Ah, you’ve hit upon one of my peeves. Look around the blogosphere at all those people who get so indignant at my “strident” atheism. I’ll say, “Religion is stupid”: they’ll get furious and damn me for saying that all religious people are stupid, despite the fact that I’ve plainly stated quite a few times that I think no such thing. You can’t criticize faith without religious people assuming that you’re kicking them personally — they identify so strongly with that set of idiotic beliefs.
I have to disagree with you, PZ. Is it possible to call a belief stupid without implying the natural extension that people who hold that stupid belief are stupid, themselves? I’m not sure how we can separate the two.
justpaulsays
I propose that “religion is NOT intelligently designed”.
False Prophetsays
I have to disagree with you, PZ. Is it possible to call a belief stupid without implying the natural extension that people who hold that stupid belief are stupid, themselves? I’m not sure how we can separate the two.
Posted by: Paul | May 17, 2007 08:06 AM
Most people don’t arrive at their beliefs through a rational exercise of their intellects. They develop them through upbringing or culture or some other nonrational means. This doesn’t necessarily mean they lack intelligence or ability otherwise. I used him as an example in a previous thread, but even IDist William Dembski’s fiercest ideological foes recognize that he’s a talented mathematician. But just because he’s usually right about math doesn’t make him right about intelligent design.
Raging Braytardsays
they’ll get furious and damn me for saying that all religious people are stupid, despite the fact that I’ve plainly stated quite a few times that I think no such thing.
Yeah right PZ. Ed said that you think all religious people are stupid and appeasers and whatnot. So you’re obviously lying.
I’d have to agree with Paul, PZ. A belief doesn’t exactly exist on its own. I’m sure “identification” with the belief is part of it, but people are surely reacting more to the idea that they are being called stupid, at least by simple inference.
Brian Thompsonsays
PZ, I’m almost disappointed that you’d put such a heathenistic comic in your own blog. Its one thing to disrespect fake religions, but clearly disrespecting The World Universalist Turtleism Church of Space-God is… well, its something quite severe. The fault may lie within your own ignorance. Let me clear up a few things and maybe you’ll understand our religion and finally discover the values inherent in it.
1) The battling turtles is a common theme throughout our holy writ Turtles Through the Ages. More importantly, they didn’t create the Earth so much as nearly destroy it with their petty wars. This points us towards environmentalism and the fragile ecology that we, as children of the Space-God are entrusted to balance.
2) The Space-God did not war with the turtles themselves. Rather, his second cousin – who is also his uncle and his brother in-law – did. He won not because of his prowess on the battlefield, but through his determination off the field. He wrote letters of dissent, lobbied for stricter turtle-battling laws, and chained himself to a bulldozer. Keep in mind that this was before the world had invented paper, lobbyists, and bulldozers. Quite a powerful second cousin, don’t you think? Imagine now how powerful the Space-God must be!
3) Although not strictly directed at your posted comic strip, I feel that I should counter claims that are commonly leveled against The WUTC. The Space-God was not a drunkard or an invalid. He chose to sit out of the turtle battles out of love and compassion for the world. He also did not “watch it from the bleachers eating peanuts and hot dogs”. This was 12.5 years before the invention of baseball!
Paul@8: There are lots of ways to hold stupid beliefs without being stupid. I’m no idiot, if I say so myself, but I often take things literally, and when I was a kid that saddled me with a lot of stupid beliefs. Besides, there’s not that much difference between trusting a preacher and trusting a scientist if you believe the preacher has a reliable way of finding the truth, and many people are taught exactly that.
justpaul (hey, coincidence!)@9: But religion is obviously intelligently designed. I mean, imagine if the universe was like a religion. The world would be full of weird inconsistencies, magic would work, people could figure out the truth just by tilting their head back and asking (or even by casting lots) … if all those things were true, wouldn’t ‘intelligent design’ make sense? Q.E.D., my friend.
But just because he’s usually right about math doesn’t make him right about intelligent design.
Exactly. We’ve all seen the fallacious inference from “X is really good in this area” to “So, X must automatically know this other stuff, too.”
MorpheusPAsays
Ha! This is a trick question! There is no magic word because there is no magic.
What we have here is a false respect shown for a religion that’s just as inaccurate as every other one out there. Our strawberry blond fellow already stated it’s stupid. That it’s a religion is unlikely to change that opinion, so it’s definitely not a magic word.
I think it has as much to do with the need to be “persecuted” and “hated” for their beliefs because they want to be like the martyrs of the New Testament. Every hint that you think that their religion is foolish is their justification for carrying that “wound.”
False Prophet said: I used him as an example in a previous thread, but even IDist William Dembski’s fiercest ideological foes recognize that he’s a talented mathematician.
I’m sure you can find plenty of good examples of bright people who are also religious, but Dembski is certainly not one of them.
Richard Harris, FCDsays
I want to know how these two turtles got on battling the space god. And what about all the other turtles? We all know, it’s turtles all the way down. So did the space god smite all the other turtles, & slay them? Pah!
Anyway, people who believe in any religion, with or without turtles, aren’t necessarily stupid. They’re crazy.
jimvjsays
One could create a similar comic to illustrate the point Hitchens made wrt Rev. Falwell.
A: Gays, lesbians, abortions providers and liberals allowed 9/11 to happen.
B: That is stupid!
A: I’m Reverend Phallacy.
B: Well, alrighty then.
xebecssays
Is a person necessarily stupid who believes a stupid idea? No.
Do many people who say an idea is stupid also mean that the believer is stupid? Yes.
Do people often lie about the intent beyond their utterances? Yes.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a person who says an idea is stupid also means that the believer is stupid, and it is reasonable to assume that such a person is lying when they say they mean no such thing.
However, those assumptions can also be wrong. Just because an assumption is reasonable does not mean it is true.
Let’s be charitable. Let’s trust that PZ is telling the truth about his intent.
[ Humorous turtle reference: TBD ]
Kseniyasays
Holy crunching carapace, Brian! Don’t know you that Turtleism is just a shell game?
I see that False Prophet has demoted Dembski from “brilliant” to “talented.” I feel a game of Uncommon Descent coming on. It’s like Limbo. “How low can you go?”
steve_hsays
Ah, you’ve hit upon one of my peeves. Look around the blogosphere at all those people who get so indignant at my “strident” atheism. I’ll say, “Religion is stupid”: they’ll get furious and damn me for saying that all religious people are stupid, despite the fact that I’ve plainly stated quite a few times that I think no such thing.
The same people have no problem with “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. If sin is to be hated, surely the holder of the sin is to be hated as well :)
Edsays
Well how else could you possibly explain all of the complexity and apperent design in the Universe without two turtles and a Space God? Demski’s Razor compels us to conclude that this is the only plausible design scenario.
