Richard Dawkins lectured in Michigan yesterday, and apparently, some silly Christian group was handing out a flyer beforehand, “Five Topics to Consider During Tonight’s Lecture”. It contained a small set of yawningly familiar arguments. I haven’t heard of these brave Christians actually attended the lecture or tried to ask these in the Q&A (I would be surprised if they did — I had someone try this stunt at one of my talks, and not only did they run away without listening, but everyone who saw the questions on the handout just laughed at them), but I thought I’d take a quick stab at how I’d address them if I were handed that piece of paper. I’ve put a short version of their long-winded questions here — see the link for the complete version — and my brief reply, although I’d actually be tempted to just laugh and shoo the goofy kook away around about the second question.
-
Is there an objective truth (and where did it come from)?
Yes, there is an objective truth that we discern by studying the natural world, and by constantly subjecting hypotheses about its nature to testing. That nature is not separate from its existence.
-
Does evolution obey the second law of thermodynamics?
Yes, and you’ve already descended into ignorant idiocy with your second question. There is nothing in evolution that violates the laws of physics or chemistry.
-
What are the statistical probabilities of life evolving from non-life, and the accidental evolution of a single strand of DNA
1.0. Life exists. What you’re really trying to claim, in your clumsy and unschooled way, is that you think evolution argues that the extant complexity of the biosphere emerged in one abrupt accident. It did not, and if it did, it would be an exceedingly unlikely event. It would be creationism.
-
Why does the existence of God make Dawkins so angry, and how can a scientist say with absolute confidence that there is no god?
Dawkins is not angry at the existence of god, nor am I. We are a bit peeved at intrusive nitwits like yourself who try to impose your quaint superstitions on others.
By the way, you apparently have not read Dawkins’ book (which is ironic in light of the next question), since he does not claim with absolute confidence that there is no god. I will go further, however, and claim with absolute confidence that you have no good evidence for any god.
-
[Assorted Jesus babble and bible quotes] Have you ever read the Bible?
<snort> Yes. It’s an incoherent collection of delusional muck, cobbled together by generations of priests trying to promote the status of their tribe and their role within it. It contains brief sparks of literary brilliance, but mostly, it’s garbage. And the whole Jesus story is illogical nonsense that no rational person should accept.
Of course, the whole problem with bothering to argue with these people is that they won’t accept any of the answers, and will just start repeating the questions at you, at greater length. I’ve been on that merry-go-round before.
I was at your talk in Calgary when they passed out this same type of garbage and then did not attend the discussion or attempt to ask the patently silly questions they proposed that someone else ask.
Yes, PZ, you nailed it correctly, but ignorant superstitious people like that are easy to show up.
The problem is that even when they are beaten to embarrassment, they are too ignorant to realize it.
As usual, they have nothing to say about evolution’s evidence and mechanisms.
Many philosophers would say that there is no “objective truth.” But in that context, I think I’d just say that there is, since it fits whatever notion of “objective truth” about which science would care.
I was reading a bit of Biblical Archaeology Review the other day, and noticed what a Bible scholar said. He was more repectful of the Bible, but what he was basically saying was that the Bible is like archaeological ruins, with detritus and gems and the whole bit, wrecked by time, yet something that can be sifted for evidence and “truth.”
Garbage? I’d not say so. A ruin, definitely.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Note how this assumes that the existence of God is a completely unquestioned fact, and that Dawkins is angry at that fact — angry at reality itself.
The stupid! It burns!
Regarding #4, isn’t it interesting that believers have to paint atheists/agnostics as angry or bitter people. I’m sure we’ve all heard the following question when talking to a Christian at some point: “What happened to you that made you become an atheist?” As if people only become atheists because they are just angry at god.
I was at the lecture last night and didn’t see this group or this flyer. Furthermore, I can attest that none of these questions made it to the Q&A session. In fact, the most controversial question asked during the session was if Dawkins considered himself an “evangelical atheist”. The reply was succinctly “no” as an evangelical will never change his views when presented with the evidence. Conversely, Dawkins stated that he would readily convert if credible evidence was presented to him.
Good answers to silly, inane questions. The entropy question is always a hoot, since chemistry will work if Gibbs free energy is appropriate. Adding sunlight puts the free energy on the right side so biology can go. Entropy is irrelevant in itself.
As a friend of mine put it, “You can’t reason with crazy.” Trying to reason with fundytards is usually quite pointless. I prefer to mock them.
Um, what about the non-existence of the jealous and angry god of the Bible makes idiots so dishonest?
Are they afraid that their lying indicates that god doesn’t exist?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Got my tickets for Dr. Dawkins’ lecture at Northrup Auditorium weeks ago and I’m very much looking forward to it.
See you there.
I disagree with PZ on question one. Science has nothing to do with truth. It merely constructs models that organize observation. The models are then tested and revised infinitum. As far as we know these models don’t represent truth or even reality -just observation.
Could someone pour flea powder (Talcum powder) on these fleas when they show up outside of a Dawkins’ lecture?
@ #5> I’m starting to think that fundies don’t actually grasp the concept that we might legitimately disbelieve… They really seem to buy into the whole “rebellion against god” concept as the reason behind atheism.
I worry for Professor Dawkins. If the christianists continue to poromote their god-centred world view, it’s only a matter of time before he is defeated and reduced to a husk of a man, forlornly reciting “I used to be an atheist, you know.” to a group of jeering alcoholic tramps. It will be pitiful to see.
I recently attended one of PZ’s lectures in Orlando, where he was ‘greeted’ by a group of devout, silently praying (some even on their knees) students.
At least they had the decency not to interfere with the lecture or hand out silly questions.
After some time they just went silently away … just like they should have. Good kids! ;-)
Where does objective truth come from? That’s as misguided a question as “Where do you go when you die?” Objective truth comes from a jar in my refrigerator. Seriously, are they saying that if you had a universe with no god in it there wouldn’t be objective truth? The speed of light would be, just, whatever? The number of keys in my pocket would be relative? Without the magic juice of objective truth being poured on me like milk on my corn flakes, the question “Did Eric just walk through that room?” wouldn’t have an answer?
This was written by someone who hadn’t actually considered what the phrase “objective truth” means. He thinks it’s the same as “revealed truth.”
And guess what! A universe with no god would be a universe where the question, “Is abortion evil?” would have no objective answer. Such a universe would look an awful lot like this one, wouldn’t it?
The real shame is that they apparently didn’t even attend the talk. If some one came here to “prove” that god exists, then I would at least have the decency to listen to their talk before tearing their arguments to shreds.
IST,
I’m starting to think that fundies don’t actually grasp the concept that we might legitimately disbelieve
Their entire worldview hinges on the belief that atheists secretly believe but are just lying about it. They expend a great deal of energy reminding themselves that the god they worship is obvious.
Q: Does evolution obey the second law of thermodynamics?
A: Are you really a dumbass, or are you just Lying For Jesus (TM)?
midden, noun: “A mound or deposit containing shells, animal bones, and other refuse that indicates the site of a human settlement.” Excavated by archaeologists who wish to understand the dietary habits and other such lifestyle aspects of past societies.
i actually think question #3 is a good one, minus the “accidental” part. just how complex molecules formed and then evolved into the life we see around us is a great question. did it have to be DNA that evolves or are their other molecules that can form the basis for life? are we a statistical fluke here on earth? are the processes that lead to complex forms of life common? if a tornado crashed through an alien garbage dump, would it create a 747? would the aliens know how to fly it?
:)
“science. it works bitches.”
Re bunnycatch3r;
We’ve discussed this many times; the difference between truth and Truth. I think we concluded that Truth is not true, and that the absolute natute of Truth is the problem. Some of us are trying to reclaim the language from the fundies and truth very much includes “models that organize observation”.
I went to one of Richard’s book readings in the UK a few years ago. There were a few anti-evolutionists handing out idiotic leaflets outside but they seemed a bit sad because almost everyone in the queue was highly amused by them and gleefully and loudly dissected the various ridiculous claims.
There was one batshit question in the Q&A section, but this seemed to be from the lunatic, incomprehensible pseudo-science camp rather than the creationists. After the questioner had rambled on three times and nobody present was any the wiser about what he was actually asking, Richard said “I think we’d better move onto the next question, I don’t understand this one” and left it at that.
The book reading (and the Q&A section) were excellent.
Or, rather, the four or more distinct Jesus stories presented by the particular selection of books which these people happen to accept as canonical are each illogical nonsense, and disharmonious to boot.
Tis just fundies displaying their abysmal one dimensionally challenged version of reality…tis that and nothing more a tap tap tapping at the lecture door!
Does evolution obey the second law of thermodynamics?
I wonder if they go to airports and hand out tracts asking if a plane flying through the air violates the law gravity
PZ, quit making shit up.
Nobody is so ignorant in the 21st century that they would hand out a flyer with such stupid presuppositions.
People would laugh at them and call them morons.
Regarding #3, see: http://www.physorg.com/news154265940.html
The question about the existence of objective truth is a rather interesting one in this context, because it identifies one of the underlying “assumptions” that we make in order to practice science: we assume that the “natural” world that we observe, actually exists. You cannot disprove solipsism. You just have to assume/assert/presuppose that there is a world outside of your (singular) mind that deserves study.
People would laugh at them and call them morons.
Or vote them into state and federal executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Tomato, tomahto.
He’ll be speaking in OKC this weekend. I hope we have protesters.
@22 I appreciate the clarification.
Thanks!
I would have gone, but I had a finance class to take. Have to get mines…… in order ro they will forclose.
That is the only reason I did not make the hour and a half drive.
Forgive me if I’ve missed it — I’m a bit behind on my comments reading this morning — but have the Pharyngulating hordes fallen on this poll asking Is there an inherent conflict between the theory of evolution and belief in God?? I can’t help wondering if there’ll be complete unanimity on the answer! ;^)
The poll is a companion to this story about the Vatican poking atheists in our collective eye as it continues to teeter along the philosophical high-wire of trying to reconcile evolution and faith.
Eric the half-bee is completely right. Truth is the status of a statement. When a statement reflects reality, it is truthfull. When a statement contradicts reality, it is false. The existense or lack there-of of gods has nothing to do with it. Now pardon me while I put some music on to get “Eric the Half a Bee” out of my head.
Oh my reason, did they bring up the Law of Inertia as an objection to the Big Bang? Are they trying to invoke the old “unmoved mover/uncaused cause” chestnut, or do they still cling to the misconception that the BB was an explosion somewhere in space? Creationists trying to use science to discredit science is always amusing to watch. Kind of like a dog chasing its own tail.
“Does the ‘theory’ of the Big-Bang obey the 1st Law of Newtonian physics?”
Nope. Theories have no inertia.
I think the answer for #3 has to be a little less blunt. If you’re asking the chances of life evolving from non-life given any random mixture of chemicals in any of a variety of environmental conditions, then honestly we have to say it is quite low, just like the chances of any particular planet harbouring life is low. BUT the probability that life did evolve from non-life ON THIS PLANET is indeed 1. The problem is that they’re question is loaded, in that it is not asking the probability that life HAS evolved from non-life, but that it CAN evolve from non-life given a random set of conditions. Again, it’s the same as asking what are the chances that life is on any given planet. The answer is irrelevant since it only needs to happen once for life to exist and it has happened. Even if the probability of life evolving in any particular conditions is extremely low, that does not make it impossible given the time scales of this universe and the vastness of it. It probably makes it almost inevitable.
SO (after one of my usual long winded and perhaps slightly incoherent posts!) in summary I think the correct answer is, it’s irrelevant because it has happened, and that’s all that matters.
So it seems my final answer is quite blunt after all…..oh well! I’m still right ;) hehe
Question for Michigan attendees – I have tickets for my very bright 12 and 15 year old kids, is the talk in the ballpark for kids that age to enjoy and understand?
Re: Is there an “objective truth?”
In a universe where a supernatural being can create/alter reality at will, what is the nature of truth _itself_?
If God can do anything, then you _can’t trust anything_. I.e. There is no “truth.”
The creationist question backfires; Observational consistency, i.e. science, is the only “truth” there is.
Speaking of arguing with them… I once heard someone say that you can’t make someone reason themselves out of a belief they never reached through reason in the first place. However, if not reason, then what can you use to help them escape lala-land? Maybe in some cases it will never work no matter what.
“Does evolution obey the second law of thermodynamics?”
What I find most ridiculous about questions of this kind is that religious people seem to somehow think physical laws where proscriptive and that nature has to obey us – as if they were judicial laws – and at the same time evolution is always only descriptive.
If evolution didn’t obey the law, then the law would be wrong, not the other way round. After all, evolution is an observable fact.
#41 fastpathguru
That is very interesting, and it’s a very clear argument why religion and faith is useless. If you don’t know god, his intentions and thoughts, or the purpose behind his actions, or indeed what actions were caused by him, then why bother with faith, as it’s very likely is going to be wrong anyway? Science would not work either, even though it would still be the best method…
How can I be angry at something that does not exist? I’m not angry at the easter bunny for not existing. Hell, why can’t I be there when those morons confront us with this insanity? On the spot vicious ridicule is the only weapon these idiots cannot withstand. Let’s see your imaginary god so that I can be angry with it for it’s imaginary existence.
I talked to a volunteer guide at New York’s Museum of Natural History. They wear big buttons and are trained to be helpful and answer questions that people might have at the exhibits. He said that the religious types who cruise the areas touching on evolution and origins of the universe seem to be trained to continually and reductively say “Yes, but how do you know?” when evidence is presented that contradicts their creationist tenets. With every explanation, you get a YBHDYK. After successive YBHDYKs, when the guide at some point reaches the extent of his knowledge, the religious type can say well, you dont really know then.
Answer to #40. I would not hesitate to bring children of that age to the lecture. Professor Dawkins uses plenty of overheads (most of them quite amusing) and they will have no problem understanding the gist of it. In fact, I applaud you for giving them the opportunity.
“Yes, there is an objective truth that we discern by studying the natural world, and by constantly subjecting hypotheses about its nature to testing. That nature is not separate from its existence.”
What you’ve written above is a bit unclear, especially the last sentence. I’m taking you to mean that the nature of the natural world is what truths are about, and that the nature of the natural world isn’t separate from the existence of the natural world, and hence that truths are not separate from the nature of the natural world. Is that correct?
