301. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70272 by _J_ on September 14, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Fantastic! Congratulations! :D

[Does a little dance, makes a little love, gets down tonight.]

Am happy.

302. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70139 by _J_ on September 14, 2007 at 7:48 am

Is it a subtle joke that this article was written by 'John Dougherty'?

EDIT - Addition:

...its adherents believe a man must have three wives to reach heaven's highest realms.

If they can say that with a straight face, they're just not the sort of human beings I'm used to.

303. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70137 by _J_ on September 14, 2007 at 7:45 am

I love this. 'Religion...simply isn't about facts'. That should be used as a blurb quote on future editions of Cornell's book. And perhaps on the Bible.

It also pretty much spoils Stanford's own dream of seeing Darwins' Angel 'sold taped to every copy of The God Delusion'. As a collection of notes propping up something that 'simply isn't about facts', it surely belongs in the literary criticism section.

304. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69933 by _J_ on September 13, 2007 at 8:02 am

Dr Benway, 51

Cheers for that. I like this analogy (and I liked it when you brought up this theatre/religion notion in another thread lately).

I think this paragraph in particular is makes an excellent argument in favour of the desirability of abandoning even the loveliest of delusory faiths:

Love in the general sense of mutual caring and involvement requires a shared reality. Reality itself is a more consistent, reliable common-ground between two people than pretend play, no matter how ritualized the play.

But then the next one - about love - nudges the door ajar again for a consoling religion. If a religious illusion - perhaps a privately constructed one, in tune with the moral norms of the relevant society (in the Dianelosian mould, I suppose) - can add that feeling of love where it is missing (or any meet any other strong emotional requirment), then is there necessarily anything wrong in indulging it?

Arguably there is (perhaps along the lines of a extremely picky application of Clifford's Ethisc of Belief-type thinking), but, also arguably, it would be outweighed by the benefits.

Like I said, I basically agree with you, and with 'New Atheism' generally (as you know). But there seem to be enough doubts and unknowns in this particular area to make me suspicious of sweeping attempts to define the religious impulse as always, necessarily, bad. I find it telling that, in doing so, Dawkins, Harris and Myers - usually so clear and precise in their criticisms - repeatedly resort to extremely vague, unquantifiable charges of childishness, ignobility or similar. (The other place I hear arguments like this at the moment is from people opposed to the production of 'cybrids' in stem cell research, on the grounds that it 'diminishes the sanctity of human life', or some such vomitous gobshite. It makes me cringe a little to hear a similar level of discourse from the 'New Atheists' - who, I have no doubt, would demolish these particular arguments without breaking a sweat.)

J.J. Ramsey, 59 - well worth posting, that, thank you. A few of Harris' points have a dodgy sound to them ('I declare that you might mean X, and I've got an argument against X!') but having not got through Haidt's article yet, I couldn't be sure. Perhaps so many of Harris' critics have made the same tired mistakes that it has become too easy to see those mistakes even where they are not quite present.

305. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69914 by _J_ on September 13, 2007 at 6:58 am

Philip1978

What's the worst that could happen? (Asides from losing your job...oops...hehehehe!)

Not necessarily! He could always just pretend...

...which might not be such a bad thing, actually. Strikes me that ministers do a valuable job and hold a very responsible position, giving support and moral guidance to the community. Someone who managed to do so without being strictly committed to a particular ideology (carefully balancing their independent-mindedness against the semblance of orthodoxy required by their church), and who had the dedication to keep doing the job out of genuine care for that community, in spite of the nagging fear of being found out as an unbeliever, might be the very best sort.

I've sometimes thought that being a minister might be an worthwhile and rewarding job, if only one didn't have to believe in god in order to do it.

306. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69872 by _J_ on September 13, 2007 at 3:30 am

Zaphod - thanks for sharing the link. Good article (as usual) by Myers. More than Harris', I think it gets to the heart of the disagreement. Wouldn't say it entirely resolves it, though, but makes more progress than I've seen before.

Where Myers says:

Would you abandon one little piece of rationality and bow down before the toy? Would you even be capable of that level of credulity?

I would say that the New Atheists definitely would not, not even for an extra year of life (I don't know about the rest of you; I'm beginning to be suspicious.)

...he's on to something. No, the New Atheists certainly would not. And he's right to be suspicious. What are our motivations if not to make ourselves, in some sense, happier? Is it just that some people value the satisfaction of seeking factual truth more highly than other forms of happiness, whilst others (those whom Myers, giving up on making any sort of argument, suggests have not 'grown up') chase different jollies, differently? I haven't a clue, but I reckon there's some interesting work and discussion to be done here. (I'd love to see some of it take place at Beyond Belief II.)

307. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69857 by _J_ on September 13, 2007 at 2:26 am

I'm looking forward to reading Haidt's essay and looking at the forum thread mentioned by Logicel above (thanks for that, Logicel). This is an interesting fault-line for me: I have a lot of time for Jonathan Haidt, and for Harris, Dawkins and the rest.

I've been recommending The Happiness Hypothesis to people since reading it earlier this year, and would probably be more likely to give a copy of that book to a deeply entrenched theist who I wanted to have a sensible discussion about religion and morality with than Dawkins' or Harris'. Why? Because Haidt is utterly non-confrontational, extremely friendly and readable, but comes out with all kinds of fascinating data and observations that slowly and clearly put religious experiences into the category of natural, understandable phenomena.

Having not yet read the Haidt article, I can't judge how justified Harris' defence is here. Some of the early comments in his article sound suspiciously 'putting words in Haidt's mouth'-ish, but overall I completely agree with his reminding Haidt (and everyone) that we mustn't forget that people's factually errant beliefs can very easily be actually harmful. I shall be a little sorry to discover Haidt to be objecting to this point, if indeed he is.

However, I'm with Russel Blackford (9) in finding the last paragraph of Sam's article a bit unsatisfying. It is unsatisfying in the same way as Professor Dawkins can be when, after giving acres of excellent rational argument, he responds to the question of what is wrong with an imaginary god if (hypothetically) it can be shown to do far more good than harm by saying 'Isn't that rather undignified?'. In your opinion, Richard, in your opinion.

I sympathise - and agree - with Harris and Dawkins. I absolutely want honesty to be the best policy, and facing up to the truth (which, as I understand it, is that there is no god) to be an effective (if not an easy) path to happiness. (And, incidentally, I think Haidt's book is a better guide to understanding and finding such happiness than TGD - though that should be expected, given its subject matter.) But there's a point to be faced here, which is that it ain't necessarily so.

I dimly remember reading (someone make my day by telling me it was in an a Dawkins book!) a possibly apocryphal story about a fine powder weapon that had been developed to seize up the engines of enemy vehicles. The story goes that, when it was field tested, it actually made the engines run better.

It's perfectly possible that, for a lot of people, that's what life is like. Those vehicle engines were designed for a reality that does not include dense clouds of fine dust, yet the addition of that dust improves their performance. It may be that the human mind, although part of a reality that includes no gods whatsoever, actually conducts its business (including its interactions with other human minds) more smoothly and cheerfully when exposed to the dense clouds of a well-designed religion, in a majority of cases. I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but I'm aware of no logical reason why it could not be.

