251. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31899 by Janus on April 14, 2007 at 10:36 pm

This article is a fine example of anti-science mentality, albeit in a more subtle form than the crass kind we see in creationists. Instead of dismissing science entirely, this fellow accepts the importance of scientific facts in policy-making and the like, but completely ignores the deeper goal of science. Science isn't just about accumulating a bunch of useful facts about the universe, it's about rational inquiry, it's about intellectual honesty, it's about curiosity, it's about understanding and knowledge and the quest for truth.

People like Prof. Nisbet want us to accept the end result of science, they want everyone to acknowledge the bunch of useful facts we end up with, but they don't give a crap about how we discovered those facts, they don't care about the web of understanding that ties all of these useful facts together, they don't care about rationality and skepticism and intellectual honesty. Individuals who agree with the article's message would be entirely satisfied if every American just nodded his head when asked if he believes in evolution and global warming. But, unless you're a sheep, it's not enough to accept the facts, you also have to understand why you should accept the facts. WHY is evolution true? WHY is global warming a reality? WHY is it rational to believe in the conclusions of science? WHY, if you're interested in the truth, is it a good idea to be a skeptic instead of a faith-head? Scientists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers want people to be able to answer questions like these, and short-term thinkers like Nisbet are standing in their way.

And you know what, even if we agreed with Prof. Nisbet that it's perfectly OK to leave millions of people in their current delusional, sheep-like, intellectually-stunted state, I don't think his tactic of only aiming at making the facts accepted would work. When you're trying to get rid of an ant infestation, what's the smart strategy? Just standing outside the nest and stomping on the ants as they come out? Or leaving poison nearby so as to kill the ant queen, the source of the infestation?

The truth is that there IS a conflict between the scientific method and religion, between rationality and faith. Creationists don't deny evolution because scientists have presented evolution as being anti-God (quite the contrary). Creationists deny evolution because they've been indoctrinated since birth to place their religious faith ahead of the facts, to believe in a litteral interpretation of Genesis no matter what the evil secular liberals say, and to never, ever question what mommy, daddy, and the local pastor have taught them. Abrahamic religion is the cause of creationism, and of a good deal of the anti-GW movement. Does anyone seriously believe that if the Bible and Christian tradition said absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe and of the human species, that 50% of Americans would still be creationists?

So let's not waste any more time stomping on the ants. Just repeating the facts again and again, no matter how attractively they're worded, no matter how seductively they're presented, can only have temporary benefits (if any). It's time to go for the ant queen; it's time to erradicate faith itself.

252. We'd be better off without Religion

Comment #31078 by Janus on April 10, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Anyone else find Ruth Glendhill's review of the event induced an urge to bang one's head on one's desk?

Yes.

253. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29429 by Janus on April 2, 2007 at 10:53 pm

Well, that was a complete waste of my time.

Please tell me she doesn't get paid to write this crap.

254. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #28871 by Janus on March 31, 2007 at 12:15 pm

*laughs* Humanity is so f*cking screwed.

255. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28549 by Janus on March 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm

"I love that the final "comment" was Professor Dawkins having a quiet chuckle in the background, at the obvious absurdity of McGrath's final statement."

LOL, I heard that. Sometimes all you can do is laugh.

256. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #27981 by Janus on March 27, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Good. Anything that makes the Pope look like a fundy nut is a good thing.

257. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27639 by Janus on March 25, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Happy birthday, Professor!

Thank you for being an inspiration to us unbelievers for all these years.




- Janus

258. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27613 by Janus on March 25, 2007 at 4:39 pm

The argument usually goes that since God is defined as the designer and creator of the universe, he must have been able to hold in His mind the concept of the universe before actually creating it, therefore He must be at least as complex (and probably more) than the universe.

But anyway, it really doesn't matter whether you can compare the complexity of the universe to that of God. The point is that God, being an intelligent being, must be at least somewhat complex, and therefore cannot be the ultimate explanation for complexity. Even if He is less complex than the universe, we still need to explain God. And since God is by definition the cause of Everything except itself, God refutes the theistic assumption that complex things cannot "just exist" (and therefore require a Designer); if this assumption is false, if a complex being like God can "just exist", then why can't the universe "just exist"? It no more needs a designer than God does. Logically speaking, God is therefore either non-existent (if complex entities cannot "just exist") or superfluous (if they can).

259. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27313 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Andrew has posted a message that has some relevance to the debate: a link to an essay by a theistic scientist about science and religious belief:

"Sam Harris and I aren't the only ones debating and blogging about this eternal subject. A new blog has a new post on the subject.
http://www.waagnfnp.com/2007/03/21/science-and-belief/ "


I've started a thread on the subject in the RD forums:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11259

260. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27270 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm

gimlibengloin wrote:
"Its not clear as to how the multiverse theory solves the problem becuase they're exists no causal relation between myriads of other universes and our own universe. Ultimately the multiverse theory says that the universe is the result of chance but considering the number of trial runs it could conceivably happen. But chance is still the absense of an explanation.

On the other hand God does explain because as acknowledged by Dawkins living organisms give every appearance of having been designed by an intelligence. Therefore the creator hypothesis is a perfect fit with the facts."