If we discern objective truth, then it exists independently of us. (This plausibly follows from both the fact that it’s ‘objective,’ and the fact that we ‘discern’ it.) That is to say, there are truths that exist whether we discern them or not, and therefore whether we exist or not. But if this is the case, how can such truths be limited to natural truths? For example, if the natural world were to cease to exist, the proposition, “The natural world doesn’t exist” would not still be true. However, if this is the case, then not all true propositions are reducible to testable truths about nature (“there is an objective truth that we discern by studying the natural world, and by constantly subjecting hypotheses about its nature to testing”). And if all true propositions are not reducible to testable truths about nature, then it doesn’t follow that truths about the nature of the natural world are not in fact separate from its existence (as your last sentence seems to assert).
Of course, one could also ask if your answer is objectively true; if it is, then, since it’s not a proposition that is subject to scientific testing, it follows that not all objectively true propositions fit your criteria. If it isn’t objectively true, then why should we rely on it as a pointer to the means of finding objective truths? It’s a bit odd to say that you know how to discern objective truths if your method itself isn’t objectively true.
BTW, I apologize for not following up on that morality thread. I was sidelined with both a great deal of work and a case of diverticulitis (not fun).
I was there but didn’t see these guys…then again we were really late and rushed to find our seats. The audience was pretty supportive of Dawkins though. Most of his lecture was not about religion but more about how our evolutionary purposes of “survive and reproduce” can be easily subverted.
The Q&A session at the end was actually my favorite since Dawkins almost never seems to stumble at all, no matter how much he’s put on the spot (not that any of the questions were difficult, but he provided really great answers). He criticized religion some there, although one good part was when he talked of homeopathy and alternative medicine and why those appeal to us (a lot of it possibly due to the shortage of doctors and therefore the more attention someone practicing homeopathy is able to give us).
One thing about Dawkins which I think makes him a very compelling figure is that he’s very optimistic in his arguments and never really just calls creationists idiot sor the practice of homeopathy stupid. He always is using the disclaimer that were any of those things proven by solid scientific evidence then he would certainly be willing to change his views, because that’s what science is all about. A lot of people don’t understand that concept.
[Assorted Jesus babble and bible quotes]: I like that. That was a great touch.
Luckily, I’m not too plagued with encounters with religious people, or at least, those who want to bring me into the fold, but I’ve never developed a good mechanism for dealing with them. Mostly, unless I feel very confrontational, I just nod as if in agreement and move on. After all, it really doesn’t hurt my immortal soul if I believe one thing or another, since I don’t have one to begin with.
My view is that if you want to wave your hands one way or the other, it doesn’t make any difference (of course, as a social event, it could be very unpleasant, as in the Inquisition; but as long as it doesn’t rise to that…) I know that by not standing up as an atheist I give the impression that I am not one or that we are more uncommon than we in fact are. When asked, I always own up and have enjoyed the incredulity it often excites in others.
#6:
I don’t find that surprising. How do the creationists think this would go?
Questioner: Does evolution obey the second law of thermodynamics?
Dawkins: My word, I’ve never considered that! It doesn’t, does it? My entire life’s work has been founded on a lie! I… I… I’d like you all to join me in a prayer…
Nah. They have to realise that it’s not so simple. Note that the flyer isn’t called “five questions to ask the speaker after tonight’s lecture”. The questions are intended to shore up the doubts of the wavering religious, but like particularly lousy magic spells they lose their power when uttered.
Re Bill Dauphin;
I think there’s more debate material in wether it should be ‘inherent’ or ‘intrinsic’. Not just my personal peeve.
The thing about science in general is that it’s a means to find explanations that actually explain things and allow us to progress and make our lives better. What religion does is demand that we accept faux explanations that do not explain, on pain of torture and their real purpose is to keep the sinecurists (from nazinger to mousekin) in a job.
Question one is a simple one. Ask them what truth is. Make it clear you really want to know and not merely disparaging truth with a rhetorical question. Try to get them to figure out what things are true. Soon you will get to the idea that truth is a property of some kinds of statements, namely those statements that describe states of affairs. When the described states of affairs match up the right way to, the statement is true, when they don’t, the statement is false. Basic correspondence theory. Sure there are problems with correspondence theories of truth, but these problems have some pretty good solutions, and every other theory of truth has to give an account of the correspondence theory.
If someone can’t come up with something like the correspondence theory of truth after just a little questioning, I can’t talk to them. I sometimes think they lack what I sometimes call an “epistemic interior”. There is no way the world is for them and what’s going on inside their minds is impossible for me to understand.
I can’t believe question two even comes up. If this conception of the 2nd law were the case, I can’t see how an acorn, some water, air, and a bunch of chemicals in the soil could grow into an oak tree. Yet they obviously do grow into oak trees by the mere harvesting of of sunlight without God having to beam anti-entropy rays at them. Any decrease in local entropy is paid for with absorbed sunlight.
Why is there this particular hangup about entropy making it impossible for a population of organisms to be changed over time such that they become more complex? As we saw, there was no trouble for water, air, piles of dirt and an acorn to become an oak tree. And entropy isn’t specifically about complexity. A community of “primitive” organisms that had a whole lot of biomass would be in a lower entropy state than a much more sparse community that contained a few humans. I’m not a physicist or chemist, and I can’t tell you exactly what entropy is, but I did work some equations with delta-S, delta-H(?), and delta-G many years ago. I think there’s some major confusion about what entropy means among creationists. Entropy for real scientists is something about energy flow within systems and only remotely touches upon everyday notions of order and disorder.
BTW, as I said, I am not a professional scientist. Maybe someone out there could confirm or deny the claim I made above that a high-biomass community of so called primitive organisms would have less entropy than a more sparse connunity including some “higher” organisms.
. . .
Right. For a group of people who aim to see chemistry, scientific archeology, physics, geology, biology and many more sciences dismantled, they suddenly care about The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. (or thermaldynamics by some real bright folks) Um, the equation for how much energy is lost due to things like friction? WTF! That’s your argument against cell mutations?!
I don’t understand!
The god-botherers were few in number at RD’s East Lansing lecture (there was a “flock” of five of them pampleting at one entrance to the hall.) They were neither obtrusive or effective. The lecture was a sell-out (about 2200 people), a first for the MSU World View lecture series.
“Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.” – Ashley Montague
Indeed. Why am I angry? Lessee… Among my many reasons: (a) ‘Cause impoverished and desperate, suffering people give their last pennies to faith-healing frauds, and those frauds laugh all the way to the bank. (b) ‘Cause assholes in ugly Brylcreemed dos and wearing clerical collars tell children they’re going to be tortured in hell if they don’t roll over and accept an ugly, conformist line which also happens to require they slaughter their own sense of reason and thus significant quantities of their self-respect in order to do so, and, for that matter, any of their natural curiosity which also might also get in the way. (c) ‘Cause the core message of the Christian faith (and others besides) to these children is also essentially that of an abusive partner or parent trying to crush their dependent or spouse’s self-esteem in order to keep them on a short leash: you’re a miserable loser, and no one’s gonna love you but me, so, really, I’m you’re only option, you miserable, disgusting wretch. (d) ‘Cause they act like (c) is a good thing. (e) ‘Cause of burkhas. (f) Also acid. (g) And that whole smug, know-nothing ‘this is our world’ vibe so many of ’em give off like the reek of rotting meat, (h) ‘Cause an allegedly celibate asshole in a wacky hat thinks he should be dictating policy on NRMs and condoms in the third world. (i) ‘Cause the press actually regularly quotes the moron referred to in (h) in a manner which seems to suggest they are actually giving credence to this hilariously but tragically arrogant and destructive notion. (j) ‘Cause morons like these pollute the headspace of the world with their vapid dreck, and then stand there like innocent stunned bunnies asking why it annoys me… (k) And ’cause everytime I point this out to them, they act like they hadn’t heard a word, and just ask the same stupid question again, and this has been going on as long as I’ve been alive, and they’re still pretending they’re not getting it… It’s sorta like a telemarketer who’s been calling you twice weekly during dinner for your entire life trying to sell you a street drug with known, frequently lethal side effects (and then when you say no, they ask to speak to your kids) and then they ask you each time as you’re hanging up: what, am I annoying you? Really? Why?
So yeah. They’re pretty annoying–way up there on the annoying scale, even, as life’s annoyances go…
But if any of ’em are reading this, no, they don’t have to thank me. I mean, your friends shouldn’t have to tell ya, I guess…
But eviloution is just a THEORY! It CANT trump a LAW!!!1!
(Owww… Thinking like that makes my brain hurt.)
LOL…clicked over to the scan of the flyer. Under topic #2 it actually says “What if you found a watch on the ground…?”! The only updating of Paley (1802!!) is that the watch you found contains a “fresh battery.” Also, nothing is said about crossing a heath.
Exactly. This is why the religious viewpoint is so strange and counter-productive. If you cast a spell to get a job before an interview, and you get the job, was it on your own merits or because the spirits intervened on your behalf? If your wife crashes her car and dies, was it an accident or God’s will? The religious position makes you a helpless pawn or puppet that’s moved around by invisible beings for incomprehensible reasons.
*sigh*
The current pressing problems of the world bring into stark relief how little time we have to waste with people who are stupid and lazy.
Denying science because it conflicts with your religion or your astrological beliefs or your new age mysticism is just a way of justifying your own ignorance and your own intellectual laziness.
The human condition is fundamentally different than it was 2000 years ago. For billions of people it is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than it was 2000 years ago. NONE of that positive change is the result of advancements in faith, because faith doesn’t advance, by definition. And MANY of the problems plaguing us today are caused or exacerbated by religion.
There is no greater force for promoting misery than ignorance, and there is no greater force for promoting ignorance than faith.
midden, noun: “A mound or deposit containing shells, animal bones, and other refuse that indicates the site of a human settlement.” Excavated by archaeologists who wish to understand the dietary habits and other such lifestyle aspects of past societies.”
They’re not even a strictly human invention. Ants make ’em, too.
In order for evolution to not violate the 2nd Law, there would have to some kind of massive energy source pouring energy onto the earth. If such a thing existed, surely someone would have noticed by now…
@Janine, Insulting Sinner: use borax. Fleas eat it and then explode. Much more satisfying. :)
And how does it explain the human heart that beats for a lifetime without any external energy source?
#62 – wasn’t that a quote on FSTDT?
I think you’ve got No.3 wrong. You can’t say the probablity of something is one just because it happened. I could toss a coin and get tails, but that doesn’t mean the probablity of getting tails was one.
Hmm. I attended this lecture and did not come across the pamphlet people. Dawkins was awesome by the way; not that I expected anything less.
Andysin @ # 38,
Actually, depending on the amount of time it would take for such a collection to develop and the amount of time you have, oh say, 2, 3 billion years, the probability again returns to 1.
Sort of the infinite number of monkeys creating Shakespeare, or Douglas Adams, or something of the sort…
#44 Liberal Atheist,
“If you don’t know god, his intentions and thoughts, or the purpose behind his actions, or indeed what actions were caused by him, then why bother with faith, as it’s very likely is going to be wrong anyway?”
Faith in God requires _trust_ in God to be of any comfort; So why should I trust an omnipotent God who nevertheless regularly, constantly fucks people over with accidents, disease, poverty, misery, war, etc, and doesn’t seem to bestow any favor even on His truest believers, here in the material world?
I would never drink a beer with God… He’s a real dick.
Sven @ 58,
I had a cousin of mine bring up Paley’s watch just this last month when we were having a discussion/argument. Absolutely amazing.
Her version didn’t have a fresh battery, but it was in the woods.
Perhaps we could start by looking for something shiny circling the heavens?
@#62
That was indeed a quote on the now abandoned FSTDT.com. It also inpsired one of my favourite comments on the internet
“I stayed up all night wondering what this mysterious source of energy could be.
Finally it dawned on me.”
Of course, question 1 is an irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the status of religion or science. Perhaps these people think that by making their questions overlong and wordy, that they are somehow more thoughtful.
Question 4, however, is just a fallacy of substance, called “complex question,” the same way “why did you kill your father?” is a fallacy when one doesn’t know that the person being asked actually killed his/her father, or how “did stop beating your wife yet” is a fallacy when one doesn’t know that the person being asked actually once beat his wife.
#61 midden, noun: “A mound or deposit containing shells, animal bones, and other refuse that indicates the site of a human settlement.” As in, midden, noun, “she’s a right midden, goin’ oot tae the midden dressed like that…” Or she could even go out to the cowp… words are fun!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article705510.ece
How come no one told me Dawkins was at MSU. I would have went. Boo-urns PZ, you let me down. Yes, yes, I know I could read *his* website, but come on, I am lazy, and ya know, counting on you.
#66 Marc Abian:
It’s an a posteriori probability assessment: as there is a 100% chance that You got tail -after- You did, the probability that something happened after it did is 1. It is not the same as calculating the chance that something will happen.
I think that, if more people understood statistics properly, that would damage istitutionalized faith like nothing else.
#2 Does evolution obey the second law of thermodynamics?
Jesus, Fucking Christ!!!! I have seen this stupid question and even seen people claim that Evolution does violate the Second Law,… AAARRRRGGGGGG!!!! What complete fucking retards. These shitheads have absolutely zero understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics,…
How do explain science to willfully ignorant? Answer, you don’t, you ignore them after you tell them they are complete fucking retards.
I would contend that solipsism can be disproven empirically. If you exist, and the rest of the world really doesn’t, then your existance can’t depend on anything outside yourself. Enclose yourself in a large, airtight plastic bag and see how long you can maintain that line of reasoning.
Ooooo… here’s an idea
Given that we known in advance what the “5 Questions” leaflet looks like, why doesn’t somebody type up a “5 Answers” leaflet, answering (politely) the “5 Questions” leaflet? Then, try to hand out your leaflet to the fleas at the next engagement. Ask them to critique the answers. Ask questions about their critique. And so on…
Should make for good sport.
“I’ve been on that merry-go-round before.”
Oh yes. Must pop my head back in on talk.origins one of these days.
So was the Dawkins lecture recorded? Was it any new stuff, or the good old god delusion talk?
(Not that there’s anything wrong with that talk, I’ve just heard it a few times now.)
I wonder how those creotards would feel if someone made an Atheist version of “5 questions” and handed them out before a church.
I certainly interpret the question that way. It’s obviously what they meant.
Thanks Missionary Atheist! I know as a kid I would have like to go to a lecture like this. I’m looking forward to Wednesday at Northrup!