Responses like Harris' last paragraph here and Dawkins' 'not very dignified' retort address this problem by sweeping it aside. To the constitutionally unreligious career scientist, the idea that persisting in a delusion could actually be in some important regards experientially superior to courageously pursuing the truth is unsurprisingly unwelcome. But Harris and Dawkins are much bigger and better than these, their weakest arguments, indicate. Surely the scientific thing to do is to is to treat the effects of belief as evidence, and to recognise the pros and cons of holding religious beliefs as even-handedly as possible. Certainly, one should not lose track of the aim that Harris reminds us of here: that we should be striving for a society in which no person's personal beliefs can be allowed to impinge upon the rights of another, and fantasies should not tread on the toes of reality.

You don't want to have to fill the atmosphere with dust particles just to get the best out of your engine, but likewise you don't throw away the whole episode as a bad job. You take the opportunity to learn from a serendipitous miscalculation and hopefully design better engines that work as well without dust as these work with it. You ditch the cloud and keep the silver lining. Haidt's work is all about silver linings whilst Harris' has been chiefly about frowning at clouds. I suppose it's not a surprise if there are some resultant differences in attitude, but both approaches are necessary ingredients in the task of making progress with this difficult, ancient problem of religion.

308. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69834 by _J_ on September 13, 2007 at 1:24 am

epeeist, 239,

No, no, you phrased yourself perfectly well. Probably me being unclear. What I was thinking was that, as I understand it, a deist's god is one who gets the universe started and then buggers off, which conception is identical with the term 'creator'. This type of 'god' is already nothing but a creator.

309. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69740 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 1:30 pm

epeeist, 235

...meaning deism makes more sense than theism?

I agree with you there, but personally (from my position of relative ignorance, acknowledgedly) I have not yet been convinced by any arguments for a creator of any sort, absentee or meddler. It remains one unproven possibility among very many.

I'm only making this point in case you know something interesting that might affect my feelings about this, by the way.

310. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69727 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 12:19 pm

walk

David/Wee Flea has told me - in a private REVELATION (ha ha, sorry - on his website) - what sort of evidence he finds for God. (David, please put me right if this is misrepresenting you. No offence meant.) It's stuff like the complexity, coherence and continuing relevance of the Bible; the complexity, coherence and astonishing beauty of Creation; and the complexity, coherence and overwhelming power of the experience of faith. All stuff that doesn't last well if run by Dr Benway's masterful 'evidence vs evidence' post above (223).

However, David feels secure enough about this evidence to assert that the balance of available evidence points decisively towards the existence of the Christian God, and thereby to reason (along with those of his flock who are inclined to debate) that we non-believers are actually cutting against the grain of the evidence and refusing to look at things honestly and clearly - hardening our hearts against the Truth of the Lord.

In an attempt to check that I am not falling foul of such an error, I've actually taken to praying, briefly but sincerely, some evenings to god (any god) to reveal himself (herself, itself) to me if s/he really does exist and to overcome my scepticism if it is misplaced. Seems the least I can do. (No answer yet, by the way, but I'll let you know if that changes. If it's in accordance with His Will.)

Sadly, there isn't such a clear-cut equivalent for the devoutly religious to undertake in the spirit of investigation. You can't sensibly pray to god to take away your errant faith if s/he truly doesn't exist. I once tried asking David to experiment with walking a mile in our shoes: to try to spend some time really looking at the world as though there were no god; being a sort of honorary, temporary atheist. He wasn't keen, and maybe it was an unrealistic request.

311. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69725 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 11:54 am

(picking up from 10)

...which, now I think about it, makes me reflect. Survival of the fittest has been written through every David Attenborough documentary I've ever seen. It's all mating rituals, running away from predators and starving to death; shagging, fighting and dying. They can cut the word 'evolution' out if they want to, but I'd think that the subtext of the whole programme would still reek of it. Them pesky facts of life are pretty hard to dispense with, really.

312. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69723 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 11:51 am

It is rather sad, this, isn't it? Bless those poor creationists - they like to look at cuddly animals just like the rest of us, but simply can't bear to be reminded that they weren't hand-stitched by the Steiff Employee in the Sky. It's a sorry situation when you're reduced to editing out all the natural history in order to get your dose of Natural History.

As for Sir David's easy-going attitude: I suspect he's just glad that there aren't any major ideologies strongly opposed to sentences that end: '...must find food/shelter/its mother, or perish.'

313. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69647 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 2:56 am

Billy,

Sure, I gitcha.

I don't know whether David can refute Ham. To be honest, I think he could make a pretty good job, since from what I remember most of Ham's arguments just don't work as arguments - he could be talking about anything from the Bible to reality TV, his chains of reasoning just don't make no sense.

However, after doing so he'd presumably be left disagreeing with Ham's take on biblical authority, and here I completely agree with you. Ham, by being such an uncompromising literalist, nicely illustrates a damaging argument that you, me and plenty of others have often raised: that once you start trying to play moderate interpretations of the bible against conservative literalist ones, you face a serious challenge in justifying any use of the bible as an authority.

I don't like to hear of Ham having access to the ears of children. I have read of his approach to teaching classes before ('Scientists weren't there when life began, but God was - so who should we trust...?'). Mind, it's hard to tell whether nonsense like Ham's will stick with kids, or make them all the more likely to throw religion out as foolishness as they grown up.

314. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69642 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 2:39 am

"It is a sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Mohammed', there would have been a very different reaction," Catholic league president Bill Donohue said in a statement posted on the group's website.

I agree with JemyM, 48 - it's about time Christian organisations stopped stooping to this sort of bullying-by-proxy. Either you want to be fly-off-the handle psychos, with the justifiable fear that that engenders, or you don't. Stop trying to have it both ways. 'You should treat me like an idiot with a gun because I don't act like one' maketh not a good argument.

315. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69637 by _J_ on September 12, 2007 at 2:19 am

Hi, David, 183

Glad to hear your thoughts on Ken Ham. He is certainly no friend to intelligent, moderate Christianity and he provides argumentative atheists with a barn-sized target. I like this little qualification you add, by the way:

this is one Free Church he will never be allowed to speak in (at least not without someone sensible to give a rebuttal)
[my italics]

I wonder if any of the churches that have allowed him to speak have followed his visit up with a counter argument from someone able to string two thoughts together, the following week? It's not necessarily the case that everyone who gives Ham pulpit time necessarily supports him, any more than Dawkins supports Ted Haggard by including him in The Root of All Evil?. Billy certainly seems to have got the impression that Ham's audience was sympathetic at the talk he attended, but I'd be delighted to discover that it isn't always the case.

As for sending you 'my refutation' of Ham's stuff – in principle, I'd be happy to, but at present it's nothing more than a series of astonished pencil scribblings on the pages of his book. Knocking these into shape would contravene my promise to myself not to get involved in this argument anymore (but the marvellous thing about promises is that they're so easy to break) and furthermore risk my suffering cerebral damage by trying to follow his 'logic' again. Moreover, I won't have time for a little while – are you in a rush?

So that this isn't entirely off topic, here's a contribution to the subject of fleas. All this talk of Ken Ham has made me wonder about the extent to which he is a flea, and how the concept of fleadom may apply more broadly. Let's say a 'response' book is one that clearly addresses material put forward by a previous book or other spokesperson. So The God Solution is an obvious one. To call a book a 'flea' book is to be derogatory about it and suggest that not only is it a response, it's a rather cynical one that seeks to sell copies largely by virtue of riding the wave of interest generated by the book it is responding to, and that doesn't contain enough interesting material, or represent enough hard work, to be a worthwhile book in its own right.