The multiverse solves the problem of initial complexity because our universe, at its "beginning", was relatively simple; in fact, if some theoretical physicists are correct, it was fundamentally simple. Therefore all that still needs to be explained is why our universe has the kind of complexity it does, why the laws that govern it are those described by our theories (as opposed to other, imaginary theories). The multiverse hypothesis answers that last question. So complexity in general is explained, as is our universe's so-called fine-tuning.

On the other hand, God, defined as the uncaused designer and creator of Everything That Exists except itself, doesn't explain anything. Explaining something means describing the behavior of an entity in terms of simpler entities. Explaining a complex entity (the universe) by saying it was made by another complex entity (God) is an intermediate explanation at best, not an ultimate one. Let's say, for example, that we want to explain the origin of the first proto-cells on Earth. What would you think of someone who explains them by saying they were created by alien bio-engineers who came to Earth in their space-ships billions of years ago? That person may be right, but he hasn't explained much. He may have explained the origin of life on Earth, but he obviously hasn't explained the origin of life, period.

Likewise, saying God made our universe universe may explain the complexity of our universe, but it doesn't explain complexity, period. By appealing to the God hypothesis you're only pushing back the real problem, just as the person who appealed to alien bio-engineers did. It doesn't solve anything. The only way to truly explain complexity, to truly explain _everything_ is to come up with a real explanation: An explanation that describes the origin and behavior of everything in terms of fundamentally simple entities. Theories like those of Paul Davies (Google him) combined with the multiverse hypothesis do just that.

And by the way, chance isn't the absence of an explanation. Chance is a perfectly good explanation for why I got a '6' three times in a row when throwing a six-sided dice. Chance can be a _bad_ explanation when the odds are astronomically bad against a certain outcome, certainly, like it is in the case of lifeforms more complex than relatively simple self-replicating molecules, hence why natural selection is necessary.

An absence of an explanation (i.e. a hypothesis with no explanatory power) amounts to saying that complexity "just is", or "simply exists". For example, saying that the human species and all animals on Earth "just exist" would be a cop-out, obviously. Complexity begs for an explanation. Likewise, saying that God "just exists" is a cop-out, because God, by definition, has designed the universe, and must therefore be very intelligent indeed, and intelligence must be complex, again by definition.

Design cannot be the ultimate explanation for Everything That Exists, because it's explaining complexity by appealing to complexity. Chance might be the ultimate explanation, if the odds are good enough. If they aren't good enough, a complexity-generating process such as natural selection must be involved. It's the only true solution to the problem of complexity.

And now, after reading your latest post, I see that you're a creationist, which makes me very sorry I wasted my time replying to you. Ah well.

261. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27230 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Well, planets beyond the solar system have been discovered, yes. According to wikipedia, 215 extrasolar planets have been found so far, with our limited means. It's not much of a stretch to induce that there must be many, many more, since we have a good idea of how many stars there are in the observable universe.

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

262. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27222 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 pm

That billions of planets exist is a fact. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of superfluous entities. Things that we know exist aren't superfluous, by definition.

As for multiple universes, while it's not an entirely stupid argument that they're just as superfluous as God, the multiverse hypothesis has the advantage of actually solving the problem of the universe's initial complexity. It has "explanatory power", as Atkins says. God has none whatsoever.

263. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27213 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Keith, he probably means that the light that was leaving the stars _at that moment_ would take hundreds of years to reach Earth, i.e. he was seeing those stars as they were hundreds of years ago.

264. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27150 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 9:42 am

Atkins is brilliant, his explanations are always perfectly clear.

265. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26837 by Janus on March 21, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Well, I have to admit Andrew is honest with his readers. Not with himself, but with his readers, definitely.

His latest comment about the "blogalogue":

"Yes, and this will probably become more explicit as we continue talking. Reasoning about faith is a paradox. Some readers have asked when I'm simply going to surrender to Sam. Well: in many ways I have surrendered. I'm fascinated by what reason can illuminate about faith - and have found Sam's arguments enriching to my own faith. But I can no more be reasoned out of faith than I was reasoned into it. I really have no choice in the matter. But I hope to understand it better and to see it in the truest light possible."

266. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26824 by Janus on March 21, 2007 at 8:54 pm

gelf wrote:

"Dawkins needs to think about the consequences about what he is proposing and whether he really is offering something better......But I guess scientists are arrogantly above the consequences of their actions. Just because you can prove the entire religious basis for a sciety wrong does not mean that your replacement is superior nor does it make your point of view correct."

You're right that showing that religion is nonsense doesn't make our "replacement" superior, but it does make our point of view correct, unless of course we were to believe that it is morally acceptable to let people delude themselves and organize their lives and the lives of their children around myths and fables. Since I think most of us are of the opinion that it is not morally acceptable, it really doesn't matter whether religious belief is superior to disbelief on a societal level.

But anyway, it's silly to even consider the possibility that religion is necessary to maintain a stable society. It seems obvious to me that countries where the majority of people are non-religious, such as Norway, Sweden, and Japan, are doing quite well.

267. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #26629 by Janus on March 20, 2007 at 6:29 pm

"The author of this should give some consideration to the "genetic" fallacy - the mistake of appraising the worth of ideas based on where they came from or originated, instead of on the merits or demerits of the ideas themselves. How morality developed has little or nothing to do with issues of what is moral or immoral behavior."


You're absolutely right, of course. To say that biologists have more to say about morality than moral philosophers is total nonsense. Biologists can tell us about the origin and nature of our moral sense, but morality is the business of philosophy, if it's the business of any discipline.

Theologians never had anything worthwhile to say about morality in the first place.

268. Stephen interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali author of Infidel

Comment #26171 by Janus on March 17, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Thank you nine9s, I had read something like that, but I'd forgotten most of it.

Your last sentence is probably right on the money.

269. Stephen interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali author of Infidel

Comment #26168 by Janus on March 17, 2007 at 11:36 am

My guess is that she wasn't offered that many jobs, and she took the best one available to her. *shrug*

270. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25974 by Janus on March 15, 2007 at 10:39 pm

"Moreover, if you are going to have a conversation with a committed theist, I don't think you could have asked for a more sincere interlocutor than Sullivan has been here."


True, but he's only sincere by _theistic_ standards. Dishonesty and self-deception rule the religious mind.

271. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25511 by Janus on March 13, 2007 at 11:42 pm

The more I hear and read the thoughts of devoutly religious people, the more convinced I become that within every single one of their minds exists a core of insanity. By "devoutly religious people", I mean moderate and fundamentalist believers who have thought long and hard about their beliefs, who have questioned them, evaluated them, and ended up still believing in the truth of their religion.

These people aren't just irrational, they are, in one way or another, utterly disconnected from logic and reality.

The human mind can be a scary thing.

272. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23589 by Janus on March 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Well, the thread I've posted above is pretty long, so here's the heart of my (small) contribution. I don't feel comfortable copy/pasting the posts of other people.




(about Plantinga's assertion that God is simple because theologians define Him as such):

Theologians also say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "one, but distinct". Does that mean we should simply accept this without argument and move on?

Yes, it's their belief, so we have to accept what they tell us about their God, but only as long as their description remains logical, and consistent with what we know about the universe.

A truly simple entity would be perfectly homogenous, and would do nothing except exist. A fundamental particle such as an electron is probably a good example. Not only is it not made of parts, there is nothing going on inside the electron. A single electron, isolated from everything else, won't do anything. It needs other particles (and space bigger than itself) to interact with in order to have a function.

A mind can't logically be simple in that sense, because one of the defining characteristics of "mind" is that it can keep thinking even without stimuli, even in complete isolation. A mind, by definition, does more than exist.
Also, a mind is a process, which means that at the very least it or parts of it must be able to shift from one state to another, and it must include data storage of some kind (what we call memory); both of these things necessitate complexity.

The notion that a mind can be simple dates back to a time when no one had any idea how a mind works and what a mind is. That some people haven't caught up in the 21st century is no excuse to still think of a mind as some sort of fuzzy ghost-like thing.


(about Plantinga's assertion that God can't be said to be _improbable_):

I agree that this part of Dawkins' argument is flawed, so I won't defend it. God can't be said to be improbable in the same sense that getting a total of 18 when throwing three dice is improbable. This is definitely The God Delusion's greatest weakness.


(about Plantinga's arguments against the multiverse hypothesis):

First: I don't see why it's so "striking" that the universal constants have the values they have, if there is a multiverses. The hypothesis states that there are lots of universes, most not favorable to life, some favorable, and by the anthropic principle we have to be one of the favorable universes, since we're here talking about it. What's the problem? Unlike the God hypothesis, the multiverse hypothesis only necessitates the positing of things similar to a thing that we know is possible because we know it exists: a universe. And also, if we accept that complex things require explanations, the multiverse hypothesis puts an end to the infinite regress of "This complex thing (the universe) must have been created by a complex intelligence (God), but then this complex intelligence must have been created by another complex intelligence, etc." As far as we know, a universe at its "beginning" is a relatively simple thing (perhaps fundamentally simple). Once the fine-tuning has been explained, the regress is ended.

Second, I find it hilarious that Plantinga can say something like, "It still seems striking that these constants should have just the values they do have; it is still monumentally improbable, given chance, that they should have just those values".

Monumentally improbable? And here I thought that something can only be said to be improbable if the arrangement of particles or parts it's made of is extremely unlikely? What "parts" are the so-called laws that rule universe made of, pray tell? If chance and improbability don't apply to God, what makes you think they apply to the universe as a whole (as opposed to what's in it)?

If you believe that complex entities like God can "just exist", then God is superfluous. The universe can just as easily "just exist", and we don't need to explain its so-called fine-tuning.


(summary of my position):

A mind is complex by definition, therefore explaining complexity by saying it was designed by a complex intelligence isn't an explanation at all, and if a mind can "just exist", than so can the universe, and we don't need God (or the multiverse) to explain its fine-tuning.

Either God doesn't exist, or he exists and he's superfluous.


(my counter-argument to a poster's argument that it's not possible to speculate about the nature of God's mind):
Posted by Philo_66:
Let me see, God does not exist, but if he did he'd have to be really really complex. Huh? If that ain't just more theology, I don't know what theology is. Such a belief certainly isn't based on empirical evidence. Show me the God that is so complex.

