I've been thinking recently about the tendency of bloggers and commenters to take a post they don't like and say "I don't even need to bother to refute this because it's so self-evidently stupid". No, actually, you do. That technique may have worked on the C String of the high school debate team, but it hasn't since. What that statement screams is "I can't refute it, and it's a really good point, so I'm just going to assert that I don't need to and hope you don't realize that I'm an idiot."
False hope.
There's a lot of idiocy on the internet that I, like every other blogger, look at, recognize as unbelievably flawed, and toy with the notion of refuting. Then I realize that shooting fish in a barrel isn't really very much fun, and annoys the fish, so I go find something more productive to do. This mental scenario is repeated millions of times a day by all of your favorite bloggers.
The thing is, when I encounter someone whose argument really is so boring that it isn't worth refuting, I don't refute it. I don't link to it. I don't say anything about it, because I feel my readers probably have enough idiocy in their lives. If I link someone, I am conceding that they are worth arguing with--that their argument is worthy of refutation. This is what intellectually confident people do. Only people who are pretty sure they can't win try to claim a moral victory--the blogging equivalent of standing at the Olympic starting line and saying, "Well, I could outrun everyone, but that's so obvious that I needn't bother getting my shoes dirty."
I bring this up a propos of a completely different sort of childishness: saying or doing things merely because other people find them offensive. This goes on here (and you know who you are), and I wish it would stop. And sadly, it also goes on at some top-notch bloggers. I like PZ Meyers, but this is really, really juvenile:
All of these have in common the lack of any "actual" damage — no one is physically hurt or loses money as a result — and great offense to people who share particular beliefs or a particular emotional bond. It's hard for non-believers in the doctrine of Transubstantiation to grasp the emotional impact on believers of mistreating the consecrated wine and wafer, just because the doctrine itself seems so impenetrable: unlike the corpse-and-gravesite examples, you can't just imagine that it was your own mother's corpse or gravesite. But "hard" shouldn't mean "impossible."Naturally, PZ Myers is being a jerk about it, begging someone to steal him a consecrated wafer so he can desecrate it on camera. For someone who loves calling the dearly-held beliefs of other people "childish," Myers has an astonishing capacity for infantile behavior.
Equally predictably, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is being an equal and opposite jerk, trying to get the University of Minnesota, where Myers teaches, involved in the controversy.
Myers and Donohue deserve each other; but what did the rest of us do to deserve either of them?
Yes, I know that Meyers has been the target of some religious nut jobs because of his writing on evolution. On the other hand, he clearly invites it. And no matter what he feels has been done to him by the god-fearing community, this is wildly inappropriate, for the same reason that you do not respond to your political enemies by urinating on their shoes at a fundraiser.
I'm thinking of declaring August "Grow the hell up, internet people" month. Who will join me in my crusade?
Ah, but the internet has grown up. I remember when www.whitehouse.com was a porn site, as well as zelda.com and just about every other .com you could think of. Baby steps, Megan, baby steps.
Are you going to make t-shirts with the title of this post on them? Because I'll take two.
And, honestly, I think that puts you a class above most blog owners.
I'd post that a few places if I wasn't already banned there for, in my opinion, posting too much "uncomfortable truth"
Maybe all those internet people who need to grow up should just be hit with 2x4s.
I'm thinking of declaring August "Grow the hell up, internet people" month. Who will join me in my crusade?
Don't do it. You'll be mowed down like the Polish light cavalry before the German panzers.
rickm wrote: Maybe all those internet people who need to grow up should just be hit with 2x4s.
Looks like Exhibit A just volunteered for the treatment. In the spirit of the "head or chest" question, though, we need one more piece of data: upside the head, or seat of the pants?
Onward, ho! To the clinical trials!
I don't know, maybe it is worth provoking the kind of people who would threaten the life o fa student for "stealing" a cracker, if for no other reason to demonstrate that they are bat shit insane. I personally think that PZ did it on purpose (that is, he knew what he was getting himself into) to amply demonstrate this exact point.
Also, this post itself is a pretty good illustration of the built-in cultural double standard when it comes to discussing faith (or lack thereof). People are quick to hem and haw over what PZ Meyers says on his blog, but when someone like Chuck Norris gets on WoldNet Daily and says that he wants to kick all these atheist's asses and boot them out of the country, or when President George H.W. Bush says that atheists cannot be patriotic Americans, folks are strangely silent and those who do speak up are more or less dismissed
Mouse,
SoV has requested that I remonstrate with those members of "my own side" who display boorish behavior.
In that spirit, I must say, you should not have called rickm a ho.
It should be September in honor of The September That Never Ended.
In that spirit, I must say, you should not have called rickm a ho.
It's all in keeping with the new spirit of gangsta slang you inspired yesterday.
Well, there's childish and then there's AWESOMELY childish. And basically anything that's likely to give Bill Donohue the vapors is okay with me.
A noble sentiment, but easier said than done. Part of the problem is that the things you take to be worthless so often aren't the things that people you respect think are worthless. And so you find yourself shotting fish in a barrel just because other people didn't realize their status.
It's funny that you mention P.Z. Myers, because so much of his writing strikes me as tedious, precisely because he is shooting fish in a barrel all day long (when he's not being absurd, as with the communion wafer).
That's actually a structural issue for atheists--once you've lost the urge to think there is a God, you're left with the issue of etiquette: how do I deal with these beliefs that I can't make any sense of? I incline towards being quiet, but it doesn't surprise me that some people are so baffled by the situation that they want to make a big stink.
Chuck Norris is an entertainer. George H. W. Bush needed to kiss-up to Evangelicals who felt he was weak on social issues. (Personally I don't think Bush Sr. meant a word of it.)
If a prominent religious intellectual says atheists should all be killed or expelled I'd be happy to condemn the statement and look for Christians who will too.
I also find the wrongness of many bloggers on the interwebs quite frustrating. Personally, I've never been wrong about anything, so I can sympathize with your frustration at other people's wrongy-ness (sp?).