Religious people will never get why an atheist is one, the concept is just too difficult for them to understand.
There was somebody recording the talk. Until the usher made him turn off his cell phone.
@72
FSTDT looks like it’ll keep going at this address
http://www.fstdt.net/
#42:
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Many atheists used to be religious, and they’ll often talk about how rational critiques of religion helped them on their way to atheism. But I think it’s probably true to say that reason doesn’t work directly against a belief arrived at by emotion. Rather, it plants seeds of doubt, which in turn work their own emotional effect, gradually putting down roots which break up the original belief. It’s a slow process: while a position arrived at rationally can be overturned almost instantly by contrary evidence, overturning an emotional belief takes time. To the faithful, this is even evidence of the superiority of faith over reason!
So, by all means use rational arguments with the religious. You can’t expect a lightbulb to go on over their head immediately, but this doesn’t mean it’s always a futile exercise.
AND MORE QUESTIONS:
Do you sound like angry people; yes, indeed!
Do you sound like nice, kind, pleasant people? Not at all.
Do you sound bitter? yes, rather.
Are you mockers and scorners? Indeed, it would appear so.
and finally do you think you are superior in every way –and especially, intellectually, to believers? Oh, wow, yes you do. No humility in PZ or any of the others.
Can’t be good for your health.
I agree with the fact that trying to convince kooks is imposible. Stupidity has no cure. The value of showing how ridiculous they are, is that that teaches and convinces non scientific but common sense people, that don’t have the tools to refute and rarely find someone with the wits or guts to refute religious idiocy. These people of all ages, that are in greater number than kooks or scientists, know that something has no sense, but don’t find anybody that shows them why.
Ahh, Barb the bitter has shown up to piss on things. Barb, you need to control your anger. A glass of wine, and avoiding Pharyngula is what you need. If you don’t look at us, your blood pressure won’t go up.
the ones who have no idea about the evolutionary process and have no idea what it means to be an atheist – yes.
@81 – Pog:
The talk was “The Purpose of Purpose”. I’ve never seen it before. It was definitely not a “god delusion” talk.
I didn’t get a flyer handed to me either :( god must have guided me to use a different entrance.
Let’s hope the same fundies are at PZ’s talk in Grand Rapids!
Buzz off Barb!
Dammit! I was going to go to that, but it was sold out by the time I tried to buy tickets. Sounds like it would have been fun.
Nothing wrong with being angry when people deserve the anger. Anger is a useful emotion.
No I’m sure we don’t We get tired of dealing with willfully ignorant hacks such as your self. In my real life I’m a pretty happy dude. Good Wife, good, job, good hobbies, I’m one hell of cook and I get to travel. I also enjoy the company of many friends spread across the country. I’ve received multiple awards at my job which involves dealing with every member of my organization. Not typically something given to nasty people.. Does that mean I can’t be sharp and pointed when addressing fools. Obviously not. Fool.
I’m far from bitter, but do I care that you think I am. Not a bit.
Yes when addressing people that deserve to be mocked.
Not to all but to many, yes.
Oh sweet, medical advice from the one who said that the heart beats for a lifetime without an external engergy source.
Fantastic.
Comments #3 and #20 refer to skeptical opinions held by biblical scholars. The ones I know are indeed quite skeptic about the status of the bible. They entertain serious doubts about that book, not just archaeologically, but also historically, linguistically and aesthetically. ‘Modern’, i.e. skeptical, biblical scholarship has a very long history (Spinoza, Feuerbach, a.o.) and then evolved further beginning early last century (Harry Fosdick, 1922). What it offers now is pretty much the complement of the scientific approach represented by PZ, Dawkins and suchlikes.
It therefore looks as if fundamental christianity is being squeezed in between the jaws of what might adequately be called a nutcracker [pun intended], as provided by the sciences and the humanities together. For further enlightenment one should read (and assimilate): Hector Avalos, The end of Biblical Studies; Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.
Mark but this flea, and mark in this,
How little that which thou deny’st me is;
It sucked me first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be;
Thou know’st that this cannot be said
A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead;
Yet this enjoys before it woo,
And pampered swells with one blood made of two,
And this, alas, is more than we would do.
Oh stay, three lives in one flea spare,
Where we almost, yea, more than married are.
This flea is you and I, and this
Our marriage bed, and marriage temple is;
Though parents grudge, and you, w’are met,
And cloistered in these living walls of jet.
Though use make you apt to kill me,
Let not to that, self-murder added be,
And sacrilege, three sins in killing three.
Cruel and sudden, hast thou since
Purpled thy nail in blood of innocence?
Wherein could this flea guilty be,
Except in that drop which it sucked from thee?
Yet thou triumph’st and say’st that thou
Find’st not thyself, nor me the weaker now;
‘Tis true, then learn how false fears be:
Just so much honor, when thou yield’st to me,
Will waste, as this flea’s death took life from thee
John Donne?
re Endor @65:
#62 – wasn’t that a quote on FSTDT?
paraphrased. I couldn’t remember the exact wording nor where I originally saw it. I assumed that most of the regulars here would be familiar with it though.
And the reply, “… and then it dawned on me” is a true gem of the internet.
Matt #6 wrote:
Hm. I think Dawkins made a minor error here, in that he answered a question other than the one he was asked. His response was the one he usually gives when he’s asked whether he’s a “fundamentalist atheist.”
Although they are also conservatives, I think that, in popular parlance, an “evangelical” is not so much defined by their adherence to dogma, as by their enthusiastic response to the Great Commission. An evangelist is one who goes out to “spread the word,” to persuade and convince others to change their minds on whatever issue is being evangelized.
Since Dawkins does indeed argue for atheism — as a more reasonable and plausible conclusion from the evidence than theism — he could technically say that he is indeed an evangelical atheist. Or an evangelist for evolution.
The reason the term is usually used as an insult by many liberals theists may be because they consider it rude and judgmental to tell someone their religious views are wrong. Never tell anyone their religion is wrong. Never try to change a person’s religion. Instead, everybody’s spiritual beliefs are should be respected, and remain safe from any criticism or critique. Faith is supposed to be a sacred sanctuary for ideas that are deep-felt and emotionally special. To analyze the content is to attack the person.
Nuts to that.
That is precisely the point. It is the question that is spurious. Mr.Myers’ answer is perfectly sensible.
Suppose you shuffle a deck of cards. Whatever the result, it is an unlikely sequence. Very unlikely. Or imagine You throw 100 dice. Or try to estimate the likelihood that a stone or a cloud have exactly the shape they have. All of those are, by definition, almost impossible (a priori).
This particular misconception is, by the way, Mr. Dembski raison d’etre.
Sorry for the silly double posting. Mouse issues.
Atheists and theists need to put aside their pittily differences, get beyond this evolution-vs-creation roadblock, & work together solving the much more serious issue of global warming.
Dr. James Hansen, top NASA climate scientist, recently said in his Bjerknes lecture at the American Geological Union that if we burn all fossil fuels we will tip the climate into runaway warming as on Venus, ending all life on planet earth. Note: Hansen’s doctoral dissertation was on Venus.
see (esp pg 24): http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
If people can’t put aside silly differences and solve this, then I’ll be thinking neither evolution nor creationism are correct. Devolution might be more like it, and our species should be renamed Homo stupidus.
Barb, meet Peter. Peter, meet Barb. You’re perfect for each other.
The point is that no matter how improbable an event may have been, if it happened you can not use its improbability as disproof that it happened. Alternatively, unless you can show that the probability of an event is identically zero, then you cannot say it didn’t happen. “Nearly zero”, “effectively zero”, “inconceivably small” etc. just don’t cut it. To be impossible, the probability has to be exactly zero.
In some ways this is similar to Pascal’s wager, instead of “An infinite reward for a very small chance is worth the bet”, we have “a small probability event over a huge number of attempts will almost certainly occur”. (Which I believe was Pascal’s intent, and not to “prove” God’s existence)
Lynn are you this wishy washy on all matters? These aren’t silly differences, this are a concerted effort to fight the forces of ignorance lead by creationists that are trying to dumb down the world. We need people with a good understanding of how science works if we are to solve the global warming issue. Creationist work directly against this.
So I ask you. Are you going to get behind the people trying to promote good science or will you let the waves of willful ignorance wash over this country?
If you follow the link in PZ’s post, question (4) is actually:
I agree with PZ’s response, but the original question doesn’t presuppose that a god exists as some commenters have said. After all, one could be ticked off at the thought of a teapot orbiting mars whether there’s one there or not. I think it’s idiots spouting nonsense that provokes disgust not the thought of the existence of a god.
oooh I hope I get a flyer tomorrow, I need a good laugh.
“Can’t be good for your health.”
You aren’t seriously pretending to be concerned for our health, are ya Barb?
I know this will fail to sink through your bank vault-thick skull, but anger is not a “bad” or “wrong” emotion when it’s focused on serious injustice or, as in your case, sheer stupidity.
One would have to be sheerly stupid to not be upset at the blatant ignorance of the fleas.
However, overall, atheists are much happier people than those with imaginary friends. Honesty is freeing, which is happy-making. You should try it. Having imaginary friends that you think will punish you if you don’t follow their nebulous, arbitrary rules can’t be good for your health.
#104
Trouble with that is the kind of people who are creationists and anti-science are also climate change deniers.
And even if you convinced them that it was real (which is hard, since evidence means nothing to them), they might just as easily tell you that it won’t matter, since Jesus will rapture them before things get too bad.
Also, Barb, you’re kind of an idiot. Of course people get angry when dealing with the dishonest and the delusional, who wish to push their lies or beliefs on the rest of the world for their own gain (whether monetary or to comfort them that theirs’ is the one true religion). Of course people will scoff at and mock things that are worthy of being scoffed at and mocked, such as yourself.
You truly are a fool, Barb. Lucky for you, you have a book of tribal myths that calls US the fools. All we’ve got to prove you’re a fool is the evidence you’ve provided.
Barb #89 wrote:
Bertrand Russell once wrote:
“If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t really a hard and fast rule; it’s more of a possibility to consider. Sometimes people do get upset in an argument because they recognize that, deep down, their position is weak and they’re quite probably wrong. Examine this possibility.
But people get upset for plenty of other reasons, too. It can be terribly frustrating to be confronted by someone who is not only wrong, but stubborn, arrogant, and self-satisfied at the same time. And then there are the disputes where both sides are angry. That doesn’t entail that the truth must of course be somewhere in the middle. One side can still be wrong, and the other side pissed at them.
“If you’re angry, then that must be because you know I’m right” isn’t really a sharp and incisive cut to the heart of an argument. It’s a rhetorical trick designed to confuse substance with style, easily turned back on the person making it, who can now, in turn, be accused of being “angry.” And judgmental. And so forth.
If this is one of your best and favorite arguments against atheism, I’m not impressed. I can find New Agers who believe in the most absurd tripe, and they will gladly use the “anger” of skeptics and conventional Christians as evidence that they’ve got the truth, because they make people roll their eyes and groan.
People who are right are the ones who smile all the time? If only it was that easy.
holy typos in 107
Yikes
Barb is one of those pigs whom you should never try to teach to sing. She’s blissfully ignorant and proud of it. So what was that question someone keeps asking you about a heart, Barb?
@66
I think the point is that the probability that the event *happened* is 1.0. In your example, the probability that you just fliped a coin and it came up tails is also 1.0.
Philosophers would say there’s no objective truth; but if so, is there any objective truth in that statement?
Dammit.
If I thought Dawkins were spreading lies about my beloved beliefs I would be angry too. As it happens I can smell the blood of atheists… sometimes like golden honey, sometimes with a twist of ocean or muddy backwaters.
Sniff sniff… this is the smell of objective reality. Like fruit salad with cream. Layers, chunks of elementary particles in orangy juice, red and green apples falling through, in and out of existence in notime. The wild cat’s tale whipping, and a metallic voice announcing Max Plancks arrival in Hamburg Central Station. Wheel of fortune. Midnight.
A quick comment following Barb’s post at 89:
Barb, several other posters have addressed the “angry” accusation that often gets mounted against atheists, so I won’t expand on that as it’s been well-handled already, except to agree with previous posters that anger is a legitimate emotion and sometimes useful.
What interested me more about your post was some of the other characterizations of atheists you listed. It may seem to someone who visits Pharyngula on an occasional basis that the comments lead one to imagine the posters in a certain way, but that which is expressed here has often suggested, in my experience, deeper complexity of human expression.
That is to say, there’s more than just angry posts about religious foolishness at Pharyngula. There are great posts about biology. There are great links to funny cartoons, and many other interesting websites. The posts themselves are often very humorous and enjoyable. I recommend stopping by on Fridays as there’s a weekly posting of a photograph of a cephalopod, and the images are striking and wondrous and beautiful (those are the qualities I assign to them, incidentally, not necessarily the qualities the images have in and of themselves). If you’re a fan of the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, you might be moved to the occasional “Iä! Iä!” Good fun.
More importantly, though, I think the point is that, even if you didn’t see all those things, and just focused on posts by people expressing their frustration, this is an extremely limited way in which to get to know people. It’s unfair to characterize the atheists here as “bitter” or otherwise, simply because, as humans, their lives are complex, and at any given moment humans experience multiple emotional states for all kinds of reasons. To apply one and lay that as complete across both individual and circumstance is a disservice. I would encourage you to get to know more atheists, not characterizing them as atheists, but spending time with them bowling, enjoying music, talking about sports, visiting art museums, telling jokes, doing volunteer work, sharing a meal, and so forth. I daresay what you’ll likely find is that atheists are really just people, albeit people who happen to not believe in supernatural explanations for things. And as people, you’ll find atheists have all kinds of emotions and feelings.
No kings,
Robert
Quick follow up to my post at #118. With regard to qualities I assign as characteristics of the Friday cephalopod photographs, I meant to describe those qualities as characteristics of my human experience of meaning-making, not as having some supernatural agency otherwise, but I certainly did not mean the comment to come across as casting aspersions on the talents of the photographers themselves, whose aesthetic sensibilities I consistently find impressive. I can barely work the digital camera on this here new-fangled cellular tele-o-phone I carry. If I may say so, the cephalopod photographers have, in other parlance, mad skills.
