Dawkins & O’Reilly
April 26th, 2007 by 
drunkentune
Frank Walton of Atheism Sucks! briefly stopped by to link to his views on The Rational Response Squad’s Gift of Life Day. After reading a few posts at Walton’s blog, I saw his reaction to the ‘debate’ between Richard Dawkins and Bill ‘falafel’ O’Reilly (you can read my more visceral reaction here). In this post I wish to firmly argue in favor of Dawkins’ position – even though I think he communicated his message very poorly to a demagogue. Much has been made (and Walton’s post and subsequent comments are a prime example) of Dawkins’ words ‘We’re working on it.’ What I think Dawkins failed to communicate was that science is always working on it; there is no finality to discovering the Truth.
I.
Numerous philosophers tried to tackle the problem of induction. With induction we can know for certain that some statements are wrong, but we can never know they are right. For instance, take the much-overused phrase: ‘All ravens are black.’ (Or, as some may quip, ‘All swans are white.’) (All x are a)
We need only one example of an albino raven
Due to this problem, we discard induction and instead turn to falsifiability: we tentatively accept our theory until shown otherwise, but we do not look for conformations, but disconformations: refutations to our theory.
What Dawkins intended to say, implied in his reserved British tone, was that science knows far more why and how ‘the tides go in, the tides go out, the sun goes up, the sun goes down’, how and why the universe came to be, than any holy text. What’s interesting is that his next words are ‘Physicists are –’ before he is interrupted by the blowhard. Physicists are currently trying to answer all sorts of questions about the universe: they’re searching for neutron stars (Astronomy, 4/07), building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to search for the Higgs boson and learning how the proton spins (Science, vol. 315, 3/07); they are looking for dark matter and WIMPs down in the Soudan Mine; they are attempting to show how galaxies formed (Science News, vol. 171, 2/07).
We now know far more about how the universe operates: atoms and blackbody radiation and neutrinos and all sorts of baffling things that seem highly counterintuitive to us. Thus, we search for new evidence, to probe deeper, to ask far more interesting questions, to conduct more tests in attempts to disprove our most beloved theories. We continue to search for the Truth because we can never know in science, due to induction, if we have fallen upon the Truth, only that our current theories far more accurately describe the universe.
We are always ‘working on it.’
II.
But why search for the Truth? Why should we invest so much time and energy? Why can’t we take O’Reilly’s way out and say ‘[I]t’s true for me… I can’t prove to you that Jesus is God, so that truth is mine and mine alone, but you can’t prove to me that Jesus is not,’ as if this will suffice?
There are three reasons, I contend. With infinite interesting questions and answers, curiosity becomes a driving force to discovering the Truth. The universe is a strange, strange place, nothing like we observe it on our mundane level — there is the uber-small of quantum mechanics and the ultra-large distances of whole galaxies. It is interesting, captivating. To discover these ideas is satisfying on a primitive, emotional level, and to know that there are far more undiscovered ideas is wonderful. To skip this adventure to live in placid contentment is bothersome on a basic notion that violates what it means to be fully human.
There is also Truth’s pragmatic utility, its application. 
If I want to buy eggs, I want to know if the local store sells eggs or not. Theories can be immensely useful at accomplishing tasks, such as coordinating our GPS satellites with Einstein’s theories or building airplanes. If we want answers to our problems, we can find them in Truth.
Then, there is also one other reason besides curiosity and utility why we should search for Truth: it is moral and just and good; it is worthwhile and important to know what is True. It is incumbent on us to search for the Truth. So, the pursuit of Truth is both a never-ending pragmatic and moral quest. The theories that fail fall by the wayside as untruths, myths that never got off the ground, or rose only to crumble under the weight of a better tool. So grab hold of the ones that fly, the ones that momentarily get us closer. We must follow them where they take us.
It is emotionally satisfying, useful at solving our questions, and morally right to do so.
III.
The alternative to this methodology and moral system is non-science: it claims to be absolutely certain that it holds the Truth.
This brings me to Walton’s second statement:
After the debate, you get a feeling that it does take more faith to be an atheist, because Dawkins had no absolute certainty of his atheist worldview.
Walton claims that this lack of certainty is equivalent to faith, but as I explained in Naturalism, An Intermission and Naturalism, pt. II, (1) we can never be certain that experience is coherent or true, and (2) certainty is to be avoided at all costs‘If we demand certainty above that found in science, then philosophy would come before science. If we demand that our a prioris be correct, we would not attempt to prove ourselves wrong and in time refine our beliefs.’.
In fact, I would argue that it is certainty that is faith. It is to rely far to heavily on the myths that have currently survived scrutiny. Or, in some cases like astrology and magnet therapy, where the myths have not survived at all, it resolves to clutching madly to a crumpled theory, splayed on the ground. We don’t know if tomorrow everything we understand about the universe will change, and to call our theories true beyond doubt (such as believers that claim the inerrancy of the Bible or Koran) is to stand in opposition to science.
Of course, there is the small caveat: They could be right. The Bible could be in the inerrant word of God; the Koran could be in the inerrant word of Allah. I leave that as a logical possibility (along with the existence of all other gods), but possibility isn’t enough. We need more. We should never genuflect to a myth, even if that myth is the closest we have to the Truth; we should attempt to destroy that myth. Had we stopped at Kill Devil Hills with a haphazard glider, called it a day, we would not fly. We must be humble in our ignorance, modest in the truth of our conclusions; we must be curious, pragmatic, moral; we must try our hardest to debunk our radical theories after they seem to work; we must seek the Truth.
Then, is faith, this certainty that one is already the keeper of Truth, little more than pride?
IV. Extras
>Here is the interview and an unofficial transcript.
>Dr. Ray Pritchard on the debate
>Hanlon’s Razor looks at Bill O’Reilly
>Atheist Bites Theist!, a conversation between an atheist (Dan Harlow) and a theist (Mike Clawson)!
>Study shows O’Reilly uses name-calling more than once every seven seconds in ‘Talking Points Memo’
Posted in current issues, philosophical issues, spectrum of belief | 
April 27th, 2007 at 12:42 am
I thought it was bordering on insanity for Dawkins to even be in the same room as O’Reilly. I mean, would you trust him to try and present a cogent discussion with an atheist?