I believe there is hope for us "correcties" though, as statistics show only 17.4 billion people currently use the webs. And if I understand the demographics correctly (and I believe I do), most of those users come from lower income families who only have enough money to buy one or two computers per household.
So the web is BOUND to grow up when the other 23 billion people from the higher demographics start using it. And when the more intelligent cross-sections of society finally discover the web and believe in its uses, it will inevitably become a more sophisticated and enlightened place.
Stay strong 'til then Megan!!!
That's fine, but isn't there another situation in someone is worthy of refutation: when that person (no doubt wrongly, from your POV) has a position of high influence? I think Edward Said is the iconic person in this regard, but you should be able to supply a sadly numerous list of others.
And perhaps Thomas Friedman and the (current NYT-columnist version) Paul Krugman belong to yet another category: those who are right often enough, or who were completely reasonable people in their previous non-pundit lives, that even the most preposterous rant from them needs refutation because it might receive undeserved credance because of the writer's prior reputation? (I'm trying to think of somebody more rightward to pair with those two; obviously people like Pat Buchanan now belong to the Maureen Dowd/loony bin category, and thus don't qualify. Maybe maybe Dinesh D'Souza? )
[Raises hand.]
Not that I'm an influential spokesperson or anything.... :-)
I did a little response to this on my own thingy and Andrew Sullivan linked to it, so I got a lot of responses. There were many atheists who responded charitably; there were some who were less than kind.
What frustrated me was that so few people were able to balance two separate notions: one, that it's wrong for anyone to receive death threats; two, that PZ Meyers is a grade-A jerk for going so far out of his way to degrade people he disagrees with. The fact is that PZ Meyers actions and words has moral content independent of the various failings of the Catholic church and some of its crazier adherents.
I don't know, maybe it is worth provoking the kind of people who would threaten the life o fa student for "stealing" a cracker, if for no other reason to demonstrate that they are bat shit insane. I personally think that PZ did it on purpose (that is, he knew what he was getting himself into) to amply demonstrate this exact point.
Then it is strange that PZ actually the Muslim outrage over Danish cartoons.
I've never understood the atheist urge to conversion. Missionaries, I understand: they're trying to save me from hell. Evangelical atheists, though--what are they trying to save me from? Missing Sunday morning talk shows?
"this is wildly inappropriate":isn't that the very sort of non-argument that you started off by denouncing?
Hahahahaa... Thomas Friedman. What happened there huh? Dude just started thinking he's an expert on things far afield of what he actually does know. I've seen bloggers and columnists at the Times counter him in their own posts, so maybe we don't need to try to discredit him as much if his own colleagues are doing it for us?
I should lean to proofread my comments better.
Then it is strange that PZ defended the Muslim outrage over the Danish cartoons.
Back when I was a Catholic, I would have felt compelled to state that Bill Donohue is a boorish prick who doesn't speak for me.
Now that I am an atheist, I feel compelled to state that PZ Myers is a boorish prick who doesn't speak for me.
Plus ça change...
Attempting to save themselves from your influence over the government as it blurs the line between legislating crime (violations of rights) and legislating religion (violation of morality).
Laws based on a moral standing are legislating religion, and therefore are in violation of the 1st Amendment, even if it is often ignored.
Attempting to save themselves from your influence over the government as it blurs the line between legislating crime (violations of rights) and legislating religion (violation of morality)
Conversion is a highly inefficient and needlessly obnoxious means for accomplishing this goal.
Politics would be way more interesting if McCain were to pee on Obama
Paul L.,
Leaning doesn't really help with proofreading; it's better to look straight at the screen. :-)
If you're going to have that campaign, don't do it in August--no one will be looking. (Unless we follow the massive scandal breaking in August rule, in which case everyone will be looking at that.)
I think the problem may be bigger than a T-shirt. The nature of the internet seems to be to always be on the verge of drowning in gunk, unless it's a site which limits its commenters.
Conversion is a highly inefficient and needlessly obnoxious means for accomplishing this goal.
I'm not sure I would characterize what P.Z. Meyers (or any of the so-called "new atheists") are doing as conversion. Conversion, to me at least, is an attempt to get a person to accept some doctrinal authority whether that be the Pope, the Mormon Church, or just the Bible. It is an appeal to faith, not reason.
Also, I would add that when it is just a matter of an intellectual disagreement, then abrasive arguments of the sort Meyers makes are not really called for. It is not just a matter of an intellectual disagreement, however. When religious folks try to start embedding their theology into the law , it very much becomes my business whether there is any merit to the claims they are making. If folks just want to practice their religion, then I really don't care what they believe. But do not expect me to tiptoe around the issue when it is being imposed upon me under threat of violence.
I'm glad to see more posts this afternoon. I was worried that you were interviewing at the Center for American Progress.
What do I get if I go and find some example of you doing this, or acting childish in some other manner?
Seriously, Megan, the way you talk down to people is ridiculous. This post would be like me saying "guys, trolls are horrible"
Grow an ounce of self-awareness, please.
It is an appeal to faith, not reason.
The strong form of atheism ("There is no God") is certainly an appeal to faith. Reason can't tell you that God is impossible, only that evidence for his existence doesn't conform to accepted scientific standards.
That said, I'm not any more in favor of theocracy than anyone else. I'm just saying that trying to convince people to abandon their faith in God is going to be harder going than trying to convince them not to legislate based on it, and therefore is a foolish strategy.
I think you're taking your comment box too seriously.
I'm an atheist. Evolutionary biology is my ruling intellectual passion. I don't read P.Z. Meyers despite his often-excellent posting on science, because he makes me want to scream "GET OFF MY SIDE!"
The man is a living, breathing, bloviating strawman for the image intelligent design/creationists want for "evolutionists": arrogant, narrow-minded, and fundamentally opposed to religion. Most scientists, like most other people, ARE religious; characters like Meyers are a minority. A really, really conspicuous one that does untold amounts of damage to the alienation of America from academia and the educated "elite", as well as the idea that science and religion have some kind of inevitable war going.