Kseniyasays
Dembski’s Razor? Feh! Bah! By the principles of Cordoba’s Pore Cleanser and Blackhead Remover, all that is necessary to explain our reality is a single turtle and a black hole!
Coragypssays
Kseniya: I stand in awe. You caused me to baptise my keyboard.
Baratossays
Yeah, thats a great comic. I think I have a few strips saved to my home PC about squids and God, I’ll send them to you when I get a chance.
Baratossays
Yeah, thats a great comic. I think I have a few strips saved to my home PC about squids and God, I’ll send them to you when I get a chance.
Bsays
Am I to believe every absurdity? If not, why this one in particular? — Sigmund Freud
Christianity is just plain silly. I mean, what kind of god DIES? And what kind of “sacrifice” is it to die for three days and then come back to life and go to heaven? I mean, really. If I knew more about the other religions, I’d probably feel the same way. Why can’t others see this?
Creationists and ID proponents keep asking for equal time for their allegedly scientific claims in the classroom. If only we could do that and at the same time guarantee that science teachers would investigate such claims in a truly rigorous scientific manner. It would be goodbye turtles!
I wonder if they were teenage mutant ninja turtles…
steve_h@23: That’s the funny thing: the Bible has an extraordinary amount of wisdom in it, and so much of it is ignored. I mean, take Matthew 5:22. If you look up the original Greek, and look at how the word is used elsewhere in the Bible, you’ll see that it’s warning against declaring people beyond redemption. Just think how many public religious figures ignore that!
banerjeesays
I think many of you are forgetting that most aspects of your culture have been shaped by such beliefs.
Unfortunately, in the last episode, Space God was banished to Dimension X.
Tamsays
the Bible has an extraordinary amount of wisdom in it, and so much of it is ignored
Oh, please. The Bible has extraordinary amounts of horrifically bad morals and foolishness in it. That there are scraps of recognizable wisdom here and there is just a sign that you can’t ever completely shut down the thoughtful, human part of your brain.
I have a friend who issues a challenge (mostly to non-believers who think the Bible is “wisdom literature”): find two consecutive pages of any regular printed Bible such that the pages contain advice and you personally agree with all of the advice on the pages.
Very few have ever (by their own standards) won this challenge, and those who have have used quite liberal and metaphorical interpretations of the crap in their chosen pages.
CalGeorgesays
Religion = Stupid.
Religious person = Stupified.
Any questions?
Ralph Ssays
Mike @17: You’ve hit on one of my favorite themes: Groups love to take on the mantle of victimhood as a way of justifying their beliefs or behavior. Let’s not talk about whether I’m right or wrong, good or bad, black or white – can’t you see I’m being persecuted? Life is unfair, oh woe is me…
Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCDsays
Most? Try some. And many of us are atheists… we never forget it.
chukosays
While it’s more true and more kind to say that god believers are deluded (or conditioned, or psychologically manipulated, or,…), the actual god believers don’t really feel any better about it.
“I know you think you’re a liberal, but it’s just because you haven’t really thought about it before….”, except that religion is a little more closely related to a person’s identity.
Ah, you’ve hit upon one of my peeves. Look around the blogosphere at all those people who get so indignant at my “strident” atheism. I’ll say, “Religion is stupid”: they’ll get furious and damn me for saying that all religious people are stupid, despite the fact that I’ve plainly stated quite a few times that I think no such thing. You can’t criticize faith without religious people assuming that you’re kicking them personally — they identify so strongly with that set of idiotic beliefs.
That very same thing happened to me when I posted this comic.
Chayanovsays
It is stupid. I don’t have to respect their beliefs. I don’t even have to respect them. All I have to respect is their right to have such idiotic beliefs — which is more than many of those who are religious are willing to do for those who disagree with them.
I propose that “religion is NOT intelligently designed”.
The most ‘intelligently designed’ religion is perhaps Scientology. But the truth is, most religions are not designed. They are societal constructs that change in response to societal changes.
I think many of you are forgetting that most aspects of your culture have been shaped by such beliefs.
Culture also shapes beliefs in turn, and even Hollywood can change the way we see Scripture. Come on, who doesn’t think — even briefly — about Samuel L. Jackson when they hear a reference to the prophet Ezekiel?
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you!”
All of you who refer to Dembski as a “talented” or “brilliant” mathematician are clearly not au courant in mathematics. The guy has published one or two mathematical papers after getting his Ph.D. These are his thesis regurgitated, probably. Any halfway decent mathematician would have published several papers at least after the thesis. Believe me, the guy is unknown in the world of mathematicians.
Tam@34: A point, a point! I’ll be sure to take up that challenge next time I read the Bible.
CalGeorge@44: …fine. There’s still a kernel of truth in the Bible verse, though.
Kseniyasays
Redemption in the secular sense is not bullshit. Neither is “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Anyone who has made an amends, or has forgiven (or been forgiven by) another human being knows this. It may be true that we become what we repeatedly do, but rarely does a single act define a person’s life.
Greg Petersonsays
Very often religious people are both brilliant AND stupid,in the same way a Rube-Goldberg Contraption can be brilliant and stupid. All the clever, ad hoc connections between things, the inventive use of materials, the novel approach, can seem creatively brilliant in its way. But as a way of doing something straightforward and simple, it is ridiculous and stupid. It is vulnerable and wasteful.
If you read a “harmony of the gospels,” you get a clear idea of what I mean. Authors have come up with wonderfully inventive ways to try to get around obvious contradictions. It is the use of intelligence in the service of stupidity. This is in fact what makes religion so dangerous. If religious people were merely stupid, they would be less of a threat. The threat is that they have made an idol of stupidity and serve it with their whole mind and strenght.
Kseniyasays
The threat is that they have made an idol of stupidity…
Kseniyasays
(Dang.)
The threat is that they have made an idol of stupidity …
Or, perhaps more precisely, that they have made irrationality a virtue. Witness the consequential distrust of rationality…
the Bible has an extraordinary amount of wisdom in it (…) it’s warning against declaring people beyond redemption.
So am I unwise if I declare Hitler beyond redemption?
tonysays
bullfighter@51
We are, by definition, unwise… since you (& I) are athiests and have therefore ‘unwisely turned our backs on god’ (as a priest once told me before kicking me out of my classroom — I went to a catholic high school)
jbasays
MorpheusPA: “Ha! This is a trick question! There is no magic word because there is no magic.”
Never had Chivas Century have you? :>
ItsAllComingTogethersays
Attacking religion is considered a science here? If not, move along PZ
Anton Matessays
I used him as an example in a previous thread, but even IDist William Dembski’s fiercest ideological foes recognize that he’s a talented mathematician. But just because he’s usually right about math doesn’t make him right about intelligent design.