I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about minds. It's theists who define God as an intelligent entity, not me. I'm just taking the definition as it's given to me.

Posted by philo_66:
To refute by saying "show me the simple God then" is just confirming the emptiness of your own argument. If it can't be believed because it can't be shown, then there's no reason to believe the "complex God" theory either.

Actually, it's "show me a simple mind, then". Or even, "describe to me how a simple mind would work, conceptually". Or even, "define the word 'mind' in such a way that it doesn't imply complexity".






So, basically, I agree that Dawkins is wrong about God's improbability, but the fact remains that God is a much worse explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe than the multiverse. Even if God exists, he's not needed to explain anything. As Dawkins himself has said, "At the very least, I have turned the theistic fine-turning argument on its head". So he has.

273. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23582 by Janus on March 1, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Here's a fairly good discussion of Plantinga's points at the Internet Infidels discussion boards:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=198169

274. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23316 by Janus on February 27, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Okay, I watched it all, and I have to say that that last line, "What's so special about belief?" was bloody brilliant. I still love you, Professor! :D

275. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23312 by Janus on February 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I couldn't watch past the first minute. I'm sorry, but to say that labelling children is child abuse is such complete nonsense. What harm does mere _labelling_ do?

It can be said that teaching certain religious beliefs to children is child abuse (Hell, for instance), and there are beliefs that will foster divisiveness when these children grow up (the doctrine that your scripture, or your interpretation of scripture is the only true one, for example). But it's the actual beliefs that do harm, not the labelling. Why does Professor Dawkins keep insisting on the labelling? It's one of his weakest arguments.

276. Faith

Comment #23029 by Janus on February 26, 2007 at 12:02 am

No you wouldn't. And in your eyes that would be impossible. Because if anyone disagrees with your faith then by definition they must be resorting to lies, strawmen and misrepresentation. There have been numerous articles which have ripped TGD to shreds. But the believers still keep the faith.

I have read a few negative comments about TGD (and what Dawkins says in general) that I either agree with, or that I disagree with but recognize as not entirely worthless/dishonest. However, these comments are always found in relatively neutral articles that contain positive _and_ negative comments. Lawrence Krauss' review of TGD comes to mind.

I'd be curious to see an example of a review which you think has "ripped TGD to shreds". Just one.

But the trouble is that under the guise of 'moderate' atheism the [forthright atheists] flourish!

I fucking wish. Unfortunately the reverse seems to be true.



EDIT: Ohhh, I missed this little gem:

In the 20th Century Stalin encouraged his troops to committ suicide in the name of atheism.

Can you support this claim?

277. Faith

Comment #23021 by Janus on February 25, 2007 at 11:45 pm

Janus: "forthright" is a good word.

LMAO! Okay, I like it.

278. Faith

Comment #23018 by Janus on February 25, 2007 at 11:33 pm

I'm not sure its a good idea for folks to call themselves "militant aheists" as it suggests an extremism that few atheists have.

You're right, of course. I used the word "militant" to specify that I was talking about atheists who critique religion and try to promote reason, like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and most of us who frequent this website. I agree that "militant" suggests extremism and aggresiveness, and so may not be the ideal adjective.

The problem is that I don't see what other word I can use.

279. Faith

Comment #23014 by Janus on February 25, 2007 at 10:47 pm

I'd love to see a negative article on Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or militant atheism in general that doesn't resort to lies, strawmen, and misrepresentations.

It would make it easier for me to believe that people who "disagree with me" aren't profoundly dishonest.

280. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22957 by Janus on February 25, 2007 at 12:03 am

I have no idea. Good article though.

281. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22701 by Janus on February 21, 2007 at 1:22 am

That was great!

It must take guts to give this kind of presentation where you live. Keep up the good work.

282. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22667 by Janus on February 20, 2007 at 12:40 pm

I like it. In previous essays, Sam has gotten Andrew to admit the baselessness of his beliefs, and he has already written about the positive value of reason. All that's left to do is give a solid refutation of every point Sullivan has made, which is exactly what he's done in this latest essay.

EDIT: Um, I'm talking about Sam's 20/02/2007 essay, which was posted below. The post order is still screwy, apparently.

283. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22613 by Janus on February 19, 2007 at 11:23 pm

stpetes,

There is nothing "self-contradictory" about the declaration if you take the entire thing into account, instead of reading it one sentence at a time while ignoring the rest. For example, if you molest children you obviously shouldn't have "equal treatment" because you're a criminal. To interpret the equal treatment part of the declaration otherwise is just silly.

As for your repeated objections of "What about racism?" and "What about anti-semitism?" Um, yes, that's what freedom of speech and belief is about. Until a racist discriminates or resorts to violence, of course he should be allowed to have his beliefs and to express them. I'm aware that many European countries currently prohibit "hate speech", and I think that does contradict freedom of speech.

284. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22601 by Janus on February 19, 2007 at 7:51 pm

EDIT: Ummm, yeah, the post order is, indeed, wacky.

The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me. You attack religion, but then borrow its ideals and claim them for your own.