A better way to keep the political- it never was remotely scientific- ID movement live and kicking, I could not possibly conceive of.
Rob Lyman,
The strong form of atheism ("There is no God") is certainly an appeal to faith. Reason can't tell you that God is impossible, only that evidence for his existence doesn't conform to accepted scientific standards.
The statement "There is no God" is not an appeal to faith and not an assertion that God is "impossible." It's merely an assertion that God does not exist, and it's perfectly consistent with reason. Ever heard of Russell's Teapot?
By the way, what would you consider to qualify as "evidence" for the existence of God that doesn't conform to accepted scientific standards? I deny that there is any such thing.
Welcome to libertarianism... though I doubt that is what you or Myers wants. What you really mean is you want laws that conform to YOUR morality, not anyone else's. You can dress it all up in pseudo-intellectual arguments, but no matter how much you polish it you can't make s**t shine.
If you were REALLY for the crime/morality breakdown you couldn't support welfare, universal healthcare, election laws, progressive taxation, zoning laws or any number of things that don't involve rights. Unless you define rights to broadly include your moral principles -- back to square one.
Also, I assume a lot of atheists would argue with you that morality flows from religion.
And no matter what he feels has been done to him by the god-fearing community, this is wildly inappropriate, for the same reason that you do not respond to your political enemies by urinating on their shoes at a fundraiser.
Sorry, but urinating on someone's shoes at a fundraiser is not remotely like what Myers is proposing to do. It's not my style, but I think this kind of theatricality is a perfectly legitimate tactic in the war against religion and magical thinking. American culture is so steeped in deference and accommodation of religious nonsense that we need more stunts like this. Think of it as a political cartoon.
Ever heard of Russell's Teapot?
No, but Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. A teapot is a very poor analogy to God; we know that teapots are artificial objects made on Earth, and that, to arrive in the orbit described, a powerful rocket would have been required. We may reasonably surmise that we would be aware of any such launch, and therefore that the teapot isn't there. We can't prove it, but a firm denial of its existence is sensible given what we know.
To use a more realistic analogy for God, replace the teapot with some sort of natural space junk--a tiny asteroid, a bit of comet leftover, etc. To affirmatively deny the existence of naturally-occurring bits of matter in orbit between the Earth and Mars is to make a substantial leap of, yes, faith. To say that we lack evidence of them is not; to say you don't believe they exist is also not.
it's perfectly consistent with reason.
I did not mean to suggest that strong-form atheism is inconsistent with reason. I meant to suggest that it is not compelled by reason, so to look down on believers as abandoning reason in favor of faith is mistaken.
By the way, what would you consider to qualify as "evidence" for the existence of God that doesn't conform to accepted scientific standards? I deny that there is any such thing.
Are you missing a word or two here? Plenty of religious believers find non-scientific evidence for God in all manner of things, such as childbirth, "miraculous" events, and the fact that e^(i*pi) = -1.
LabRat,
Most scientists, like most other people, ARE religious;
Unless you have a very loose definition of what it means to "be religious," no they're not. Even mere theism seems to be relatively uncommon among scientists. And it appears that the more eminent/accomplished a scientist is, the less likely he is to be religious.
It's funny you should mention that your passion is evolutionary biology, because that group of scientists seems particularly unlikely to be religious. You might want to look at the findings of the Cornell Evolution Project
"17.4 billion people"
TR: Is this satire? There are nowhere near that many people in the world.
"Evangelical atheists, though--what are they trying to save me from?" Rob Lyman.
TR: To save you from error. In my experience of groups Evangelical Atheists are the most like Traditionalist Catholics ala Mel Gibson. They believe they have the truth found by right reason, or the closest thing we'll ever get to the truth, and religion is error. Error has no rights. Even if living in "the truth" made your life noticeably worse it would still be their duty to spread the truth. (Dawkins indicated this, I forget the interview though)
Some would also add that this "truth" is "liberating." Once you abandon erroneous thinking your mind will work more efficiently and you'll be plagued with less guilt or worry. You'll abandon what Sagan called the "Demon Haunted World." In addition you'll be abandoning hope for anything greater than the human, which is good because it eliminates disappointment. Also, as with the Society of St. Pius X, there's the sense of superiority that comes from knowing you are right when most everyone else is wrong.
"Conversion, to me at least, is an attempt to get a person to accept some doctrinal authority whether that be the Pope, the Mormon Church, or just the Bible." Dan
TR: This is sort of a non-standard view of conversion. Going by the dictionary conversion includes "a spiritual enlightenment causing a person to lead a new life" or "a change of religion." Other sources state "Religious conversion is the adoption of a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another." Going by most of these trying to get people to abandon religion for atheism is trying to convert people. None of the definitions indicate an authority is necessarily involved.
On July 10, Dr. Myers claimed he received 4 death threats. Where is the evidence of these 4 death threats?
A teapot is a very poor analogy to God; we know that teapots are artificial objects made on Earth, and that, to arrive in the orbit described, a powerful rocket would have been required. We may reasonably surmise that we would be aware of any such launch, and therefore that the teapot isn't there. We can't prove it, but a firm denial of its existence is sensible given what we know.
I (and Russell) make the same argument against belief in the existence of God, at least as conceived in any of the traditional forms of theism. The world we observe around us is not the world we would rationally expect to see if it were the creation of an omnipotent and benevolent creator God.
To use a more realistic analogy for God, replace the teapot with some sort of natural space junk--a tiny asteroid, a bit of comet leftover, etc.
Huh? That's not a remotely reasonable analogy. We have numerous recorded observations of "natural space junk" and it would therefore be highly irrational to deny the existence of such material. In contrast, we have no observations of God whatsoever.
I meant to suggest that it is not compelled by reason, so to look down on believers as abandoning reason in favor of faith is mistaken.