Use Behe instead. Dembski’s publishing record is almost non-existent, he makes trivial math errors, and other mathematicians have pronounced his work meaningless.
bullfighter@51: Bearing in mind that one reason I folded so quickly to #44 was the fact that I had not conveyed the thought accurately, and bearing in mind that Hitler isn’t the best example, given that he is dead … yes, I claim that you would be unwise to do so. I claim this because it’s an easy way out, much too easy. Even people guilty of atrocious acts do seem to redeem themselves sometimes.
In reality, the argument works better with the proper translation. Let’s pretend you are claiming that Hitler is moros, the word actually used in the Greek, and in this case meaning a monster devoid of moral qualities.
And it doesn’t matter that those are fallacies. At the least, you encourage those fallacies by setting up people as plaster devils.
Kevinsays
I wouldn’t call the believe stupid just for holding the stupid beliefs. As has been said, most come by their beliefs through birth and upbrining. Given survey results, it is also clear that most don’t even really know what the believe beyond the superficial (be good, go to heaven, be bad, go to hell). Few can even name the 4 gospels. And given how prevelant religion is in our society, and how little self-examination people want to do (too few are willing to challenge themselves on what they believe because the status quo is so much easier), you aren’t going to get people to really get in depth with their views.
But then what of the religious believers who do study their beliefs in depth? I guess that gets trickier. I still think much of it is not wanting to go against everything you’ve ever been taught, the foundations of pretty much everything you believe about the world. Stupid isn’t a good word for these people. I’d say Dawkins word fits best. Deluded. Self delusion is a powerful tool, and it doesn’t make you stupid.
Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCDsays
It has nothing to do with science… but it is fun to attack superstitions.
So basically, you think anyone who believes that a turtle is responsible for the big bang is misled?
Why do you hate people who worship turtles? Did a turtle bite your pet squid?
CalGeorgesays
The thing to do is to point out the stupidity (e.g., kneeeling before waterfall in Cascades, giving it up for Jesus).
Collins is not stupid. He has moments of stupidity that most other scientists do not experience.
He could easily redeem himself by converting back to atheism (pronto!).
We ought to be asking why humans memorialize their waterfall conversion moments instead of saying, “Gee, that was a nice day for a walk! What’s for dinner?”
Let’s pretend you are claiming that Hitler is moros, the word actually used in the Greek, and in this case meaning a monster devoid of moral qualities.
Nonsense. There is no such person, and there is no need for such wacky assumptions. Therefore, the consequences you mention, whether they follow from the assumption or not, are irrelevant.
All I am saying is that any moral system – religious or secular – that would make an adherent too uncomfortable to shoot Hitler if he or she had a chance in, say, 1942 (so that there is plenty of evidence about Hitler’s enormity, not just speculation) is harmful and not worthy of respect as a source of wisdom. I am not going to engage in mutual navel-gazing over that.
jotetamusays
B@29
What kind of god dies? Lots of gods die and are reborn, and it’s easy to understand why. Consider the sun: it declines, weakens, every year, but always returns to full strength. Consider your corn: it grows, the plant withers and dies, then you take some of the hard dead seeds, bury them in the ground, and next spring the plant is reborn; the rest you eat, and eating a god is not just Christian, but quite common. John’s version of Jesus uses this as an analogy to the resurection: “except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone …”.
Jim Roberts
thwaitesays
“Turtle” … Latin root … early Christian religion = clearly the magic word is: Tertullian !?
Do I win something?
Kseniyasays
I call Godwin on Bullfighter. 8^b
Nobody has claimed that the “moral system” implied by the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” concept automatically lets everyone off every hook, always and forever. It’s a caution against condemning people, too quickly or absolutely, for their bad acts.
Perhaps my interpretation is insufficiently literal or excessively nuanced.
LOL! Good one. Ok, maybe Bullfighter needs to invoke Hitler to argue against Robin’s interpretation of the phrase, but I don’t think so – I think Bullfighter’s extreme interpretation is the problem.
I could be wrong.
While we’re on the subject, maybe Robin can explain why the Greek “moros” entered the argument in the first place.
Kseniyasays
(By the way, I love xkcd! It’s another gift to me from Pharyngula.)
I believe anything that top 50% smartest Americans believe. I wouldn’t want to make the mistake of calling their beliefs–and there them–dumb, since they are all smart by definition. I’d be rude by definition.
Kseniya, it is not about getting “off the hook”; Robin made a claim that (1) one Christian teaching is that no one is “beyond redemption” and (2) that teaching is wise.
If it is wise, it follows that it is a good guide for our actions and/or thoughts, therefore it must have some practical consequences. It follows that we should not simply relegate the “redemption” business to God (especially if we don’t even think God exists); we should feel some non-trivial respect and empathy for all human beings.
“All” is obviously meant literally here. (If it weren’t, there would be nothing special or new in Christianity in this respect.) Then it must be applicable to the worst (most harmful) human being. I use Hitler to personify that “ideal” – he seems like a rather uncontroversial candidate for the title.
Kseniya, it is not about getting “off the hook”; Robin made a claim that (1) one Christian teaching is that no one is “beyond redemption” and (2) that teaching is wise.
If it is wise, it follows that it is a good guide for our actions and/or thoughts, therefore it must have some practical consequences. It follows that we should not simply relegate the “redemption” business to God (especially if we don’t even think God exists); we should feel some non-trivial respect and empathy for all human beings.
“All” is obviously meant literally here. (If it weren’t, there would be nothing special or new in Christianity in this respect.) Then it must be applicable to the worst (most harmful) human being. I use Hitler to personify that “ideal” – he seems like a rather uncontroversial candidate for the title.
Anything wrong with this reasoning?
I don’t think so. But your objection that “any moral system – religious or secular – that would make an adherent too uncomfortable to shoot Hitler if he or she had a chance…is harmful and not worthy of respect as a source of wisdom,” doesn’t really connect to this. If Hitler deserves non-trivial respect and empathy, does that mean he shouldn’t be killed? Hundreds of millions of other people, who also deserve respect and empathy, will be much better off if he is. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better if both he and they could be spared, but since that’s not an option for us mere mortals, shooting him is the lesser evil.
I don’t think the reasoning above is at all representative of Christianity, though. Christianity–at least the version practiced by most of its adherents through history–is one of the most anti-redemptionist religions on Earth. Ten billion years after you commit your sins and die, you’re still being horribly tortured in punishment.
bullfighter@63: Under the circumstances you’re thinking of, it doesn’t really matter whether the target is redeemable or not. They’re causing so much harm now, and will be causing so much harm in the near future, that they need to be contained. The only necessary consequence of the redemption version in this case is that you should still prefer not to kill them, even if killing is the only way to go. (In other words, “I agree with the first paragraph of Anton Mates at #74.”)