No kings,
Robert
RE #104, 107 & 111: Well, the creationists are liars (which according to religious belief might get them some time in purgatory), while the climate change denialists and those who aren’t mitigating are killers (I hope you read Hansen’s lecture from the link I posted), which could get them into a very very hot and nasty eternity. If they think it’s not getting hot enough here on earth, then….
While I am opposed to creationism & ID, even on religious grounds (it’s an insult to God & they should be terribly ashamed), I think global warming is the much more serious issue. So atheists who waste too much time worring about creationist sinners are, well, wasting time while the world burns.
It’s probably true that many creationists tend also to be global warming denialists, tho not all — there are the “What Would Jesus Drive” web-of-creation evangelicals, and even Pat Robertson did a turn around and accepted global warming science.
I’m just saying our MAIN efforts should be to get people to mitigate global warming, not in getting people to accept evolution or atheism. Those campaigns can be mounted more strongly after getting the bulk of humanity on the path to solving global warming. Actually your arguments sort of remind me of how a Catholic argued by saying we need to end abortion first, before tackling global warming. I mean, global warming is abortion of all life writ large.
Actually, the religious folks have a lot more to lose according to their beliefs by failing to mitigate global warming. If trying to convince them to accept evolution and become atheists doesn’t help them to mitigate global warming, then perhaps warning them of facing an extremely hot eternity might do the trick.
Off topic (but science!) – I hope this hasn’t shown up on another thread already.
Pretenders bob up in lizard mating game.
Hiya Barb,
Imagine if instead of pouring money into the economy, President Obama allocated a trillion dollars to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence in the hope we’d find aliens with all the answers. Imagine that other governments joined in the search and all agreed to take money away from healthcare, infrastructure, medical research, etc. and to pour it into this search, hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Imagine if they did this for decades. Imagine if we stopped teaching children science because we were betting the aliens, once discovered, would give us all the technology we need. Imagine if we stopped trying to fix the environment because we believed the aliens would solve our problems.
Imagine if no matter how much you and your friends spoke out against this wasteful, fruitless expenditure, the governments just kept pumping in the money and the resources. Imagine how frustrated you’d be if year after year we shoveled so much of our world’s potential into something that year after year yielded no benefit.
If you can imagine that, you can imagine why we sound angry.
RD will be interviewed on MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) tomorrow A.M. – http://richarddawkins.net/event,294,with-Kerri-Miller
That would on be the “News” stream here: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/programs/midmorning/
Lynn@120,
I’d agree with you that global warming is the issue of greater practical importance – but the psychological and social mechanisms involved in creationism and AGW denialism are practically identical; as are the rhetorical strategies employed. The same is also true of denial of the HIV-AIDS and smoking-cancer links. Losing ground against any one of these forms of anti-science irrationalism – and in the USA, creationism is still on the offensive – risks a broader, more general defeat of rationality.
Great thread. Am I an angry athiest? Hmm. Sometimes, but mostly I would identify myself as a concerned human being. I’m concerned that many people obviously spent more time memorizing Church doctrine and bible scriptures than they have studying chemistry, statistics and physics. When I’m angry, it’s directed at people who deserve my anger.
I’m concerned that the problem of religious hooey may very well be an intractable one. It may prove to be the human condition that you will believe in whatever nonsense is fed to you during your earliest childhood development to the extent of your own detriment. Aren’t both Dawkins and Dennett outspoken on the effects of brainwashing in children (by their parents) concerning religious instruction? From an American perspective I’d say religion is in the wane, but like a wounded animal is thrashing about loudly and violently. I’m mostly hoping the death throes don’t take out the rest of us.
To that end, perhaps a little ‘stealth’ legislation ought to be offered up in the form of a religious education act? Require ALL major religions be taught. Ensure a deeper understanding between so-called CHRISTIAN miracles that are well documented to have been stolen from Mitras and others (The God Who Wasn’t There-Sam Harris). Teach the controversy.
Richard Dawkins (richarddawkins.net) has recently posted his conversations with Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christoper Hitchens. They are in two one-hour youtube segments.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3625,The-Four-Horsemen-HD—Now-on-YouTube,Richard-Dawkins-Sam-Harris-Christopher-Hitchens-Daniel-Dennett
Enjoy.
The experience of meeting Christians who are convinced that we all actually believe in god but are in denial because we want to sin was actually one of the things that helped me understand how brains are engines for survival.
Peoples world-views don’t have to be perfectly optimised to reality. They just have to be good enough.
There just seems to be something about the psychological ecology of some Christians that has shaped their ego in such a way that the idea of the non-existence of god is indigestible, even deadly to it. Like a peanut allergy or something.
Tomato, tomahto. – Carlie
I think you mean: tomato, tomaydo ;-)
I’m really sick of the christards that come here day after day and argue the same crap over and over. The ones that really make me angry are the ones that tell former christians – you just didn’t try hard enough, if you’d read the babble just one more time you’d be a true christian. Complete crock of shit.
Barb is a sunday school teacher, what a lovely job. Corrupting young minds with lies and bullshit.
Barb you fatuous bint:
Have not seen a post from you in a while. to the point…
Bad for my health? I’ll tell you what would be bad for my health…praying to Big Sky Daddy to fix my illness instead of going to my regular ol’ mortal doc.
Angry? Not in a personal sense. It’s just that I don’t suffer fools as well as I once did. Instead of trying the impossible, I am at the point in my life where I’m not inclined to waste the time and just tell the IDiot to fuck off.
Bitter? Nah – believers have never had that sort of control over me.
Intellectually superior? In a sense yes. It takes a special sort of intellectual gymnastics to repeatedly take the position that everything in science (where it contradicts your favorite collection of bronze age stories) is wrong. Oddly, that same book has no position on gravity, the speed of light, or Newtonian mechanics. Not much of a source of knowledge about the physical universe, eh?. When it does venture in to physical science, it gets it REALLY wrong. The argument that god can do anything is exactly equivalent to postulating fairies in the garden. They can do anything as well.
As for moral guidance, Google up “8 things I’d really rather you didn’t” and compare them to the 10 commandments. Which might make a better guide?
In the unlikely event that you actually read this try to lose your fear of the real world – your God rates right up there with Ra, Thor, Apollo, Grandmother Spider and Wakan-Tanka. (look ’em up, Babs).
No! It’s Tah-mater.
@ Patricia
Barb is a sunday school teacher, what a lovely job. Corrupting young minds with lies and ********.
Doing God’s work and preaching the truth, more like. The lies are peddled by the likes of Dawkins who is unable to comprehend that there is no explanation for our consciousness or why there is something rather than nothing.
Yep,that’s right, it’s taters and tahmaters, cunumbers and poke salad. And nunions – don’t fergit the nunions.
Angry? No. I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused.
Oh Petey, you’re cute when your say stupid things like that. It makes you seem young and naive (or old and demented) so you shine on, big guy!
Marzey doats and dozey doats and little lamzey divey?
“Doing God’s work and preaching the truth, more like. The lies are peddled by the likes of Dawkins who is unable to comprehend that there is no explanation for our consciousness or why there is something rather than nothing.”
You haven’t read a shred of Dawkins, and if you had, you weren’t paying attention. Scientists comprehend more than you appear willing to give them credit for, and certainly more than you’ve ever considered. You’re still stuck on stone-age quality cosmological bullcrap. Dawkins and others have considered things even beyond your myopic god-concept; the difference is he doesn’t proselytize and try to convert people into some stupid belief system based on those philosophical questions, that really does nothing for anyone. Sunday school is not truth. It is mouthing a bunch of old stories that are nursery rhyme quality at best.
If you are so certain of your received explanation for all things, be so kind as to show us the evidence and where to find it. BTW, forwarding us to the local church is not an acceptable answer, and will garner an immediate F.
Doing God’s work and preaching the truth, more like. The lies are peddled by the likes of Dawkins who is unable to comprehend that there is no explanation for our consciousness or why there is something rather than nothing.
Hey! the crow has returned!
sling it, pistol pete!
LOL
always good for a laugh.
Lynn,
Thanks for the link to the Hansen lecture. I’m very surprised he thinks a Venus-type runaway is likely if we burn all the fossil fuels – I’d understood this was not considered possible for the next few hundred million years. Here’s me been telling people the worst that could happen is an anoxic ocean with anaerobic bacteria producing vast clouds of toxic hydrogen sulphide and killing most macroscopic lifeforms!
Blueindependent: “You haven’t read a shred of Dawkins… Dawkins and others have considered things even beyond your myopic god-concept; the difference is *he doesn’t proselytize and try to convert people into some stupid belief system based on those philosophical questions*, that really does nothing for anyone.”
Richard Dawkins on The God Delusion: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”
Stuff it up your jelly meat Pete.
Moggie @51:
No, I think that what they’re expecting is an embarrassed silence and blushing. They’ve convinced themselves that “Darwinists” are all “Liars For Darwin” who are covering up gaping holes in “Darwinism,” and will fall apart upon being confronted with these “lies.”
That’s why creationists are so proud of Dawkins’ reaction to some nonsensical “information theory” question in that one infamous interview; while he was actually thinking something like “what sort of idiots have I allowed into my home,” they interpret it (or pretend to) as the mask slipping.
That’s the true believers among them, of course. The Liars For Jesus are just laughing the whole way.
I don’t recognize that phrase but, as usual, it’s sure to be vulgar and obscene.
As to Ichthyic – I prefer to see myself as a dove, or perhaps a carrier pigeon (rather than a crow), spreading the word of our Lord.
E.V. – Are you sure? I thought it was younguns. My grandpa always said liver and younguns.
“Don’t eat too many of them liver and youngun’s Patti Cakes, or y’ll be ah seein haints all er night.”
BTW, I apologize for not following up on that morality thread. I was sidelined with
both a great deal of work and a case of diverticulitis (not fun).– Eric@49Sorry to hear you’ve been ill. How about answering the points raised now?
there is no explanation for our consciousness
And how does the Sky Fairy “explain” it? Magic is not an explanation, Rooke, it’s an admission that you have no explanation.
HUZZAH! Hey look Janine, I finally got called a V word.
Sorry! I intended to remove the strikeout in #145. Relic of an earlier version of the comment I decided wasn’t funny.
Yes, Peter, I can see you as a pigeon, crapping on the statue of reason and rationality.
knockgoats:
You fool no one.
You are someone who went by a similar moniker (involving the name “Nick”) and are now in disguise.
I prefer to see myself as a dove, or perhaps a carrier pigeon (rather than a crow),
spreading the word of our Lordshitting on people’s heads.Fixed for you Pete.
Eric @140, The God Delusion is proselytism in the (generic) sense that it’s intended to change beliefs, but it’s different to religious proselytism. I’d call it advocacy.
Give it up Pete. You’re a buzzard. Feeding on carrion and barfing it into the minds of the young, or anyone else damned fool enough to fall for it.
Pete, you’ll have to ask Simon if it is vulgar or obscene. It’s oh so apt when it applies to you though.
Patricia: Younguns is perfectly acceptable. In Texas a one syllable word is severely dipthonged into three syllables so anything short of “ooouuuunyaaaauuuuunnn’ins” is close enough.
Oh, you’re a carrier, all right.
******** on the statue of reason and rationality.
It is ironic that the rationalists (who typically believed in the soul) also privilege a priori reason and rationality above what Hume termed Custom or Habit. Hume rejects the rationalist dogma that privileges reason above all else by showing that Custom is a “principle of equal weight and consideration” governing the minds of both humans and non-human animals. The universe of the rationalist is built upon reason and as a result the universe is traditionally seen as wholly intelligible, or rational, a priori because of its creation by divine reason. Hume’s genius was to cast doubt on what can be known a priori and to cast doubt on the the level of certainty attributed to matters a fact. He also developed, in Custom, an explanation for how human and non-human animals reach consistent conclusions. Of course reason, abstracted from experience, can be used to justify any possible conception of the universe – what else would it do? But reason, abstracted from experience, is severely limited in its power and concerns only that which does not impinge on experience. It might therefore be considered meaningless unless it is applicable to possible experience.
Their must be room for religious experience.
Would that your depraved kind were passenger pigeons.
“How about answering the points raised now?”
Knockgoats, there were so many (it’s always about a dozen to one, and I simply don’t have the time to answer everyone; and, of course, if I don’t answer someone in particular, I’m accused of ‘dodging’ his questions!), how about this, in the interest of economy: bring up the the point you think is most important and I’ll address that. BTW, if you do choose to go this route, I’ll only be responding to you (again, in the interest of economy).
Pete Rooke,
I announced the change of handle publicly here, cretin. BTW, you’re not fooling anyone either – we all know your real name’s Ed Gein.
Haven’t read Dan Dennett’s Consciousness Explained I take it? Haven’t looked at the animal studies that show varying degrees of self-awareness? And those studies that show the ability for complex problem solving, and the use of reasoning in order to use tools? What about the complex social behaviours between members of primates?
Arguing from personal ignorance is not a valid argument for God. “As far as I’m aware, we can’t explain X. Therefore God exists. QED”
Well duh. We know that. So? Just on an estimate, how many other things don’t you know? Or don’t you know?
E.V. – Ah, there is the difference. You’re speaking Texas hillbilly, and I’m speaking Smokey Mountain hillbilly. But I’ll bet you still perfectly understood what I said. ;)
Eric, what the hell kind of reply is #140?
I would say that there is no explanation for some consciousnesses. What do you think – oh, sorry.
Kel:
See my previous post to see that I am fully aware that non-human animals are guided by similar processes to us. They do not however, possess language capabilities. Language is not something that can have evolved.
…and a little alcove for your Transformers collection.
“Eric @140, The God Delusion is proselytism in the (generic) sense that it’s intended to change beliefs, but it’s different to religious proselytism. I’d call it advocacy.”
John, I agree, but would add that there are forms of religious proselytism that are also best described as advocacy. Richard Swinburne, Robert Adams, William Alston etc. are in the category of a Dawkins in this regard, and not proselytizers in the sense that, say, a Jehovah’s Witness is.
I just hate when I have to investigate to know if I’m offended. I believe I am, or perhaps would have been in like 1945. Now it appears to be kind of retro. I’m torn.
That made my day.
That’s what I figured, and trying to guess your proposed correction actually made it funny.
OK, that made my evening. What happened to Rooke’s blog?
“Eric, what the hell kind of reply is #140?”
Blueindependent, I would say it’s a reply using Dawkins’s own words to contradict what you wrote about Dawkins.
“…Their must be room for religious experience.”