We have the same rightwing media jocks here. Their professions are built around how many insulting remarks, or strawman arguments they can repeat in a 20 second soundbyte.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Thanks for the neat description of my spiritual quest to know the Truth. I know that you see it in naturalistic terms, which I can identify with, since I also find the natural world and the scientific exploration of it fascinating. How great that we share the ethic that curiosity, utility, and a sense of what is righteous (moral, just, and good is how you put it). I guess where we differ is in the assessment of the fitness of mortal man to collectively or individually attain much approximation to truth and perhaps also the kind of truth we like to seek. As I see it, there seems to be a personal Truth who is quite separate and transcendent (holy). And, this Truth has opened a way for us to understand and grow. And, this Truth has promise to complete the job for me as I move into the afterlife. Of course, Mr. O’Reilly, whom I personally cannot bear even listening to for a few seconds, is not exactly a very good specimen of a Truth-seeker, given that he works for faux news, a bunch of right-wing liars.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
At least we can agree on politics!
I just wonder if this personal truth you speak of, Ed, is even debatable in a diverse group of thinkers coming from many points of view. To say that it is somehow separate from other ways of gaining knowledge about this universe, secluded from the other methodologies we have at our disposal; I just don’t see that. You’d have to show me, because I’m lost somewhere along the way.
I think Bill-O does exemplify something I have seen often: there is this nervousness many believers have at addressing their core beliefs. It becomes ‘true to me’, or a ‘personal Truth’ but not true in a real sense, or some might stake claim as anti-science dolts that wear their ignorance proudly as some sort of badge of honor, or some just don’t talk about it, an unwritten taboo. We shouldn’t criticize our neighbor’s religion. We can go after his politics or his favorite baseball team, but we can’t go after important underlying beliefs people have. There’s a butterflies-in-the-stomach feeling many believers have just talking about philosophy! We’ve got people that don’t want to address their own basic beliefs the same way we do with any other belief.
And that worries me.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:30 am
I think it’s suspect to affirm theism (specifically Christianity) are not for the advancement of science. A belief in God wouldn’t stop the wondrous pursuit of discovering more about the universe.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:36 am
RE: “A belief in God wouldn’t stop the wondrous pursuit of discovering more about the universe.”
A belief in a god can result in the human powers that be, deciding what scientific investigations “god” would consider appropriate.
It inevitably means that someone or some religious organization gets to decide what scientific research “god” would like.
All research would need to comply with the “religious corporation” - none of whom would necessarily be scientists, but theologians.
Human history has been down this path in the past. It wasn’t pretty.
“Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.” - Thomas Henry Huxley
April 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am
PBS plans to air a 3 part series starting May 4 called “A Brief History of Disbelief” which is also available to watch on line if you cannot find the series listed on your local PBS station schedule. Here is the link to Part I, and Parts II and III can also be accessed from the same link:
A Brief History of Disbelief
April 28th, 2007 at 10:01 am
There are likely many reasons for people to hold back on discussing their religious beliefs. Perhaps experience has shown them that controversy emerges and remains. I think part of the reason for this is that spiritual life is very rudimentary in this world. It is comparable to a bunch of preschoolers discussing a topic of interest: not much can be resolved, the ability to grasp spiritual truths and utilize them is an emerging trait. Even Paul, in his epistles, refers to this difficulty in numerous contexts. His response is generally to keep redirecting people to the preschool teacher (God) who must be relied upon to bring any kind of unity or growth in spirituality. If only Christians kept hold on that attitude, but instead many get puffed up with pride and think they’re hot-shot spiritual leaders and they insist on being followed. Little do they realize they’ve got a runny nose and peanut butter in their hair.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Infidel,
Thanks for the link! I hope you don’t mind that fixed it up to look a bit pretty. I’ve seen a few of Jonathan Millers’ interviews, and he’s great. Oddly enough, a good deal of the first episode relates to my subjects on division: poetry vs. geometry; loyalty vs. justice; & the other two divides I’m saving as a ’surprise’, but Millers talks briefly on the third.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Sacchiel,
The second-century Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy had a fairly decent description of how the heavens acted to some extent, but did not understand why. He reconciled this so:
So, how do the planets operate? Zeus!
Let’s move a few hundred years down the line. Issac Newton was one of the greatest intellects the world has ever known. Now, Newton’s law of gravity allows us to calculate the force of attraction between two objects. But add a third, fourth, fifth object, and the orbits of, say, planets, become difficult to predict. The Earth is simultaneously being pulled by the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, &c., while each of these planets and moons and asteroids are simultaneously being pulled by each other. Newton thought this would make the orbits of planets unstable. So Newton wrote in the Principa:
In the absence of data to explain how and why the planets didn’t veer off into each other, he invokes God:
So, how did the planets operate? God!
Now, a century later, the astronomer Pierre-Simon de Laplace decided, instead of saying, ‘Goddidit!’ (or ‘Zeusdidit!’) as Ptolemy and Newton did, he’d try to figure out this dilemma of the unstable orbits. He made it a scientific investigation, not a theological one. In Mécanique Céleste, published in 1798, Laplace developed perturbation theory, showing that the solar system is stable over longer periods of time than Newton could have predicted.
On a slight anecdote, when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked Laplace what role God played in the construction of the heavens. ‘Sire,’ Laplace replied, ‘I have no need of that hypothesis.’
A belief in God surely hasn’t stopped the advancement of knowledge, but it has hindered us, perhaps by hundreds of years at a time. If Newton and spent less time on theology to resolve his scientific issues, perhaps he wouldn’t have needed that God hypothesis.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
There is no proof that belief in God has hindered the advancement of knowledge. It is possible that Ptolemy, Newton, and Laplace would have contented themselves with eating megafauna with the rest of their hunting tribe, had mankind never been capable of religious belief. So, would you please make the connection for me: how can you be certain that this god or God belief has hindered us? Or, is it just a matter of faith on your part?
April 29th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Once you have a belief in a god, and that particular god belief is institutionalized politically; it is inevitably someone’s job to work out what god would like and what god wouldn’t like.
God would like research into “why he created the universe” - but not research into “the human genome project and how it correlates to natural selection.”
So, inevitably, you end up with a committee of theologians who decide what god would like and what god wouldn’t.
The vatican, historically, has probably been the best example of this. If research has complied with religious dogma, it has been accepted, and when it hasn’t - watch out!