The tendency of Christians to claim ideals which are found nowhere in the Bible as their own is much more astonishing, and hypocritical.

Worth is a meaningless concept unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth. A well-cut diamond is worth ten thousand dollars only because we say it is worth that much. A pure-bred grey-hound is worth nine hundred dollars only because we say it is. Diamonds do not give themselves their own worth; they are inanimate objects incapable of thinking or logic. Likewise, dogs cannot ascribe their own value to themselves because that would contradict the very nature of value.

You arbitrarily define worth as "meaningless unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth", which is clearly begging the question, and you think your argument is sound?

All it takes for something to have worth is for a conscious intelligent entity to believe it has worth. Why would that entity need to be "higher" to pass judgement on another entity? And what does "higher" mean, anyway? You imply that a dog is higher than a diamond, and a human is higher than a dog. Does "higher" mean more intelligent, then? Would someone like Bertrand Russel (who had an estimated IQ of 180) have the right to judge a mentally retarded person's worth, while a similarly retarded person wouldn't have that right?

It doesn't really matter, anyway. "Worth" is an entirely subjective concept; that is, it only exists in an intelligent entity's mind. Why would God's idea of my worth be better than my own? Because he's much more intelligent than me? Because he's omnipotent? Why would those things matter? A subjective judgement can't be "better" than another one, precisely because it's subjective.

Dogs can't ascribe their own value to themselves because (as far as we know), they can't ascribe value to anything, because they're not intelligent enough. Humans are intelligent enough to ascribe value, however.

Worth is subjective no matter who's doing the ascribing, be it God or us 'lowly' humans. And even if it wasn't, since none of us know anything about God, not even if it exists, there is no way for us to know what God thinks has worth, assuming God thinks _anything_ has worth.

Now, what if I say that you are worthless? Well, then you may be able to argue that most of the world does not share my opinion. But what if it did?

That a concept is subjective doesn't mean it's meaningless. In my mind, intelligent life has worth. Some people agree with me; that means I can have a discussion with them because we have this belief in common. Other people disagree; that means there can be no discussion about this topic and related ones. The Brussels Declaration has a good chance of being well received because many people do in fact share the subjective beliefs written in it. I don't see what the problem is.

Slavery, genocide, murder: all of these atrocities arise because the perpetrator's concept of "worth" is skewed.

Are you, presumably a religious person, actually claiming that slavery, genocide, and murder arose because of moral subjectivism?

Open a history book sometime.

But anyway, how do you know that a person's concept of worth is "skewed"? Because it's not what's written in your favorite holy book? Ignoring the fact that the Bible endorses slavery, how would you convince someone with a skewed concept of worth that his concept is skewed? Because, you know, one nice characteristic of objective reality is that consensus can be reached about its nature. Anyone who knows anything about biology will admit that all living beings are either cells, or composed of cells. Someone who doubts that can be convinced by showing her the evidence. What evidence can you show us to demonstrate that, for example, homosexuality is a sin?

Forgive me for sounding snoody, but this one just makes me laugh. If by "comprehensive education" they mean forcing secular humanist dogma down children's throats, then they seriously need to look up the word "comprehensive". If by "education" they mean stifling any inquiry whatsoever into a logically unjustified claim being touted as science, then they also need to look up the word "education".

I would guess that by "education" they mean teaching the facts, and the methods by which one can discover more facts. I think most secular humanists would oppose the teaching of morality (of the humanist kind or otherwise) in schools, except perhaps for the kind of morality which is an essential part of any modern democracy: Freedom, human rights, the golden rule, etc.

I don't know what you mean by "a logically unjustified claim being touted as science". Secular humanists are certainly opposed to "stifling inquiry". We are also opposed to the promotion of pseudo-science, if that's what you mean.

I could point out a number of flaws here, but I would like to concentrate on the usage of the word "science". I've noticed that atheists really like to muddy the waters by using the word "science" interchangeably in the context of past events and present, repeatable events, therefore clouding the distinction between historical science and empirical science. This is also the fallacy of equivocation. Atheists like Dawkins tend to talk about the science that gave us the cellular phone and helped us discover the laws of thermodynamics, and then talk about microbe-to-man evolution in the same context, as if it somehow carried the same amount of certainty and authority inherent within empirical science.

The distinction is irrelevant in this context. What is determined to be true in a historical science is determined empirically. The genetic codes of all living species are available to us right here, right now, and can be examined and experimented with empirically. The same goes for fossils. All of the experiments that could have falsified evolution (and the Big Bang, and various other things) are just as repeatable as those that could have falsified quantum theory.

From these experiments we can draw conclusions about what happened in the past; that doesn't make them any less empirical.

285. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22330 by Janus on February 14, 2007 at 9:01 pm

Sullivan is not only passionately imbibing from a shit-stained glass, the crap is overflowing and he is drowning in a sea of merde.

Bwahahahahahaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Brilliant. :D

286. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22319 by Janus on February 14, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Sullivan is going to make me lose what little faith I have left in humanity.


The first half of his latest essay rests on the assumption that because all beliefs are based on "contingencies", trying to make our inquiry into truth contingency-free is impossible. Therefore, we might as well embrace these contingencies to the fullest and believe whatever we like! If it's impossible to drink from a clean glass, might as well drink from the dirtiest glass we have, right?