Well, there is. But you are implying something entirely unsupportable, that being that we professed atheists must practice religion to be fully rational, or to realize or act at a higher intellectual and philosophical level. I’m sorry, but real life doesn’t work that way.
You can worship whatever the hell you want. But the very nanosecond your worshipping starts impinging on real substantive work in the sciences, sorry, but your religion goes out the window, and fast. I have no tolerance for unprovable and unevidenced mysticism in areas it does not belong.
But perhaps, rather than regurgitating others, you can elaborate on that which you and other godbotters so happily Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V, can actually explain your own thoughts and ideas upon which what you pasted is based. Can you guys argue anything yourselves without having someone else do your reasoning for you? And I do not the reference to divinity in your selection. Funny how arguments for the divine must always be based in the assumption that the divine exists. It’s a bit hard to prove something exists when you already assume it does, no? For doing so would be a rather easy route to tautological nonsense, right?
OK, that made my evening. What happened to Rooke’s blog?
My bog is barred from those I do not know. Initially I had planned to have an open dialogue but that proved impossible after comment after comment of hate, vitriol and scorn.
Eric,
Fair enough – although it will have to be a (quite briefly stated) position rather than a single point. I noted that your 2(b) “Moral prescriptions cannot be justified ultimately” is not correctly regarded as a subtype of “Moral prescriptions cannot be justified”, as you proposed – because, as you yourself noted, it is compatible with various kinds of proposed justification (my position being 2(b)+5, 5 being justification in terms of the consequences for others); and that it was illegitimate for you to attempt to rule “out of order” the demand that you produce an argument that ultimate moral justification is possible within theism, since the core of my argument – and that of many others – is precisely that ultimate justification is not logically possible, as it requires deriving an “ought” from an “is”.
I’m off to bed very shortly, so I’ll check back tomorrow.
Pontius Pilate: “What is truth?”
Jesus Christ: (no answer)
Jelly meat belongs to Simon. It just sounds so icky I’m sure Pete rolls in it every night before he puts on his mini skirt. Probably pours his stilettos full of it too.
Eric,
There seem to be a few different Erics who post here from time to time and it can get confusing. Would you mind going by Eric the Artful Dodger or another descriptive moniker, please? Thanks!
I occasionally have found myself asking which is more loathsome: a crack dealer or a Sunday school teacher. And honestly, okay, I’m comfortable enough avowing it’s probably usually the former. I mean, sure, crack probably kills you a lot faster and a lot more dead than do most religions–it’s clear enough the odds it will actually physically kill you are a lot higher. Most religions, in contrast, don’t usually so much kill as dull and cripple and generally make interesting and independent people a little bit less of both… And arguably, in some cases, where the religion appears to displace a rather more dangerous addiction, you could even argue it might be the lesser evil, at least, if the argument could be solidly made the subject had to choose between the one or the other. Methadone versus cocaine, come to think of it, ‘long as we’re in street drug rhetorical territory. And with some religions, it’s really a game of odds: the prosyletization may do you relatively little harm–you may resist it entirely, or you may succumb, in form, but the practice of said religion may wind up being little more than symbolism to you, maybe a little fuzzy ancient poetry and wishful thinking wrapped around an otherwise largely sane and workable view of the cosmos. Harmless enough, I guess, maybe, at least…
Then again, make no mistake: religious indoctrination is still a pretty digusting business, however you slice it. A matter of applying social pressure to your subject until they agree to swear fealty to a belief they and you both know or should know well enough is a bald-faced lie. The contract is this: agree to say you believe this obscene and obvious absurdity, profane your own sense of reason in this agreed-upon way, and you are one of us… Ugly, frankly.
And the crack dealer, for their part, it seems to me, if they live long enough, is also rather more likely eventually to realize what a nasty business they’re in, and at least express remorse…
Which, in their defense, makes them a smidgen less annoying than the average Sunday school teacher, at least.
Eric, you are uniquely either A) dumb, or B) impossibly evasive. How does Dawkins hoping people become atheists after reading his book have anything to do with Dawkins also making considerations for what might be?
Your reply attempts to link things that are not possible to be linked. You are simply drawing a massive faulty conclusion about Dawkiins’ philosophical considerations based on the simple fact that he’s an atheist. You haven’t read his book either, have you?
My bog is barred from those I do not know. – Pete Rooke
Don’t worry Pete – I wouldn’t go near your bog even if I was absolutely doubled up for a crap – I’d be too worried that the “paper” with which to wipe one’s bum would turn out to be human skin.
I see Pete “total fool” Rooke stopped by to do some godbotting. Pete, I’m still waiting for physical evidence for your delusion, better known as your god. Total fail on your part so far. Your bible is also a nice work of S&M fiction. Run back to your delusions and let the smart people play.
Fascinating. Do you have a theory, or even a hypothesis – hell, just a guess – on why that might be so?
Stephen Pinker would beg to disagree. We can see primitive forms of communication again among social creatures. By way of abstract patterns through sounds and signalling, you have the basis for communication. Not to mention we can communicate with animals through the use of language, teach great apes how to use abstract symbols in order to communicate, train dogs through use of language. The brain, it seems, is capable in animals to be able to cope with language. By all accounts, language is instinctual.
“…but that proved impossible after comment after comment of hate, vitriol and scorn.”
Otherwise known as thoughtful, reasoned arguments based on evidence, and dismissive of stone age hand-waving?
Perhaps Eric should adopt Irk as his new nym.
At least the crack dealer has something to sell!
I’ve printed off the questions in the OP with some slightly modified answers (I thought terms like lazy and ignorant could have been used more often). I will be shoving them back at any kook that attempts to hand me anything. I hope I don’t give one to the ticket taker by mistake!
***** meat belongs to Simon. It just sounds so icky I’m sure Pete rolls in it every night before he puts on his mini skirt. Probably pours his stilettos full of it too.
You, being a neo-feminist probably do not where heeled shoes, contenting yourself with clog like footwear. (although mentioned in the spirit of jest- the cross-dressing) I, for my part, avoid such behaviour and have neither the inclination nor the desire. Besides, I assume a corollary of “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” holds true.
*BigDumbChimp alert*
Ol’ Pete’s got one of your cooties Chimpy. Better save the poor little bugger before he wraps it in human skin and molests it.
I’m a bit worried that this blog has become a whipping post for masochistic christainists.
Massochist to sadist: Hit me!
Sadist to masochist: No.
“…Besides, I assume a corollary of “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” holds true.”
I see your god shows “his” pettiness yet again. But that wold only be one of hundreds of instances. Do you eat shellfish by chance Pete? Ever mixed polyester and cotton? If you, it would appear you haven’t followed your god’s rules quite right, so I do expect you will spend the rest of the evening on your knees repenting, correct?
Hey Pete, simple request: present incontrovertible evidence and proof of the existence of your deity.
Pete “total fool” Rooke, you god is not needed for anything. He is a useless git that should be put out to pasture. After all, speech and morals were around long before your delusional god was invented by men some 3000 years ago. And science? No need for imaginary deities. We’re doing just fine with that type of shit.
Religion contains a soteriological element, does crack offer this? Your analogie fails because it treats religion as an addiction.
PR:
FSTDT!
* ie-y
They [non-human animals] do not however, possess language capabilities. Language is not something that can have evolved. – Pete Rooke
Rooke, as usual, knows sod all about the matter. See the proceedings of the most recent of the biannual conferences on the evolution of language athttp://stel.ub.edu/evolang2008/proc.htm .
Still no physical evidence for your god PR. Why if you ever found the eternally burning bush you might even get Dawkin to believe in god. Without physical evidence all you have is what is between your ears. Nothing. So run along to the desert and search for it.
I fucking hate those. They’re so…teriolical.
Pete honey, neo-feminist? No worse, cougar. And as for what I wear, well Petey your little sick gawdist mind could never imagine.
Sorry, that should have read so….teriological
The spelling god has hated me ever since since I stopped preying to hymn.
@ Patricia
My screen is awash with the little stars that signify censored words and yet still nastiness pervades the filter and I am required to add them in.
Pete. How old are you? Seriously.
How old?
Twenty-two.
You have a censored computer screen?
Oh man, that is so fucking lame.
Ooooooh here comes an f-word….here it comes….look out…fu…ndamenatlist
My brain censors that one!
Nerd – You’ve got a cootie too! Makes me wonder if the Chimps cooties are related to Tribbles?
To paraphrase the great Master Yoda –
“Dead or not dead. Is no ‘more dead'”
Pete Give me my typo cooties back. I do not want you to have them.
Only twenty two and already a total fool. Excellent work. Maybe in another ten years or so your brain might actually function.
Twenty-two what?
As to Ichthyic – I prefer to see myself as a dove, or perhaps a carrier pigeon (rather than a crow), spreading the word of our Lord.
nope, you’re definitely a Rook(e) alrighty.
http://website.lineone.net/~ssleightholm/dict/glossary/rook.htm
a rook or crow is the perfect image for a death-cultist like yourself.
I always figured that was why you chose the handle you did.
You’re making the baby jesus cry petey.
Did anyone else find this both hilarious and pathetic?
soteriological element
sure he didn’t mean scatological element?
’cause if we’re talking about Pete, a scatologist would find much material to work with in his ramblings.
It’s so lovely with Jelly Meat Pete starts mis-quotin the Holy Babble at me.
Your screen may let this pass,
As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. Proverbs 26:9
Pete restricts himself to seeing only the subset of English that Jesus used.
Yes.
Every time I see Pete posting I go to FSTDT.com and get ready to make a submission or two.
The “Yikes” moment for me when I read the PDF of the handout was that they have no idea that Newtonian physics has been revised by Einstein’s theories. But then, they do not know what a scientific theory is in the first place, so I suppose expecting them to stay on top of current developments (within the last century) of physics is a bit too much to ask.
Their universe (the one in their heads) has a simplicity to it that most of us have outgrown.
Rev BDC, in your spelling of “22” you missed out a hyphen.
Would you kindly restore it?
Damn speling god.
Petey, have you and your Priest discussed installing this software on your computer?
Or this?
Sweet holy mother Isis! Now I have a cootie. with=when.
Chimp powder yourself!
“I go to FSTDT.com and get ready to make a submission or two.”
What of mine was deemed worthy enough to make the cut?
Pompous and priggish simultaneously, that’s our Petey.
Pete you must have done something seriously wrong in a past mind.
Oh, and I had to look up “soteriological” (thanks, I have not learned a new word in at least a week).
Analogies prove nothing, but they’re fun to play with.
“soteriological” refers to the promise of salvation. This has no ante-mortem (pre-death) evidence at all, much less anything one could verify objectively. So, an addiction typically lulls a person with brain-numbing chemicals into failing to do anything to change their (presumably wretched) situation. If the promise of salvation similarly encourages people to put up with a crappy situation (for example, powerful people crapping on them) in return for a ticket to heaven: analogy succeeds. I win! I win!
Gore Vidal once wrote about the history of Christianity that the realization that Christianity was the ideal religion for a society of slaves must have been the biggest “head thunking” moment of all times for Emperor Constantine. “Wow! This religion makes people sheepishly put up with working all day for peanuts and never rebelling against rich bastards who take advantage of them? And all for a promise of a better time in an after-life, which they believe in without any proof?! What were we thinking outlawing this all these years? It’s a gold mine!”
You can keep your promise of salvation, thank you. I’ll take cash.
“I noted that your 2(b) “Moral prescriptions cannot be justified ultimately” is not correctly regarded as a subtype of “Moral prescriptions cannot be justified”, as you proposed – because, as you yourself noted, it is compatible with various kinds of proposed justification (my position being 2(b)+5, 5 being justification in terms of the consequences for others);”
Knockgoats, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here, so let me attempt to clarify my position and see if that gets us anywhere.
One of the responses to my question was that prescriptive moral propositions cannot be justified; to use the jargon of moral philosophers, we can give ‘explanatory reasons’ for them, but not ‘justificatory reasons.’ Now, it’s possible to argue that we cannot give justificatory reasons in two senses: (1) no prescriptive moral proposition can be justified; or (2) *ultimate* prescriptive moral propositions (i.e. what you might call the first principles of a piece of moral reasoning) can’t be justified. According to (1), all moral propositions are without justification e.g. ‘it was wrong for S to kill his wife for the life insurance money’; but according to (2), we may justify the notion that ‘it was wrong for S to kill his wife for the life insurance money’ by appealing to some first principle, e.g. ‘it’s wrong to harm another except in cases of self defense, etc.’ (or whatever); however, it is claimed (and someone on the thread made this claim, but I can’t remember whom), that first principle cannot be justified. So, it seems to me that the broader category is, ‘Moral prescriptions cannot be justified,’ with the subsets being, ‘no moral prescriptions can be justified’ and ‘no moral prescriptions can be justified ultimately,’ i.e. in terms of providing justificatory reasons for their first principles. In other words, the proposition ‘Moral prescriptions cannot be justified’ is ambiguous, and admits these two interpretations (both of which were posited in the thread). Also, I didn’t say that all five responses were compatible; rather, I said that it wasn’t the case that they were all mutually exclusive. Here’s what I wrote:
“These five responses aren’t all mutually exclusive: e.g., one could include (1B) and (2b), **or** (3), (4), and possibly a limited conception of (5), in the same justificatory accounts.”
Note, I’m using the exclusive ‘or’ there, not the inclusive ‘or’! (5) isn’t compatible with (2b) because (5) was presented (by some of the posters on the thread) as an ultimate justification, and my (1) – (5) were just meant to be a summary and a categorization of what the others had said.
“it was illegitimate for you to attempt to rule “out of order” the demand that you produce an argument that ultimate moral justification is possible within theism, since the core of my argument – and that of many others – is precisely that ultimate justification is not logically possible, as it requires deriving an “ought” from an “is”.”
I argued in the thread from my first post that PZ had misconceived the theistic arguments about the relationship between atheism and morality; that it wasn’t the case that theists argue that atheists are immoral, but that atheists — many of whom are far more moral than most theists — cannot adequately ground their moral propositions. The response was decidedly not, “Sure, we can’t ground them, but neither can you”; rather, it was replete with claims that morality can be grounded on non-theistic grounds. A minority expressed the idea that you expressed above. However, as I pointed out, your view above is in agreement with my initial claim, i.e. if the “ultimate justification [of moral propositions] is not logically possible, as it requires deriving an “ought” from an “is,” then it follows necessarily that atheists cannot ground (understood in terms of ‘ultimately ground’) moral propositions, which was precisely my point. Now, to be sure, your claim is broader, i.e. no one can ultimately ground moral claims; however, since so many others — indeed, most others — were arguing that e.g. evolution, harm to others, etc. *can* ultimately ground morality, it seemed premature to move on to the entirely different issue of whether theists can do what we both agree atheists cannot.