April 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Here is the Vatican’s view of the controversy: “In the 19th century under Pius IX, the clash between the Church’s faith and a radical liberalism and the natural sciences, which also claimed to embrace with their knowledge the whole of reality to its limit, stubbornly proposing to make the “hypothesis of God” superfluous, had elicited from the Church a bitter and radical condemnation of this spirit of the modern age. Thus, it seemed that there was no longer any milieu open to a positive and fruitful understanding, and the rejection by those who felt they were the representatives of the modern era was also drastic.” This is from Pope Benedict’s 2005 Christmas message, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia…. It seems religious leaders saw in the statements of atheists a threat: religious belief was a hindrance and ought be eliminated so mankind could truly become better in every way. Now, think about the 20th century secular, atheistic society that rose up to eliminate religion, and bring us so much technological advance. I believe their leader proclaimed, “We will bury you.” to their rival, that pathetically overly religious United States, impeded by even a papist President. The last generation’s struggle shows no evidence that secular atheists can grow the knowledge of mankind at any better rate than a nation of largely religious adherents. In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite, comrade.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Ed,
I have just given you one example of one of the most intelligent minds ever resorting to ‘Goddidit!’ as a solution and failing to investigate the phenomena any further. I’m not talking about a belief in God, I’m talking about resorting to ‘Goddidit!’ ‘Magic!’ ‘A miracle!’ as an answer. Methodological naturalism doesn’t do that.
The seventeenth-century Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens, the constructor of the first working pendulum clock and discoverer of the rings of Saturn, wrote the charming book The Celestial Worlds Discover’d, posthumously published in 1696. This book is full of beautiful foldout charts that illustrate the structure of the solar system. God is absent from this — even though a hundred years earlier planetary orbits were a mystery. Huygens also writes a bit on the possibility of other life forms in the universe, then bringing up several biological conundrums of the day, such as complexity.
Sure enough, because seventeenth-century physics was far more advanced than seventeenth-century biology, Huygens invokes the God hypothesis:
Seeing the unknown as an eternal mystery, rather than a place to explore hinders science. As long as the celestial sphere or biological sphere are regarded as the domains of the divine, they are then above and beyond investigation. Science is a philosophy of discovery; the God hypothesis embraces ignorance: I don’t know what this is. I don’t know how this works. It’s too complicated for me to figure out. It’s too complicated for any human to figure out.
(i) When a majority of scientists do not believe in a personal god, I think you are clearly wrong.
(ii) I suggest watching this as well.
(iii) Look, I’ll make this easy: name one — just one — scientific advancement made through methodological supernaturalism.
And don’t equivocate science (methodological naturalism) and Communism, of all things. I do not care about what Communists following the party line and insane Marxist dogma think; I care what scientists think. I am not trying to eradicate religion — I am saying that if we want to find the truth, and I have made my position known in past posts, we must follow science, not dogma of any kind, non-science or pseudo-science.
April 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Thanks for backing off your statement that belief in God has hindered the advancement of knowledge. That makes we believers a little less concerned that we will be placed in psychiatric facilities against our will and treated for our “God Delusion”, as was done in the Soviet Union for a long time. Dawkins surely came up with a poor name for his book.
April 29th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Drunkentune–
I don’t mind at all that you ‘beautified’ my link. I don’t use the IE browser therefore I don’t have access to lots of bells and whistles to do it myself. I watched all 3 parts of Jonathan Miller’s series this weekend and wondered if perhaps you had collaborated on the project since so many of your posts are reflected in the finished work.
Ed–
You will be pleased to learn from the series (A Brief History of Disbelief) that atheists have been around long before the Christian god was created and so far none have been able to topple religion. The one person I feel is most responsible for the seeming sudden influx of books like “The God Delusion” is GWB’s unholy alliance with the likes of Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell and their push to make the US a fundy theocracy. As a result a number of educated atheists felt they had to start pushing back. Before the 2000 elections atheists and theists quietly and respectfully agreed to disagree for the most part. Like Drunkentune, my goal or wish is not to eradicate religion either. Your faith seems to have brought you peace and I’m happy for you. I know it’s probably hard for you to understand but my life is just as fulfilling as I try to accomplish my goal of not assuming room temperature with any ‘woulda, coulda, shoulda’ left undone. You and Soulster are two people of faith that I have come to respect in these discussions.
April 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Belief in a god may not by necessity hinder science. Religion as a political movement does.
April 29th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
This except by Bill Maher -
MAHER: (Commenting on religion)
“It’s extremely dangerous. It warps people’s thinking. The Bush administration has 150 graduates of Pat Robertson’s law school. That’s right, Pat Robertson, the man who believes that hurricanes are caused by gay people.”
MAHER: “I’m just making the point, Joe, that religion warps people’s thinking. Until we get over these, I’m sorry, yes, childhood myths, we can’t think straight and we can’t solve our problems in a functional way, in a way that involves rational thinking. We are steering the ship of state by cutting open a chicken and reading the entrails, like the Romans did, instead of using a compass, which would be science.”
Sheesh, I agree with Bill Maher.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Infidel: Actually, I can relate some to your contentment. I was not religious until about age 19, and it was more a factor of the faith finding me than me running to it out of some emotional crisis. Also, I am impressed with Barack Obama’s expressed view on the role of faith in politics, see ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address. So, it is not a matter of disallowing any religious concept in the political arena, it is to universalize the message, a great way to obtain majority rule with respect to minority rights.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“it is to universalize the message”
What exactly does this mean?
(Yes, I know you don’t comment on my comments; but perhaps someone else would be interested to know what this means as well.)
April 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Infidel,
I actually knew nothing of this documentary until you linked to it. I only know of him after seeing several of his interviews with famous atheists some time ago. I’m just a big fan of the Greeks & have read a bit: it’s the culture where science & philosophy began.
beepbeep,
Here’s Maher’s OP on Regent Law School.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Ed,
It’s far more subtle than I let on: I should note that if someone resorts to a God hypothesis, it will be because they happen to believe in God. So, those that turn to supernaturalism as an answer have hindered science, stalled progress.
I still do think that belief in the supernatural (not just in gods) has impeded our advancement of knowledge — but it’s not all belief that I’m concerned with. It’s clear that many scientists are believers in the supernatural; however, these believers don’t resort to the God hypothesis: they don’t resort to ignorance. Instead, they follow methodological naturalism, so in a sense they live a double-life: active and practicing atheists when at work, but believers at home.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Drunken:
Thanks for the link. Bill Maher is my new found hero.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
drunkentune, On the surface, your concept that belief in the supernatural impedes scientific investigation appears logical. However, there may be factors which we don’t fully appreciate about the cohesion of community or invigoration of the imagination that could logically improve the ability to advance knowledge. So, your hypothesis may be worth testing, but hasn’t been, so as a skeptic, I expect your stance on this to be neutral.
beep: I think Obama described the universality pretty well in the link I provided. He is not calling for theocracy but also not for religious people to retreat into enclaves. He is calling on religious people to dialog with one another and non-religious people using universal language and concepts, rather than resorting to “because my God says so.”