The only kind of belief in God that I consider to be consistent with reason is belief in the distant, uninvolved God of Deism. And even that's at the margins of rationality. I think belief in any of the traditional religious Gods is highly irrational.
Are you missing a word or two here? Plenty of religious believers find non-scientific evidence for God in all manner of things, such as childbirth, "miraculous" events,
I asked what you consider to qualify as evidence. Do you believe that "'miraculous' events" (by which I assume you mean claims of such events) qualify as evidence for the existence of God? I certainly don't.
And perhaps Thomas Friedman and the (current NYT-columnist version) Paul Krugman belong to yet another category: those who are right often enough, or who were completely reasonable people in their previous non-pundit lives, that even the most preposterous rant from them needs refutation because it might receive undeserved credance because of the writer's prior reputation? (I'm trying to think of somebody more rightward to pair with those two; obviously people like Pat Buchanan now belong to the Maureen Dowd/loony bin category, and thus don't qualify. Maybe maybe Dinesh D'Souza? )
When was the last time Tom "Suck. On. This." Friedman was right about anything?
American culture is so steeped in deference and accommodation of religious nonsense that we need more stunts like this. Think of it as a political cartoon.
So the whole claim about receiving 4 death threats was part of the stunt. I suppose this is a politically correct version of deception.
he world we observe around us is not the world we would rationally expect to see if it were the creation of an omnipotent and benevolent creator God.
You must have a rather deeper insight into the mental workings of this non-existent God than I do to make such a claim.
We have numerous recorded observations of "natural space junk"
Fine, I specify its orbital elements and approximate mass. Happy now? You can't show it exists, you can't show it doesn't. If you're being reasonable, you'll avoid categorical statements about its existence (and perhaps confine yourself to probabilities).
In contrast, we have no observations of God whatsoever.
I suspect that you, personally, have roughly as many direct observations of space junk as you have of God. You rely instead on the word of people trained in the practice of space-junk observation and their acolytes, as published in texts you consider to be sources of truth.
And could you specify what would qualify as an "observation of God"? Since you reject miracles out of hand, I'm left wondering what would qualify.
asked what you consider to qualify as evidence.
Oh, me personally? I don't believe in God. I'm one of John Derbyshire's "unwilling unbelievers," unable to believe in the supernatural.
Satire? Absolutely not. I think you didn't read the whole post TR.
According to recent census data, 17.4 billion is just the current number of WEB USERS, not the number of people on the planet. There are another 23 billion people who haven't yet started using the internet and another 13 billion who don't even know it exists.
Altogether those figures amount to some number that, without a calculator, scientists can only guess at.
Mixner,
With respect, the Cornell Evolution Project had a lousy design; sending out surveys that the recipient chooses whether to fill out or not is usually a great way to introduce some form of bias in the results, usually depending on who cares the most about the issue and why. For obvious reasons, many evolutionary biologists have a very negative view of organized religions. (Physicists never have to put up with being pestered about gravity...) They tend to feel rather more strongly about the issue.
Searching has revealed a number of surveys... most of which have the same fundamental design flaw, and all of which seem to be championed by either an atheist or evangelical organization with a strong bias. I'll withdraw my claim in absence of better proof; this seems to be one of those "facts" that my mind filled in to fit observation.
As for observation, I'll only note that I live in the city with the highest proportion of scientists per capita (Los Alamos, New Mexico), and we have more than twenty churches, most some flavor of Christian, for a local population of less than twenty thousand. SOMEone is filling those pews, and they aren't atheists or deists. Space is at a premium here- we couldn't even keep a Domino's Pizza alive. They wouldn't be there if they weren't filling a demand.
Going by the dictionary conversion includes "a spiritual enlightenment causing a person to lead a new life" or "a change of religion." Other sources state "Religious conversion is the adoption of a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another." Going by most of these trying to get people to abandon religion for atheism is trying to convert people. None of the definitions indicate an authority is necessarily involved.
We're using the word conversion in the colloquial sense. When a missionary, whether they be Mormon, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, tries to convert you, it's not just about a "spiritual enlightenment" or change in religion. They want you to accept their religion in particular. And it's not just about the narrow question of whether God "exists" in some abstract philosophical way, it's about accepting their particular doctrine, their scripture, their priestly class, their rituals and institutions. It is about authority. When someone like P.Z. Meyers or Richard Dawkins is "evangelizing," they're not trying to sell you on some new authority or scripture. So it's not conversion in the same sense that a religious missionary converts people
Rob Lyman,
You must have a rather deeper insight into the mental workings of this non-existent God than I do to make such a claim.
I don't know why you think "deep insight" is needed at all. Even Christianity recognizes the most obvious inconsistency between its claims about God and the nature of the world as we observe and experience it. They call it The Problem of Evil.
Fine, I specify its orbital elements and approximate mass. Happy now? You can't show it exists, you can't show it doesn't. If you're being reasonable, you'll avoid categorical statements about its existence (and perhaps confine yourself to probabilities).
Not at all. I will categorically state, for example, that there is no Mars-sized piece of "natural space junk" between Earth and Mars. I will admit that there is a very small probability that I am wrong about this (just as it's possible that I am wrong in believing that there is no orbiting china teapot and no Christian God), but for all reasonable purposes I feel I am quite justified in stating simply that such an object does not exist. I also feel justified, though not quite to the same degree of confidence, in stating simply that the God of the Bible does not exist.
I suspect that you, personally, have roughly as many direct observations of space junk as you have of God. You rely instead on the word of people trained in the practice of space-junk observation and their acolytes, as published in texts you consider to be sources of truth.
It's theoretically possible that what I believe to be genuine scientific evidence for the existence of space junk--or for evolution, or the existence of DNA, or any other scientific claim--doesn't really exist and that it's all the product of some vast conspiracy by the scientific community to fool people into believing in the existence of something that isn't really there. But that hypothesis is just so implausible it doesn't even pass the laugh test, so I reject it.
