in the project with the claims of the Bible. When Carl asked for clarification, I took out a Bible and read Genesis 1 aloud to him.

Kurt works an entire school year on his evolution project, yet somehow fails to notice the Bible vs. evolution conflict that's divided the US for a hundred years until the day before the fair.

At the end, and after I had explained that the millions of years of evolution did not seem to comport well with the six days of creation, Carl agreed that it did seem like a real problem. As I struggled with this, I hit upon what I thought was an ingenious (and original!) solution to the problem. I said to Carl, "What if the days were millions of years long?" After discussing this for some time, Carl seemed to be satisfied. I was not—at least not completely.

Carl may be a useful plot device, but he's not necessary and he's very stupid. Perhaps he exists to highlight Kurt's superior reasoning skills.

Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.

Wise's pains to take this project seriously contradicts the obvious error he's introducing by cutting out scripture that ought to stay but has to go merely because it's on the reverse of the page being cut.

And why must this heart-wrenching effort happen under the bed sheets by flashlight? Sophomores are generally savvy enough to find privacy someplace with reasonable lighting. The impracticality of managing flashlight, sheets, scissors, and Bible seems another contradiction to the stated dire significance of the task.

In this fashion, night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover. Although the end of the matter seemed obvious pretty early on, I persevered. I continued for two reasons. First, I am obsessive compulsive. Second, I dreaded the impending end. As much as my life was wrapped up in nature at age eight and in science in eighth grade, it was even more wrapped up in science and nature at this point in my life. All that I loved to do was involved with some aspect of science. At the same time, evolution was part of that science and many times was taught as an indispensable part of science. That is exactly what I thought—that science couldn't be without evolution. For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.

Over-dramatized inner conflict is the hallmark of crap writing. And Emo.

The day came when I took the scissors to the very last verse—nearly the very last verse of the Bible. It was Revelation 22:19: "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." It was with trembling hands that I cut out this verse, I can assure you! With the task complete, I was now forced to make the decision I had dreaded for so long.

Now we know why parts of the Bible had to be literally cut out with scissors: to give the phrase "taketh away from the words of the book" a spooky impact. Quite a long walk for a punch line, if you ask me.

With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two.

He spent months hacking away at the book, and suddenly it's too fragile to move?

I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

Wait a minute. He's a high school kid tossing away his dream of a career in science. But then he gets a BA in geology, followed by a PhD in paleontology. That "toss into the fire" was tossing of a different sort --the sort with little to no effect upon the world.

Dawkins: Your title for this article is overly generous. I wouldn't shed any tears for Dr. Wise. He's a con and worse: a truly horrible writer of the purple prose sort. Ugh!

Harvard seems to attract the type, and a few apparently are clever enough to sneak their way into those hallowed halls.

1866. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #54282 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 9:05 am

I'm with pewkatchoo. I'm skeptical of Dr. Wise's character. The scissors story rings a false note to my ear.

It's not easy cutting sentences out of the middle of a piece of paper using scissors. Starting the hole neatly is impossible. An X-Acto knife is a better tool for this, but book binding complicates the effort. You've got to fold the book so the page is isolated, so you can put it over a piece of wood or something like that. Thus you do some violence to the binding.

One would have to be a patient craftsman to chop up a Bible as Wise describes. Most Bibles are printed on thin paper which tears easily. Tiny burrs at the corners of excised windows in the page would likely catch cut-out areas on neighboring pages.

After wasting a Saturday morning on a half dozen pages or so, I know I'd be giving up.

The better solution is obvious: use a highlighter. You can buy markers that aren't so dark they bleed through the page, yet are dark enough to remind you that the marked text is to be omitted.

But with the highlighter method, you can't decorate your return to Jesus story with the particularly poignant image of a Bible falling to pieces in your hands.

In conclusion: let's see this Bible so described. The story must stand as complete bullshit otherwise.

1867. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54269 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:59 am

Henri:

If I do not want to enter the social contract, am I 'wrong'?

I'm not sure what "do not want to enter the social contract means." If it means you refuse explicit, verbal agreement, I think that's of no consequence.

If it means that you act contrary to #1, 2, or 3 in my prior post, they yes, your contrary action would be a wrong action.

1868. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54263 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:37 am

Henri

With regard to the breaking of the circle - you agree then with me!

In seeking agreement, you affirm the contractual nature of morality.

1869. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54262 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:34 am

Henri

Social contract is not morality. The former purports benefits; the latter, facts.

I'm afraid you've lost me. Morality purports facts?