April 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Ed,
A perfect way to invalidate my argument would be to build a large and comprehensive collection of people resorting to the God hypothesis — ultimately taking supernaturalism at its face value — and this revolutionary hypothesis also advancing science. Such as: a revolution in physics or chemistry that doesn’t rely on naturalism. I have looked, they have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Perhaps you can find one. In fact, I would be very interested in finding one advancement made through methodological supernaturalism. I admit that this is not an airtight concept; poke some logical holes in it, and we’ll see if it’s up to snuff.
The God hypothesis just looks like a dead-end to investigation, and whenever I look at those pushing for the God hypothesis, they are always followers of supernaturalism. Case in point: Intelligent Design.
Thus, supernaturalism, when applied in the sciences, produces the God hypothesis. Outside of the sciences, such as in personal, private life, belief in the supernatural may help people feel special, unique, and provide contentment or solace. I admit this. It may make them good people when otherwise they would rape, murder and kidnap others. It may give them cause to donate money, help out in charities, or be better parents.
But that theory would need some empirical evidence, just as mine needs empirical and historical evidence of the God hypothesis being a detriment and not a benefit to science. I just can’t find any that has invalidated the examples I have given (Ptolemy, Newton, Huygens, & Discovery Institute fellows). They’ve posited the supernatural as a cause and then turn to theology, not science, for answers. Remember: absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but it’s pretty compelling. I haven’t found any non-black ravens, but if the two of us look together, maybe we can find an albino raven.
You up for the challenge?
April 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Drunkentune, there is a big difference between belief in the supernatural and resort to the God hypothesis. In most cases, resort to the God hypothesis may be impeding, in others maybe not. It certainly is not my point to suggest that resorting to the God hypothesis instead of vigorously pursuing scientific knowledge is ever wise. My point is that you are equating such resort to supernatural belief adherents, and while that may be a necessary condition, it is hardly a sufficient one. It may be that there are advantages to a supernatural belief system in terms of advancement of scientific knowledge. After all, several million species have existed on earth. Only one seems to have developed both religion and science, though others have developed language, music, and use of tools. A big fear among believers in the scientific fields is that of covert or overt discrimination by non-religious in leadership roles. This is brought on by attitudes that religious belief hinders science, is a delusion, and the atheistic Marxist governments have incarcerated believers in psychiatric facilities.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
The stalinists in russia incarcerated and killed a lot of people. Not only did they get sick of the extremely politically powerful Russian Orthodox Church supporting the divine right of kings, or tzars in this case; but they were sick of the marriage of church and state which kept them grovelling at the bottom of the food chain.
Religion has a habit of forging alliances with the politically powerful and developing a symbiotic relationship which allows each to survive and get more and more powerful, whilst keeping the door shut to competition.
Now, I don’t consider the violence associated with that revolution to be something to be admired, or condoned - but from an historical point of view, its pertinent to not forget why it happened.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Ed–
I hope you haven’t pegged me as a hedonistic 19 year old! It’s been decades (and two baptisms–one Protestant, one Catholic and neither apparently ‘took’) since I’ve been in my teens so I guess we both reversed paths about the same times in our lives. Mass was still in Latin when I gave up religion for good. And leaving gave me peace since I thought I was ‘intristically flawed’ because I just could not learn to believe in any god no matter how hard I tried. However, in addition to my personal interest quests to far off lands in search of knowledge helping others is part of my woulda, coulda, shoulda so I volunteer my time (and money to buy the materials) with several diverse groups, religious and secular and unknown affiliation, at the local food banks, doing community service projects for the elderly and school children, and even transporting shelter dogs to a prison program where they are trained and eventually placed in good homes. I read your link to Obama’s speech and agree with many of his views on religion and politics but find myself at odds with his stance on some of his social projects that keep people forever in poverty. Government should get out the charity business, dismantle the office of Faith-Based Initiatives and return these programs to the churches. Isn’t helping the disadvantaged the reason why they enjoy ‘tax exempt’ status?
April 30th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Ed,
‘I’m not talking about a belief in God, I’m talking about resorting to “Goddidit!” “Magic!” “A miracle!” as an answer. Methodological naturalism doesn’t do that.’ Methodological supernaturalism, taking supernaturalism to be prima face, does in spades. Furthermore, ‘[a]s long as the celestial sphere or biological sphere are regarded as the domains of the divine, they are then above and beyond investigation. (Comment#13)’
I know belief in God and the God hypothesis are quite different. ‘It’s clear that many scientists are believers in the supernatural; however, these believers don’t resort to the God hypothesis: they don’t resort to ignorance. (Comment#21)’ I’ve tried not to equate the two, and I’m sorry if it comes across if I have — because that is not my intention. But has supernaturalism given anything to science? Has any progress towards the truth through science been helped by the God hypothesis — or even just belief?
Such as? It would be interesting to hear some ideas on this. If there are advantages to belief in the supernatural, we would be able to empirically observe them. How do you think we could go about testing for this? I gave a process we could follow to see if we’re right or wrong (see the first paragraph of Comment#24); do you have another one?
April 30th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Infidel: With any politician you get less than the ideal, after all, they are politicians. I just wanted to point out his approach to his faith, and the public/political aspect: it makes sense to me. Don’t worry, I never thought of you as hedonistic, nor 19, just a very thoughtful person who loves this kind of dialog. I find philaletheia participation to be a useful exercise in understanding my own faith and its limits. I find one aspect of the approach of the atheists here toward the believers very interesting: they seem to think it is easy to believe. My wife and I just joined a new church, and part of the process was for each new member to discuss their faith. There were about 15 people, and every one of them had periods of no faith, flagging faith, solid faith, and doubting faith. So, realize that complete certainty and total adherence to dogma are more public, outward proclamations of those in some sects that seek leadership or status. Most church people are just relating to God as best as they can under the circumstances.
One thing I’d like to pass on that our new pastor said a few weeks ago. He pointed out that some people deny God in this world, he thought because they never really understood his real nature. He said some of them will pass into the afterlife, meet God, and say, “So that’s what you are like! I never knew!” And God will say, “Welcome.” Your life sounds a bit like those folks in the last part of Matthew 25.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Infidel,
?