N.B. As I made clear to Knockgoats, I’m not now going to respond to a dozen people on this issue, but to Knockgoats alone.
Now now Petey. Where’s that humility you’re supposed to have?
Somebody failed to send me the memo on FSTDT.
Fucking Stupid Toad Dumped Turds?
Choke on that one Jelly Meat Pete.
Perhaps I should drink a glass of wine. Pete’s getting on my delicate nerves.
Patricia
Now you can bake a cootie-pie
The first question about objective truth is a hoot. Asking a philosophical question and acting like only a universe with “god’ in it allow an affirmative answer is intellectually dishonest. The question asked (and applied) properly will not be kind to their ‘god’ or their religion.
Not surprisingly, I looked at the dreadful site and there was an entry from my blog which was completely misrepresented (it was meant to be humorous but made me seem unintelligent). So typical.
What does the bible say about dealing with this petey?
it seemed premature to move on to the entirely different issue of whether theists can do what we both agree atheists cannot.
sorry, fail.
you can’t make Nick’s argument for him.
My screen is awash with the little stars that signify censored words and yet still nastiness pervades the filter and I am required to add them in.
Someone wants to be confused with Ignatius Reilly!
I don’t know, what’s wrong with it? It seems to be from some type of disability site.
Petey, the ignorant, vile and insane things you say here are sometimes hard to distinguish from weak attempts at comedy.
Hence the reason for Poe’s Law.
No Pete, godbots are unintelligent and have no humor. It just made you look like you are.
Job done, Eric. That’s much clearer.
Pete rooke @ 191
No, religion contains an insanity element. I never treated religion as an addiction, but just a form of mental derangement. So, as atheists, are we addicted to reason?
Here’s one. I tried to submit your analogies but I think it was too strange even for them.
Scooter – Don’t tell the Chimp…every time I get one of his cooties I take it out and feed it to the pullets.
They make the loveliest shade of blue eggs. Wonderful in pumpkin pies!
Nice!
Haha actually that does kind of make sense.
Did you like my hyphen joke Rev? God damn that was difficult – oh, sorry, blasphemy laws arriving – Jesus fuck was what I meant…
Now there’s a picture that was worth a paragraph or two to solicit: a godbot trying to talk up his product versus… crack.
But let me think this over: the god pusher sez if I smoke his stuff, I get salvation. The Budweiser people seem to be implying if I drink their stuff, scantily-clad women will throw themselves at me. The cigarette companies, back when they were actually allowed to advertise, it used to be that, long as I don’t mind that whole elevated risk of lung cancer thing, their stuff would assure me I’d excel at windsurfing or parasailing or somesuch thing…
Not one of these claims, of course, is even the least bit credible. (Tho’ to borrow a conceit from a poster above, at least we know windsurfing and women actually exist…)
Anyway, beyond all that, much as it all sounds lovely, I think I’ve just decided what I really want is a pony…
So which of you will offer me this, hmm?
The bidding is now open.
Pathetic Pete whined:
I seem to remember about 5 comments, actually, one of which, I’m proud to say, was mine. In it, I asked if the name of Pete’s blog (or is it bog?), “Religious Thought,” was an oxymoron. A bit impertinent, I’ll admit, but does that really warrant shutting out all who disagree with him? He’s welcome to do what he likes, of course, but it’s hard to take him seriously.
Barb @ 89, if you are still here and have not gone berserk with all the deserved ridicule.
Of course I can answer in the affirmative to all of your smarmy questions, especially about feeling superior to morons who believe in imaginary gods. How can you not feel superior to lame brains who believe and delve their lives into such nonsense? If I tried to convince you that the easter bunny is real, wouldn’t you have cause for my mental state? After all, we have pictures of the easter bunny, whether in fantasy illustrations or real live rabbits portrayed as such. Your imaginary god is also portrayed, but likely so as a human, as you cannot envision this thing in any other form. Why isn’t it a toadstool or slime mold? wouldn’t it be your same god in any form? Let’s see your god and prove that it may not be a rutabaga or a cow turd.
Eric the Casuist:
And I’m going to provide a link to that thread as a public service, you evasive jerk, so people who see it will know not to waste time on you in the future:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/radio_reminder_49.php
Pete Rooke said:
But…
“No animals have all the aspects of human language, but several species have some. Diana monkeys, seen in Clever Monkeys, are some of the most clever monkeys when it comes to language. They combine calls to make sentence-like messages. This requires grammar. The meaning of the “sentence” depends on what sounds are included and in what order. Added sounds convey more information, like “maybe,” or “not urgent.” Each predator has an assigned call. The eagle call differs from the jaguar call, meaning Diana monkey language includes semantics: signals convey meaning
and refer to features in the real world. And what’s more impressive is that the Diana monkeys can understand other species of monkeys. Putty-nosed guenons also combine calls, and their messages can be understood by the Diana monkeys. A remarkable example of multilingual primates is seen in Clever Monkeys, with eight different monkey species living together and listening to each other. With eight times as many eyes on the lookout, it’s much harder for predators to go unnoticed. Each of the eight species has at least 15 distinct calls — that’s 120 different sounds to remember. There aren’t many humans that speak eight different languages. “
Truly AnthonyK thou art not ‘well versed’. That kitten is a heathen.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Isaiah 6:10.
Clearly the kitten is cursed because it tried to see, hear and think. Unlike Pete.
Sorry, I should have mentioned that’s from a Nature episode called Clever Monkeys
#245, nice.
I think that’s a little bit of an exaggeration, isn’t it, hmmm?
Barb didn’t last long. I do hope it wasn’t anything we said.
Fail.
I have seen film of a gorilla using sign language in a coherent manner.
There are parrots who talk and make sense. I know for sure, I’ve met them. One parrot I worked with greeted everyone it knew by name, correctly, every time and asked you to “come’ere” to get a head scratch. Another one who yelled “pizza, pizza” until you gave it a crust from your pizza, when offered a baby pickle looked at it doubtfully and asked “is it good?’ Best of all is Alex, a parrot who LIES!
It hasn’t been proven yet, but there’s every reason to believe whales, dolphins and crows “talk”.
Godbots, on the other hand, mostly regurgitate.
I am not sure what Pete Rooke considers to be his purpose in coming here. Masochism? Because no one possessing a real brain could possibly take him seriously. But look at the bright side. Every minute spent fruitlessly here is a minute that won’t be spent poisoning the mind of a child.
“And I’m going to provide a link to that thread as a public service, you evasive jerk, so people who see it will know not to waste time on you in the future”
As I said, if I don’t respond to each post a dozen people write, I’m somehow ‘evasive’ and a waste of time. (Incidentally, Knockgoats wrote to me on that thread, so he/she apparently disagrees with you.) Please. I can’t make responses on this blog into a full time job, which is what it would be if I felt obliged to respond to each an every post. You know as well as I do how many responses theists get when they post here; limiting my responses to one or to a few people is a perfectly reasonable approach. (Actually, it’s the one PZ himself takes, isn’t it? Is he ‘evasive’ and a ‘waste of time’?) BTW, Knockgoats is, by any measure, far more intelligent than you are, and has a much stronger grasp of the relevant issues, so it’s not as if he/she won’t raise points you would — and far better ones, I might add.
Kel wrote:
I’m curious… Do you get why Ray Comfort believes the crazy shit he believes?
Petes idea that animals don’t talk is stupid. My chickens do it everyday.
They purr a sleeping code at night on the roost. When they lay an egg they cluck joyously for a minute or two. They chirp in solidarity with one another as they graze and gossip in a group. If a hawk or cat threatens them the Red Alert! calls are unmistakable.
Mother horses wiffle softly to a foal and it responds instantly. Does tell their fawns to drop and freeze. Gawd didn’t give us anything special, any adult can make a child freeze in it’s tracks. Our brains just gave us a more exquisite language than animals.
@152: I would pay good money to see Dawkins actually say that and then yell PSYCH.
@253: No one ever explained to him that Santa Claus isn’t real. (I personally only figured it out after not attending church for several years.)
(Actually, it’s the one PZ himself takes, isn’t it? Is he ‘evasive’ and a ‘waste of time’?)
Eric: Master of false equivalency and poor analogies.
*yawn*
There were probably three or four of us in that discussion, which, incidentally, you initiated.
He. What the fuck are you talking about?
That was at least the second thread on which you exhibited that behavior. Here’s another, with a slight tactical variation:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/what_do_you_imagine_rick_warre.php
It’s fucking obvious.
No, it isn’t. Hell, even Dr. Jay “You’re All Mean” Gordon usually answers numerous comments. And responding to the questions on that thread would be responding to a “few people.” You have an inflated sense of the interest in defending against your sophistry.
Like you would know. And insulting my intelligence isn’t evasive at all. No, you’re not at all transparent. Really.
Steven Dunlap #222
I read this and thought of Joe Hill’s The Preacher and the Slave.
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how ’bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.
…
As I said, if I don’t respond to each post a dozen people write
so, being the liar and hypocrite you are, you of course chose to respond to that one.
LOL
what a pathetic waste of space.
Eric – You’re so smart, tell me, is there anyway you could be more of an ass?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Patricia, you finally got called a “v” word? Took long enough. As working sluts, vulgarity is our stock in trade.
Congratulations!
*snort as well*. I find it ridiculous and absurd that Christians ask if we atheists have read the bible. Most of have, and in fact (and ironically) are well-versed in the scripture (know your enemy–so to speak). I have read the bible, and honestly reading it was what made me an atheist (coupled with the fact that religion is a pack of superstitious lies). Also, I am getting really tired of Christians assuming we atheists are full of hatred. We’ve got better things to do than hate god, or hate those who love their invisible master. Nice post PZ! (as always!!)
Patricia, you finally got called a “v” word?
“V” word? What “v” word? I missed it.
Someone called her a “virgin”?
Did Pete jesusfuck off?
Hmmm. *quiet satisfaction*
“Eric – You’re so smart, tell me, is there anyway you could be more of an ass?”
Absolutely. I could ask you this question:
Patricia, If I were to ask you out on a date, would your answer to that question be the same as your answer to this question?
You’ve gotta admit, even if you don’t like me, that that line is baller.
Wow, looks like i just walked into a food fight worthy of a Marx Brothers movie – if it was directed by the Marquis de Sade. I’ll just turn around and walk away very quickly.
Steve Dunlap @222- I enjoyed your comments about Gore Vidal. I had/have quite an experience with Norman Mailers ‘Ancient Evenings”. It was given to me as a gift by my grandmother – so I couldn’t throw it away, and I was duty bound to read it.
As a good christian I was so disgusted by the book I threw it on the floor several times. Once when one of my brothers was thrown in jail for being drunk and stupid, I sent the book to him, thinking a captive would read it for lack of anything to do. When he got out, he brought the book back to me and said, “Here, it’s too high for me.”
It’s stunning what can be said and done in the name of religion.
Ichthyic,
Just sent off a missive.
Okay, strike out “de Sade” and put “Samuel Beckett.”
We’ve got better things to do than hate god, or hate those who love their invisible master.
I only hate what they try to impose on others.
Them, I feel sorry for. Thinking they have some eternal life keeps them from truly living this one.
They fail to understand the wonder of it all.
You’ve gotta admit, even if you don’t like me, that that line is baller.
nope, it’s smarmy and pedantic at best.
Eric – I’m married, so I don’t date. But if I did, I would only consider dates with men.
Toads and boys need not apply.
Sorry to every man on the thread that saw that reply to a twelve year old coming. *rolls eyes*
Patricia, I am sure you will never date.
No idea. Law of probability?
Damn it, I missed Pete Rooke again? Damn my busy Fringe festival schedule.
“There were probably three or four of us in that discussion”
Kel + Sastra + Knockgoats + ScottHatfield + castletonsnob + LeeHarrison + aratina + KenCope +SC,OM + JafafaHots + Matt = 3 or 4 people?! (Note, there were others who asked me questions or who directed remarks to me that I didn’t evel list here.)
Methinks you need to work on your arithmetic.
“is there anyway you could be more of an *ass*?”
“Eric – I’m married, so I don’t date. But if I did, I would only consider dates with men.
*Toads and boys* need not apply.”
Ah, but you said nothing about asses! There’s still a chance!
Hey rookie, you see yourself as a pigeon? How lofty. I see you more like a vulture-though that would be a disrespect to vultures, that fill an important niche in the nature. If all vultures one day disappeared, that would be a problem. If all internet trolls one day went away, I’d have a beer.
I am amused by such bold claims, like language can’t have evolve. How many Neanderthals have you met exactly, knowing they didn’t have language? Oh, your entire family. Never mind.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothingness is the lowest-entropy state, and as such, unstable. It’s like tossing a coin and wondering why it doesn’t fall on its edge. Someone around here was asking questions about thermodynamics.
I have some advice for you, though I know it’s way over your head: you don’t like to be mocked, don’t troll the internet.
Anyone can read that thread and see the number of people genuinely involved with the discussion (as opposed to throwing out a random comment or two – which I often do myself and am not dissing – just saying no one expects anyone to respond to absolutely everything tossed out there).
You asked a series of questions in your last post there (in which you had no problem attempting to summarize the arguments that had been made to you, even if you did so dishonestly and stupidly), and people took their time to respond. Then you arrogantly bailed on the thread, only to show up here. Obnoxious.
You need to work on your evasion.
Speaking of Scott Hatfield, is there any other theist who posts here who isn’t an asshole? Seriously. Scott Hatfield manages to be provocative and challenging without being at all annoying. Is there, or has there been, anyone else?
Eric:
You’ve crossed swords with SC. This does not bode well for you. In this battle of wits, you’re out-womaned.
“You’ve crossed swords with SC. This does not bode well for you. In this battle of wits, you’re out-womaned.”
By someone who thinks 11 = 3 or 4? You can’t be serious.
I really didn’t get what point Eric was trying to make in that thread. It seemed all he was trying to do was find a gap in the explanation for morality to shove God into as if that gap deems god a necessity.