This is the agreement:
1. One ought to keep one's promises. Contracts have no meaning without this imperative.
2. Some version of the golden rule. An ethical foundation must be general enough to apply to everyone.
3. Seek to sustain the survival of humankind and its future generations.

1870. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54258 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:18 am

Henri:

Thus morality is indeed faith, not observation.

Morality can be based upon a social contract, or an agreement, among people. This is not faith.

To say that there is 'good' (morality) because it sustains society, and sustaining society is good, is a vicious circle.

The circle breaks once humankind disappears. No humans, no good or bad.

1871. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54248 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 6:02 am

PaulEmecz:

...you cannot achieve 'ought' however hard you look at the 'is'

You are right. But you can develop a fairly tidy, coherent ethical system with a few axiomatic "oughts." These imperatives don't descend from the mountain. They're more like an agreement or contract among people.

First one: One ought to keep a promise. This imperative is necessary for contracts to have meaning.

Second one: Some version of the golden rule. I like Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Ethical rules must be universal if they are to apply to everyone.

Third one: Value those objectives that appear to best secure the survival of humanity and its future generations. Survival of humankind must be good, for without human beings there can be no morality and this discussion becomes moot.

Social contract ethical systems strike me as fundamentally more honorable than any sort of divine rulebook. Testimony regarding God's will is hearsay, and hearsay is the scoundrel's refuge.

1872. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54241 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 5:34 am

Bizarro:

...nor has dog breeding ever resulted in a product that is more fit than its predecessor.

Fitness is a function of both the organism and its environment. Wolves are not fit as lap dogs. Chihuahuas have them beat in domestic settings.

1873. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54237 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 5:20 am

Henri Bergson

Prove that the statement, "Killing innocent people is wrong", is a fact.

Objectives that appear to sustain human society must be good, for without human society there can be no morals and this discussion becomes moot.

Lawful behavior promotes bonds of trust among people and ought to be encouraged generally. Killing innocent, or lawful citizens, is contrary to this objective.

1874. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54178 by Dr Benway on July 5, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Hi SharonMcT, brave soul... welcome to the fun house!

The better half says it's bedtime for the wee tit.

Ta!

1875. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54177 by Dr Benway on July 5, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Dianelos:

It should be pretty clear the reality as I understand it is much more beautiful than the rather bleak reality of naturalism.

How do you explain the fact that I find your fascist, Big Brother, Daddy-knows-best reality profoundly unjust and unpleasant?

1876. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54074 by Dr Benway on July 5, 2007 at 7:56 am

Shout out to da bluebird: Yo!
Keepin' it real and mindin' da cats...

Dianelos:

The idea is simple: God exhausts all reality but opens experiential space in it for us to exist and exercise our will.

Simple as a holodeck. Got evidence?

Ok, I know... your evidence is "works better" and "with God there are no unsightly gaps or underarm stains."

Advert:

Do people annoy you? Are they not coming round to your way of thinking in a timely fashion? There is a solution...

Get God! With God, you'll find you're right and people who disagree with you are wrong by definition. Tedious struggle to estabish common interests and objectives becomes a thing of the past.

God's moral absolutes will save you the countless hours you once spent listening to the perspectives, feelings, wishes, and needs of others. Just say, "listening to you means morals are relative, and I don't think so, mate. God doesn't make 'relative' rules."

Nothing says, "shut the fuck up" quite like God!

1877. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54058 by Dr Benway on July 5, 2007 at 6:22 am

downunder:

Dear DrBenway, post1052, thanks for your pontifical sanction of my occasional presence on this site. Benedict will be pleased with you.

I strive to be more poop than pope; mayhaps these things converge.

While you are of generous spirit could you please reverse the aspect of the bird in your Avatar?

The wee tit is just but merciful, cruel but kind, candy but breath mint.

It may disappoint you but I am not in the "Good on ya mate" category.

All I know of the land downunder I learned from Men at Work, Bill Bryson, the shrimp-on-the-barbie chap, and the crock hunter. "Vegemite sandwich" ... "that's a knife"... "cricky!"

Further education is welcome.

1878. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53991 by Dr Benway on July 4, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Dianelos:

There are some statistical studies that evidence that religious people have on average happier and more stable lives than non-religious people

Yes, I've heard of those studies and concede that the results may be valid, although I've not examined them. The next step would be to try to tease out what part of religious vs. not religious is causing the happiness and stability.

Perhaps non-believers would be happier if they didn't feel alienated from the dominant culture.