I am part of the 18 - to - 25-year-old demographic. And what’s this about hedonism? The follies of youth? Yes, I admit that I’ve toyed with utilitarianism for about a week (and cynicism a month or so before that; boy, was I depressed!) when I was about 16 (I swear, everyone goes through that phase), but it takes little investigation and a clear head to see they’re both bullcrap and are to be avoided as much as possible.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Drunkentune–
My reference to hedonistic 19 year olds was in response to a dialogue I was having with Ed. It was not meant in the philosophical sense that regards pleasure as the highest good but a description of many of my generation–the ‘if it feels good, do it!’ crowd who made a career out of self-indulgent pursuits of pleasure. I am surprised to learn that you are in the 18-25 demographic. Your writings and comments reflect wisdom beyond your years…and I mean that as a compliment. Perhaps Beep and I are the only ones who post on this site who remember Jim Morrison when he was a real live person.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I glanced through your post here. Speaking of induction I actually just had a debate where the problem of induction came up. If anybody is interested in reading the debate here it is.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
PS Thanks for linking me.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
infidel:
Thanks for reminding me that I am an old fart. (Just messin’ with ya.)
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 am
Frank,
Axiom-Tech did what I’d consider a poor job in the debate. We can’t use induction as a logical way of gaining knowledge, and I was surprised that Axiom-Tech hadn’t read up on this problem.
But I also find some fault with what you wrote as well. I saw that you were interested in finding any problems with what you wrote. If you’re interested, I can sit down and give it a once over and get back to you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 am
Infidel,
No offense taken. This ‘if it feels good, do it!’ crowd bothers me to no end.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Beep–
We are far from being old farts, we are the epitome of graceful, tactful aging. And that’s the truth!
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Ed–
I am curious about the new church you and your wife recently joined because of a phenomenon I’ve noticed here in my part of the Midwest. My question is: Did you have to provide a financial statement to the church board before you were allowed to become a member? And by becoming this new member did you have to pledge a set dollar amount that can either be debited from your bank account or charged to your credit card each week (or month)with the understanding that these dollar amounts can be raised at the church’s discretion without notice? I was stunned to hear this was common practice now and I’m wondering if it’s now the norm in other locales.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
What you are referring to sounds quite unbiblical. Is this true in fundamentalist churches or what? I am utterly shocked. I’ve never experienced anything like that, in this church or before. If I had, I’d head for the door. That would be a sign that the wolves were left in charge of the sheep. The churches I’ve attended provide annual treasurer’s reports to the members with line items on all expenses. I know exactly what the pastor’s salary, expenses, and fringes cost. I know how much they spend on utilities and landscaping. No one at the church would have any idea what any of the members earn or spend. Giving is voluntary, and done by putting the offering in a slot on a wooden box in the rear as you exit. No one watches, and one could attend the church without ever donating a dime, and no one would know.
The only requirement for joining was to make a statement that you decided to follow God, as revealed by Jesus in the Bible. The church is Presbyterian USA, part of the largest of the Presbyterian grouping.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Ed–
Thanks for answering my inquiry. We are beginning to see an emergence of mega churches with no affiliation to any of the main protestant sects in and around my area with made up names like “Word of Life” and “Caring First.” I don’t know what category they belong in–evangelical, pentacostal, fundamentalist–take your pick. They seem to actively recruit the divorced (Catholics seem to be the most vulnerable because they are excommunicated if they remarry), and recovering addicts of all stripes and preach the message that ‘God loves a generous giver’ in order to justify the monthy (or weekly) ‘dues’ that far exceed the old 10 percent tithe rule. The so called ‘pastor’ of one of these churches that I’m most familiar admits he received his divinity degree through an on-line diploma mill in St Louis. But it doesn’t seem to matter to his converts who are grateful for the opportunity to buy their way into heaven and atone their sinful pasts by providing their pastor with tax exempt Lear Jets, Harleys, Lincoln Navigators, and expensive homes. I am appalled that so many people could be so brainwashed that they would willingly turn over that much money to this charlatan with no accountability! But that’s to be expected from a skeptic like me. It’s nice to know that’s not the norm in your world.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 am
Infifel:
My rule of thumb is that if they are asking for money, they are selling a product. If they are selling a product, I need to be able to judge if it is something I need or something I want. If it is some sort of insurance policy that I can only collect upon my death, I am naturally suspicious.
But, you know, Australians are a skeptical lot.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Ed–
I don’t know if you’ve read any of the back and forth debates between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan or not, but if you haven’t I think you will appreciate, and agree with, Sullivan’s responses in defense of his religion. Here’s the link if you want to read: Is Religion ‘Built Upon Lies’?
I have been a fan of Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish for a few years for reasons other than religious debates because I enjoy his views on all aspects of life in the US from a naturalized citizen’s point.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Infidel-
Thanks for the link, I think I saw some of those posts a few months ago but didn’t get to follow them to the conclusion. You have pegged me correctly, I’d be right on the same page with Andrew Sullivan with no substantive variation in my view of faith. Politically, I’ve enjoyed reading his blog, though I’m more left of him in that realm. In some of the earlier posts on this site, the atheists got upset that believers were making assumptions about the kind of philosophy they followed. Even you just expressed worry about being thought of as hedonistic. It is interesting how Sam Harris seemed to do the same with moderate vs. fundamentalist religionists. There are far more differences than that among religious people, and I thought Andrew Sullivan’s idea of contingency was useful. The best hope for us all in getting along and keeping extremism on both ends of this divide from emerging is to continue such polite dialog. Thanks for your link again and for your contributions here.
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Hear, hear!
Oh, and you guys might be interested in this paper: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments (.pdf). This paper describes just about every single person I have to deal with at work, along with many biblical literalists & young-earthers I’ve met, read, or heard speak (’Dr.’ Dino is a prime example). Any thoughts?
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Ed–
I guess I’ll have to start using IE so I can put little smiley faces at the end of some of my remarks so you’d know most of my comments are light-hearted, such as the feigned indignation over 19 year old hedonists. I’m actually the friendly neighborhood atheist type.
Andrew Sullivan posted his last response today in his on-going debate with Sam Harris so it’s now concluded with no clear winner. I personally don’t see any reason to aggressively debate our opposing positions on faith since we all have planted our feet firmly in the paths we’ve chosen. I have been drawn into these conversations to learn not convert. History reminds us when we try to eradicate groups of people and their faith (or lack of) it’s only a matter of time until someone with a bigger stick comes after us. Count me in the ‘continued polite dialog’ camp!
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
How about our own ‘uniter, not a divider’ and self-proclaimed ‘decider’ (drum roll please!) George Walker Bush!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I.
Superb. Then there’s his junta of Gonzales, Brown, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. Then there’s Regent U & Patrick Henry College… Ineptitude & favoritism every which way you look! I’m just so glad that I work part-time in D.C. I’ll be able to sit in during the hearing this Tuesday on the RNC use of email accounts.
II.
In other news, Presidential-hopefuls Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee can fuck off.
III.
[Click for larger version.]
May 4th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The real brains behind GWB’s rise to power: Is Karl Rove An Atheist?