The Lie: Evolution isn't at first glance proper flea-book as it doesn't address a particular other book or figure (it's not called Gould's Lie: Evolution, for instance). On the other hand, it does promise to give an argument showing that evolution is nonsense and creationist Christianity The Truth. Ham may reasonably be considered a flea because he consistently misrepresents evolution and the arguments used by evolutionists and adds nothing of any value to the debate. He is, if you like, a flea on the whole concept of evolution, using the anxiety of creationists (and other creationism-sympathetic Christians) about evolution to sell a book which actually says nothing intelligent about evolution at all. Ham is a flea not on one particular dog, but on the entire breed of animals we might use as a metaphor for evolutionary theory as a whole.

More broadly still, I wonder whether religious movements perhaps tend to encourage flea-like behaviour – in fact, to rely on it. In my atheistic view of things, all the major religions make big claims about things without offering any solid evidence that they are correct, claiming to hold knowledge that they lack a structure for actually gaining. Isn't this much the same as writing a response to The God Delusion without reading The God Delusion, or 'demolishing' evolution in a lecture without understanding what evolution is (as our friend Ray Comfort is wont to do)? In each case, a desire for a kind of statement is recognised (and probably shared) by the soon-to-be author or sermon-deliverer, and a statement that sounds like it fits the bill is then contrived and written (or orated), but without the writer/speaker actually having access to a body of facts that supports this statement.

And so it is with all religions, even as it is with a bad TGD flea or any book by Ken Ham: the religion succeeds not on the strength of its actual knowledge, but on the desire for a particular type of knowledgeable-sounding statement. Just as many religious people crave a convincing rebuttal of Dawkins and many creationists hope to see evolution shot down, many millions of people long for a message that delivers a neat message that takes the sting out of morality and adds a feeling of purpose to their lives and order to reality, and makes them feel significant within the universe. Isn't it at least arguable that providing a decent-sounding answer to this, without actually having a good basis of evidence from which to derive it, is essentially an act of flea-ry?

Perhaps Josh would like to add a much larger circle around the existing flea orbits. 'The mysteries of reality' goes at the centre, and the Bible, Qur'an, Sruti, Tanakh and Talmud, Daozang, Book of the SubGenius, Book of Mormon, Kitáb-i-Aqdas and -i-Íqán, Tao te ching, Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Tattvartha Sutra, Dianetics, Book of Shadows, Guru Granth Sahib, Thelema, Ginza Rba, Arzhang and the rest go into orbit.

Perhaps all I'm really doing is making the obvious point that writing pure flea literature is the same as selling something that you haven't got, and that all religions seem to be engaged in exactly this, to some extent. Anyway, just idle thoughts, there.

EDIT - Just noticed David's post that has arrived just ahead of my own. Long? My posts? You must be thinking of some other J...

316. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69482 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 12:37 pm

SG -

...Richard "how can God exist when the world revolves around me" Dawkins...

What rubbish. It can hardly revolve around both of us!

317. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69478 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Quetz -

Temporary backsliding, merely. Besides, I made it for over two weeks.

(I found that when I promise to go away, it never happens. You've got to just do it. (Could sell trainers with a motto like that.))

318. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69473 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 11:50 am

By the way, Quetz:

And it is a crass generalisation you make when you imply that all atheists consider the religious to be fools. Surely you do not believe that.

The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.'
Psalm 53

I'd say the sandal's on the other foot.

319. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69471 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 11:43 am

BillySands, 181

I went to see that that purveyor of gospel truth Ken Ham there. It was disgusting

Billy, you have my pity. And if you'd let me know before you went along, you could have had my Masai spear. (I'm not advocating violence of course, sensitive reactionary theistic quote-miners. I have nothing but love, sympathy and deep intellectual contempt for Ken Ham.)

My own major attempt to embrace counter-atheistic literature was to have a shot at Ken Ham's magnificent work of nonsense prose, The Lie: Evolution. I lasted fifty pages, after which it was abundantly obvious that he planned to spend the rest of the book constructing additional layers of unreason on top of the uniformly risible arguments from absurdity that he had outlined in the initial chapters. I hate to quit a book halfway through, but carrying on was transparently a waste of my life.

I (tried to) read it after discovering that a gentleman who was touring the churches of my green and pleasant land preaching to the faithful had been life-changingly inspired to do so by Ken's book. This frightens me. I can't understand how Ken himself can think it's a decent book, let alone how any other sentient creature could share his opinion. It's awful. I can't exaggerate how bad it is. It's awful. Put it like this: I've increased the literary value of my copy by orders of magnitude by writing the word 'Bollocks!' in the margin. Yes, it's that bad. Wait, no - it's worse.

When Ken Ham ultimately dies - if he isn't magicked away to heaven, of course - whatever it is that's standing in for his brain ought to be preserved for scientific study. In millennia to come, our simian overlords may look upon it and laugh at the ridiculous suggestion that they are related to us. I know I would.

320. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69460 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 10:23 am

steve99, 178

Well, that's nonsense. I have a double-GCSE in combined Biology, Chemistry and Physics (from 1996) and have read several popular science books (plus occasionally watching Horizon). I don't see how I could be better qualified to talk confidently about siense.

321. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69442 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 9:09 am

Galactor, 172

I agree with you, there. 'The Flea Circus' seems stylistically inconsistent with advertising the paperback TGD alongside the phrase 'Join the debate'. A debate has (at least) two sides; it feels a little contradictory to support the idea of a debate whilst disparaging all contributions to one side of it.

Sure, we're all free to say 'I reckon such-and-such a book is a worthless cash-in', but the site itself might be better off presenting them in a more value-neutral way - 'Responses to TGD' or whatever. We can all then love them or (more probably) slate them as we wish.

Mind, derogatory language aside, I think Josh is doing a sterling job in keeping track of these books and displaying them all here. The site is definitely supporting the debate in its actions (which, I gather, speak louder than words). It'd be the easiest thing in the world to just hide from and ignore the responses to TGD.

(Damnit, I'm not supposed to be posting.)

322. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69432 by _J_ on September 11, 2007 at 8:44 am

Off topic

David/Wee Flea: I'm not really 'here' anymore (through sheer willpower) but since my dropping in to see what's been going on has coincided with your re-emergence (spookily), I'd just like to say thanks for getting up to date with posts on your own site. I happened to look in there a couple of days ago and saw that the last of my interminable screeds have finally appeared. Cheers and well done.

I'm off before I succumb to the temptation to argue with you again. Have fun provoking the other faithless.

323. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69304 by _J_ on September 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Harris' witchcraft analogy was good enough, but this one's excellent. The author of this piece has just gone to town on making an excellent, excellent job of it. And it's pitched just right - the correct amount of showing off the 'reviewer's' superior knowledge of Fascism(/religion), the right reasonable-sounding tone. Just like umpteen infuriating TGD reviews, without falling into the trap of exaggerating them into silliness. A spot-on bit of mimicry that lets the wrongness of the arguments shine through.

[Takes hat off.]