I know I'd feel happier if I didn't have to hide my personal lack of belief in God from family, coworkers, and neighbors.

I'd also feel happier if I didn't see so many news reports about true believers following the will of Allah as revealed in the Quran or the Bible.

1879. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53990 by Dr Benway on July 4, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Subjective experience is discontinuous. It is possible to know something and not know it at the same time. Makes the notion of "I" a bit tricky.

Ramachandran tells of a patient whose right hemisphere professes belief in God while his left hemisphere does not believe. Wonder how St. Peter will sort him out at the pearly gates.

1880. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #53989 by Dr Benway on July 4, 2007 at 5:23 pm

.

I've always found it annoying that atheletes always say "and I'd like to thank God..." it contains the assumption God had some part in helping them win, that the other guys did something to piss Him off.

If you pretend that your imaginary friend ought to get the credit, you don't seem so arrogant. At least to those still mired in doublethink.

1881. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53987 by Dr Benway on July 4, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Dianelos:

"Metaphysics" is a philosophical term that simply means "concerning reality"; one can't very well do without metaphysics.

Hmm. When I was a wee thing, I believe I made me own lunch with no metaphysics. Don't think me pals required no metaphysics neither.

So I must ask: how old must you be before you feel the need for metaphysics?

1882. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53986 by Dr Benway on July 4, 2007 at 4:44 pm

NLHB:

TGD on CD is ACE! You get to hear all the inflexions that Professor Dawkins WANTS you to read. I highly recommend it.

Yes, the voices add a light hearted feeling. I like the way Dawkins says, "That's an argument?!" and "barking mad."

Don't you think it would be fun to have the Dawkins' over for an evening? Maybe to watch "Meaning of Life" or something.

1883. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #53977 by Dr Benway on July 4, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Vinelectric:

Problem is that the same Islamic ideology motivates others to charity and other humane activities.

True. Debate over the good vs. evil done in the name of religion may lead nowhere.

I do think we ought to hold people to account for their intentions. Treatment of non-believers and homosexuals is a good test. If the believer has a holy book, we ought to point out the bits that put the infidels and queers at a disadvantage. We say, "what's up with that?"

If they say, well that's what God wants. Then we poop upon their heads.

If they say, oh that's backward thinking we don't follow any longer, we say "ok then."

1884. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53866 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 5:12 pm

PaulEmecz:

Wouldn't it actually be better science to present the two possible explanations, as fully as possible, using all of the relevant observations, rather than saying "You'll never prove one way or the other what caused the universe and all its laws to come into existence" and pretending that it therefore wasn't a scientific question?

It's a bold claim, that we'll never prove one way or the other what caused the universe. Doesn't seem a necessary claim for a scientist to make.

If someone can present a creationist hypothesis in a manner that lends itself to scientific study, that would be quite interesting.

Either there is or is not a creator. Given we can't prove it either way...

We can't prove that there is no creator. But we might prove there is a creator. Second coming of Jesus would do it, for example.

1885. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53810 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 10:18 am

kkant:

Umm, no. You're not getting it. You can still think of genocide as being absolutely wrong, and be an atheist.

We need a definition of "absolute."

If "absolutely wrong" means "really, really wrong," I'll buy that.

If "absolutely wrong" means "wrong for everyone in all times and places, end of discussion," I have to question that. Why must we insist upon a position that removes any form of discussion from the table?

It's difficult to imagine a situation weird enough to justify genocide. Nonetheless, at the heart of morality is the impulse to respect the personhood of others. Thus saying, "there can be no discussion about this" seems a fundamentally immoral act to me.

I think we can use something like the anthropic principle to develop a basis for morality. If human society depends upon people generally valuing certain objectives, those objectives must be good. For if there is no human society, there can be no morality and this debate becomes moot.

1886. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53791 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 6:56 am

rokort:

Art is a language like any other. It can state the truth or it can be held to facilitate spectacular lies.

Agreed. Bad art kills people. Particularly bad acting, I think.

Dawkins is married to an actor, isn't he? Wonder if she'd back me up on this.

1887. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53790 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

konquererz:

And he doesn't hold a minority opinion, you would just like to think that...

So you assume.

1888. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53787 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 6:31 am

downunder:

Come on, don't start another endless debate, give me your answers, not your arguments.

Sir, if you make it to 80 years with most of your marbles still in the bag, you've a right to tell us how to behave. As often and as heartily as it suits you. We can only look upon your success with envy and hope. We can only say, "Good on ya, mate!"

