TZT »« Me vs. Chris Stedman

Wait, I’m not recovered yet!

I woke up still achey and worn out from a long long day standing in the rain yesterday (but it was worth it!), and you know what I have to do next? The American Atheists National Convention. It’s going on today and tomorrow, and I speak tomorrow (on “Scientists! If you aren’t an atheist, you’re doing it wrong!”) The talk is mostly in the bag, but man, I will sleep soundly on the plane home, I think.

Comments

  1. says

    “Scientists! If you aren’t an atheist, you’re doing it wrong!”

    My thinking exactly. I just can’t understand how a person could be both a religionist and a scientist. A brain that claims to be both is either doing something wrong, or there is something wrong with it.

  2. says

    “Scientists! If you aren’t an atheist, you’re doing it wrong!”

    I look forward to watching the video because I totally agree. Theist scientists disgrace their profession.

  3. julian says

    “Scientists! If you aren’t an atheist, you’re doing it wrong!”

    Meh.

    I’d say if a philosopher’s not an atheist they’re doing it wrong but a scientist can be whatevs so long as they’re sufficiently ignorant of things outside their area of expertise.

  4. dano says

    Sorry gents. I prayed for safe journey for all but never said I would pray for a sunny day. Next time I’ll try to remmeber both. Cheers!

  5. says

    julian -

    “I’d say if a philosopher’s not an atheist they’re doing it wrong but a scientist can be whatevs so long as they’re sufficiently ignorant of things outside their area of expertise.”

    How is that not doing it wrong? How is believing something that is dependent on being sufficiently ignorant of things outside their area of expertise not doing it wrong?

    I see how it’s technically possible, of course, and how it can be made to “work” in a narrow, vocational sense, but I don’t see how it is, considered more broadly, anything but doing it wrong.

    To put it another way, of course strict compartmentalization is possible, but it’s not a respectable solution for a scientist or any other kind of honest inquirer.

  6. allencdexter says

    Yes, definitely videotaped. I’m going to You Tube right now to see what might have been added since last evening. What a wonderful tool!

  7. julietdefarge says

    You stood in the rain? How come? It looked to me like the speakers and performers had shelter. Didn’t notice any runny mascara on either Tim or Eddie.
    You gave a great speech, which I hope to see on YouTube soon.

  8. says

    Screw it, if you’re an academic and you still believe in higher powers, you’re doing it wrong.

    One might even say it shows you weren’t paying attention to the lectures or that you weren’t able to fully comprehend the implications of the lectures. (How people think a higher power is “guiding” evolution, I don’t even…)

    That being said, if you’re an academic and a fundamentalist, all I can think is, “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?”

  9. says

    You’re all talking as if we run on logic. We don’t. We are collections of hopes, fears, dreams, sensations, appetites, memories, conditioned reflexes, and emotions. If we want to believe two contradictory things, we’ll have two parts of our personality that we activate at different times. The Adult state can be the scientist and the Child or Parent states can be the believer. See Transactional Analysis for descriptions of the states.

  10. KG says

    See Transactional Analysis for descriptions of the states. – Markita Lynda

    What sort of evidential basis does TA have?

  11. Sastra says

    Markita Lynda #12 wrote:

    You’re all talking as if we run on logic. We don’t. We are collections of hopes, fears, dreams, sensations, appetites, memories, conditioned reflexes, and emotions. If we want to believe two contradictory things, we’ll have two parts of our personality that we activate at different times.

    I don’t see how this contradicts what we’re saying: people should be more reasonable and consistent. Pointing out that they’re not and explaining why they’re not doesn’t mean that the problem isn’t there, or that it’s intractable.

  12. den1s says

    “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?”

    knowingly telling lies, that’s what. Theists’ always always always fall back on their default position so it really does not matter that they are scientists, because if science contradicts their peer reviewed literature (the buybull), they have no choice but to lie for jebus. They’ll spend their scientific lives trying to disprove science. And yet they think they are taking the high moral ground…. go figure.

  13. Seeker of Reason and Amusement and Beer says

    Heya All,
    Reason Rally was great! Have managed to stay over for tonight…PZ would love to catch up with you wherever an evening event might be (I assume near the Bethesda Marriott where the covention?) PZ (or anyone else who might be aware) please help out a fan with limited online access and twitter dysfunctive, where might you be this evening for a beer and a laugh?

  14. says

    “Scientists! If you aren’t an atheist, you’re doing it wrong!”

    As a lawyer, I have to add the following addendum (now isn’t that just like a lawyer?)

    Lawyers! If you aren’t an atheist, you’re doing it wrong!”

    I can’t figure out theist lawyers. I know we probably aren’t as steeped in the ideas and rules of evidence that scientists are steeped in, and that we spend a lot of time trying to skirt these rules, but still… We are an evidence based profession, through and through. At least as far as we are trained to think. (yeah, yeah, now for all the lawyer jokes. I’ve heard them all).

    But if the focus of your profession is to rigorously apply the burden of proof to those advocating a position or claim, and hold them to that burden in a court of law, using rules that are logical and designed to maintain strict evidential standards, then how can you walk out of your courtroom and into a church, in the process turning your brains off?

    I wrote a blog post on this some years ago, where one side tries to prove the existence of god in a court of law, which I maintain would lose every time. I’ll look for it if anyone is interested. I know it’s back in the archives somewhere.

  15. Ben says

    I think Neil de Grasse Tyson put it best. He was commenting in a talk about an article discussing a survey of scientists who are part of the NAS and finding that 85% were atheists, and the article remarked at the stark difference with the public at large. However, Tyson had a different take on this stat. “That’s not the story. The story is why isn’t that number 0?” And then he went on about how several of the greatest minds in history have invoked what amounts to intelligent design upon reaching the limits of their knowledge, Isaac Newton in particular.