Kseniya@68: “moros” is the word used in the original Greek of Matthew 5:22, according to Blue Letter Bible. It is translated as “fool”, but with the implication of “godless” – an adjective I am choosing to interpret it in the sense they probably intended to imply, rather than literally.
bullfighter@72: That’s not what it says. It says, “Never declare someone beyond redemption.” It may be they are, but only God (i.e. no-one) knows. (For the record, this means I’m disagreeing with the second paragraph of Anton Mates at #74.) (Nice pun, by the way.)
frogsays
If Hitler deserves non-trivial respect and empathy, does that mean he shouldn’t be killed? Hundreds of millions of other people, who also deserve respect and empathy, will be much better off if he is.
It is good that Falwell is dead, but that doesn’t imply that he should have been tortured. Rationality demands that some people be excluded from society for the sake of others; empathy demands that exclusion should be no more painful than necessary. The problem of justice though sometimes demands retribution – for the good of the victim.
Human decency demands that we take responsibility for our actions, instead of pawning it off on magical fairies.
If Hitler deserves non-trivial respect and empathy, does that mean he shouldn’t be killed? Hundreds of millions of other people, who also deserve respect and empathy, will be much better off if he is. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better if both he and they could be spared, but since that’s not an option for us mere mortals, shooting him is the lesser evil.
Good point. And it resonates with my feelings about such uber-criminals, that we should eliminate them without hesitation, but that exhilaration over their death is a bad habit that tends to degrade the one who indulges in it.
BTW, I would advocate killing those people only for purposes of stopping them and/or their followers from committing further atrocities; not for retribution (when those goals can be separated).
False Prophet said: I used him as an example in a previous thread, but even IDist William Dembski’s fiercest ideological foes recognize that he’s a talented mathematician.
I’m sure you can find plenty of good examples of bright people who are also religious, but Dembski is certainly not one of them.
Dembski is not what? Religious? Or are you saying he’s only religious?
AaronInSanDiegosays
I think he’s saying that Dembski is not bright. Well, he’s certainly not a bright, that’s for sure.
Ed Darrell said: Dembski is not what? Religious? Or are you saying he’s only religious?
Ha! My phrasing wasn’t that bad, was it? I’m claiming that Dembski is not a member of the set S = {x | (x is a person) and (x is bright) and (x is religious)}. I’ll concede that Dembski is a person and he appears to be religious. I suspect that False Prophet was just trying to get a rise out of people by referring to him as a talented mathematician.
If anything, Dembski’s example would tend to lend support to the opposing notion being religious can seriously impair one’s cognitive abilities.
John Scanlonsays
The point of the Bering article linked to by E-lad (#45) seems to be that supernaturalism may be an adaptation of childhood. That is something it would share with boredom. Adults have no excuse to be bored (change something! think something! learn something!) or superstitious.
G. Tingeysays
I DON’T BELIEVE THIS!
You mean that everybody didn’t alreay know that the winning turtle was (is) and the observing god was Blind Io ??????
AND
You left out the Elephants!
G. Tingeysays
That mis-posted didn’t it?
Let’s try again ….
I DON’T BELIEVE THIS!
You mean that everybody didn’t alreay know that the winning turtle was (is) Great A’Tuin
and the observing god was Blind Io ??????
AND
You left out the Elephants!
Dustinsays
False Prophet was just trying to get a rise out of people by referring to him as a talented mathematician.
He’d have to be. Dembski has produced one real paper on mathematics. I think it was something on measure theory and probability. It wasn’t that far removed from a textbook case, either. Even calling him “competent” is egregiously wrong. He bounced from post-doc to post-doc and produced nothing. He hasn’t even been able to hold down a job in mathematics.
If you’re into self-flagellation or atonement, Demski once wrote a paper called “The Pragmatic Nature of Mathematical Inquiry”. It’s really stupid. Mostly, it’s an incoherent attempt to defend his inability to create mathematically meaningful definitions. They’re kosher, according to Dembski, because they suit his purposes. He doesn’t seem to realize that pragmatism is, almost as a matter of definition, concerned with the consequences of accepting a definition or a proposition. Especially since the consequences of Dembski’s near-tautology of a definition for Complex Specified Information and all of his lead-ups to CSI are utterly rediculous. You can learn that the light of Eta Carinae is designed, that each and every snowflake that falls from the sky is designed (actually, this is a consequence of almost all of Dembski’s “mathematics”), that a random draw of a set containing zero from certain partitions of the first 10 integers is an intelligently designed event, and so on.
That’s assuming I even understand what he’s getting at. He writes with the intent of obfuscating his definitions. Most mathematicians clearly indicate their definitions with a tag. Dembski has moved beyond the need for such mundane concerns as “organization” and “clarity”.
colinsays
#47:
It may be true that we become what we repeatedly do, but rarely does a single act define a person’s life.
Um, tell that to the American justice system.
Azkyrothsays
Colin, I believe it was perfectly obvious that he meant it in a sense of their overall character, and as we both know, “character” evidence is generally considered worthless in criminal trials except as relates to questions of entrapment.
The magic word in that cartoon is “respect”… respect is supposed to be something earned and deserved through word and deed, not required to meet some unreasonable legal or trumped up social engineering paradigm.
When someone makes a lunatic statement, nobody should feel compelled to respect the statement, the belief behind the statement, or the person making it.
I respect the good work that some religious people do to help humanity. I respect those people for doing the work. I don’t respect their religion or religious beliefs because they are fuzzy thinking and unworthy of that respect.
ConcernedJoesays
Interesting – most of the above. Thanks.
Here are the new thoughts I take away:
1) Very smart, rational, productive, and “normal” people can actually play the religious game and profess belief in obvious fairy tales (I already knew that experientially). Probably this aspect of this sort of person is tied to customs, tradition, and the crowd/family/social groups of their lives. They don’t really think about the game – they just know it is comforting at some level to play it. While they profess belief and go to church etc. they hardly let it REALLY control their lives, and certainly if they are basically good people they do not use it as an excuse to justify bad anti-progressive behavior and prejudice, and, heaven forbid, above all, bad science!!!
2) Very smart, rational, productive, and “normal” people that REALLY study the religious stuff and REALLY think about it and analyze it and then still profess belief are:
a. Cowards (scared of offending family etc., and/or or losing social status, circles, etc.)
b. Cowards (scared of death without the comfort of an afterlife, and/or living without something to cling to when all else fails)
c. Scared or downtrodden people who find it the only comfort or advocate in their lives.
d. Scared, downtrodden, and/or bad people who use (consciously or unconsciously) religion to justify, and/or give guidance to, their prejudices, hatreds, anti-social behaviors, and/or political or militant actions.
e. Cons and criminals who use it for a living and have no reason to bite the hand that feeds them.
f. Insane people (those who really cannot grasp reality although intellectually they can see it, or that mistake momentary ecstasy for a longer lasting and more profound reality). PS. Does Collins fit in this category?!?
Well that is my take for what it is worth. Thanks for the discussion.