Janine – I’ve been envious of your Vile, but now that I have my Vulgar, I feel ever so much better.
Is his name Norm Coleman? Retired head of chaplains of US Navy. I don’t know if he’s ever commented here, but he posts at Brayton’s blog.
Cool, thought-provoking, reasonable guy.
*blushes* High praise indeed, coming from you.
Honestly, though, I’d much rather not have this conversation at all. I simply want Eric to return to that thread and engage with the points that have been addressed to him. Morality is something I’m serious about. I work on it. I care about it. If Eric has an argument, I want him to make it clearly – it may be add to my knowledge. Evasion really gets under my skin. It’s like saying “I started this discussion, but I’m not really interested in the substantive issue as it relates to people’s lives.” That makes me angry.
By someone who thinks 11 = 3 or 4? You can’t be serious.
could you possibly get more pedantic?
pa-the-tic.
SC has you nailed at evasive, without even having to work at it.
go away, you bore.
That makes me angry.
…and you wouldn’t like her when she’s angry.
Eric – You are playing on my well known fondness for Asses. And I take you to task on skipping over Ken Cope, as a renown judge of shapely asses.
OT
Woo-hoo, I do the 300 mile drive tomorrow to hear the Dawkins lecture.
*Incites Envy*
Ummm, can anyone help me out with the Pharynguloid secret handshake??
It’s what Eric is good at – evasion. It’s late, Eric will do his dance no matter what.
(I know how brilliant you are, SC, after all, I’m a hard won fan)
Buona notte all.
Norm Holcolm? (from quick googling)
“Evasion really gets under my skin. It’s like saying “I started this discussion, but I’m not really interested in the substantive issue as it relates to people’s lives.” That makes me angry.”
I didn’t start it, PZ did. I responded to him, remember?
If I’m engaging with Knockgoats, I’m not evading the issue. All I’m refusing to do is to debate with a dozen people at once. If you see an important point that needs to be addressed in my discussion with Knockgoats, ask him/her to bring it up. It’s really that simple. Or, since I’m going to be online for a few more minutes, if you have a specific question you want to ask me right now about the issue, go for it, and I’ll do my best to respond.
Er, Holcomb.
‘Night, E.V.! (And, belatedly, Knockgoats!)
Norm Holcolm?
Yah, he’s the one.
Sorry, should have googled him myself.
That fellow’s views are worth pondering.
No. Return to that thread (when you can) and answer the responses, questions, and arguments that were put to you, at the expense of our time and energy. It’s that simple. And everyone knows it.
(I’ll note that his response to Kg here was as evasive as ever. Knock will no doubt chew him up and spit him out in the morning, but it shouldn’t be left unsaid tonight.)
eric @293, excuses and demands don’t obscure the evasion one bit. Feeble excuses and risible demands, at that.
Dammit! Three tries to get it right.
Holcomb.
SC: “just saying no one expects anyone to respond to absolutely everything tossed out there”
SC: “No. Return to that thread (when you can) and answer the responses, questions, and arguments that were put to you, at the expense of our time and energy. It’s that simple. And everyone knows it.”
Everyone knows it — except you, er, and perhaps you. Are you schizophrenic? Which is it? Am I not expected to respond to everything, or am I expected to respond to anyone who takes the time to write a response? Or, am I perhaps only obligated to respond to those whom *you* arbitrarily categorize as “genuinely involved in the conversation”? I say ‘arbitrarily’ because you on the one hand suggest that the criterion is taking the time to write a response, and on the other claim that not every response need be responded to.
I offered a response, in good faith after all your insults, to any question you had, and it was you who ‘evaded’ here –and quite clearly, I might add.
Thanks, kamaka. I will check him out.
“Feeble excuses and risible demands, at that.”
Feeble? John, I took you to be one of the most intelligent and fair minded people on this blog, so I’m surprised to see you engaged in this silly piling on. I counted *at least* 11 people who asked me *at least* two legitimate questions (actually, they posted at least two responses with numerous questions and complications in each post) on that thread, and I tried to respond to most of them, but you know what, it’s too much. Different lines of reasoning, similar terms being used differently, etc. It’s ridiculous. It’s much easier, and much more effective, to respond to one person at a time. I’m sorry if you don’t think that this is reasonable.
“[T]he responses, questions, and arguments that were put to you” encompasses a fairly obvious group of substantive comments. If you’re honestly unsure about whether a comment is addressed to you in a serious way, you can always ask or try to clarify.
Disingenuous beyond belief. And you, again, had no trouble attempting to synthesize and group the comments earlier. Now they’re conveniently isolated and individual.
Disingenuous dishonest asshole.
What you could and should have done all fucking along is respond to my comments on the earlier thread. Why the hell should I have to recreate and abbreviate them here? Who the hell do you think you are?
Go back to the earlier thread and engage with the arguments. It doesn’t have to be tonight (I’m tired, too). But it’s the only honest course of action.
Make the shape of a double helix by entwining tentacles with the other person.
Oh… was I not supposed to say that? I meant *ahem* clasp hands and tickle each others palm with middle finger. Tentacles? That would be silly. Humans don’t have tentacles. Nope. No tentacles. Nothing to see here. Move along.
We have a new chew-toy?
Yay!
Eric: “how about this, in the interest of economy: bring up the the point you think is most important and I’ll address that. BTW, if you do choose to go this route, I’ll only be responding to you (again, in the interest of economy).”
Knockgoats: “Eric,
**Fair enough** – although it will have to be a (quite briefly stated) position rather than a single point.”
SC: “Go back to the earlier thread and engage with the arguments. It doesn’t have to be tonight (I’m tired, too). But it’s the only honest course of action.”
What KG says is ‘Fair enough,’ you say is dishonest. Why can’t you just concede that intelligent, fair minded people can disagree about the ‘best’ approach here? I made a *suggestion* to KG, and he/she accepted; you’re trying to dictate what I do, by apparently appealing to some objective moral standard (“it’s the **only** honest course of action) — interesting!
This place is really interesting after a cuple of LaFogata margaritaas.
And yet instead of clarifying your terms you obviously have plenty of time to spend on this thread metawanking. Evidence of your priorities here.
Make the shape of a double helix by entwining tentacles with the other person.
No one else reading this understands. The secret is safe with me.
Eric:
I think you have a fair point re the number of people. While there are some virtuosos who can answer 6 people or more at once, it’s not a standard ability. I give you credit for playing Christian to the lions in the first place.
However, I do think you ought to move back to the “Radio reminder” thread, which was directly related to the topic of naturalist morality. If nothing else, it makes it easier to look back at prior points. This thread is on Dawkins and maybe about 4 other things.
Eric, I thought you were off to a good start with the apology in #48, but you are not doing yourself favors with this “I’ll only respond to Knockgoats” thing. If you didn’t think SC was worth responding to, why didn’t you say so in the morality thread?
I don’t blame you for being overwhelmed, but consider that you have derided people in the past for “googling” for answers when they didn’t immediately respond to you – that and similar dismissive comments might explain why people here are not inclined to be sympathetic towards you when you don’t have time to respond?
My suggestion to you is to read something on the evolution of morality, not for an ultimate justification of morality but because you don’t seem to have a very good idea of what kinds of hypotheses are involved. It’s not just about “strategies”. Something by Frans de Waal would be a good start.
This is an extremely rare occasion on which I disagree with him (though I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was saying “fair enough” with regard to himself). It wasn’t at all fair enough, honest, or justifiable in any way.
The rest of us did not. (If you return to that thread and look at what’s been posted in the past few hours, you’ll see that I’m not alone in my request. I suspect Kg will agree that your return to the earlier thread is to be preferred, though I won’t presume to speak for him.) Evasive jerk is evasive.
You should elaborate on that thought, relating it to the previous discussion. On the earlier fucking thread.
Eric,
Easier, I guess. You can see how effective it is…
What I think is that you’ve written a fair few posts justifying why you don’t care to/are too busy to respond to responses to your comments, yet you’re responding to my opinion.
I’m supposed to think this is reasonable? Heh.
“[T]he responses, questions, and arguments that were put to you” encompasses a fairly obvious group of substantive comments. If you’re honestly unsure about whether a comment is addressed to you in a serious way, you can always ask or try to clarify.”
Ah, if that’s the criteria (a substantive comment addressed in a serious way that someone took the time and energy to write) we can remove Ken Cope from the list, but must add Jon, Richard Harris, Co, Roger, Anri, Windy, Malcolm, Redgreeninblue, Blueindependent, and Peter Mckellar. So, removing Ken and adding the rest, we’ve now gone from 11 to 21 — i.e. from roughly one dozen to closer to two dozen — which supports my point, not yours. Or are you prepared to say that their comments weren’t ‘substantive’?
You’re making your case harder to defend, not easier!
Old list for reference: Kel + Sastra + Knockgoats + ScottHatfield + castletonsnob + LeeHarrison + aratina + [KenCope] +SC,OM + JafafaHots + Matt
Additions, given new criteria: + Jon + Richard Harris + Co + Roger + Anri + Windy + Malcolm + Redgreeninblue + Blueindependent + Peter Mckellar
If you could go back to that thread and just clarify what the fuck you were trying to say, that would be super. I’m really not seeing where you are coming from at all, and any requests for clarification were ignored.
“You should elaborate on that thought, relating it to the previous discussion. On the earlier fucking thread.”
“However, I do think you ought to move back to the “Radio reminder” thread, which was directly related to the topic of naturalist morality. If nothing else, it makes it easier to look back at prior points.”
If, when KG responds, he says he prefers to move the discussion to the earlier thread, I have no problem with that at all. However, I’m not responding to 20+ people at once — sorry.
Eric,
Add kamaka to your list.
You are blathering and avoiding saying anything substantive.
“Ad hominem” comes to mind.
Here’s a suggestion:
Since several of those people (how much time did it take you to list them? how could this have been used more productively here? how disingenuous can you be?) don’t seem to be around, why don’t you start with those of us who are around now and/or frequently: off the top of my head, Sastra, Kel, Ken, me, Knockgoats, and windy? Again, feel free to synthesize, summarize, or group our posts as needed and as you did before. On the earlier thread.
I would think, Eric, that if this were an issue about which you cared passionately, you would be leaving this bickering aside and returning to the other thread to hash it out.)
“Talk to the goat.” Typical Christian.
I find it funny how much effort Eric has gone to in order to explain why he’s not being evasive as opposed to answering any questions on the topic at hand. The best way to show one isn’t evasive is not to protest but to demonstrate by answering questions.
I find it funny how much effort Eric has gone to in order to explain why he’s not being evasive
you mean he’s being evasive on substantive issues by spending time defending not being evasive.
yup.
that’s what trolls do.
PZ Meyers, I have two questions I’d like to ask:
1. Have you given any thought to Theistic Evolution (evolution as the process, guided by God, to “create” the universe). I assume you’ve heard of it, but guess you give that no consideration.
2. Have you read Dinesh D’Souza’s book “What’s so Great about Christianity?”, and if so, what is your opinion of his “debunking” of Richard Dawkins and the like?
‘head slams on key board’
dfkilkfglkngfdikohokdlbibnlokjbo/hgebrfkndbiekdljnthasnervlkanlrkvnl/orlkdeldk/Nsnfroklhoaekhglo/ajrkngvlkrjnenl/knfrdalfrkajlfrajlk/
http://toofar.tv
Myers, everyone knows what an idiot ur, and now you just confirm it yet agen
Oh my gosh. From the noob’s site:
http://donnysramblings.com/2008/11/05/baracks-in-office-how-many-of-you-are-getting-abortions/
Poll: “Now that a Pro-Choice President will be in office, will you be getting an abortion?”
Oh yeah, my wife and I will be getting pregnant every 3 months just so we can undergo unnecessary medical procedures! I figure we can do it 16 times, if we hurry! We’d do it even more, but we like to wait until the very last part of the first trimester, for an extra dose of arbitrary evil!
Donny @321, are you lazy or just ignorant? This is the internet, the answers are easy to find.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
Oh, The Shame,
You missed the point of that post, didn’t you? It went right.over.your.head.
My post was tongue in cheek. It pisses me off that most Christians make a candidate’s opinions on abortion such an issue when they vote. With so many Christians up in arms about Obama’s opinions on abortion, I asked how many of them would now be getting one. The obvious message to ALMOST any reader (I would have said “every reader”, but you make that not possible) is that it’s not a President who decides whether or not a person will have an abortion.
Duh.
@Mr_Fabulous
Learn to spell first before you decide to ridicule somebody – it makes you looks less like a n00b.
@Oh, The Shame
You just have me a brilliant idea: What if for every 10th abortion, you get an awesome organizer like the one from Starbucks, except it’s covered in genuine aborted fetus skins. Sign me up!
John Morales,
The link you posted only proves that PZ knew the book would be released, not that he’s actually read it.
theistic evolution – for creationists who recognise common ancestry. ;)
grammarchecked:
*You just have me a brilliant idea*
@Donny
I’m assuming you’re a Poe?
Twin-Skies,
I am Christian who believes evolution is the process an Intelligent God used to create the universe.
Since you’re new, I’ll introduce you to Poe’s Law.
Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. That is Cosmology.
@Donny
Yes, I’m sure worms that burrows into the eyes of innocent little children is all in God’s great plan. Praise the lord!
Thanks for the link, OTS
Donny @329: Quite so, the link to that May, 2007 post only shows PZ is aware of the book and its thesis, and has an opinion. I doubt that, if PZ has since read it*, that opinion would be any more approbatory (the opposite, rather).
—
* As to why PZ should read what he considers dreck, and why you appear to think he would be influenced by such, those are mysteries of your mind.
Twin-Skies,
An understanding of free will explains that.
The link you posted only proves that PZ knew the book would be released, not that he’s actually read it.
his point stands, though.
It indeed sounds as if you are too lazy to use the internet to answer your own questions.
You didn’t ask me (so feel free to ignore this if you wish), but since you posted your question publicly, I’d have to say that D’souza is a second rate philosopher at best, and his musings have been trashed by everybody with half a brain from Hitch to PZ.
If PZ hasn’t read the book (though I think he actually has, poor guy), on reading d’souza’s arguments laid out in debates and on his site, there is little point TO reading the book. It’s simple poor thinking at best, with preconceived conclusions he finds “evidence” to try and cram into. Square pegs in round holes and all.