Oh, and without wishing to extend the 'Which brand of fascism corresponds to which religion?' debate: that really isn't the point. Different forms of fascism relate to the general ideology of fascism just as different religions relate to religion, as a whole. That's the important point of comparison and it's a secure one. As for fascism-as-a-whole as a comparison for religion-as-a-whole: well, they're both ideologies that persist without reliance on evidence. But that can pretty much be laid to one side - the validity of the comparison may be judged by how well the reappropriation of arguments against TGD fits against 'TFD'. I'd say it fits pretty damn well. These are exactly the arguments that come up against TGD over and over, and they seem perfectly at home attacking 'TFD'.

It really is an excellent article.

EDIT - Actually, does anyone know how much of this is direct quotation/paraphrasing from existing reviews of TGD? I guess I've fallen behind in my review reading - only just noticed some familiar lines in there.

324. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68250 by _J_ on September 6, 2007 at 2:08 pm

No need to be worried or angry on this one. Richard represented himself extremely well in this interview, giving the sort of clear, unambiguous statements of his position that are rarer than feathered swine among the Today programme's usual political interviewees. Indeed, our interviewer (Edward Stourton, wasn't it?) seemed rather struck by the novelty of such a straight-talking contributor, and immediately turned it back against Cornwell. And rightly so.

Not that Cornwell needed it - he was quite capable of tripping over his own nonsense. To attack Richard for suggesting that 'all religion is potentially extreme' is a strategy that can only work as a cheeky rhetorical device to convince your audience that the word 'potentially' doesn't really matter - Richard is alleged to be tarring all cuddly theists with the stick of fundamentalism. Faced with an attentive opponent and interviewer, Cornell had to seek refuge in emphasising that word 'potential', leaving him with no argument at all. All religions are potentially extreme, just as all people are potentially murderers and all theistic apologists are potentially time-wasting liars.

Another flea demonstrates his book to be unworthy of the shelf space afforded it, and another buttress supports the ever-growing edifice of rational atheism. What does Richard need to do to deal with this sort of thing? Exactly what he is doing. Just keep on making sense.

325. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64209 by _J_ on August 18, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Corylus, 1860

this does appear to be de rigueur on this thread so I won't beat myself up over it...

Quite right. And well done, too. Good post, very interesting.

PaulEmecz

I'm trying so, so hard not to get sucked back into this debate - there's so much I'd like to say to you and I've no talent for concision - but I'd like to say thanks for writing your three replies to me. I have read them.

Now I'm going to click 'Submit' before I spend three hours recycling old arguments to explain why I still don't agree with you. The other posters here generally say everything I can think of and more in a much more focused way than I would manage, anyway.

Oh, but I will say quickly:

I am a great lover of the truth. I simply cannot live with an unacknowledged contradiction. I don't know that it's a good thing, but it's how I am.
--- You, 1839

It's funny - I can say exactly the same.

I suppose I shy away from saying 'I deeply love the truth' or whatever, in the way that Dawkins does, because it makes me feel a bit like I'm praising my own personal hang-ups to the sky. (And I bet there are still plenty of things I love that aren't as noble as 'Truth', too.) But I totally agree that if I find myself with a contradiction in an important belief, I have to follow it through.

This is exactly why I am not a Christian. I was very happy as a Christian, except that it raised a few awkward questions that needed answers. And the answers given within the religion always seemed to rely on bare assertion, special pleading, wishful thinking, flawed reasoning and misdirection. Like a beautiful tapestry that's great until you notice one loose thread which, when tugged, begins to unravel the whole thing. I had to follow it through, like it or not, and now there's no tapestry left. Which is a bit of a shock at first, but the great thing is that it turns out that behind where the tapestry was hanging is a corridor leading to a whole other world of such size and splendour that it looks set to keep surprising me as long as I live. So, a happy ending, there. (Or, more accurately, a happy event in an ongoing journey. Truth is much bigger than mere religion.)

Funny that we apparently both have the same motivation, yet currently occupy such different positions as a result. Perhaps I am wrong after all, though I have to admit that if so, I just can't work out how. I still think you're falling victim to some unsafe assumptions and intuitions. Hopefully, time will tell.

Cheers, anyway.

Nice picture, by the way!

326. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64102 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Thor

I hear what you're saying (as they say) and I do understand your points, but I'm with Dr Benway on this.

Aware that I'm a little drunk and about to fall asleep (and thus likely to blunder into bear-traps), I'll nonetheless try three quick responses:

smarter fundamentalist thinkers, like e.g. Albert Mohler, who really construct a logically consistent alternative worldview to our naturalist/materialist conception of the world.

You don't have to be a fundamentalist, either. This is why theodicy arguments rarely pay off, except by piling up pressure on a theist's powers of rationalisation. Most long-lasting, successful religions have contrived a thoroughly rationalised worldview that is fully capable of dealing with every new datum you can throw at them. (Why did God let a giant squid eat a baby? Because he doesn't intervene in our affairs - we have free will and stuff happens. Why didn't the squid eat the other baby, too? Because god does intervene sometimes, in accordance with his own plans. Why did the man with the harpoon only kill the squid after its baby-eating rampage? See last two answers, plus god has his divine sense of justice and retribution, too. Why do restaurants serve squid, in spite of their being made entirely of rubber? This isn't valid a theological question, but possibly because god has a weird sense of humour. And so on.) But moving from the world we can observe ourselves to live in to this kind of internally consistent theology in the first place requires a 'leap of faith', as they say.

It's possible to say 'I'm not doing this metaphysical thing (except when I'm drunk (like now)) - I'm just sticking with "This works, so it's true" and letting the unproveable Big Questions ride until such a time as we might know more about them.' If we concentrate on the testables, challenges like 'It could all be made by a god, or 'Maybe you're imagining it all' can be answered with 'So what?'. We can all make stuff up. Unless it has an effect, it's not terrifically important. And if it does have an effect, we can test it out.

this may not be an appropriate place to dissect at length the metaphysical and epistmological foundations of our worldview [...]

It's been done before...

If you posit a supernatural realm that only connects to our world through some kind of divine intervention then accepting such strange ideas as revelation is entirely logically consistent.

That sounds to me a lot like 'If you make something up with no evidence at all, then accepting further made-up ideas is entirely logically consistent'. I'd just add to that '...and usually increasingly necessary, in order to make your made-up stuff fit with our ever-changing observation-based understanding of reality, which will continue to advance after the point when you started making things up.' This feeds back to my first point.

shemp333

Nice to hear back from you, and great that we're on a wavelength. Lots of respect for you - I don't know whether I'd have the guts to work where you do. Keep looking both ways - and please don't suddenly stop posting, alright?

Johnny O

Send them to do a show for the British Army. We'll soon have them buried somewhere out in the dessert.

Brilliant idea all round, and more so because I'd love to see someone buried in a dessert. Since no one has yet provided a recipe for Death By Scepticism, can I suggest a nice big Spotted Dick?

327. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64060 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Dr Benway, 17

Yes, I agree - discussions often come down to this. You can spend a lot of time arguing about 'evidence' while it gradually dawns on you that your believer just isn't using the word 'evidence' in the same way that you are. Whilst I tend to mean something along the lines of 'something that is observable, measurable, and corroboratable [corroborable?]', they usually mean 'anything that makes me feel like god exists'. Which lets them say with a perfectly straight face that there's loads of evidence for god.