Caledoniansays
The idea that people and concepts are entitled to respect simply because they exist is pernicious and outrageous. It is wise to grant all new things and individuals a bit of respect “up front” to buffer against the sort of misunderstandings that are common in first impressions, but that can be quickly lost, and so much the better.
Inclusion is just the left hand of exclusion, and vice versa. Knowing what and how to reject the unsuitable is as important as recognizing and what and how to accept. A total lack of standards doesn’t make one open-minded and tolerant, it makes for rampant stupidity.
grasshoppersays
The Turtle has taught us that The Tortoise knows not the purpose of a porpoise, not even the sound of one fin splashing.
Yea verily, as The Tortoise did pull his head in on the evening of Third Day, I shall follow His example immediately.
Kseniyasays
Caledonian: Yup.
C-Joe: I don’t think Collins fits category f) and I’m not comfortable labeling him a “coward” or any such thing. Still, your list is though-provoking. I think his epiphany was rooted in an inner need for “something to cling to” in this life (and the next). I reject f) on the basis that cognitive dissonance is not grounds for involuntary committment. ;-)
Azkyroth (#86): Yes, you’re right, that’s exactly what I meant. Thank you. However, Colin’s point is well taken (a single mistake can change a person’s life irrevocably) and his comment reveals my poor diction. A moment too late, I realized I should have said “being” or “character” rather than “life.” If I had a dime for every time I’ve looked at my own posts and said, “Dang, I could have said that better,” I’d have… many dimes!
Yep, that just about sums it up :D.
Perfect.
Not quite a turtlogical premise.
The magic word is “turtle”, of course.
Hmm, doesn’t quite stack up.
Yertle the Turtle—————–by dr. seuss
I think it was just one little angry turtle flipping off the turtle king. How dare he?!
Don’t know what the magic word is, but the second word is ‘off’.
That … actually sums up the ‘undue respect for religion’ pretty well.
(Y’know, something just hit me. The religion and the believer are not the same thing. Why should people “have” to respect the former?)
Ah, you’ve hit upon one of my peeves. Look around the blogosphere at all those people who get so indignant at my “strident” atheism. I’ll say, “Religion is stupid”: they’ll get furious and damn me for saying that all religious people are stupid, despite the fact that I’ve plainly stated quite a few times that I think no such thing. You can’t criticize faith without religious people assuming that you’re kicking them personally — they identify so strongly with that set of idiotic beliefs.
I have to disagree with you, PZ. Is it possible to call a belief stupid without implying the natural extension that people who hold that stupid belief are stupid, themselves? I’m not sure how we can separate the two.
I propose that “religion is NOT intelligently designed”.
Most people don’t arrive at their beliefs through a rational exercise of their intellects. They develop them through upbringing or culture or some other nonrational means. This doesn’t necessarily mean they lack intelligence or ability otherwise. I used him as an example in a previous thread, but even IDist William Dembski’s fiercest ideological foes recognize that he’s a talented mathematician. But just because he’s usually right about math doesn’t make him right about intelligent design.
Yeah right PZ. Ed said that you think all religious people are stupid and appeasers and whatnot. So you’re obviously lying.
I’d have to agree with Paul, PZ. A belief doesn’t exactly exist on its own. I’m sure “identification” with the belief is part of it, but people are surely reacting more to the idea that they are being called stupid, at least by simple inference.
PZ, I’m almost disappointed that you’d put such a heathenistic comic in your own blog. Its one thing to disrespect fake religions, but clearly disrespecting The World Universalist Turtleism Church of Space-God is… well, its something quite severe. The fault may lie within your own ignorance. Let me clear up a few things and maybe you’ll understand our religion and finally discover the values inherent in it.
1) The battling turtles is a common theme throughout our holy writ Turtles Through the Ages. More importantly, they didn’t create the Earth so much as nearly destroy it with their petty wars. This points us towards environmentalism and the fragile ecology that we, as children of the Space-God are entrusted to balance.
2) The Space-God did not war with the turtles themselves. Rather, his second cousin – who is also his uncle and his brother in-law – did. He won not because of his prowess on the battlefield, but through his determination off the field. He wrote letters of dissent, lobbied for stricter turtle-battling laws, and chained himself to a bulldozer. Keep in mind that this was before the world had invented paper, lobbyists, and bulldozers. Quite a powerful second cousin, don’t you think? Imagine now how powerful the Space-God must be!
3) Although not strictly directed at your posted comic strip, I feel that I should counter claims that are commonly leveled against The WUTC. The Space-God was not a drunkard or an invalid. He chose to sit out of the turtle battles out of love and compassion for the world. He also did not “watch it from the bleachers eating peanuts and hot dogs”. This was 12.5 years before the invention of baseball!
Paul@8: There are lots of ways to hold stupid beliefs without being stupid. I’m no idiot, if I say so myself, but I often take things literally, and when I was a kid that saddled me with a lot of stupid beliefs. Besides, there’s not that much difference between trusting a preacher and trusting a scientist if you believe the preacher has a reliable way of finding the truth, and many people are taught exactly that.
justpaul (hey, coincidence!)@9: But religion is obviously intelligently designed. I mean, imagine if the universe was like a religion. The world would be full of weird inconsistencies, magic would work, people could figure out the truth just by tilting their head back and asking (or even by casting lots) … if all those things were true, wouldn’t ‘intelligent design’ make sense? Q.E.D., my friend.
Exactly. We’ve all seen the fallacious inference from “X is really good in this area” to “So, X must automatically know this other stuff, too.”
Ha! This is a trick question! There is no magic word because there is no magic.
What we have here is a false respect shown for a religion that’s just as inaccurate as every other one out there. Our strawberry blond fellow already stated it’s stupid. That it’s a religion is unlikely to change that opinion, so it’s definitely not a magic word.
I think it has as much to do with the need to be “persecuted” and “hated” for their beliefs because they want to be like the martyrs of the New Testament. Every hint that you think that their religion is foolish is their justification for carrying that “wound.”
False Prophet said: I used him as an example in a previous thread, but even IDist William Dembski’s fiercest ideological foes recognize that he’s a talented mathematician.
I’m sure you can find plenty of good examples of bright people who are also religious, but Dembski is certainly not one of them.
I want to know how these two turtles got on battling the space god. And what about all the other turtles? We all know, it’s turtles all the way down. So did the space god smite all the other turtles, & slay them? Pah!
Anyway, people who believe in any religion, with or without turtles, aren’t necessarily stupid. They’re crazy.
One could create a similar comic to illustrate the point Hitchens made wrt Rev. Falwell.
A: Gays, lesbians, abortions providers and liberals allowed 9/11 to happen.
B: That is stupid!
A: I’m Reverend Phallacy.
B: Well, alrighty then.
Is a person necessarily stupid who believes a stupid idea? No.
Do many people who say an idea is stupid also mean that the believer is stupid? Yes.