. Just to show the divide isn’t so much labels as it is character. As soulster and I agreed, God is more interested in what we become, not what we believe.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Ed,
I’d hate to be the party-pooper here, but your statement gets me wondering: if God is more interested in acts (I hope I’m understanding you correctly on this one) than belief, could a moral atheist get into Heaven? Could an immoral Christian go to Hell?
I mean, I’ve rarely heard believers take the position that it is acts and not belief that takes precident. I find it interesting; it seems at first blush to not work out with the historical and biblical Christianity I’ve read about.
I certainly like it, of course. There’s James 2:26 in support of this. But in what little Christian theology I know of, this stands opposed to orthodox Christianity. There’s Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:26-28, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5, Proverbs 15:8, & Proverbs 28:9.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
One of the mysteries of Christianity is that it does not provide absolute answers to us about the afterlife. Sure, it teaches that faith is necessary, but it fails to clarify how much or when. However, it shows us the usual behaviors that ought to be seen in those who truly have faith. It seems the writers of the Bible left us with a picture of this doctrine that is mainly of use in this world. There are some verses that seem to indicate that do-ers of good who don’t know they are doing so are receiving God’s blessing in the hereafter, see the latter part of Matt 25, as an example. It encourages the hearer to have faith, but also works. It helps the community of believers to be capable of spotting the results of true faith, mostly as a protection against “wolves”, which, when you consider the history of the church, were not heeded enough.
Remember, I was raised as a skeptic/agnostic/atheist by my parents. I would not have accepted the traditional message of the Roman Catholics that those baptized, observant, and getting last rites would only enter heaven. Nor would I accept a God whose teaching is like a fundamentalist, where words spoken but not the actions taken are the key. My view is most congruent with Origen and Gregory of Nyassa, that we cannot know for certain, but the hope is that all will ultimately be saved (apocatastasis), or at least most, in what may be for some a process involving paying justly for their bad choices. That is the only kind of God that makes sense to me after these years of being in the faith, one who is both just and loving. But ultimately, only love remains.
May 7th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Ed,
In a bit of humor, I point you to this: The Borg of Heaven. Christian theology says clearly what the afterlife will be.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Will I get one of those nifty red lasers that extends out of the side of my head?
Anyone who reads the book of Revelation and considers it to be a documentary is dumber than a Ferengi who accepts a wooden nickel. What is Christian theology, anyways? Perhaps the most agreed upon formulation is the a Nicene Creed, but this speaks almost nothing of the afterlife.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Ed,
Yes, along with tons of cybernetic doodad implants and immediate skin-bleaching.
Did you ever watch Star Trek? Data was always my favorite character from TNG.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I have Netflix, and our family doesn’t have any interest in TV, but about every night we watch one episode together. The kids love it, and so do my wife and I. Right now, we are about done with the Voyager series, just starting Season 7. Next up is Deep Space Nine. TNG was last year. We’ll probably partake of Enterprise and then original series before starting the loop again. I sure hope another series in that genre is produced. Data is a great character, but I’ve also liked Spock and Picard. The Doctor on the Voyager series is a lot of fun, since I’m a physician my family loves to catch me in my egotistical similarities with him. You do know what M.D. stands for? Minor Diety.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I spent all of fourth grade pretending I was Data. I think some of my teachers thought I was being abused at home or something because I never smiled in school.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
There was an episode about a boy who did the same on the Enterprise. I think his parents were killed or something. Fortunately, the worst I’ve gotten with my kids is an occasional attempt to use the Vulcan neck pinch on one another.
May 19th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Come on soulster. Your turn.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
The last time I checked, he was in Texas…
I’ve posted far too much lately, as it is, so no brilliant ideas from ol’ drunkentune. Sorry!
May 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Well beep, we might as well jump in with our scathing eulogies for the dearly departed ‘revrund.’ It’s been nearly 6 days and no sign of a resurrection. If it doesn’t happen before the really, really big dog and pony show on Tuesday we can safely assume he’s been ‘raptured’…or is just simply another decaying mammal. I see where revrund Fred Phelps is planning to protest at the funeral. How fitting…one bigot protesting another bigot because his fellow bigot wasn’t bigotted enough!! I’m in the process of reading Christopher Hitchens new book, “God Is Not Great..” I have had moments of spontaneous laugh out loud guffaws over some of his amusing comments. I think some of the believers who post here will also crack a smile or two as well. He’s not quite as condescending as some of the other freethinking authors.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Infidel,
Thanks for bringing up Hitch. He’s had some great moments this past week on TV. Here he is w/ the ‘rev.’ Al Sharpton: A Debate: God Is Not Great; here he is on Hannity & Colmes: total ownage; again, here’s Hitch on Anderson Cooper 360: CNN.
May 20th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
infidel
When it comes to religion and god belief, I seem to have a one track mind. Shocking I know.
In other words, I believe that everyone has a right to a religious belief, but that this doesn’t include a right to inflict it upon everyone else.
To my mind, someone like Falwell crossed this line often. Not only did he cross it, he berated and condemned anyone who didn’t agree with him. The politics of hate have never impressed me, and he seened to be a master of it.
drunken
Yeah, I watched a couple of the Hitchen’s videos. The one from Fox was obvious in its intent.
That is:-
Get someone “controversial” on the program and then try to berate and condemn them for being controversial.
Gee, do you think their priority is ratings? Commercial media doesn’t like the truth to conflict with their ability to earn a buck.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Well, he’s just another one of those fanatical (!), fundamentalist (!), extremist (!), militant (!) atheists like Dennett, Meyers, Newdow, Harris, Dawkins, et al. that… um…
go on talk radio, write books, give public speaking engagements, take legal action (all nonviolent ways of communicating beliefs in the marketplace of ideas), and generally make pretty decent arguments, such as:
But see, that doesn’t matter: they’re radical subversive ideologues; they drool, have rabes, and don’t wipe properly after going to the loo; unless we do something (like kicking them out of the cottage, the damned droogs) they will rape, then eat your children while simultaniously kicking puppies, dressed in Victorian bowler hats & clown makeup (!)
May 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Beep-
I completely agree with you on religion and invisible deities. I think it’s wonderful there are so many nonbelievers who are now speaking out and providing authentic historical/scientific evidence to document their claims and who come equipped with impressive PhD suffixes from reknowned learning institutions. With the unholy trinity goals of Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell’s replacement, Tony Perkins, they are pushing for a government sponsored theocracy with the help of Faux News who makes believe they are ‘fair and balanced’ with their ridiculous Hannity & Colmes and O’Reilly’s Factor ‘interviews’ where they never let a guest with an opposing view finish a sentence before they start yelling over them. O’Reilly is a former New York high school teacher and I’d be suprised if Hannity has a degree in anything. He was noticed by Faux for making a pest of himself by calling a local talk show (on a station owned by Faux) with his rants. And as they say, the rest is history. The days of passive atheism are over and I’m glad we have such eloquent educated speakers for the cause.