The long, long discussion that I've been having with David Robertson on his website had eventually narrowed in (if that's the right phrase, given what the posts have been like!) on this very matter. In the last post I've sent him, I've listed several examples of the sort of thing that would persuade me, and tried to explain the difference between these and the sort of thing the bible is full of at some length. My hope was to get him to think seriously about what, if any, evidence might be able to persuade him that god probably doesn't exist after all. (Whether this will ever come about, I wouldn't like to guess. The post was sent about four weeks ago and hasn't appeared yet. I guess David's a busy minister.)

328. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64059 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm

SRWB

It's not that they don't understand. The problem is this little issue called "faith" with which most were brainwashed since they were infants.

Yeah, you're right of course. But I'm not quite willing to see it all as complete victimhood to the big, bad impersonal entity that is religion. I see the fact that people can actually get through their daily lives using something approaching rational reasoning most of the time as suggesting that they are, to a greater or lesser degree in each case, complicit in their delusion.

We are not going to find ourselves with Theists Anonymous meetings in which people lament their inability to get over their 'disease' of religion. We see over and over again that people do have the power to think their way out of faith, if they can just be enabled to loosen it's grip enough to apply their faculties of reason to it. Ours (if I'm allowed to generalise a bit) is a message of personal empowerment, not of the impotence of people to deal with a bad dose of faith.

Which is why it's good to see Dawkins championing rational thought more broadly now. This is the message that needs to be conveyed: that it's sensible and correct to apply this sort of reasoning to all things that we believe in, from the time it takes to boil an egg to monsters under the bed. Indeed, that it's irresponsible not to take this approach to the big questions that affect our social behaviour.

This is so important, because the readiness to twist reason into unacknowledged unreason, or to dismiss it as irrelevant to faith, is something I've (and I'm sure most of us have) encountered over and over again with theists. Any attempt to discuss religion fairly and squarely is met with sidestepping, question-begging, wishful thinking and not a little resentment, all thrown up by the faith barrier. The message I've heard repeatedly been met with - and that Dawkins is hopefully helping to push back - is:

'Don't reason with me - pray to god'.

Or, to put it another way:

'Talk through the hands, 'cause the faith ain't listening'.

329. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64043 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 11:59 am

Take care of yourself, shemp333!

There being so many astonishingly stupid things about this particular episode of dickheadedness, it seems beyond redundant to point out individual flaws in the logic of The Rapture - but I'm going to anyway. Here's one that's bugging me.

The idea, if I'm understanding this right, is that the world's 2 billion Christians have just vanished up to heaven, leaving only a token Tribulation (cute name for 'Massacre With Guns') Force to gently cajole the unbelievers into conversion. Right? Well, excuse me for being simplistic, but they should have a pretty damn easy time of it. The reason I don't believe in the Christian god - and I think I share this with the majority of atheists and agnostics - is that there's no indication that he exists. The reason so many different religions can flourish is that they're all as evidence-free as one another. Now, if a third of the world's population suddenly disappears, and it just happens to be all of the Christians, leaving only a few sanctimonious bastards with guns saying 'I told you so', personally I'd take that as a pretty good clue that there was something to this whole 'god' malarkey after all. It wouldn't take the strategic military genius of a 13 year old video-game player to convince me. I can make a fair bet that the Antichrist would have a fairly full-scale defection to the God Squad on his eeeevil hands. Four billion people would suddenly say 'Oh! Guess you were right! You win, Jesus!'

I think what is pissing me off here is the way it glaringly betrays once again the sheer arrogant arse-brained presumptuous fuckwittery of fundamental Christians. It's this flat refusal to accept that people can disagree with them purely because there is no bleeding evidence for god. Somehow they manage to convert the message into: 'I have rejected God because I am sinful and want to have things my own way. Yah boo sucks, God!'. The fact that the dire warning that they give in response involves giving a massive, global scale piece of evidence for god - the sudden teleportation of 2 billion Christians - and still think that we'd be hanging around, sticking our fingers in our ears and closing our eyes and pretending nothing had happened, is just infuriating. How can people so completely fail to understand what evidence means? How can they so utterly misunderstand simple arguments? How do they get through the day without being run over or burning their houses down? Just, just...argh!

[Deep breath.]

My apologies for the bad language. This has piqued my temper a little.

330. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64018 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 10:04 am

They also have the option of reversing roles and commanding the forces of the Antichrist.

Not all bad news, then.

Just when I think stupidity has no more depths to plumb, this sort of thing crops up. Unebelievable.

They eventually (very sensibly) decided not to allow Prince Harry to serve in Iraq, perhaps for the same reasons that had apparently led soldiers to refer to him, in anticipation of his arrival, as 'The Ginger Bullet-Magnet'. Based on precisely the same reasoning, I would be quite happy to see the whole membership of the OSU standing on a street corner in Fallujah waving bibles and preaching fire and brimstone fundamental Christianity. I can't think of a more efficient way of getting rid of them.

Crazy. If this story is accurate, any politician who has lent any support to these people should be deeply ashamed, and has no place in a position of responsibility. It's dismaying and mind-boggling that such things are going on in the supposedly civilised post-Enlightment 21st century western world. A child would see the idiocy in this (at least, an unindoctrinated one would).

331. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #63993 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 7:08 am

Can't listen to this interview right now, but whilst we're all saying nice things to Josh, I'd like to join in: thank you!

Thank you for all the hard work you've done creating a fascinating news and opinions hub and a meeting place for a lot of very interesting people. And for making it clear, attractive and highly professional. If it hadn't been for your efforts, I would never have been able to answer the 'In which country did river dolphins recently become extinct?' question in last night's pub quiz. So, you are making a real difference in people's lives.

Thanks again and very well done.

332. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #63991 by _J_ on August 17, 2007 at 6:57 am

Richard Morgan

I do love this expression "consciousness-raising", which generally means "lifting" other people's consciousness to my own level. The superior level, of course.

I have just invented, and therefore prefer, "consciousness-expanding" or "consciousness-widening" […]

I really wouldn't worry about it. There's no necessary suggestion of superiority in the use of the word 'raising' in 'consciousness raising'. Certainly, someone who objects to the thing of which their consciousness is being raised (atheism and so forth) can, in lieu of a proper argument, attack the terminology by claiming that it is patronising. But they could equally well do so with your other choices:

'Consciousness-expanding? Oh, because your consciousness is so much bigger and better than mine?'

'Consciousness-widening? Are you calling me narrow minded?'

And so on, ad nauseum.

'To raise' is the obvious verb to associate with consciousness in the present context, in the same manner in which one 'raises awareness', or 'raises the alarm', or 'raises an issue' (or 'draws attention', or 'commands respect'). Fiddling about with other, conspicuously unusual, possibilities just gives the impression that we are ourselves a bit nervous about the word use and that on some level we accept the criticism that we're being snooty in seeking to 'raise consciousness'. We're not being snooty at all. 'Consciousness-raising' is the simple, clear, usual, unabashed and inoffensive way of putting it. Anyone who objects to this is playing the über-PC game of seeking to find offence in words where none is intended. To give in to such nonsense is to legitimise it, and leads to our being chased around our own language by people exploiting this childish tactic as a way of avoiding having to make a real argument.