1889. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53785 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 6:19 am

Dianelos:

So this distinction is useful to know, because, as in my case, it's possible to believe in methodological naturalism without believing in metaphysical naturalism too. But I don't see how I may be confusing the two.

Forgive me for feeling confused then. I can't always tell from context when you say "naturalism" if you mean scientific naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. It seems like you usually mean metaphysical naturalism, but you slide into scientific naturalism from time to time.

To get in the metaphysical game, you simply have to avoid contradicting observations of the natural world, and you must be coherent. Materialism and solipsism both succeed at this.

Your theism strikes me as a modified solipsism. Nothing is real but the mind of God. God is the writer and director of the play you find yourself within. In that sense, it is not Dr Benway but actually God who is writing the words you're reading now. God does this to challenge you to be more virtuous. This notion is "ethically empowering" for you.

I'm a scientific naturalist interested in things I can prove or disprove. For me, metaphysics is off the table. So if you're arguing against metaphysical naturalism, I've no argument with you.

Now, you've offered an observation that might lend itself to scientific study: you find that theism "works better." But you've not yet proposed any details that might form the basis for a real study.

If it's possible to translate "works better" into something like crime rates, survival rates, or depression rates between theists and non-theists, you may have a viable way to prove your point.

I think you may want to qualify your theism somehow, as many theists are scary and you wouldn't want their ideas handicapping the theist side of the study.

1890. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53777 by Dr Benway on July 3, 2007 at 5:28 am

PaulEmecz:

The Bishop was wrong.

Wrong about homosexuality? Wrong for holding a minority opinion? Wrong for claiming he knows the mind of God? How was he wrong?

1891. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53710 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 6:53 pm

From Wikipedia:

Metaphysical naturalism is most commonly distinguished from methodological naturalism (*scientific naturalism) which refers to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside science.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with what exists beyond what has already been established by science, so metaphysical naturalism refers to a belief about the totality of what exists. Methodology, however, is only the means by which knowledge is acquired. Thus, metaphysical naturalism entails the belief that nature is in fact all that exists, while methodological naturalism entails the belief that for one reason or another empirical methods will only ascertain natural facts, whether supernatural facts exist or not.

The concept of "nature" embraced by contemporary metaphysical naturalists excludes by definition gods, spirits, and any other supernatural beings, objects, or forces. There are many different varieties of metaphysical naturalism, but all can be separated into two general categories, physicalism and pluralism. Physicalism entails the claim that everything everyone has observed or claimed to observe is in actual fact the product of fundamentally mindless arrangements or interactions of matter-energy in space-time, and therefore it is unreasonable to believe anything else exists. Pluralism (which includes dualism) adds to this the existence of fundamentally mindless things besides matter-energy in space-time (such as reified abstract objects).

What all metaphysical naturalists agree on, however, is that the fundamental constituents of reality, from which everything derives and upon which everything depends, are fundamentally mindless. So if any variety of metaphysical naturalism is true, then any mental properties that exist (hence any mental powers or beings) are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of nonmental properties, powers, or things. This means metaphysical naturalism would be false if any distinctly mental property, power, or entity exists that is not ontologically dependent on some arrangement of nonmental things, or that is not causally derived from some arrangement of nonmental things, or that has causal effects without the involvement of any arrangement of nonmental things that is already causally sufficient to produce that effect.

In lay terms, if metaphysical naturalism is true, then all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena; if metaphysical naturalism is false, then some minds, or some of the contents or powers or effects of minds, are causally independent of nature (either they partly or wholly cause themselves, or they exist or operate fundamentally on their own). Belief in the latter entails some form of supernaturalism (the opposite of naturalism), which is not limited to supernatural beings, but can encompass mindless things with distinctly mental properties, like magical objects (see magic and incantation) or causally efficacious Platonic Forms or the existence of Love as a cosmic force.

Finally, it should be noted that the relationship between metaphysical and methodological naturalism is not one-dimensional and varies among individual thinkers. To understand this relationship, two varieties of methodological naturalism should be distinguished. Absolute methodological naturalism is the view that it is in some sense impossible for any empirical method to discover supernatural facts, even if there are some; this is compatible with (but does not entail) the view that something other than empirical methods might be able to discover supernatural facts. Contingent methodological naturalism entails the belief that, judging from past experience, empirical methods are far more likely to uncover natural facts than supernatural ones, so that it is generally an ill-advised waste of resources to pursue supernatural hypotheses, but it would not be impossible to confirm them empirically if any were true. With all this understood, every metaphysical naturalist will be either a contingent methodological naturalist or an absolute methodological naturalist, but not all methodological naturalists are metaphysical naturalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

*My insert. I'm a physician, not a metaphysician. I don't give a rat's ass for anyone's "worldview." I'm content with scientific naturalism and don't feel the need to marry myself to a particular metaphysical point of view.