Drunkentune-
There are many good Hitchens interviews and lectures on YouTube, some are quite lengthy but he makes such good sense. There is a section in his latest book where he exposes some of the most revered men and women in history for the frauds they were. Our friend Ed might find the Mother Theresa story insightful. It will give him some idea of the ‘fact finding’ methods of the Catholic Church when it comes to documenting so called miracles (a requirement for individual sainthood) since he attended the process to elevate the nun.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
For the most part, the new wave of hysterical atheist polemicists are the philosophical and journalistic equivalents of young earth creationists. Maybe there’s a case to be made that the blame for dumbing down the debate belongs ultimately to the Christian Right. Maybe the new atheists are so dumb because they are a reaction against some of the dumbest Christianity has ever had to offer. Maybe. Be that or not the case, it doesn’t change the reality of what these new atheists are.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
JOR–’it doesn’t change the reality of what these new atheists are.’
And that would be WHAT? Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens, to name but a few, are by no means ‘new’ kids on the block in debunking religion. Skeptics have been around since before the god of the jewish bible was invented. For years we non-believers have kept relatively quiet while watching the teletubbie evangelicals perform ‘healing’ on demand for the TV cameras. Silly us, we thought everyone understood these kooks were frauds and treated it as comedy like we did. I don’t recall seeing any so called intelligent Christian debater ever. The Focus/Moral/700 crowd seem to be more skilled in debauchery instead. Enlighten us, JOR. I guess we don’t know who we really are.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
JOR,
‘[T]he new wave of hysterical atheist polemicists are the philosophical and journalistic equivalents of young earth creationists. ‘
What bothers me is that in all seriousness many people — you included, JOR — paint these nü-atheists with such a broad brush. I wonder: Where is the faulty reasoning that these men engage in, just as young earth creationists do? Where are the lies and the misrepresentation (or outright subjugation) of science that young earth creationists have a fondness for? Are these men pious frauds, just like young earth creationists? Backwater hillbillies, as are the most vocal young earth creationists? Do these atheists lay claim to tax-exempt houses of ill repute to sing songs about war, damnation, fire & brimstone? Are there atheist radio stations – other than those found on internet radio – that host these ‘hysterical atheist polemicists’, allowing them to preach that everyone that disagrees with them is deserving of eternal torment?
Is there an atheist lobby that these men are heads of? An atheist uniform they wear? Are they authoritarian? Is there an atheist creed or holy text they consult? How about an atheist advertisement on radio or TV they are part of? Do they try to silence believers? Or do they have their foot soldier atheists come to my door to hand out tracts claiming that God doesn’t exist – so get on with your life?
Or do these morons, no better than the lowest of the low of the most foolish of Christian fools, these ‘dumb’ rubes, these silly atheist with their silly ideas, sit down and write a half-dozen books?
And do people attack them not for their ideas, but for how they present them? How should they say without any further circumlocution that they’re tired of the words ‘a man of faith’ somehow giving credence to dingleberries like Falwell, Putin & Shrub? Is it because they say mean things about people that take these Iron Age myths seriously? Or is it the inane belief — from where, I have no idea — that the unquestioning dogmas about sky-gods telling us to stone young women to death is a bad thing, and should be considered so foul and obscene as to require strident criticism?
My, what a strange world we live in.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:42 pm
drunken
I have a different version of a fanatic. I consider a fanatic to be someone who cannot countenance the idea that they may be wrong. I don’t put many atheists in that category.
I could be wrong about many things. Hence I am unlikely to ever go the way of the fanatic.
However, I haven’t met many theists who will openly express that they might be wrong about their god belief or about the tenets of their religion as this would put them in the light of “doubting thomas’” and the bible has many warnings about doubt.
Doubt and skepticism are seen as the enemies of religious faith. Therefore, I suggest that it is much easier for theists to walk the path of the fanatic as to doubt belief or faith is considered a bad thing to a theist.
To doubt or to be skeptical is considered a cognitive plus in other circles.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”–Winston Churchill
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Infidel,
Furthermore, their ideas aren’t original: ‘the Ultimate 747′ of Dawkins? Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (one of my favorite books on philosophy!) covered that centuries ago. The Problem of Evil? Epicurus & Hume both took it to task in spades; the Greek philosophical god has been dead and buried for a good reason — for more than 200 years. They’re making the same arguments, but nobody has answers, other than the obvious one: a deistic, philosophical ‘first cause’ ‘unmovable mover’ natural theology god that Flew ran towards in his later years isn’t anywhere near the theistic, revealed god of Christianity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Are you sure that Antony Flew ran towards deism, rather than flying? It sounds better that Flew flew towards God.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
More like Flew flew like a quail after being shot by VP Cheney. It was an entirely silly debacle. Some blogging theists were using him as a club against atheists in debates: Did you hear? Poor Flew’s a God-fearing Christian, now. So, huh? What’s that you say? And it was due to Gerald Schroeder’s arguments for Intelligent Design? Oh boy. The poor guy — never very big outside of philosophy (at least, I’ve never heard of the guy) — ends up as The Perfect Convert all over the web, which was quite sad, considering that Schroeder was clearly wrong.
Nobody said anything when Prof. Bill Rowe of Purdue U. deconverted from Christianity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I ‘paint with a broad brush’ a relatively limited selection of authors. The only ones I am directly familiar with are Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens, so my comments only really apply to them. But in all probability the rest are about as bad. As for faulty reasoning, they habitually tear down straw men (or even straw herrings), draw profoundly inane non sequiturs, and spend much of their time engaging in ad hominem. I don’t know what science has to do with my criticism, which has to do with their philosophical understanding and arguments. Piety is similarly irrelevant; atheism is not a religion any more than theism is. The particular religion they adhere to is secular humanism, which is not what their books (at least the ones we are concerned with here) are about. I don’t know if they’re ‘frauds’ and don’t care: in philosophy there are no authorities, only arguments. They’re not backwater hillbillies, but a lot of them seem to be limeys, which is much worse. I don’t know or care what they sing about, but the last thing I’m going to do is complain that someone, somewhere, is tax exempt; more people should acquire such status, legally or not. I don’t listen to radio.