The obvious flaw in Sullivan's reasoning is that just because it's not possible to be completely free of contingencies, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get rid of as many of them as we possibly can. Our glass may not be _perfectly_ clean, but that's no reason to drink from a shit-stained goblet.


In the second half of his essay, Sullivan conveniently forgets about his admission that he can't justify his beliefs, and attempts to provide evidence. This doesn't surprise me; I've yet to meet a person, even a mentally ill person, who is perfectly at ease with the idea that his beliefs have no justification whatsoever. No matter how honest a theist appears to be at first, no matter how easily he accepts the accusation that his faith is no better than a guess, if you keep pushing and pushing until he's stuck into a logical corner, he'll eventually show his true colors and admit he can't really acknowledge that his belief is the crassest sort of blind faith.

Fundamentalists are ignorant, and often willfully ignorant, but in a way they're more honest than moderates. Fundies, at least, never pretend that they're not interested in justifying their beliefs. They really think there's evidence for their religion, and they say it loudly and openly to anyone who asks. Moderates will defend themselves against accusations of stupidity and ignorance by pretending they acknowledge the lack of evidence for their religion, and they act as if it doesn't bother them, but it _does_ bother them, and deep down they're just as hungry for evidence as the fundies are.
Fundamentalists are the dangerous, but straightforward nuts. Moderates are the benign, but treacherous nuts.

287. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22258 by Janus on February 13, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Agreed.

288. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #22240 by Janus on February 13, 2007 at 4:48 pm

I would love to hear the people who say we have no idea how to deal with religious irrationality tell us how we SHOULD deal with it. Atran has never done so, and neither has Cassandra.

My suspicion is that this is because Atran and his disciples simply don't WANT to deal with it. They like pretending that the religious people they interact with aren't delusional. They like pretending that everything is just fine. They like pretending that a person's beliefs have no real consequences.

But hey, I may be wrong. Here's your chance to prove it: How do YOU suggest we deal with religious irrationality?

289. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22239 by Janus on February 13, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Um, yes, of course.
What I meant is that Sullivan's position isn't shifting to einsteinian religion, but rather he's using einsteinian-style prose to cover up his own belief's irrationality. Sullivan is as Catholic as he's ever been.

290. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22226 by Janus on February 13, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Excellent point, Quine. You should start a thread in the forum, since few people who frequent this website will read your comment.

291. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22222 by Janus on February 13, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Do I hear Andrews position starting to approach that of so-called Einsteinian God?

No, he's just trying to make his faith look more rational by linking it up to naturalistic pantheism.


Posted by Sullivan:

The point I'm making, I guess, is the one Sagan made. It is not to pose a crude opposition between science and faith, as Sam Harris does (and my next response is imminent); it is to see the two in a constant interaction in the pursuit of ultimate truth.

Basically, Sullivan is back to square one. Harris had gotten him to admit that he couldn't justify his belief and that nothing could disprove his belief. And now he's conveniently forgotten about all that and he's back to pretending that faith has something to do with the pursuit of truth.

It's really quite depressing. Moderates are more immune to argument than fundies.

292. Response to Orr

Comment #21934 by Janus on February 11, 2007 at 11:45 pm

Very nice, Mr. Dennett (I'm not sure how philosophers are to be addressed, sorry).

I'm particularly eager to read Orr's reply to:
"So you must have in mind some neglected gems on religion: what arguments and/or thinkers on the topic of religion ought Dawkins to have tackled in detail? What in your opinion IS the best thinking on the subject?"

293. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21706 by Janus on February 10, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Theology is baseless speculation. It is utterly undistinguishable from zeus-ology and elf-ology and leprechaun-ology and unicorn-ology and demonology. Oh wait, that last one's a subset of theology, isn't it?

How can theology be a truth-apt subject? It's the supposed study of an entity no one knows anything about, not even if it exists, and its experts are often incapable of even defining this entity, much less saying anything meaningful about it.

A true academic discipline must have some way of figuring out what is true, and what is false. If its experts can't figure out what is true, they can't be said to _know_ anything about it, they're just speculating aimlessly. If you think I'm wrong, here's an easy way to prove it, all you have to do is answer this question:

How do theologians distinguish true theological theories from false ones?

294. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21658 by Janus on February 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm

So I am asking for a little help. 'Janus' (whose name, incidentally, is perfect for an agnostic!)

Too bad I'm an "anti-faith-head".

mentioned that studies have shown that, on average, theists are less intelligent than atheists.

Could you please point me in the direction of easily accessible literature I could read on this matter?

I suppose you could try to find and read every study listed on this webpage:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Of course, if i was a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, in a world that has no inherent meaning I am not sure what the relevance of intelligence has to these issues. Could it be that intelligence is a byproduct of gene replication that is useful for practical survival but of no other value? So its 'practical' that I know that dehydration will kill me but that 'God does not exist' is of no ontological value?

Sorry, Richard. As vastly superior in intelligence to me as you obviously are - and your books are such a joy to read - in evolutionary terms why are you concerned with the 'God-delusion'? Jews, Christians and Muslims shag and reproduce more evolutionary proficient than the rest of us!

