Speaking of looney, unbelievable opponents of the Evo-Atheist Hegemony, Jeffrey Shallit knocks the stuffing out of a blithering apologist for superstition, Peter Berkowitz. When an anti-atheist claims that people like Richard Dawkins are arguing that “we can now know, with finality and certainty, that God does not exist,” you know that they either haven’t even looked at any of our arguments or are simply cheerfully lying.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ
A post at 01:00 AM and a post at 06:00 AM. Do you ever sleep?
What else do you expect from an intellectually bankrupt worldview? If they had any sort of valid argument they probably would have mentioned it at some point in the last 200 0 years.
Berkowitz may have a point, in that the arguments by atheists like Dawkins aren’t really new. But than again, neither are Berkowitz’s criticisms.
(Although I had to lauch when Berkowitz made an argument that the Bible was merely showing us what not to do when God orders child sacrifice, only to change His mind at the last minute.)
It doesn’t have to be new, it just needs to be true and said again and again and again. Watch. There’s no such thing as magic.There’s no such thing as magic.There’s no such thing as magic.There’s no such thing as magic.
#1: I suspect he writes a plethora of posts during the day and then sets a timer so they are automagically posted. ;-)
We can always claim we found the proof in a moldy old book written during the Bronze Age.
After all, that’s what they consider proof for their beliefs.
“you know that they either haven’t even looked at any of our arguments or are simply cheerfully lying.”
I would suggest that the average ill-informed Joe Schmoe on the street is ignorant of the arguments, so spouts the rhetorical mantras been taught. Too accepting of lies from authoritah. Those like Berkowitz are lying, because they see the context, then cherry-pick data points, in order to mislead their sheeple and retain their power. Doesn’t sound very christian to me.
Actually, they have found a truly marvellous demonstration of this proposition which the margin of this Bronze Age book is too narrow to contain.
Heck, he can’t even have read the table of context. If I recall correctly, the chapter in The God Delusion adressing this was namned “Why there almost certainly is no god” (my emphasis). It’s epistemologically impossible to completely rule out the possibility of the existance of either a god, Russell’s Teapot or the FSM.
Evolution and Atheism: Unscientific & Mythical
Get the Facts
I’m going with all of the above and some of C.> Not able to understand the arguments even if they read them.
Oh look a troll
Hilton do you have anything to say about the topic?
Facts, you say, Hilton?
From your page…
Since the Creator subsists necessarily, atheists do not exist fundamentally
I’m pretty aware that logic isn’t the strong point of Creationists, but I would have expected even you to be aware of the idea of an existence proof.
So, the Universe had a beginning. Let’s call whatever caused the Universe to exist God. Also, we have a book called the Bible who also references a being called God. Therefore, God exists, and created the Universe, and the Bible is completely true! Hell, and that’s without even having to get out a banana or a tub of peanut butter.
Come on, whoever said this theology malarcky is mainly pointless semantic trickery?
__________
[pimp]Neuromantic: free software for neuronal reconstruction from image stacks[/pimp]
Berkowitz:
None of the “proofs” for god are convincing to the atheists, whether we call ourselves agnostic or not. We either start or return to a position in which the idea of god is fanciful, and an extraordinary claim. And what do extraordinary claims require, class?
Extraordinary evidence! Very good.
xebec,
Is that your last theorem?
Hilton: Congratulations. You’re the antelope who just volountarily jumped into the lion’s den.
Ridicule is all these people deserve.
I do wonder if we would be better off leaving god out of the line of fire since the real problem is religion. As Hitchens points out, all the religious gods are man-made anyway. Many atheist arguments are actually anti-religion arguments, particularly when the argument mocks specific religious dogma.
There is still a mystery about the first cause and I think a lot of theists would come our way if that mystery was at least acknowledged. I wonder about it and I’m very anti-religion in terms of rejecting the silly dogma.
Andy Sullivan linked flatteringly to the Berkowitz piece the other day. Needless to say, I was underwhelmed.
Berkowitz’s bit about religion having a “pacifying” effect was an especially good one. Basically, he’s saying, “What most Americans do is REALLY religion. What fundamentalist Christians, radical Islamists, and most believers prior to the 21st century did is not REALLY religion. Ours is the good faith; theirs is the bad faith.”
The only way to save religion, in other words, is to appeal to an extra-religious moral standard. Reason and logic win again. (And thank God for that!)
Berkowitz channeling Marx?
Whatever mystery there may be about the ‘first cause,’ if such a thing even exists, is not helped by hanging a label on our ignorance and pretending to have solved the problem.