So I understand your point (and different people are bound to feel differently about the term in question), but I am personally quite adamant that we should stick to our guns on phrases like this unless there's a really good, clear reason to change them.

333. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63855 by _J_ on August 16, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I've been doing so well at not getting sucked into this, but ooh, PaulEmecz, you're making Dawkins' words from this week's The Enemies of Reason leap to my tongue: 'I think you're so close, but you're damn wrong!'

Two ways into this point:

1

Isn't all evidence 'subjective' in some sense? All experience of the world is subjective, but don't let's say that we cannot make any statements about an objective reality. What sort of humpty-dumpty science would that leave us with?

Absolutely right! So, let's remind ourselves of what science is again. Why, it's the system we have contrived for squeezing the errors of subjectivity out of our investigations of reality as far as we are able to. To tiptoe as close to objectivity as we are able, always remembering that we're never going to be 100% certain and may have to revise our understanding as new facts come to light.

2

What I am saying is that if there is no right and wrong, then there is no morality.

If there was no funny and unfunny, there'd be no humour.

Different people laugh at different things.

Is humour objective?

If not, does it therefore not exist?


To bring these two points together: you are quite right to insist that anything that exists has an objective existence. This is of course the position of naturalists and/or scientists all over the place. Existence is existence and things that don't exist, don't exist. I'm glad to hear you say so.

So yes, there's an objective reality somewhere in morality, just as there is in humour. But, just as is the case with humour, this does not necessitate some sort of universal Ten Commandments of what is moral (or funny).

If you really understand and believe what you are saying when you maintain that anything that truly exists at all has an objective reality, then your only way of proceeding logically is to let our system of determining objective truth as best we can – science – investigate and turn up whatever it turns up. Which so far is that the objective truth of morality is that it's built up from a huge and complex interaction between brain cells, chemicals, entire human brains, societies and cultures and traditions, experiences, and so on, and so on. Looking for a complete, objective statement of morality is looking for something truly, unimaginably vast. This doesn't mean that such a thing doesn't exist. But it's something we can be fairly confident that we're never going to nail down in absolute detail.

On the other hand, leaping to the idea that there must be some kind of outside provider of objective morality makes nonsense of your claim that anything that exists must have an objective existence. Positing a god is subjectivity running rampant. That's one whopping great assertion of objective non-existence you've made there.

So, which is it? Does objective morality have to objectively exist in the sense that we can use our objective truth finding system (science) to uncover it? Or does it not, in which case anyone can make anything up they personally subjectively want to and pretend it's 'objective truth' because it makes morality feel (subjectively) a bit more concrete? At the minute, you seem to be bending over backwards to bite out the Achilles heel of your own argument. Which, to finish as I started by borrowing words from Dawkins, is 'not a very dignified' position.

By the way, on your response to bouwe:

I hasten to add however that just because morality doesn't seem (to me) to be objective does not mean that "anything goes" -- so long as we agree on the golden rule we can work out a decent humanistic morality.

What I was saying was that the word 'decent' implies a standard of rightness and wrongness. […] I merely said that IF humanistic morality is not objective, it could not be decent,

I can see what's gone wrong here and it's a simple but telling misunderstanding. I suspect that bouwe, by 'decent', meant 'functional' (in the sense of 'that's a pretty decent bridge'). You have interpreted 'decent' as meaning, effectively, 'moral', though, which is the way that the word is commonly used in the context of discussions about morality.

Logically, bouwe, can't have meant 'decent' as 'moral', as he was making a comment about the whole of morality, not about particular behaviours within a common moral code. There is no way that a system of morality in total can be judged decent or indecent in the sense of 'moral or immoral', since the system of morality is itself what determines 'moral' and 'immoral'. To say 'morality is moral' is nonsensical, tautologous or both, depending on which way you look at it.

The reason this misunderstanding is telling (as well as simple) is that it seems to demonstrate the readiness with which you assume objective, transcendental (in the sense of being supplied by something outside our realm of the physical, like a god) morality to be a given. Even when bouwe is trying to explain to you how a non-objective, non-transcendental morality can be (and probably is) constructed by and between humans, you still slip easily into judging this within a perspective of a greater, objective and transcendental morality. Or, at least, you find it plausible that bouwe could himself be making such an error – which seems unlikely, and is certainly not necessary.

It's rather like listening to someone patiently explain how the world can exist without god, and then saying, 'That's all very well, but God makes all things so he made your godless universe too'. Which is the point at which people throw their hands up in the air and headbutt substantial objects.

Apologies for probable mistakes in the above – have had no time to proofread.

334. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63837 by _J_ on August 16, 2007 at 11:43 am

captain underpants and Oliver Leif,

Furthermore, this is not the first time darwin2's beliefs, book manuscript (complete with startling insights on everything from evolution to nanotechnology to UFOs) and forages into poetry have been pored over on this site. And, like you, I thought he was having me on - until I saw the book. It's kind of breathtaking.

So, not only is he in earnest, he's also not inclined to change his mind. It's probably best to give this one up.

He does sound like a fairly nice bloke, though. I've invited him to tea and biscuits if he's ever in my area - and that offer still stands, darwin2. (Might have to be one of those 'don't talk about religion' occasions, though, or I won't have enough biscuits to last.)

335. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63762 by _J_ on August 15, 2007 at 5:20 pm

USA_Limey, 71

...in the vain hope that though morally corrupt I would still have your genius.

Oh, have you seen her? She's not been around here for bloody ages.

(And on that bombshell...)

336. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63761 by _J_ on August 15, 2007 at 5:04 pm

180, USA_Limey.

Aw, cheers, mate! (Seriously, actually - appreciated; am rather down about life, just at the mo. Largely due to above-mentioned failure to do any real work!)

It's great, though, this place, isn't it? I've never been one for web forums before the last year, but the amount I've learned from Dr Benway, steve99, yourself, epeeist, Robert Maynard and many, many others (including the argumentative theists, in fact) over the last few months is - well, I've forgotten most of it, but it was a lot! Probably why it's so damn addictive. Josh and the good Professor have conjured up something worthwhile here, I'd say.

Here's staring balefully into your lidless eye of flame, kid. o)

337. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63757 by _J_ on August 15, 2007 at 4:50 pm

USA_Limey,

Warm thanks - I'm so glad you finally labeled the Eye of Sauron. All this time I thought I was looking in a mirror, and was getting extremely worried.

What happened? Did you get an irate query from the cave-dwelling hermit in Tristan da Cunha who hasn't seen the movies?

[EDIT - Oh - should have read the thread properly. You evil sexist Dark Lord, you.]

338. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63754 by _J_ on August 15, 2007 at 4:35 pm

darwin2, 177

The law of physics as far as human interactions go is simply love thy neighbor as thyself and do good works.
--- You, darwin2

Can I say 'bububu' and mean 'If it doesn't rain, I shall go for a walk?' It is only in a language that I can mean something by something.
--- Ludwig Wittgenstein

That's not physics, and that's why people are confused. You can't redefine the term 'law of physics' to mean whatever you want it to mean. (Or, rather, if you try to, you cannot expect agreement with anyone other than yourself.) Give your definition in any physics department anywhere in the world and you'll be regarded with utter incredulity. Your assertion - which is a statement of your personal opinion of what makes good ethical behaviour - is no more physics than geography, and no more geography than a nice pepper-infused soft cheese.