To derive meaning and morality from scientific theories such as evolution is a rather silly thing to do. To use an analogy, do you go around pulling people down because you believe in gravity? That intelligence is a result of evolution by natural selection is just a fact we have to live with, it doesn't provide an objective basis to guide our actions.

295. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21558 by Janus on February 9, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Before I get into the 'meat' of the article, let me just point out the hilarious fact that even now, years after his book Dawkins' God was published, McGrath STILL hasn't let go of his strawman-ish understanding of atheism:

"They know that they can't prove that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God."

McGrath's ONLY argument against atheism, which he keeps harping on and on about in the second half of Dawkins' God, is that we can't prove God doesn't exist. First, of course we can 'prove' the Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim) God doesn't exist, if you're using 'prove' in the evidentiary sense, which is the only relevant sense unless you're talking about modal logic or mathematics. Second, to paraphrase Prof. Dawkins as he was reading McGrath's book, "Again and again I had to keep myself from scribbling 'Celestial teapot' in the margin". That a famous theologian still doesn't get such a simple argument after all this time is laughable, to say the least.

Now, on to the article...

His swashbuckling The God Delusion sweeps to one side "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads", who are "immune to argument".

Dawkins was only refering to nutty fundamentalists, such as those found in America's red states. Amusing that McGrath sees himself as one of them, and not as one of what Dawkins calls "sophisticated moderates".

Scientists who profess religious belief are appeasers, representing the "Neville Chamberlain" school.

Wrong again. Dawkins was talking about atheistic scientists who think they have to make religionists feel safe by repeating the lie that science and religion operate in two completely different, isolated spheres, such as the late Stephen J. Gould.

You can't be reasonable and religious. It's one or the other — science or faith in God.

Another strawman. Of course Dawkins knows there are theistic scientists. What is McGrath trying to say here? That people are necessarily 100% rational or 100% irrational? This is what he's hoping his readers will think Dawkins has said, but it's a lie. Of course theists aren't being rational when it comes to God and religion, but that doesn't mean they can't compartmentalize, as most human beings unfortunately do, and as theistic scientists must, by definition.

Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

If they have, then they have indeed betrayed science. But given McGrath's record on giving an account of what other people have said and written, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Believing that God exists doesn't make you a bad scientist. It makes you a poor skeptic, but as I said above, any good theistic scientist will be a master of compartmentalization, and won't let his credulity impinge on his work as a scientist.

What does make you a bad scientist is using God as an explanation for anything your research is about. Since supernatural 'explanations' amount to admitting your incapacity to explain, explaining anything by appealing to God means you're not doing your job as a scientist. A biologist can't be a creationist, a geologist can't be a young earth creationist, and a cosmologist can't be a theist, all for the same reason: Explaining something in their field of research by saying Goddidit doesn't explain anything at all.

Science, defined as the current body of knowledge about the universe, is compatible with theism, as long as the theist is willing to make his definition of God more and more nebulous as science progresses, so as to keep his beliefs from conflicting with reality. However, the scientific method is opposed to religion in every imaginable way. Skepticism is opposed to faith, naturalism is opposed to supernaturalism, monism is opposed to dualism, etc. Scientists can be theists because the metaphysical assumptions which must be made in order to make scientific inquiry possible, are methodological and not ontological. As long as the theist is willing to water-down his beliefs and compartmentalize his mind, there's no problem.

So what are we to make of this? Perhaps Gingerich and Collins aren't real scientists at all. Maybe they are manipulative religious charlatans who are just pretending to be scientists to garner support for their mad ideas.

More lies, Dawkins has never said anything of the kind.
But I guess lying is OK if you're doing it for God's sake.

Or they might be well-meaning people who have been deluded into belief by that bullying "psychotic delinquent" (that's Dawkins-speak for God, by the way).

That's Dawkins-speech for the God of the Old Testament.
It's so much easier to rally up people to your cause when you're willing to deform everything your opponent has said, isn't it Mr. McGrath?

It is worth reminding ourselves that the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in God or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs.

True, but believing in God means you're irrational in a very important part of your life, and according to almost every study done on the subject, theists are on the average stupider than atheists.

In The Limits of Science, Medawar reflected on how science, despite being "the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon", had limits to its scope. Science is superb when it comes to showing that the chemical formula for water is H2O. Or, more significantly, that DNA has a double helix.

But what of that greater question: what's life all about? This, and others like it, Medawar insisted, were "questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer"

Actually, we do know what life is about. Life is about propagating genes. One question down! How many to go?

But of course, the real issue here is the supposed "limits of science". Well, of course science is limited. The question that is of real interest is, can religion do any better, about any question, in any field or in any situation? Can religion tell us what the meaning of life is? Obviously not. Either it makes a completely arbitrary, and most likely false guess (e.g. "To glorify God"), or it gives use a vague subjective statement that actually has nothing to do with religion, and which anyone, from Bob the janitor to Richard Dawkins, could have come up with (e.g. "To love one another").