And could you specify what would qualify as an "observation of God"? Since you reject miracles out of hand, I'm left wondering what would qualify.
I don't reject anything "out of hand." You're the one who suggested that belief in God may be justified in the same way as belief in natural phenomena ("natural space junk"), so I think it's up to you to come up with an example of an observation that you would consider to be evidence for the existence of God.
Oh, me personally? I don't believe in God.
But that wasn't the issue. You don't believe in God, but you (apparently) believe that there is such a thing as evidence for the existence of God that doesn't conform to accepted scientific standards. I'm asking you to give me some examples of such evidence. Not what other people believe to be such evidence, but what you believe to be such evidence. Is there anything?
LabRat,
With respect, the Cornell Evolution Project had a lousy design; sending out surveys that the recipient chooses whether to fill out or not is usually a great way to introduce some form of bias in the results, usually depending on who cares the most about the issue and why.
Since we obviously can't compel anyone to respond to questions about their beliefs regarding God and religion (or anything else), I'm not sure why you think this is "lousy design" rather than an unavoidable limitation of all opinion surveys. Unless you can provide a credible reason to think that this limitation is a massive source of bias in this study, I don't see how it challenges the basic conclusions of the survey. Namely, that top evolutionary biologists are overwhelmingly atheistic and irreligious. Other studies, of broader groups of scientists, have reached similar findings.
I don't think that atheists are trying to 'convert' anyone, and I strongly suspect most 'atheists' are saying that there exists zero, zilch, nada, no evidence that a God exists. Very few of them categorically deny the possible existence of a God. They just want other people to stop shoving their conception of God down their throats via government interference.
No, Myers has the right take, I'm afraid. It would be different if various religious groups got together and officially condemned these loonies, and if the Catholic church sent a higher authority to have a little chat Donohue.
But that's not happening, is it? As usual, it's the one-sidedness that stinks; I'll start feeling that Myers went to far when people start calling for the Church to come down on these muscle-heads.
A lousy design that you have no other alternatives for is still a lousy design. Nutrition research suffers from many of the same problems- can't treat people like lab mice, so you have to accept dozens of unknown variables that may be shooting your results straight to hell.
Like I said, I withdrew my claim for lack of sound proof- and as I also said, I haven't been able to find another study that doesn't rely on the same unreliable design. I maintain that study design always has had and always will have problems, and that my experiences and observations don't jibe with it, even though I would of course like to believe that other people who make rationalism their business would of course be overwhelmingly likely to share my outlook.
I will categorically state, for example, that there is no Mars-sized piece of "natural space junk" between Earth and Mars.
As I understand the teapot problem, it is specified to be too small to observe, so this is not a good comparison. Make it a teapot sized naturally-occurring chunk of rock.
But that hypothesis is just so implausible it doesn't even pass the laugh test, so I reject it.
I think you're quite right to reject it, but you're making a bit of a leap of faith in doing so.
I think it's up to you to come up with an example of an observation that you would consider to be evidence for the existence of God.
Well, a genuine miracle would provide evidence of, at a minimum, something beyond natural phenomena. Of course, one has to be pretty skeptical of claims of miracles, as you point out.
In addition, since you said there are no observations of God, I'd still appreciate knowing what you would consider an adequate observation. If falsifiability is the hallmark of science, what would falsify your belief that there is no God?
You don't believe in God, but you (apparently) believe that there is such a thing as evidence for the existence of God that doesn't conform to accepted scientific standards.
Yes--those things I pointed out above are "evidence" for God's existence. Not evidence that I accept as valid or useful, but "evidence."
Oh yeah, and "There is no God" is a vastly broader statement than "The Bible is wrong about God."
Sigh. At the risk of sounding condescending (and unlike Megan's, mine actually counts for something) I might ask that people use a little google-fu before they post:
Use the google, people.
SoV,
Why do you trust Myers or Greg Laden on this point? Why is there detail of only 1 threat? How do I know a Charles Kroll exists?
Kroll's e-mail was sent July 13, 2008 8:07:31 AM CDT. This is what Myers claimed on July 10, 2008:
Please use google to find the evidence for these 4 death threats.
"We're using the word conversion in the colloquial sense." Dan
TR: What do you mean "we" kimosavee? Honestly though what makes you think "we" are meaning it that way and I'm just being thick?
To me "converting someone" just inherently means trying to switch their political or religious affiliation to be more like your own. If you want Christians to become atheists how is this not trying to convert them? If you want people to embrace an idea of yours, even if it's just one idea, how is this not evangelism for said idea? I don't really understand this.
"So it's not conversion in the same sense that a religious missionary converts people" Dan
TR: Okay. They are evangelical atheists and missionaries in the same sense as someone is an evangelist for non-violence or vegetarianism. Closer?
As for the other part of the conversation the teapot thing is more or less irrelevant. If someone say told me they believe there's a supercomputer buried in the center of Mars, I'd doubt it but mostly just have to say "maybe." However whether there is or isn't it doesn't effect anyone's life at all. This is not true of "God" or more generally the supernatural. Indications are that for tens of thousands of years people have claimed connection to God or a supernatural force. So you'd need to believe in a massive and persistent level of delusion in humanity. Which is what some skeptics sites indicate. At the same time you have to believe human senses and mental capabilities are the only arbiters of truth. (Because if there is no God there is nothing other than us to determine truth as any aliens are unlikely to communicate with us)
Chuckle. Since Megan has declared this 'Grow the Hell Up, Internet People Month' . . . Skullberg, Currie, grow the hell up[1]. And Skullberg, in the faint hope of actually passing the class, submit an essay proving that you exist.
Was that done humorously enough for you, Rob :-)
[1] This might be like beating up on the helpless baby jeebus while he's lying in a manger, but Currie, he didn't say he has received just four death threats. He said he received four death threats _that day_.