1892. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53708 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Dianelos:

Well, the basis of my belief is that after applying several criteria, including objective criteria, I find that my theistic worldview works better than naturalism in each case. Fundamentalists' basis of their belief in the Bible. Do you think the two bases are comparable? In fact can you suggest any other reasonable basis for deciding one's worldview than the one I used?

If you claimed that you found a particular kind of motor oil that seems to work better in you car, I'd have no problem with you. But you make a claim about God. That's the most serious claim a man can make. As you've noted, what happens in this life is relatively trivial in comparison to the eternal relationship we each have with God (allegedly).

The fact that your claim seem relatively nice is irrelevant. The mere fact that you make any claim at all means that others can do likewise. Others with a different psychology, and a different sense of God's will.

I might accept a claim regarding God's will if someone could provide me with convincing evidence to back up that claim. So far, you certainly haven't done that. Frankly, your "works better for me" wouldn't even convince me to buy your favorite brand of motor oil.

The fundamentalists say the Bible or the Koran are the literal word of God because things "work better" for believers. That's not evidence. That's nothing more than the usual vague, personal feeling stuff that people like to call "faith."

You've no right to claim you know the mind of God. Each time you say that, implicitly or explicitly, you extend permission to others to say the same thing, using the same lousy basis of "works for me."

Surely you are not saying that wars happen all the time because of theism...

I'm talking about this "war on terror," which must be perpetual because "terror" isn't something anyone can defeat. This isn't the atheists' war. It's the theists' war. So much for your "works better."

1893. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53686 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Very nice, Corylus.

1894. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53681 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Dianelos:

So, as is the case of most understanding, we build levels of abstraction, which can each be reduced to the level immediately bellow...

And vice-versa.

Not long ago someone told me a story: she was visiting a religious relative. She said something about a pretty bird singing outside the window. The relative said, "That's Jesus saying hello to you."

For some, everything reduces to atoms. For others, everything reduces to Jesus.

1895. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53668 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 1:06 pm

J:

I suppose, though, it's worth thinking that the physical 'laws' of our universe precede and shape the rise of chemical, and later biological, complexity.

Time bigot.

Being a wave function, I preceded the set of atoms that now make up my body. Although they preceded me as well.

1896. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53655 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 12:18 pm

J:

Though I suppose it's hard to argue with the physical reality of a sabre tip...

True. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but only when the sword's not in the room.

1897. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53650 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 11:58 am

J:

It's a bit like the observation that biology is (sort of) a specialism within chemistry, and chemistry is (sort of) a specialism within physics, and they're all fields within the larger exploration that is Science.

I might nest my Russian dolls the opposite way: atoms (physics) within molecules (chemistry) within organisms (biology) etc.

Subatomic forces move molecules; but so do birds. So does love.

Atoms don't "explain" love anymore than love "explains" the movement of atoms. Everything happens at once.

Ultimately, we will understand why the tufted titmouse is incurably addicted to mooning RD site thread visitors.

Thats not a moon.... ***scampers off, scampers back*** That's a moon!

1898. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53609 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 8:35 am

J:

If you know what every one of those atoms is doing, how it relates to all of the other atoms in the bird, how the atoms of the bird interact with those outside the bird, what forces act upon those atoms and what other things the atoms effect, I think you can.

I disagree only with the relative emphasis of your statement, which seems to imply causation is best understood at the atomic level.

If I know an atom's location and I can see the forces acting upon it, I may be able to predict where it's going next. If I see many atoms in a twig about to be picked up by a nesting bird, I also can predict where those atoms will move next.

It's fair to say reality ought to be consistent with itself at both the atomic and the ethological levels. But neither level is more causal or more "real" than the other.

1899. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53587 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 6:13 am

J:

I suggest that naturalism, taken to a its ultimate extreme, would indeed suggest an entirely mechanical understanding of even epeeist's example.

Well. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. You can't understand and describe the behavior of a bird by looking at its atoms.

A scientific naturalist is under no obligation to claim anything about "ultimate" reality. He merely needs to offer evidence others can corroborate.

1900. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53583 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 5:58 am

Where is the friendly afternoon tea Church of England that Eddie Izzard described as the "cake or death" crowd?