And that is truly how religion does its "explaining". When it tries to answer philosophical questions, it can give us nothing more than a guess, no better than any other guess, and often much worse. When it tries to do the job of science ("Why does the universe appear to be fine-tuned?"), not only does it give nothing better than a guess, but the 'explanation' it gives us is not an explanation at all, it's a lazy non-answer ("Goddidit!"). And when it tries to answer moral questions, it can give us nothing that we don't already have: a set of subjective preferences.

In the end, as Gilbert Harman pointed out decades ago, the real question is which offers the "best explanation" of things. And as there is no general agreement on how to decide which of these explanations is the "best", the argument seems certain to run.

But there is agreement on what kind of explanation is the best, the ONLY kind of explanation. Natural explanations explain things in terms of simpler components. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, inherently beyond our comprehension, and therefore halt the process of truth-inquiry; supernaturalism explains nothing, God explains nothing, religion explains nothing.

Christians will argue that their world view represents a superb way of making sense of things, while accepting that this, like its atheist counterparts, is open to challenge by sceptics.

But you're not open to challenge at all. If you're a fundamentalist, you'll deny all contradictory evidence. If you're a moderate, you'll have made certain your God is beyond criticism, and when pushed into a corner you'll simply stop arguing about the truth and start telling us why belief in God is good for emotional reasons. Both kinds of believers are equally irrational.

Do you think I'm wrong, Mr. McGrath? Then let me paraphrase Sam Harris in his debate with Andrew Sullivan: Is there anything that could make you stop believing in God?

If you're as honest as Sullivan, you'll be forced to reply, "No, there isn't."

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen — not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else,"

What an extremely poor analogy. You can't see God, you can't show us God, and we can "see everything else" just fine without God.

296. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21356 by Janus on February 8, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Sam Harris never fails to amaze me with how he cuts right to the heart of the matter. I was thinking, reading Sullivan's last letter, that it was quitting time, that the conversation was functionally over. Thanks for showing us how it's done.

Seconded. Sam's 08/02/07 essay is absolutely brilliant. I still wish he wouldn't refer to meditation and introspection as "spiritual", but it's a minor quibble. Very well done!

297. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20766 by Janus on February 6, 2007 at 11:10 am

Sullivan is a weird one.
In his first essays, he kept insisting that he dislikes fundamentalist certainty, and that he sometimes doubts his own faith. And yet in his latest piece he admits that he has never doubted the existence of God, that his faith has no justification, and that there is nothing which could weaken this faith.

It seems to me that there is nothing intrinsically different between Sullivan and the most nutty kind of fundamentalist. What is there to keep him from deciding one day that all non-Christians are infidels and must be converted at any cost? Someone whose beliefs are justified, because he decides what is true and what's not according to some objective criterion (whether it's empirical evidence, or a literal interpretation of the Bible, or anything else) can be made to change his beliefs by new data; that person's beliefs are, in one way or another, dependent on external reality. Even a literalist will usually change his mind if he's presented with the right verses from the Bible.

But a moderate like Sullivan can believe whatever he wants to believe. He doesn't care if there's no empirical evidence, he doesn't care what the Bible says, he doesn't care what the Pope says, he doesn't care about anything except his own feelings of what's true and false, which are themselves only a result of his genes and upbringing (but of course he doesn't acknowledge this). This kind of religious believer is the most irrational of them all. There are good and bad justifications for one's beliefs, but Sullivan doesn't have any justification at all, and he's proud of it. There's no use debating a person like that.

298. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #20173 by Janus on January 31, 2007 at 6:03 pm

For those who don't feel like downloading the above pdf file...







"One of the benefits of modern society is the freedom to criticise other people's religious or political views, even when it causes offence"

Agree: 37%
Disagree: 57%


"If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under Sharia law rather than British law".

Agree: 28%
Disagree: 59%


"The following is a list of laws that are defined in most scholarly interpretations of Sharia law. Please say if you personally agree or
disagree with each law mentioned?"

That a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim.
Agree: 51%
Disagree: 43%

That a Muslim woman cannot marry without the consent of her guardian
Agree: 43%
Disagree: 51%

That a Muslim male may have up to four wives, and a Muslim female is allowed only one husband
Agree: 46%
Disagree: 48%

That Muslim conversion to another religion is forbidden and punishable by death
Agree: 31%
Disagree: 57%

That homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal
Agree: 61%
Disagree: 30%


"Some Islamic scholars have called for a major reinterpretation of Sharia law to reflect modern ideas about human rights, equality for women
and tolerance of religious conversion. Other Islamic scholars disagree with this view and say that Sharia law is absolute and should not be
reinterpreted to fit in with western values. Which of these views is closest to your own opinion?"

Should be reinterpreted: 45%
Should NOT be: 39%

299. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #19953 by Janus on January 30, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Shine,

I don't understand, what kind of "cards" are you talking about?

Btw, kudos for spelling "coup de grâce" correctly. :)

300. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19867 by Janus on January 30, 2007 at 11:23 am

Sam has replied once again:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_4.html


It seems a very weak reply to me. I think Sam would have been better off directly debunking Sullivan's statement that history and mathematics are comparable to religious faith, instead of doing it in such a roundabout (and rather vague) way. The only good part is Sam's question to Sullivan at the very end.