Rob Lyman,
As I understand the teapot problem, it is specified to be too small to observe, so this is not a good comparison. Make it a teapot sized naturally-occurring chunk of rock.
In that case, I don't believe the claim that it does not exist would be justified. We have ample evidence that the existence of such an object is plausible, perhaps even very probable. But I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to the claim that God does not exist.
I think you're quite right to reject it, but you're making a bit of a leap of faith in doing so.
I don't know why you think it involves any faith whatsoever. It's a rational conclusion from the evidence that such a vast conspiracy is incredibly unlikely. It would require the on-going collusion of thousands or tens of thousands of professional astronomers and supporting staff to fabricate thousands or tens of thousands of pieces of scientific evidence, with no apparent motive for their mass deception, no whistleblowers, no mistakes that would allow the conspiracy to be discovered by their colleagues or anyone else. It's just very, very, very unlikely. That's not a "leap of faith," it's a common-sense conclusion from a mountain of evidence.
Well, a genuine miracle would provide evidence of, at a minimum, something beyond natural phenomena.
What would qualify as evidence of "something beyond natural phenomena?"
In addition, since you said there are no observations of God, I'd still appreciate knowing what you would consider an adequate observation. If falsifiability is the hallmark of science, what would falsify your belief that there is no God?
You'd have to provide a clear definition of God before I could answer that question. If by "God" you merely mean some intelligent entity that created the universe, I think observations suggesting "intelligent design" might qualify as evidence. But I don't think we have any such evidence. We know from evolution that "blind" natural processes can produce phenomena that have the appearance of being designed by an intelligent agent. So we should be very cautious in drawing conclusions of intelligent agency. But in principle I think there could be such evidence.
Yes--those things I pointed out above are "evidence" for God's existence. Not evidence that I accept as valid or useful, but "evidence."
Huh? So you think it's evidence, but not valid evidence. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. What's the difference between "invalid" evidence and no evidence?
Oh yeah, and "There is no God" is a vastly broader statement than "The Bible is wrong about God."
Well, yes. But I assert that both statements are true. But again, with the caveat that I am talking about God in any of the traditional religious senses of the word (God, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, Odin, etc.), not in the sense of some superintelligent extraterrestrial that created the universe. I very strongly doubt that the latter exists either, but I don't think I'd go so far as to categorically deny it, like I categorically deny the existence of the God of, say, Christianity.
Currie, he didn't say he has received just four death threats. He said he received four death threats _that day_.
So where is the evidence? He can't be talking about Kroll, because Kroll's email was sent 3 days later.
Currie, are you seriously trying to claim Myers did not receive the death threat I cited? Or are you seriously trying to claim that he's received death threats, but not four on that particular day?
Grow up, Internet person!
SoV -
I am a practicing Catholic. I hereby call upon the bishops who preserve and teach the Catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles to denounce Bill Donohue and like-minded muscleheads.
Mixner -
Here's one example of non-scientific evidence that some people consider proof of God's existence: the fact that the Jews claim to be His chosen people and have, alone among their near Eastern contemporaries of 4000 years ago, survived despite all efforts to scatter, kill, or forcibly assimilate them. Or are there Babylonians in Brooklyn?
Mixner, you hit the nose on the head, er, well...
The definition of God is one ranging from everything to nothing, especially That Which we cannot see, hear, feel, or otherwise comprehend. Of course, that's a relatively broad definition that allows for the various mystics' interpretations.
Proselytizing, on the other hand, is relatively simple to define generally. It is an activity that derives from the religion dominant in a society or culture demanding that believers convert others to their beliefs to save the would-be converts from their own heathenism.
Sorry Joe, while I appreciate the sentiment, what you really need to do is condemn those bishops for not reining in the Donohue crowd.
Thomas R,
As for the other part of the conversation the teapot thing is more or less irrelevant. If someone say told me they believe there's a supercomputer buried in the center of Mars, I'd doubt it but mostly just have to say "maybe."
I'd say "maybe" to that too. But with respect to Russell's teapot, I say "false."
However whether there is or isn't it doesn't effect anyone's life at all. This is not true of "God" or more generally the supernatural. Indications are that for tens of thousands of years people have claimed connection to God or a supernatural force. So you'd need to believe in a massive and persistent level of delusion in humanity.
You make it sound like that's somehow unreasonable. History is characterized by countless massive and persistent delusions by humanity, from the belief that women and other races are inferior to the belief that the Earth is flat or was created in the recent past (thousands of years ago as opposed to billions). Human beings are subject to all sorts of cognitive biases and defects, delusions, illusions, hallucinations, wishful thinking, and so on. I don't find it remotely implausible that belief in God is, as Dawkins says, a delusion.
Which is what some skeptics sites indicate. At the same time you have to believe human senses and mental capabilities are the only arbiters of truth.
No, you don't "have" to believe that at all. In fact, the two issues are completely independent. Do you believe there are "arbiters of truth" (and you should probably explain what you mean by that rather vague phrase) other than "human senses and mental capabilities?" If so, why do you believe it?
Currie, are you seriously trying to claim Myers did not receive the death threat I cited? Or are you seriously trying to claim that he's received death threats, but not four on that particular day?
On July 10, Dr. Myers alleges that he received four death threats. Yet he has provided no evidence to support this allegation. He did not even report them to the police. Do you want me to believe this without evidence? Are you saying I should accept this claim on faith? Maybe the invisible death threats came from invisible pink Catholics.
LabRat,
A lousy design that you have no other alternatives for is still a lousy design.
The inability to compel people to answer questions (and to be truthful in their responses) is not part of the design at all. It's a basic limitation of all inquiries into human beliefs. Perhaps an alternative method of communication (phone calls, face-to-face meetings) would have yielded a higher response rate, but I doubt it.
Like I said, I withdrew my claim for lack of sound proof-
You haven't produced any evidence at all, so questions of "proof" are rather premature. As I said, other studies have reached similar findings to the Cornell Evolution Project. See, for example Larson and Witham's study of religious belief among scientists.