Do people often lie about the intent beyond their utterances? Yes.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a person who says an idea is stupid also means that the believer is stupid, and it is reasonable to assume that such a person is lying when they say they mean no such thing.
However, those assumptions can also be wrong. Just because an assumption is reasonable does not mean it is true.
Let’s be charitable. Let’s trust that PZ is telling the truth about his intent.
[ Humorous turtle reference: TBD ]
Holy crunching carapace, Brian! Don’t know you that Turtleism is just a shell game?
I see that False Prophet has demoted Dembski from “brilliant” to “talented.” I feel a game of Uncommon Descent coming on. It’s like Limbo. “How low can you go?”
The same people have no problem with “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. If sin is to be hated, surely the holder of the sin is to be hated as well :)
Well how else could you possibly explain all of the complexity and apperent design in the Universe without two turtles and a Space God? Demski’s Razor compels us to conclude that this is the only plausible design scenario.
Dembski’s Razor? Feh! Bah! By the principles of Cordoba’s Pore Cleanser and Blackhead Remover, all that is necessary to explain our reality is a single turtle and a black hole!
Kseniya: I stand in awe. You caused me to baptise my keyboard.
Yeah, thats a great comic. I think I have a few strips saved to my home PC about squids and God, I’ll send them to you when I get a chance.
Yeah, thats a great comic. I think I have a few strips saved to my home PC about squids and God, I’ll send them to you when I get a chance.
Am I to believe every absurdity? If not, why this one in particular? — Sigmund Freud
Christianity is just plain silly. I mean, what kind of god DIES? And what kind of “sacrifice” is it to die for three days and then come back to life and go to heaven? I mean, really. If I knew more about the other religions, I’d probably feel the same way. Why can’t others see this?
Creationists and ID proponents keep asking for equal time for their allegedly scientific claims in the classroom. If only we could do that and at the same time guarantee that science teachers would investigate such claims in a truly rigorous scientific manner. It would be goodbye turtles!
I wonder if they were teenage mutant ninja turtles…
steve_h@23: That’s the funny thing: the Bible has an extraordinary amount of wisdom in it, and so much of it is ignored. I mean, take Matthew 5:22. If you look up the original Greek, and look at how the word is used elsewhere in the Bible, you’ll see that it’s warning against declaring people beyond redemption. Just think how many public religious figures ignore that!
I think many of you are forgetting that most aspects of your culture have been shaped by such beliefs.
Unfortunately, in the last episode, Space God was banished to Dimension X.
Oh, please. The Bible has extraordinary amounts of horrifically bad morals and foolishness in it. That there are scraps of recognizable wisdom here and there is just a sign that you can’t ever completely shut down the thoughtful, human part of your brain.
I have a friend who issues a challenge (mostly to non-believers who think the Bible is “wisdom literature”): find two consecutive pages of any regular printed Bible such that the pages contain advice and you personally agree with all of the advice on the pages.
Very few have ever (by their own standards) won this challenge, and those who have have used quite liberal and metaphorical interpretations of the crap in their chosen pages.
Religion = Stupid.
Religious person = Stupified.
Any questions?
Mike @17: You’ve hit on one of my favorite themes: Groups love to take on the mantle of victimhood as a way of justifying their beliefs or behavior. Let’s not talk about whether I’m right or wrong, good or bad, black or white – can’t you see I’m being persecuted? Life is unfair, oh woe is me…
Most? Try some. And many of us are atheists… we never forget it.
While it’s more true and more kind to say that god believers are deluded (or conditioned, or psychologically manipulated, or,…), the actual god believers don’t really feel any better about it.
“I know you think you’re a liberal, but it’s just because you haven’t really thought about it before….”, except that religion is a little more closely related to a person’s identity.
What about that special class of beliefs that are both stupid and true?
That very same thing happened to me when I posted this comic.
It is stupid. I don’t have to respect their beliefs. I don’t even have to respect them. All I have to respect is their right to have such idiotic beliefs — which is more than many of those who are religious are willing to do for those who disagree with them.
And your point is … ?
I propose that “religion is NOT intelligently designed”.
The most ‘intelligently designed’ religion is perhaps Scientology. But the truth is, most religions are not designed. They are societal constructs that change in response to societal changes.
Culture also shapes beliefs in turn, and even Hollywood can change the way we see Scripture. Come on, who doesn’t think — even briefly — about Samuel L. Jackson when they hear a reference to the prophet Ezekiel?
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you!”
(And here’s Pulp Fiction in 30 seconds re-enacted by bunnies. Because it’s the Internet. Because I can.)
“…you’ll see that it’s warning against declaring people beyond redemption…”
What the hell is redemption?
A cheap out for con artists, criminals, and the hoardes of crappy people who want to feel okay with all the bad crap they have done.
Redemption is bullshit.
Here is a paper on why people have religious beliefs. As you’ve noted, it’s not because they are stupid.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofCognitionCulture/Staff/JesseMBering/FileStore/Filetoupload,37915,en.pdf
All of you who refer to Dembski as a “talented” or “brilliant” mathematician are clearly not au courant in mathematics. The guy has published one or two mathematical papers after getting his Ph.D. These are his thesis regurgitated, probably. Any halfway decent mathematician would have published several papers at least after the thesis. Believe me, the guy is unknown in the world of mathematicians.
Tam@34: A point, a point! I’ll be sure to take up that challenge next time I read the Bible.
CalGeorge@44: …fine. There’s still a kernel of truth in the Bible verse, though.
Redemption in the secular sense is not bullshit. Neither is “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Anyone who has made an amends, or has forgiven (or been forgiven by) another human being knows this. It may be true that we become what we repeatedly do, but rarely does a single act define a person’s life.
Very often religious people are both brilliant AND stupid,in the same way a Rube-Goldberg Contraption can be brilliant and stupid. All the clever, ad hoc connections between things, the inventive use of materials, the novel approach, can seem creatively brilliant in its way. But as a way of doing something straightforward and simple, it is ridiculous and stupid. It is vulnerable and wasteful.
If you read a “harmony of the gospels,” you get a clear idea of what I mean. Authors have come up with wonderfully inventive ways to try to get around obvious contradictions. It is the use of intelligence in the service of stupidity. This is in fact what makes religion so dangerous. If religious people were merely stupid, they would be less of a threat. The threat is that they have made an idol of stupidity and serve it with their whole mind and strenght.
(Dang.)
Or, perhaps more precisely, that they have made irrationality a virtue. Witness the consequential distrust of rationality…
the Bible has an extraordinary amount of wisdom in it (…) it’s warning against declaring people beyond redemption.
So am I unwise if I declare Hitler beyond redemption?
bullfighter@51
We are, by definition, unwise… since you (& I) are athiests and have therefore ‘unwisely turned our backs on god’ (as a priest once told me before kicking me out of my classroom — I went to a catholic high school)
MorpheusPA: “Ha! This is a trick question! There is no magic word because there is no magic.”