Berkowitz: “And yet Mr. Hitchens shows no awareness that his atheism, far from resulting from skeptical inquiry, is the rigidly dogmatic premise from which his inquiries proceed, and that it colors all his observations and determines his conclusions.”
Atheism is a “dogmatic premise” in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheism is a “dogmatic premise” in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
LOL!
No, I just got up. Several more today, for sure. Just give me your credit card number if you would like a Corollary named after you.
When countering the argument that atheists are just God-haters, most people will use some ancient deity, like Zeus or Thor, as a counterexample of why that doesn’t make any sense to hate a non-existent entity.
I would suggest using Allah to make a stronger argument since Islam is something most Christians have thought a good deal about in recent years. Many Christians hate Islam, and hate the things they believe that Islam stands for, and they certainly hate Islamic radicals who kill and maim in the name of Allah. But ask them if they hate Allah, most will say that is a nonsensical question, since Allah isn’t real.
I agree, but labelling it is what religion does. Acknowledging that there’s an unsolved mystery to be investigated is something that science could, and does, address.
At present, the strongest statement I’m willing to make is that the univese appears to be self-organizing. But the more I learn about DNA and fractals and other repeating patterns in nature, the more there’s a nagging thought that there is some guiding ‘influence’ at work.
And then there’s this:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
The ‘faith’ that he’s setting up here is really nothing more than induction, surprising really since induction doesn’t really favor any of the features of his religion over any other. But how does he define ‘faith’ once away from this paragraph? I’ll bet faith suddenly becomes a reasonable way to justify a melange of kooky beliefs. Faith, as used by the extremists of any religion fails an induction test.
This same sloppy reasoning pervades the rest of the piece also. For example, Berkowitz never responds to how he is atheistic with respect to all other gods but his. Faith by induction would equally support Allah as well as Xenu or Zeus. Must be some other version of faith.
Hey, I’ve been lurking for a while, but the whole Rob Knop “you’re a meanie” thing finally got me out of the closet. I went to his March postings about his belief system; first of all, what “other types of knowledge” is he talking about? He says:
“people go around and around and around on the issue of whether there can be such a thing as “knowledge” which is not based in the scientific method”
so I read through his three-parter about his religious beliefs, and never found an example. (I didn’t think “it makes me feel all good about myself” a good example.) Maybe I’m just too much of an empiricist to be able to grasp the concept?
Oh, and I’m one of those who lurk here because of these posts (not the squid pictures). I’m no longer a practicing scientist, but I agree with Christopher Hitchens (to mangle his quote) that we’re mammals with large adrenal glands and small prefrontal lobes, so logic and sweet reason don’t come easily and must always be nurtured.
You would think people who claim to believe in God and God’s judgment would want to avoid lying since God is supposed to be down on that (the 10th commandend, isn’t it?). Sounds like they are lying about their own beliefs too.
I’ve just this morning (before my regular visit here) posted a discussion of Berkowitz’ ridiculous piece at my blog (shameless plug follows):
http://propterhoc.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/berkowitz-truth/
My apologies in advance for the length.
Sorry, but it’s a fact: There is no god.
The simple fact that the question “Is there a god?” is considered legitimate is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no god. If such an entity existed, it would be immediately obvious to everyone. A being capable of creating the Universe would have the ability and desire to reveal itself to us in a direct and obvious way. Since it has not done so, it does not exist.
If we accept the existence of any god, then we must also accept the existence of Santa Claus, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendages ever be praised!), because the evidence is equally good (or bad) in all cases.
If you study all the arguments, books etc. (which I’ll not bother to list), I think it is reasonable to conclude (using the most careful, scientific language) that we can be as certain that there is no god as we can be certain of anything.
“You can tell them that faith is a trust in your worldview…”
If your worldview is based on the belief in a supreme being for which there is no evidence, isn’t that “…belief without or in spite of evidence…”
Seems a circular argument to me.
Also “You can grab their ears, look them straight in the eyes…” will get you a trip to the ER, not my polite attention.
{ad hominem}Berkowitz is a tool.{/ad hominem}
But ask them if they hate Allah, most will say that is a nonsensical question, since Allah isn’t real.
I like the way you think, mister.
I dunno about that, #24. I bet a lot of moderate christians would suggest that “Allah’s what the Muslims call [our] God”.
Berkowitz gets creamed on this one:
http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com
stogoe
… apparently not (according to resident christian scholar David, on the Thank God for Evolution thread. According to him, there is a major and significant difference between the Islamic & Christian Gods…
[toungue in cheek]
Ready?
The Islamic god is singular; the christian god is trinitarian.
Yep! Blew me away, too!
[/toungue in cheek]
AFAIK, most of the non-moderate Xians I’ve met (and those are the ones on whom you NEED the argument) would respond per #24…. but Allah isn’t real.