So are you claiming he did not really receive the death threat I cited? Let's not be shy, serious internet person.
Are you saying Mr. Kroll’s July 13 email is evidence for the four death threats Dr. Myers supposedly received on July 10? It’s not. I’m asking, and have been asking, for evidence to support Myers allegation that he received 4 death threats on July 10. If you had evidence, you would have supplied it by now. You have no evidence because there is no evidence. So why do you believe Dr. Myers received 4 death threats on July 10?
JK's con.:
Yesterday.
Note, too, the complete absence of (a) name-dropping, and (b) cruelly-tortured analogies. This is not the Thomas Friedman I've come to know; not at all!
Joe Margarac,
Here's one example of non-scientific evidence that some people consider proof of God's existence: the fact that the Jews claim to be His chosen people and have, alone among their near Eastern contemporaries of 4000 years ago, survived despite all efforts to scatter, kill, or forcibly assimilate them.
I think the idea that that assertion is evidence at all, let alone "proof," of the existence of God is not simply wrong or misguided, but absurd, ridiculous.
I notice you say that "some people" consider it proof of God's existence, but don't say whether you're one of them.
Your posters are as intellectually confident as you, whether y'all should be is another question.
Go criticize lawns, you urban lawn-hating lawn-hater.
Nope, I really do mean (conscionable) rights. They are fundamentally raised from the right of self-determination and property rights. Any government law/procedure/edict that violates said rights must be for a valid, supported reason.
I don't support welfare. I believe in charity, but not entitlement.
I don't support universal healthcare for similar reasons.
Election laws are covered under voting rights, which are a legitimate function of government.
Progressive taxation? I think a flat tax is the best answer not only from rights but from incentive to advance.
Zoning laws are based on limitations of rights and a legitimate function of government (altho I can see arguments to the contrary).
Ethics has a basis outside of religion/spirituality, but morality does not.
Why are you quibbling such an inane point? The man has received death threats (evidenced). The possibility that he received 4 in one day is pretty good. Why does it matter other than to derail the debate?
Currie's point, for those having trouble grasping it, is more or less the same as mine. Namely that all of us--evey hyperrational scientific atheists--believe things for which we have no evidence, and for which we never intend to seek evidence. Atheists may be able to claim fewer irrational, evidence free beliefs, but they can't claim that all, or even a majority, of their personal beliefs are supported by evidence that they themselves verified. They are as dependent on faith and texts as anyone else.
This does not make them bad people; I'm one of them, after all. It just makes smugness unjustified.
Oh, and SoV, there's no reason to think that the baby Jeebus was born in a manger. All we really know is that he rose to a prominent enough position--and had enough wives--to have a tribe named after him. Most likely he was a Canaanite, and some have speculated that he founded Jerusalem, but more than that we can't really say.
I don't think I'd go so far as to categorically deny it, like I categorically deny the existence of the God of, say, Christianity.
I don't know of any reason why a superintelligent extraterrestrial couldn't be the God of Christianity. Maybe He was enjoying a game of the Sims on his computer, pushing his chosen people all over the map, parting seas and smiting Midians, but eventually got bored with it and walked away. Is there some reason this is impossible?
...but when someone like Chuck Norris gets on WoldNet Daily and says that he wants to kick all these atheist's asses and boot them out of the country...
He said that? I hope Jack Bauer's an atheist, because otherwise we're screwed.
I disagree. Sometimes a point or post is self-evidently stupid for your readership, and you do a service pointing that out. It may not be worth the energy to explain why.
You're giving Currie too much credit. So, Currie doesn't believe Myers received any death threats.
At this point, I think it's safe to say that he is completely divorced from reality.
To me "converting someone" just inherently means trying to switch their political or religious affiliation to be more like your own. If you want Christians to become atheists how is this not trying to convert them? If you want people to embrace an idea of yours, even if it's just one idea, how is this not evangelism for said idea? I don't really understand this.
If I want someone to embrace and idea, we can go ahead and call that evangelism for that idea. That word works as well as any other in that context I suppose. The distinction I am trying to make, however, is between "evangelizing" for an idea and "evangelizing" for some earthly authority. When a Catholic tries to convert a person, they are not promoting just an idea, they are promoting the authority of the Church and its canon laws and doctrine. It's like when a headhunter calls you about a job. They're not trying to make some abstract point, they're trying to get you to work for some company (and submit to the authority of that company's management). If they happen to argue some abstract point in the process, it's simply a means to an end. When I argue with someone over religion, the abstract point that I'm trying to make is the end in and of itself.
Okay. They are evangelical atheists and missionaries in the same sense as someone is an evangelist for non-violence or vegetarianism. Closer?
Exactly. This is kind of the whole point I'm trying to make. When we have disagreements in society, we argue about it. Liberal vs. Conservative, Ford vs. Chevy, Mac vs. Windows. What annoys me and most atheists I know is that when it comes to religion, argument and discussion are considered off limits. This is particularly infuriating when folks start to try and religion to justify some manner of legislation (or high school biology curriculum for that matter). They want to impose their theology on me and my kids, but I'm not allowed to criticize it. If you want me to shut up about the whole matter, I'm happy to do so and let you believe whatever it is you want to believe, but if you expect me to walk around on eggshells while you impose your theology on society, then you are crazy
Dan, you are soooooo right. You're last sentence is an excellent summary of the problem.
Count me in!
I'm thinking of declaring August "Grow the hell up, internet people" month. Who will join me in my crusade?
That's such a stupid, futile, pointless idea that I don't even need to waste electrons to refute it.
Heh heh, that's what everybody always says about their own beliefs, no?
Not so fast. How do we know that an occurrence that appears to be "beyond natural phenomena" actually is? How do we know that it is not just something we don't (yet) know about?
I think this is the fundamental problem with attempting to use science to dis/prove the existence of "God". The tool is inadequate: science cannot "find" God because science is limited to our universe. And God does not exist in our universe; rather, our universe exists in his.