Never had Chivas Century have you? :>
Attacking religion is considered a science here? If not, move along PZ
Use Behe instead. Dembski’s publishing record is almost non-existent, he makes trivial math errors, and other mathematicians have pronounced his work meaningless.
bullfighter@51: Bearing in mind that one reason I folded so quickly to #44 was the fact that I had not conveyed the thought accurately, and bearing in mind that Hitler isn’t the best example, given that he is dead … yes, I claim that you would be unwise to do so. I claim this because it’s an easy way out, much too easy. Even people guilty of atrocious acts do seem to redeem themselves sometimes.
In reality, the argument works better with the proper translation. Let’s pretend you are claiming that Hitler is moros, the word actually used in the Greek, and in this case meaning a monster devoid of moral qualities.
That’s a strong word. An extraordinarily strong word. And once you’ve established that Hitler is devoid of moral qualities, you’ve established that anything associated with Hitler is devoid of moral qualities. Which means that nothing we do could possibly be anything like what Hitler has done, no way, couldn’t be, not ever. And that nothing he did could possibly be good – monsters don’t do good things, no, not hardly.
And it doesn’t matter that those are fallacies. At the least, you encourage those fallacies by setting up people as plaster devils.
I wouldn’t call the believe stupid just for holding the stupid beliefs. As has been said, most come by their beliefs through birth and upbrining. Given survey results, it is also clear that most don’t even really know what the believe beyond the superficial (be good, go to heaven, be bad, go to hell). Few can even name the 4 gospels. And given how prevelant religion is in our society, and how little self-examination people want to do (too few are willing to challenge themselves on what they believe because the status quo is so much easier), you aren’t going to get people to really get in depth with their views.
But then what of the religious believers who do study their beliefs in depth? I guess that gets trickier. I still think much of it is not wanting to go against everything you’ve ever been taught, the foundations of pretty much everything you believe about the world. Stupid isn’t a good word for these people. I’d say Dawkins word fits best. Deluded. Self delusion is a powerful tool, and it doesn’t make you stupid.
It has nothing to do with science… but it is fun to attack superstitions.
Please feel to move along.
So basically, you think anyone who believes that a turtle is responsible for the big bang is misled?
Why do you hate people who worship turtles? Did a turtle bite your pet squid?
The thing to do is to point out the stupidity (e.g., kneeeling before waterfall in Cascades, giving it up for Jesus).
Collins is not stupid. He has moments of stupidity that most other scientists do not experience.
He could easily redeem himself by converting back to atheism (pronto!).
We ought to be asking why humans memorialize their waterfall conversion moments instead of saying, “Gee, that was a nice day for a walk! What’s for dinner?”
I might start worshiping this turtle.
Before the battle, Turtles were perfect giants who lived for a thousand years and never got sick. Now, not so much.
Robin Z:
Nonsense. There is no such person, and there is no need for such wacky assumptions. Therefore, the consequences you mention, whether they follow from the assumption or not, are irrelevant.
All I am saying is that any moral system – religious or secular – that would make an adherent too uncomfortable to shoot Hitler if he or she had a chance in, say, 1942 (so that there is plenty of evidence about Hitler’s enormity, not just speculation) is harmful and not worthy of respect as a source of wisdom. I am not going to engage in mutual navel-gazing over that.
B@29
What kind of god dies? Lots of gods die and are reborn, and it’s easy to understand why. Consider the sun: it declines, weakens, every year, but always returns to full strength. Consider your corn: it grows, the plant withers and dies, then you take some of the hard dead seeds, bury them in the ground, and next spring the plant is reborn; the rest you eat, and eating a god is not just Christian, but quite common. John’s version of Jesus uses this as an analogy to the resurection: “except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone …”.
Jim Roberts
“Turtle” … Latin root … early Christian religion = clearly the magic word is: Tertullian !?
Do I win something?
I call Godwin on Bullfighter. 8^b
Nobody has claimed that the “moral system” implied by the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” concept automatically lets everyone off every hook, always and forever. It’s a caution against condemning people, too quickly or absolutely, for their bad acts.
Perhaps my interpretation is insufficiently literal or excessively nuanced.
I call xkcd on Kseniya: http://xkcd.com/c261.html
LOL! Good one. Ok, maybe Bullfighter needs to invoke Hitler to argue against Robin’s interpretation of the phrase, but I don’t think so – I think Bullfighter’s extreme interpretation is the problem.
I could be wrong.
While we’re on the subject, maybe Robin can explain why the Greek “moros” entered the argument in the first place.
(By the way, I love xkcd! It’s another gift to me from Pharyngula.)
I believe anything that top 50% smartest Americans believe. I wouldn’t want to make the mistake of calling their beliefs–and there them–dumb, since they are all smart by definition. I’d be rude by definition.
Huh?
God-never-win on Pharyngula.
Kseniya, it is not about getting “off the hook”; Robin made a claim that (1) one Christian teaching is that no one is “beyond redemption” and (2) that teaching is wise.
If it is wise, it follows that it is a good guide for our actions and/or thoughts, therefore it must have some practical consequences. It follows that we should not simply relegate the “redemption” business to God (especially if we don’t even think God exists); we should feel some non-trivial respect and empathy for all human beings.
“All” is obviously meant literally here. (If it weren’t, there would be nothing special or new in Christianity in this respect.) Then it must be applicable to the worst (most harmful) human being. I use Hitler to personify that “ideal” – he seems like a rather uncontroversial candidate for the title.
Anything wrong with this reasoning?
All I have to say is, I really enjoyed Lio today.
http://www.uclick.com/client/sea/lio/
I apologize for the non sequitur.
I don’t think so. But your objection that “any moral system – religious or secular – that would make an adherent too uncomfortable to shoot Hitler if he or she had a chance…is harmful and not worthy of respect as a source of wisdom,” doesn’t really connect to this. If Hitler deserves non-trivial respect and empathy, does that mean he shouldn’t be killed? Hundreds of millions of other people, who also deserve respect and empathy, will be much better off if he is. Doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better if both he and they could be spared, but since that’s not an option for us mere mortals, shooting him is the lesser evil.
I don’t think the reasoning above is at all representative of Christianity, though. Christianity–at least the version practiced by most of its adherents through history–is one of the most anti-redemptionist religions on Earth. Ten billion years after you commit your sins and die, you’re still being horribly tortured in punishment.
bullfighter@63: Under the circumstances you’re thinking of, it doesn’t really matter whether the target is redeemable or not. They’re causing so much harm now, and will be causing so much harm in the near future, that they need to be contained. The only necessary consequence of the redemption version in this case is that you should still prefer not to kill them, even if killing is the only way to go. (In other words, “I agree with the first paragraph of Anton Mates at #74.”)