If you are going to discuss anything meaningfully, you need to use a system of meaning stuff that we all share: a commonly understood language. We're using English. Let us know when you're willing to join in.

For further demonstrations of the error you are making, you might like to consult the Humpty Dumpty episode in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

339. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63747 by _J_ on August 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm

darwin2, 169

There will be no boredom in heaven.

Which is totally inconceivable. I imagine it'll be all goodness and joy, too...? Also absolutely impossible to imagine, beyond a second or two of smiling happily. At least 'the streets will be paved with gold' is conceivable. What can infinite, eternal goodness, joy and interest possibly be like? Surely we need some badness, misery and tedium to present a meaningful contrast?

Of course, you don't have to comprehend, because He and It are infinite, and you are only a finite little being and unable to understand any of this. And yet you can make confident announcements that it exists. In spite of the best investigations that your species' most reliable, dedicated truth-finding mechanism (science - that what it is, you know) consistently turning up big fat negatives on the subject.

You know what's even more baffling? Why do we discuss this with you? You're happy, probably mostly harmless, and utterly immune to reason. I've said before that you sound like a nice bloke and, short of finding a way of writing reason directly onto your brain (which is too scary an idea to think about, anyway), neither I nor anyone else is going to get through your lead bunker of bare assertion and poetry. So you're welcome to it. Just don't expect any respect for it. Sorry.

On the subject of poetry, you might like this:

I wonder why I wonder why. I wonder why I wonder. I wonder why I wonder why I wonder why I wonder!
--- Richard Feynman, tagged onto the end of a class paper during his years as an undergraduate at MIT

Of course, for Feynman poetry was just doodling in the margins whilst getting on with the serious business of working things out about the world. Happily for physics and the rest of us, that's the attitude he stuck with.

340. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63714 by _J_ on August 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

darwin2, 155

The hard truth of the matter is most people at this web site including you shy away from coming to grips with the scientific and objective possibility that God might exist. Since it is a scientific possibility with eternal ramifications, it is time that scientists and scientifically oriented people get off their butts and start discussing the ramifications of what happens if consciousness survives death and God exists.

It is scientifically and objectively possible that hyper intelligent parasitic molluscs are controlling the World Health Organisation.

It is scientifically and objectively possible that, as we speak, Kyrgyzstan is being invaded by a hitherto undiscovered population of nuclear-capable blue leopards.

It is scientifically and objectively possible that gravity has just been one big joke and that the punchline is due at 3.15 tomorrow afternoon.

(It is equally possible that it's due at 3.16. Or 3.16m01s)

It is certainly scientifically and objectively possible that I could sit here concocting scientifically and objectively possible conjectures until I starve to death. The number of possibilities is literally infinite. And it's not like they are necessarily piffling, either. Nuclear-capable leopards would have a serious impact on the lives of all people on earth. So would a humorous cessation of gravity. (Or my death by starvation - don't pretend you wouldn't miss me.)

It is not the business of 'scientists and scientifically oriented people' to 'get off their butts' and pursue literally everything with potentially significant implications that is merely possible. Such an enterprise would in fact be impossible, since even if everyone on earth were a scientist, it would take all of us all of our lives just to think about all of the things that are possible - and we'd still never manage it, because the number of such things is infinite.

Thankfully, we do have people who spend their careers discussing the ramifications of types of unevinced worldviews, such as that which you describe. These people are called philosophers and they say some very interesting things.

But science is not philosophy because science isn't concerned with the ghostly ramifications of infinite theoretical possibilities, no matter how gobsmacking. It is concerned with working out what is real. Cause and effect. Facts. Predictions that predict things that actually happen. Stuff that makes a jot of difference in the events of people's lives.

Scientists have spent, and do spend, time on some evidence-free possibilities in the hope of finding some evidence - things like 'There is a god' and 'People have souls' and so on - because scientists notice that these particular types of claim are very widespread and strongly held. (Indeed, being human beings, some scientists hold them themselves.) But all that scientists can do is look to see if there really is any evidence. Can we see god? Touch him, taste him, hear him, smell him - detect him in any measurable way? Do prayers get a statistically significant response? Is there any sign of a soul departing the body? Can the dead be shown ever to have communicated with the living?

Don't think these sorts of experiments haven't been done. Don't think that they aren't still being done. And don't think that scientists would cover it up if they got positive results. Science has undergone plenty of enormous upheavals in its few centuries of serious application. A revolution like a strong scientific indication of God would win somebody a Nobel prize and have scientists the world over winning research grants and beavering away into the small hours to check it, corroborate it, duplicate it, understand it and find out more. And - joy of joys - it would actually endear science once more to its religious detractors! Oh yes, the scientific establishment would readily eat its hats and wolf down its humble pie in order to get its teeth into God.

But when, as has been the case, all serious attempts to discover god through science fail to turn up any positive results, there are only two things that scientists can legitimately do. They can shrug their shoulders and wander off to research something else entirely. Or they can take an interest in why the belief in God (and the afterlife, and so on) is so common in spite of being apparently unfounded, and so go on to studying belief, as opposed to the thing believed in. Either way, they have to conclude that, since there is no indication that god, or souls, or whatever else, exist, there is no way to sensibly make any predictions or theories about them. If such things do exist in some inaccessible way, they are completely untestable with present means and thus belong in the infinitely large basket of blue leopards and parastic mollusc conspiracies. To start contriving theories about these unobservable ideas would be to stop being 'scientists and scientifically oriented people' and instead start being theologists, philosophers, wishful thinkers or quacks.

If you genuinely want scientists to study god, you need to give them something to study. It is nonsensical to ask science, which deals with the measurable, to spend its time on immeasurable assertions. If you've got some evidence, please, by all means, bring it forward, smack it on the lab table and earn your place in history. But if not, then please, for the blue leopards' sake, shut up about scientists shirking the impossible, paradoxical responsibilities that you think they ought to have to magically confirm your beliefs. Until you can point to some evidence that science can do something with, you want to stop banging on the laboratory door and head over to the philosophy department.

341. Saudis to build their own version of Eden Project

Comment #63519 by _J_ on August 14, 2007 at 4:25 pm

gordon

America prioritises health care? In which state is that? Seems to me that capitalism is the state religion in both these countries, or at least one of the religions.

Oh yeah - good point, actually.

I'll stop worrying and go back to thinking how cool it is.

342. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63411 by _J_ on August 14, 2007 at 5:04 am

dazzjazz, 19

Why don't they all go back to the M.E.

[My underlining]

Eeeeeeasy, tiger!

343. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63408 by _J_ on August 14, 2007 at 5:01 am

Hi, David,

Welcome back from Bulgaria. Hope you had a good trip.

On the article: general agreement. And a useful case study for bringing this issue to attention. It does add up to a general reminder not to sit on our concerns and hope that someone else will voice them. Freedom of criticism: use it or lose it...

344. Saudis to build their own version of Eden Project

Comment #63406 by _J_ on August 14, 2007 at 4:56 am

Who is setting the best example?