I agree, we need a different approach for the ecumanical ones (although with the last papal canon that may change!)
Berkowitz appears to be playing the common apologetics game of using one label for two opposite concepts, in the hope that the irrational one can ride to credibility on the back of the rational one. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.” Faith is “a trust or confidence in something.” That second one not only can, but should change if shown to be wrong: it’s pragmatic reliance. The first should be held on to as long as you’ve got hope, and you must never lose that.
They do it again and again. Prayer is asking God for magical favors; prayer is an inner attempt to accept whatever happens. Religion is “belief in and reverence for a supernatural Power or powers”; religion is “the upreaching and aspiring impulse in a human life,” “a thoroughgoing and deep-seated harmonizing of the self with the universe.” “The “Secret” is ask, believe, and reality changes so that you receive; the “Secret” is to work hard for what you most desire. God is a supernatural personal intelligence who creates and sustains everything in the universe and rewards good behavior and punishes bad; God is “the condition of possibility,” the Ground of Being and Ultimate Concern, a cosmic force beyond comprehension and categories of good and evil.
Why don’t atheists want to accept their perfectly reasonable redefinitions of faith, religion, “The Law of Attraction,” prayer, and God? Are atheists just playing a game?
No. Other way around. We’re not stupid, and we’re not going to blur distinctions and fail to notice the subsequent switch. There is always a switch, or else theists are all really just secular humanists with extravagant modes of expression. Nice try, Berkowitz.
“There is still a mystery about the first cause and I think a lot of theists would come our way if that mystery was at least acknowledged.”
Um… which atheists have you been talking to? Most of the atheists I know do acknowledge this, and do deal with it. Including me. Like thus:
The question of how the universe began, or whether it began at all or has always been here, is one of the great unsolved questions of our era. But the God hypothesis doesn’t answer that question — it merely begs it. If God created the Universe, then who created God? And if God has always existed, why can’t the universe have always existed? The God hypothesis doesn’t resolve the mystery at all — it just moves it onto another object.
And on the actual topic: I am so sick of theists gassing on about what atheists do and don’t think, without actually bothering to talk with any, that I could just spit. (Not that I typically spit when I’m mad…) Most atheists I know are fairly conversant both with the major tenets of the major world religions and with the ways those religions are believed and practiced by ordinary people in the real world. It is so annoying that we have to know their beliefs so well, and they don’t have to know ours at all. Rrrrrr.
Ray S:
Can you give us a URL where the comment you quoted, “There are plenty of other examples that I could give, but I’ll just give one more and then wrap this post up…”
appears? I couldn’t find it at the “original article”.
Thanks.
You said “When an anti-atheist claims that people like Richard Dawkins are arguing that “we can now know, with finality and certainty, that God does not exist,” you know that they either haven’t even looked at any of our arguments or are simply cheerfully lying.
I’m going with all of the above and some of C.> Not able to understand the arguments even if they read them. Oh look a troll! Hilton do you have anything to say about the topic?”
___________________
There is a difference between knowing someone exists and personally knowing the individual. Atheists seem to search for data about “god” in order to defame “god.” An atheist’s defamation of a “god” that the atheists have created in their minds, of course, does not exist. The approach that atheists use in order to “so-called” disprove god merely reflects their vain attempt to avoid the overwhelming sense of accountability unto the begetter of intelligence, beauty, and design. Atheists have made careers of demonstrating how they are offended by their personal misconceptions of God. They have nowhere near disproved God the Creator. They have become no different than other nature worshipping religions, which at the core serve the very same god of “self” regardless of the titles they use to depict their scientific “highest authority.” Some secular theologians have made their god biology, to another physics, and yet to another it is chemistry, etc. However, if we combined respectively all that we knew and know empirically from the past and present research from all the branches of science we would witness how fine-tuned the universe is fit for life and extinctions occur without evidence of mutational advance nor transitional improvements. Ultimately they have FAITH in chance and luck, which is superstition by definition. Thus atheists and agnostics have invented and devised for themselves unintelligent designers of the universe and cosmos and defend this designers to the point contradicting laws of nature within multiple branches of science and to the point of reducing their own existence to an illusion and a random bio-chemical accident. No wonder people are abandoning atheism and secular humanism in droves because they are tired of asking people to look for trolls and magic instead of looking at the BIG PICTURE and the real world data that we see today. Their academic degrees are the real illusion. There is NO REASON to invent unintelligent scenarios for the existence of and origins of life. The One and only transcendent God who is in a class all by Himself, alone fills these shoes. Once a person realizes the subsistence of God, knowing Him personally is another matter. KNOW NOW