Kseniya@68: “moros” is the word used in the original Greek of Matthew 5:22, according to Blue Letter Bible. It is translated as “fool”, but with the implication of “godless” – an adjective I am choosing to interpret it in the sense they probably intended to imply, rather than literally.
bullfighter@72: That’s not what it says. It says, “Never declare someone beyond redemption.” It may be they are, but only God (i.e. no-one) knows. (For the record, this means I’m disagreeing with the second paragraph of Anton Mates at #74.) (Nice pun, by the way.)
If Hitler deserves non-trivial respect and empathy, does that mean he shouldn’t be killed? Hundreds of millions of other people, who also deserve respect and empathy, will be much better off if he is.
It is good that Falwell is dead, but that doesn’t imply that he should have been tortured. Rationality demands that some people be excluded from society for the sake of others; empathy demands that exclusion should be no more painful than necessary. The problem of justice though sometimes demands retribution – for the good of the victim.
Human decency demands that we take responsibility for our actions, instead of pawning it off on magical fairies.
Good point. And it resonates with my feelings about such uber-criminals, that we should eliminate them without hesitation, but that exhilaration over their death is a bad habit that tends to degrade the one who indulges in it.
BTW, I would advocate killing those people only for purposes of stopping them and/or their followers from committing further atrocities; not for retribution (when those goals can be separated).
Wow, what a straight line:
Dembski is not what? Religious? Or are you saying he’s only religious?
I think he’s saying that Dembski is not bright. Well, he’s certainly not a bright, that’s for sure.
Ed Darrell said: Dembski is not what? Religious? Or are you saying he’s only religious?
Ha! My phrasing wasn’t that bad, was it? I’m claiming that Dembski is not a member of the set S = {x | (x is a person) and (x is bright) and (x is religious)}. I’ll concede that Dembski is a person and he appears to be religious. I suspect that False Prophet was just trying to get a rise out of people by referring to him as a talented mathematician.
If anything, Dembski’s example would tend to lend support to the opposing notion being religious can seriously impair one’s cognitive abilities.
The point of the Bering article linked to by E-lad (#45) seems to be that supernaturalism may be an adaptation of childhood. That is something it would share with boredom. Adults have no excuse to be bored (change something! think something! learn something!) or superstitious.
I DON’T BELIEVE THIS!
You mean that everybody didn’t alreay know that the winning turtle was (is) and the observing god was Blind Io ??????
AND
You left out the Elephants!
That mis-posted didn’t it?
Let’s try again ….
I DON’T BELIEVE THIS!
You mean that everybody didn’t alreay know that the winning turtle was (is)
Great A’Tuin
and the observing god was
Blind Io ??????
AND
You left out the Elephants!
He’d have to be. Dembski has produced one real paper on mathematics. I think it was something on measure theory and probability. It wasn’t that far removed from a textbook case, either. Even calling him “competent” is egregiously wrong. He bounced from post-doc to post-doc and produced nothing. He hasn’t even been able to hold down a job in mathematics.
If you’re into self-flagellation or atonement, Demski once wrote a paper called “The Pragmatic Nature of Mathematical Inquiry”. It’s really stupid. Mostly, it’s an incoherent attempt to defend his inability to create mathematically meaningful definitions. They’re kosher, according to Dembski, because they suit his purposes. He doesn’t seem to realize that pragmatism is, almost as a matter of definition, concerned with the consequences of accepting a definition or a proposition. Especially since the consequences of Dembski’s near-tautology of a definition for Complex Specified Information and all of his lead-ups to CSI are utterly rediculous. You can learn that the light of Eta Carinae is designed, that each and every snowflake that falls from the sky is designed (actually, this is a consequence of almost all of Dembski’s “mathematics”), that a random draw of a set containing zero from certain partitions of the first 10 integers is an intelligently designed event, and so on.
That’s assuming I even understand what he’s getting at. He writes with the intent of obfuscating his definitions. Most mathematicians clearly indicate their definitions with a tag. Dembski has moved beyond the need for such mundane concerns as “organization” and “clarity”.
#47:
Um, tell that to the American justice system.
Colin, I believe it was perfectly obvious that he meant it in a sense of their overall character, and as we both know, “character” evidence is generally considered worthless in criminal trials except as relates to questions of entrapment.
The magic word in that cartoon is “respect”… respect is supposed to be something earned and deserved through word and deed, not required to meet some unreasonable legal or trumped up social engineering paradigm.
When someone makes a lunatic statement, nobody should feel compelled to respect the statement, the belief behind the statement, or the person making it.
I respect the good work that some religious people do to help humanity. I respect those people for doing the work. I don’t respect their religion or religious beliefs because they are fuzzy thinking and unworthy of that respect.
Interesting – most of the above. Thanks.
Here are the new thoughts I take away:
1) Very smart, rational, productive, and “normal” people can actually play the religious game and profess belief in obvious fairy tales (I already knew that experientially). Probably this aspect of this sort of person is tied to customs, tradition, and the crowd/family/social groups of their lives. They don’t really think about the game – they just know it is comforting at some level to play it. While they profess belief and go to church etc. they hardly let it REALLY control their lives, and certainly if they are basically good people they do not use it as an excuse to justify bad anti-progressive behavior and prejudice, and, heaven forbid, above all, bad science!!!
2) Very smart, rational, productive, and “normal” people that REALLY study the religious stuff and REALLY think about it and analyze it and then still profess belief are:
Well that is my take for what it is worth. Thanks for the discussion.
The idea that people and concepts are entitled to respect simply because they exist is pernicious and outrageous. It is wise to grant all new things and individuals a bit of respect “up front” to buffer against the sort of misunderstandings that are common in first impressions, but that can be quickly lost, and so much the better.
Inclusion is just the left hand of exclusion, and vice versa. Knowing what and how to reject the unsuitable is as important as recognizing and what and how to accept. A total lack of standards doesn’t make one open-minded and tolerant, it makes for rampant stupidity.
The Turtle has taught us that The Tortoise knows not the purpose of a porpoise, not even the sound of one fin splashing.
Yea verily, as The Tortoise did pull his head in on the evening of Third Day, I shall follow His example immediately.
Caledonian: Yup.
C-Joe: I don’t think Collins fits category f) and I’m not comfortable labeling him a “coward” or any such thing. Still, your list is though-provoking. I think his epiphany was rooted in an inner need for “something to cling to” in this life (and the next). I reject f) on the basis that cognitive dissonance is not grounds for involuntary committment. ;-)
Azkyroth (#86): Yes, you’re right, that’s exactly what I meant. Thank you. However, Colin’s point is well taken (a single mistake can change a person’s life irrevocably) and his comment reveals my poor diction. A moment too late, I realized I should have said “being” or “character” rather than “life.” If I had a dime for every time I’ve looked at my own posts and said, “Dang, I could have said that better,” I’d have… many dimes!
But, Az… “he?” *cough*
More turtle/cat antics.