So when science makes some discovery, both sides clamor to make it evidence of their belief in/against God but to me it is neither. What is evidence to me is the very fact that science works - that there is understandable order in the universe. That there is such a thing as mathematics.
Point of view.
Usually, I find it to be the level of open-mindedness/convincedness of the speaker/poster. When people have made up their minds, or are not really willing to discuss things, they usually say "there is no evidence." I think this is really a form of Megan's "I don't even need to bother to refute this because it's so self-evidently stupid". Most of the time I think it would be just as accurate to say something like, "I don't find the evidence to be convincing," but then that leaves room for the possibility of being wrong.
Certainly sometimes this is the case, and that is unfortunate. But it's also the case for those arguing against religion. See the above paragraph.
C'mon, Scent, you can do better than that. You're always wanting very specific "evidence" and "cites" for assertions. You can either (a) post such a cite - that is relevant to the timeframe involved in the question at hand, (b) refuse to do such, or more likely (c) fall back on "the burden of proof is on you" . And I think we can even all agree that choosing (b) or (c) above does not necessarily mean, let alone prove, that no such "evidence" exists. But "he is completely divorced from reality" sure sounds like "I don't even need to bother to refute this because it's so self-evidently stupid"...
What's good for the goose.....
OK, here's your chance. In your recent foray over at bloggingheads.tv, you made the claim something along the lines that nobody disagrees with global warming anymore. And yet, we have this:
Care to make an actual argument supporting the global warming nonsense you have internalized?
I don't know of any reason why a superintelligent extraterrestrial couldn't be the God of Christianity.
I don't really know what this is supposed to mean, either. By God-as-superintelligent-extaterrestrial, I mean something like the God of philosophical Deism--distant, uninvolved, unconcerned. This is not at all like the God of Christianity. As Dawkins puts it, the God of Christianity as described in the Old Testament is:
His image is softened a bit in the New Testament, and most western Christians tend to play down the OT description of their God and play up the NT one. But he's still a thoroughly anthropomorphic entity.
My point was that in granting the possibility of a Creator--whether God or extraterrestrial or whatever--I can't figure out how you logically exclude the possibility that said Creator is all the things that the OT and Dawkins say he is. (Except sadomacochistic. Sadistic, I can see, but where's the masochism?)
My point was that in granting the possibility of a Creator--whether God or extraterrestrial or whatever--I can't figure out how you logically exclude the possibility that said Creator is all the things that the OT and Dawkins say he is.
I don't "logically exclude" that possibility. As I've already told you, I believe it's "logically possible" that the God of the Bible exists. But that isn't terribly important. It's also "logically possible" that the Earth was created only 6,000 years ago, for example. That doesn't mean belief in either the God of the Bible or a 6,000 year-old Earth is rational or justified. In fact, I consider both beliefs to be highly irrational and unjustified. You seem to think the assertion "X does not exist" means the same thing as the assertion "The existence of X is not even a logical possibility." But they don't mean the same thing. They're completely different.
I chose my words poorly. I equate "X does not exist" with either "X is not a physical possibility." There being, of course, logically possible things which are physically impossible.
I'm also equating "I don't believe in X" with "X has a negligibly small possibility of existing," and thus making a distinction between belief in non-existence and non-belief in existence. The former I identify as the "strong form" of atheism, the latter as the "weak form."
This usage may or may not correspond with yours.
According to recent census data, 17.4 billion is just the current number of WEB USERS, not the number of people on the planet. There are another 23 billion people who haven't yet started using the internet and another 13 billion who don't even know it exists.
Sprizouse, I think you may have been taken in by one of the 91% of statistics that are just made up on the spot. There are, according to Wikipedia, roughly 6.68 billion people on the planet today. So unless there are animals, aliens, ghosts, deities, or flying spaghetti monsters using the web as well, something doesn't quite add up.
Dan wrote: Chuck Norris gets on WoldNet Daily and says that he wants to kick all these atheist's asses and boot them out of the country
The Chuck Norris Fact Generator came up with the following:
"Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants."
Related, maybe?
MW: There definitely are that many people on the planet and there are waaaaay more than 6.68 billion people using the web (I just edited the wikipedia entry to say so).
What we should be discussing isn't population data... but the sobering fact that most of the 47 billion people on Earth don't even have a rudimentary grasp of humor. Think about it! Sarcasm, wit, double entendre... many people use these time tested techniques to make people smile (or get drinks thrown on them in bars) but they're being wasted!
One of our most precious resources is being thrown away on the 91% of the population that doesn't understand statistics (which basically means everyone... all 47 billion of us!).
It's sad. Just sad.
Count me in, Megan!
I trust, then, that for the entire month of August, you'll hold up your end by not putting up a single post about, say, how you think it's just darling that you're a white woman who listens to The Last Poets.
Because that was pretty darn infantile.
Deal?
On his website. He reprinted the headers from two of the most odious death threat e-mails he got: one was traced to a Catholic Dominionist (who makes no apologies) and the other to the husband of an employee of 1-800-Flowers, who stupidly used her corporate e-mail account to threaten to "beat [Myers'] brains in" with a pipe and "stomp on his throat", giving Myers one week to resign from his job at the university - or else. Ironically, the idiot got his own wife fired for misuse of the corporate e-mail system.
Excuse me, o arbiters of politeness: is it asking too much to spell Myers's last name correctly? Seriously, it makes y'all look like a bunch of amateurs, or worse like those utter wankers who deploy kute names like "Hitlery Klinton."
Such a noble concept - & from such an unlikely source, to boot.
Might this glorious cyber-jihad of growing the hell up actually extend all the way to not trying to make some science guy's putting the hurts on an inanimate object the exact moral equivalent to a bunch of people vowing to ruin his life or threatening him with death?
Yeah ... I thought not.
You're going to need a bigger 2x4.