They don’t seem to be head of any kind of specifically atheist lobby but they play their parts in others. They don’t have a uniform that I’ve seen, but neither do creationists. They aren’t pacifists or anarchists that I can see, so yes, I’d say they’re authoritarian. There isn’t an atheist text or creed but these in particular do adhere to secular humanism by faith. I don’t listen to radio and my television viewing is quite limited, so I don’t know. I’m sure they would press for silencing believers were it feasible: they already liken a religious upbringing to child abuse. I compared them to creationists, not Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I don’t know if they’re as dumb as the lowest Christians, but their energies are focused in that direction. They certainly can’t compare to the smart ones. Lots of idiots write books.
Some people do attack them for how they present their ideas. Some attack their ideas. I’m no more concerned with their manners than I am with creationists’ manners (which tend to be bad). None of them can explain why stoning young women to death is a bad thing.
God or no God, the world is as it must be.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“Enlighten us, JOR. I guess we don’t know who we really are.â€
I don’t know who you really are either. All I really know about you is that you’re much too charitable to soundbyte-whores and polemicists whose views you agree with.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
JOR,
I.
These Bible-thumpers, these YEC’s, have this thing about lying and misrepresenting data to further their dogma, plugging their ears to conflicting facts. I’d consider that journalistic and philosohical ignorance & fraud — the lowest of the low. Do the new atheist do this as well? Are there some juicy examples?
II.
Having not read Hitchens’ or Dawkins’ books, I can’t vouch for either of them, but what talks I’ve heard, they point out that (i) many good people have done horrible things in the name of religion, that (ii) religious belief can help cultivate mass movements of regression towards ignorance, fanaticism, violence and dogmatism, (iii) the existence of gods dictating what is good or evil is a silly, outdated notion that we really should get over, and (iv) that faith in these Iron Age gods itself is not a virtue, and should not give believers more public standing than any other human. (Or, as Hitch says it far more eloquently and robustly, ‘There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.’)
To exclaim that Falwell was a slug that got the saltshaker he deserved is most certainly an insult on his character, but that doesn’t make it false.
III.
Ministers and priests have a great history of wearing uniforms, do they not? I hope you understand that I wasn’t focusing on the most lurid parts of faith, but the more banal pieces that these atheists don’t even relate to in the least.
IV.
Where are the ’smart ones’, these brilliant theologians, and how is their god different than, say, the god of the Grand Ayatollah or the recently-very-dead Falwell? Is it that one is blood-thirsty while the other is not, or is there more?
V.
Dawkins makes a convincing argument that dividing people by religious belief, into Jews and Muslims, into Catholics and Protestants, into Muslims and Hindus, into in-groups and out-groups at a very young age is a powder keg. If I were to call my children Democrats at the age of three — or Marxists at two — or Republicans, what have you, when they are not, and to send them to different schools than the out-group, and then to preach that the out-group is inherently evil, I consider this to be sufficiant evidence of mental abuse.
I believe that abortion is wrong, but am I for restricting the rights of women? No. Dawkins believes that religious indoctrination is wrong, but is he for ’silencing believers where it feasible’? I see no evidence in favor.
Dennett has expressed his desire to see comparative religion classes in schools; I agree with him: it is a wonderful idea. Silencing believers? One of the most vocal atheists is all for teaching their tenets fairly, without criticism, open to discussion and available to all that wish to hear.
VI.
Um… yes they can? It’s called ethics, and divine command theory is only one of many, many schools of ethics.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
JOR-
Broad brushes are dangerous things as are generalizations like ’secular humanist’ and ’secular progressive.’ I have no guide book or ritual but if I have to supply a label for you I consider myself to be a libertarian who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of church and state in my daily life and who also doesn’t believe that any gods exist. There is no one on this planet who’s ideas, dogma, or opinion with whom I am in complete agreement. That includes the list of current authors that we have been discussing. I found passages in Hitchens’ latest book amusing and his personal experiences as a foreign correspondent interesting. He has also written books about Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, and Mother Theresa to name a few. It’s evident you haven’t read God is not Great, which is OK with me, and I suspect your no-read list also includes any of the other authors you mentioned as well so it would appears you have formed your opinion from 2nd hand information, which is never a good idea. I do agree with one of your observations though–atheism is not a religion.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Infidel,
I myself am a civil libertarian, a registered Independent, a small cog within the beltway political scene, a progressive liberal — but also anti-abortion (on moral grounds, but supportive of the right to an abortion) & pro-gun ownership (on moral grounds as well, but also a fan of the Brady campaign).
I had a chance to pick up god is Not Great today at my local Barnes & Noble, reading the first few chapters during lunch. It was, strangely enough, filed under Philosophy, which takes up two shelves in total, surrounded by one shelf on Islam, two on Jewish studies, two on ‘religion’, six on religious fiction, two on New Age, three to four on bibles, a large table on spiritualism & self-help, a shelf on Eastern religions, and close to eight on related Christian doctrine/Christian self-help/Christian fiction books.
I swear, tomorrow I’m going to take some pictures of that B&N as evidence. Only one book of Hume’s (A Treatise of Human Nature) – one of Popper’s (The Open Society) on the shelf in the back. And dozens of The Secret, a sham of a book, prominently displayed at the entrance.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
JOR,
I think Dawkins and Hitchens are fundamentally wrong on arguing that moderate believers give credence to the most psychopathic of the faithful — not because they are wrong, but because moderate and liberal believers are on our side. Dawkins and Hitchens then do us a disservice at a time when we need to unite — to parley on friendly terms and put the rest behind us — just as the classic small-government Conservatives married the neoconservatives, Christian nationalists & populists. I second Infidel in saying that I don’t agree with them on the minutiae (or, that I find their message at times to be counter effective); why on earth would I powwow with believers if I thought otherwise?
May 24th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Drunkentune,
Thanks for the comment about the moderate and liberal believers being on your side as opposed to the fundies. That is what I was driving at in comment 14 above, the broad negative strokes of atheists seeking the public spotlight recently are counterproductive to developing consensus for a tolerant social milleu. Freedom is not compatable with Christianism but is fully congruent with Christianity, as folks like Andrew Sullivan so aptly point out.
The big picture for me is this: we each reflect our beliefs and thoughts as we seek to carry out our life’s mission. Some invest life toward selfish goals, others to higher ideals. But, as Keynes said about such long term investing, “in the long run, we’re all dead.” Life is too short to waste time being oppressive or nasty to one another. We must seek dialog and understanding to create a more open and free society so that I can serve my God as I understand him, and you can seek answers via naturalism, and we can respect each other’s choices. We should not barge into the other’s home and tell him how to raise his family, and neither should seek to have government or public schools be our proxy. Unfortunately, there have been atheist governments that have done so, and religious ones as well