Well, America is, if it prioritises healthcare, education and business investment over enormous greenhouses shaped like Islamic emblems. Sure, it sounds as though the King Abdullah International Gardens is an immeasurably better thing than Ken Ham's bullshit museum. But to consider the matter only in so narrow a context seems to be to miss the big picture.

After all, Ham's museum of lies is funded out of his lying religious organisation's own coffers of lie-generated cash, isn't it? Who is funding these gardens?

Mind, I know bugger all about Saudi Arabia. My first thought on this article was 'That looks cool'.

345. Saudis to build their own version of Eden Project

Comment #63381 by _J_ on August 14, 2007 at 3:43 am

BAEOZ: I thought Saudi Arabia was full of Wahabists, who took a literal reading of the Quran.

gordon: you are correct.

epeeist: the Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam is the official religion and is strictly enforced.

I suppose we shouldn't judge a book by its cover by reading too much into the architectural direction illustrated by the artist's impression...?

The central crescents at the heart of the structure [...] will tower 40 metres (130ft) above the desert and will be the largest Teflon construction in the world.

Regardless of the contents, this place's roof will provide the perfect conditions for a uniquely massive scientific trial of the 'you can fry an egg in the desert' conjecture. So, even if the gardens of evolution are overrun with Allah's woo-woo fairy all-stars, you'll at least be able to grab an impressive omelette.

346. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63353 by _J_ on August 14, 2007 at 2:36 am

Nefrubyr

I'm still filing this under "interesting but completely untestable explanations of existence."

Quite right, too. The simulation argument's been doing the rounds for a while now, and whilst it makes for entertaining sci-filosophical musings over cheese and biscuits, it partakes far too heavily of 'What if?'-ery (and invites far too much 'So what?'-ery) to hinge a serious belief about reality on.

Corylus

They are Not about postulating possibilities, or for that matter assigning probabilities [...]This sort of brainless drivel makes me very cross.

Oh, does this mean we're not going to squeeze 1,800 comments' worth of theological speculation out of David Chalmers and vatted brains this time? How things have changed! (Fingers crossed... ;) )

347. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62891 by _J_ on August 12, 2007 at 8:08 am

fonex_86, 24

what do you think of the title of the article itself? [...] not exactly unambigious, IMHO.

Very good point. My interpretation (which is the only one that matters) is that Lynch is calling Dawkins a transvestite evangelist. Whether Lynch means by this that Dawkins is trying to get the world to embrace transvestism, or that Dawkins is championing some other opinion whilst dabbling in his own adventures in ladies' clothing, I don't know. When I've run out of more interesting things to do than read his article properly, perhaps I'll find out (although if things truly become that bad, I expect I'll be too busy running a bath and searching for an extension lead for the toaster).

Either way, I'm sure Lynch has amassed plenty of compelling evidence and applied good clear reasoning to reach his thesis, before unleashing it in a respectable national newspaper. Like all prominent religious apologists.

348. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62869 by _J_ on August 12, 2007 at 4:27 am

bungoton, 22

Sorry about this, but my pedantry gene won't let me ignore it: there is such a word as evangelicalism. Copied and paraphrased from an old Concise OED, here you go:

evangelist n. 1 One of the four gospel writers. 2 a preacher of the gospel. 3 a lay person doing missinary work.

evangelism n. 1 the preaching of the bible. 2 evangelicalism.

evangelical adj. & n. - adj. 1 of or according to the gospel teaching or Christianity. 2 of the Protestant school that believes that salvation by faith is the core of the gospel. n. member of the evangelical school -- evangelicalism n.

This distinction - between a gospel-centric Christian religion with strong emphasis on faith, and actively promulgating that religion - gets lost all the time. But in terms of the present instance, I think you're right: Lynch means (or is trying to mean) evangelism. (And, since it can also mean evangelicalism anyway, I guess it's the safe option.)

349. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #62620 by _J_ on August 10, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Thanks, stevencarrwork. I know it doesn't need repeating, but:

'It doesn't matter what the evidence is, evolutionary biologists are happy to change their story to suit.'

Jesus wept, you couldn't make this up.

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

Comment #62547 by _J_ on August 10, 2007 at 4:36 am

A decent article that once again had me faintly excited at the idea that I might be about to discover that I've been wrong in my atheism these last few years. But, another disappointment – still no good argument for god. And, moreover, no good argument against arguing against god.

Two immediate objections to the article:

impeccable Humean logic is now the impenetrable shield that the churches can use to deflect the ideological bullets of his successor. After all, if religion has been forced to become little other than an assembly of ethical opinions - however passionately adhered to and however elegantly housed-- then it cannot actually be depicted as "wrong".

This seems to be an umbrella to protect Mr Lawson from having to deal with the details of the matter. And it would be of more use to him if he was holding it the right way up: in my experience, theistic apologists tend to maintain that there is such a thing as 'true' or 'absolute' or 'objective' morality, that it is realised in the nature of god, and that their faith is the only way of appreciating it. The idea that 'all statements of ethics are factually meaningless, being no more than the expression of the view that we either like or dislike something' is anathema to the Christians I have talked to.

Lawson might have prevented himself from placing his armies at the wrong ends of the battlefield if he had paused to consider the central claims of our major religions rather than assuming that they share his enthusiasm for Humean ethics. 'Hume was perhaps the first to make the point that we cannot derive "ought" from "is"', Lawson reminds us. 'There is a god, who is like this, therefore you ought to do this' is about the simplest paraphrase that can be applied to the major monotheisms (and polytheisms if you thrown in some plurals) without misrepresenting them. By pointing out that 'There is a god' is an assertion of objective reality and that falls within the scope of scientific investigation (just as 'There is an [anything]' would), Dawkins is not tripping over Hume's observation. Quite the opposite. He is drawing our attention to a monumental transgression of it.

Dawkins loathes the fact that theological ideas such as Hell still persist in Catholic doctrine - but the modern Christian concept of Hell means little more than permanent separation from God: the notion of being tortured by sulphuric flames for eternity is as dead as Hieronymus Bosch.

Unless Lawson is speaking for a particular minority of Christians, this statement is either disingenuous, or wishful thinking, or blissful ignorance.

I can't speak for Catholicism, as my experience has been with protestant faiths. And it is true that they are either embarrassed by mentions of hell, or over-eager to pounce on such misconceptions as evidence of a non-believer's naïve view of their faith.

But if you've ever been to a large-scale evangelistic drive, or persisted in asking a Christian what they think happens to those who don't go to heaven (many wince at the very word 'hell'), you find that whilst the readiness to depict the details of hell has gone, the horror of the idea is undiminished. As Lawson says, 'the modern Christian concept of Hell means little more than permanent separation from God'. Yes: and the modern Christian conception of God is the source of all goodness. Just as dark is the absence of light, evil and despair are the absence of God. Christians see the life hereafter as polarised between the place that is nothing but good, and the place that is anything but.

The threat has only gone out of Christianity in the same way that a vague reference to one's nuclear arsenal is less of a threat than placing one's hand on one's sword hilt. Christians haven't stopped describing hell because they've decided it's not real. They've stopped because it is an indescribable horror - they lack the words, the imagination and the desire to explore it in detail. Many can't even bear to think about it in the context of unbelievers that they know and care about. Hell, and the notion that one's loved ones may be going to it, is a belief that many Christians only live with by trying not to look at it.