If you’re curious, why not pick one of d’shithead’s primary arguments you find persuasive, and post it here so someone with time on their hands can show you that they are little more than shiny glass baubles filled with crap.
I have yet to see a good argument from him, so you probably can pick any one at random if you don’t have a favorite.
I’m sure there will be plenty to refer you to previous trashings, if they don’t wish to volunteer their own.
as to theistic evolution, I always liked Moran’s take on it:
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html
and the main underlying point is…
why bother with irrelevancies? we don’t need theism of any kind to explain abiogenesis or evolution, just like we don’t need theism to explain thunder and lightning.
Donny Pauling, before you burst in, issuing challenges that has been issued many times before, check the contents of the blog. There is a search engine in the upper right hand corner.
Oh, no! Now Dinesh D’Souza is after me!
Dinesh D’Souza is a contemptible ghoul.
This should answer your questions. Also, a little note, PZ’s last name is spelled “Myers”.
@Donny: Sorry for the quick reactionary attitude on my part, you actually seem genuinely interested in the topic. It’s been a bit of a zoo here lately, and the repetition often gets rather silly. :-)
Please take a look through the rest of the talk.origins archive. There’s quite a bit of useful (factual) information on there, complete with citations, explanations of why we know the things we do, from experts in their respective areas, etc.
John Morales @337:
I think you misunderstand my reasons for asking. I’ll spell it out for you: if he has read the book, I can ask questions without having to elaborately type out some of the thoughts D’Souza shares in his book. If he has not, a little background information would need “repeating” first.
Simple enough, right?
Hmmm, or maybe I spoke too soon…
That’s just it. Putting a god as the guiding force in nature is not evolution, it’s obfuscated creationism. God guiding evolution bastardises both God and evolutionary theory. The way Ken Miller reconciles the two is a far more plausible approach – though personally I still disagree with it.
Janine @340:
I’m sure you’re bombarded with Christians who think they’re going to come to this site and ask “ah ha” questions that turn the light on and make you all fall on your knees, accepting Jesus as your savior. Please know that is not what this particular newbie envisions. In fact, I am confident I am quite out of my league.
I am asking questions simply because I want to know the answers.
For example, I have watched Dawkins for hours on Youtube. He’s very likable and witty. He’s very good at explaining WHAT has happened, but I have yet to hear him give a good reason for WHY.
I feel that any “faith” should be able to stand up to all objections thrown at it, and as a Christian I am constantly looking for reasons NOT to “believe”. So far, such reasons haven’t been found.
Also, Janine @340, the provided links still don’t answer the question. But thanks for attempting to assist.
Donny @342,
Indeed.
You want to defend D’Souza’s arguments, but don’t want to type them out – IOW, you apparently want us to refute D’Souza by proxy, you being the proxy, but the lazy way.
You will find little respect for the thoughts of Distort D’Newsa here. Those links I provided should show that.
This may not have crossed your mind, but perhaps, John @347, I just might have been naïve enough to think PZ himself actually responds in comment form here on his blog and was therefore asking the question of HIM. Yes, I know, I know… it is unthinkable that an author should (gasp) respond to questions or get into discussions on his own website. What was I thinking?
:)
The way Ken Miller reconciles the two is a far more plausible approach – though personally I still disagree with it.
ditto, and likely for the same reason.
It’s going back to the square peg in a round hole analogy.
why do all the mental gymnastics to even try to add on unnecessary baggage?
Just because he can rationalize it enough to maintain a workable level of compartmentalization never suggested to me that his arguments along those lines were ever of pragmatic value to science.
That said, Miller’s musings obviously may be of pragmatic value to those, like Ken, who have religion rattling in their skulls, but that’s an entirely separate issue. It’s also an issue that an atheist, not having to rationalize the extra baggage, would defacto also see little value in spending time on; beyond simple curiosity.
As far as the “culture war” is concerned, I see Miller and Collins playing a certain tactical role in moving a few fundies from the creationist to theistic evolutionist position (though I might actually describe Collins as more of a “special creationist”), but beyond that I see the arguments as mostly empty rhetoric, and as a distraction from the underlying issues.
So…
I am confident atheists here have scientifically satisfying reasons to explain WHAT has happened in our universe, with the faith that whatever has not yet been explained WILL be explained. I can accept that. Humans are very inquisitive and will figure things out given enough time.
But what is your opinion as an atheist (question open to any and all) on WHY, for example, we would even care about survival of our species?
So far, such reasons haven’t been found.
believe what you want, nobody really cares.
Here’s the kicker, though, and why there are good reasons NOT to “believe” in fairy tales as if they were real:
cognitive dissonance.
maintaining a fantasy world as if it were real often causes one to begin to construct unhealthy psychological barriers (typically symptomatically shown by repeated use of projection and denial) in order to “protect” the fantasy world from dissipation by actual real-world observation.
sometimes this can get REALLY bad, and cause delusional thinking or mental breakdown.
OTOH, theistic evolution is watered down religion to the point where one has minimized the need for maintaining a high level of dissonance.
Still, that said, why bother?
what do you NEED religion for?
But what is your opinion as an atheist (question open to any and all) on WHY, for example, we would even care about survival of our species?
enlightened self interest.
simple.
you might want to check out this site:
http://www.naturalism.org/
It will give you a starter on how entire philosophies and worldviews can be constructed without reference to any deities whatsoever.
It should answer at least some of your curiosity.
Ichthyic @352,
Having only recently entered the conversation, I assume your post was directed at me. Please forgive me if that is not the case.
What do I NEED religion for? I don’t particularly feel the “need” for religion. But I do like things to make sense. And it makes no sense to me why animals (including humans), or any other form of life for that matter, would CARE if their species survived. WHY do we care?
Not to be too reductionist about it, but really it comes down to being programmed to care. Our genes are immortal and they do what they can to survive. So why do we care? Because it’s impossible for us not to!
Ichthyic @#353,
It’s very late. Would you care to just give a brief cliff-notes version in response to the question I ask (“Why?”, see #354).
I’ll read through the site to which you linked tomorrow, when my brain is fresh.
Kel @#355,
“Because it’s impossible for us not to!”
I don’t find that to be a satisfying answer. But since you did mention being “programmed to care” I will state that I, too, believe we are programmed to care… but something with intelligence, which I choose to refer to as “God”.
(oops, left out a word in #357 – last line, as I’m sure you can guess, should have been “but BY something with intelligence…”)
We are programmed by evolution. Remember that each one of us is along a 4 billion year lineage – it pays to survive. Every lifeform in it’s DNA is but a carrier in order to pass on the genes. If you don’t find it satisfying, fair enough. But don’t take your personal lack of satisfaction as having God as being part of the process. All life is but a survival machine for the immortality of the code passed on. No reason to invoke God, it’s just placing far too much significance in your own existence.
Eric the half-bee @16:
Nicely put.
You’re probably right.
And you were doing so well …
Again, Kel @#359, that is quite unsatisfying. “It pays to survive” makes no sense. WHY does it pay to survive? WHAT made it “pay to survive” at the beginning of time?
This is a really big flaw in atheist belief systems, in my opinion.
Getting praise from Piltdown man is a sure-fire sign you are saying something wrong.
ronan @ 29:
An act of faith?
Andysin @ 38:
You’re begging the question. All we can say is that the probability that life EXISTS on this planet is indeed 1.
Quite simply, if it didn’t pay to survive then we wouldn’t be here. There’s no consciousness, no forward planning, but surely you can appreciate the role reproduction plays in nature. A salmon will swim for thousands of miles in order to mate, and die thereafter. The chance of a salmon surviving is about 1 in 3000. There are insects who will eat the male after copulating. So why does the male do that? Because the male can pass on it’s genes to another generation. Likewise it may sound unsatisfying, but we have a vested interest in our offspring and protecting them as they grow up. We have to be hard-wired to do that otherwise there’d be no evolutionary reason to reproduce – children are a huge investment of resources.
that’s not really part of the “atheist belief system” (as if there were such a thing, it’s just what biology teaches us.
AJ Milne @ 56:
What are NRMs?
+++
Allen N @ 130:
The Ten Commandments.
There’s a fundamental logical flaw when you make the leap from “I find this emotionally unsatisfying” to “this can’t be right”. Specifically, it involves assuming that you are God, and the universe must conform to your desires.
Kel @3365,
“We have to be hard-wired to do that otherwise there’d be no evolutionary reason to reproduce”
Um… that could just as easily be spoken by a Theist. In fact, it makes even more sense if it is.
“We have to be hard-wired”
And how did that hard-wiring happen?
We are hard-wired to do a lot of things.
Through a process of mutation, and selection; just like everything else in evolution. If you have a new mechanism, please show evidence that another explanation is at play.
“Of course, the whole problem with bothering to argue with these people is that they won’t accept any of the answers, and will just start repeating the questions at you, at greater length. I’ve been on that merry-go-round before.”
Exactly. I have been posting on Comforts Blog for a few days. It is fun but you described the substance of all the christians arguments perfectly. Some of them sound like they are otherwise decently educated, but most of them are dumber than dirt.
It is fun though. I enjoy trying to figure out which ones are going to tell me I am going to burn in hell and which ones are going to ask me to “humbly ask jesus to open my mind.” It is usually an easy guess but sometimes they surprise me.
What the hell is an atheist belief system? And interestingly, you wrote that in plural–you think there are multiple atheist belief systems? What’s the difference between them?
Do you think that Odin exists, Donny? If not, why not? And, more to the point, if you’re atheic regarding Odin, do you view your non-acceptance of Odin as a belief system? Seriously? I doubt that you do.
Perhaps Zeus and the Olympian gods might be a better example? The more polytheistic the better, for Dunny to more easily refute. If he can. Given that he denies evolution, such a denial isn’t going to be based on anything such as reality… evidence…
At least with the Greco-Roman gods it’s possible to get some insight into their characters and motivations, in order to work out what their “belief system” might have looked like. With good old Jahweh/Jehovah/Allah, it’s like looking into the deranged mind of a mass murderer…
@ Piltdown, you faux fossil;
from a quick Google, NRM in that context might mean:
Natural Resource Management
National Review of Medicine
National Resistance Movement
Otherwise, I don’t think the Ten Commandments are very useful beyond motherhood statements (“thou shalt not kill”… well, derrr!) or psychotic ravings of sexually-aberrant Gods (“thou shalt have no other Dogs beside me!”… what about underneath in a submissive position then?)
Anyway what I actually think he (AJ Milne @ #56, that is) meant, was the first interpretation.
@ Eric: if you’re only going to temporise and fart around, rather than actually answer the questions of KG, SC, et al., then why don’t you do us all a favour and FUCK OFF instead.
Piltdown @366:
And why is the Big 10 better? The words of the FSM seem somewhat more constructive than the Big 10. I mean, the first 4 of the 10 are an exclusivity agreement, #5 is a good idea but not always appropriate, so you’ve 5 left.
Piltdown-
that is exactly correct.
We all possess a faith so powerful that nothing could persuade us of the other.
I refer you to the fact we are not in fact solipsists. We have faith that there exists other minds outside of ourselves.
A leap of faith as it were.
Gargantuan.
I, therefore, am not alone in my faith
among those in this forum
but together
for as surely as the bell tolls.
And, let it not be said,
that it is we, the ones who profess this faith,
loudly and proudly
who are delusional
If it is I who is delusional
it is as surely as night follows day
And day follows night
that we are All, together, delusional!
The God Delusion should, therefore, read The Fundamental Condition or Nature of Humanity that I, Richard Dawkins, Consider to be Delusional.
Re #373: ‘new reproductive method’. But in fairness, I note Wikipedia doesn’t even do that one….
And Peter, dearie, I have to say I find it really rather more a brassy, clanging, poorly-tempered gong, myself–not so much a tolling bell… Ugly, cheap, false sound, really…
Makes even Oldfield’s ‘Tubular Bells’ sound like high art.
But then, let’s face it: your gift for poetic metaphor is roughly as sound as your talent for reason.
Petey boy:
The Fundamental Condition?? You’ve got to be fuckin’ kidding me. Gods come, gods go each as real as their believers make them.
What’s with the random caps?
The fact that you have only “faith” to support your version of a deity might indeed argue for delusion.
Petey…
You might want to ponder the fact that Ra was real for the Egyptians. Every bit as real as your version. The same can be said for Athena and Thor. In what important way do they differ from your version of Deity 2.1?
… Ah yes, I see: I should have done ‘NRT’, or ‘New Reproductive Technology’…
Not sure I can blame the King Of Typos for this one, tho’… Presumably some sorta neuronal flux with ‘New Religious Movement’, which also comes up in these fora.
So everybody believes that other minds exist beside themselves, i.e. people. Pete also believes in an invisible magician. I’m not seeing the symmetry.
Can you still call it mental masturbation when the person can’t even get a mental woodie?
ShitFuckDamn, Pete Rooke, you’re going to rub that sucker raw before it stiffens up, if it ever does (has it ever?).
My $0.02 on arguing with delusional fucktards (or faith heads or whatever you want to call them): It’s not so much about trying to change the minds of the fucktard, but to be a good example for the audience, some of whom may be wavering (I was an almost-atheist before I finally just got tired of the whole stupid circular reasoning thing and stopped bothering about the not-really-a-question); or some of whom may simply need a good example to encourage them to voice their atheistic position.
Donny Pauling @ 351,
First, I am an atheist but that in and of itself has little to do with the answer.
As an enlightened self aware animal I happen to be able to connect the dots by observing reality and am able to form explanations (theories) of that reality based on those observations. I can then based on empirical knowledge test my theories and make predictions which will confirm or falsify said theories. This is the mechanism by which science constantly refines and increases the resolution of our knowledge of nature.
Despite the fact that I care about my personal survival,the survival of my children and the survival of my extended family and surrounding community, maybe even a very large global community of other social animals, it in no way follows that *WE* as a species actually have any reason for giving a rat’s ass about our survival.
In other words we as a part of nature simply do not really care about the survival of our own species because it is meaningless to do so. Our species will probably continue to evolve for a time and possibly become the ancestor of a new line of descendants and like many other species will probably at some point become extinct. Just take a look at the tree of life and all the other extinct life forms on it. Not a single one of of those species cared about it’s own survival and neither do we.
I’m sure that there are others here who can much more clearly explain what I am trying to say. In essence nature doesn’t care and as much as we may try to convice ourselves that we do, we are not seperate from nature.
So to answer the question of *Why* we would even care about the survival of our species? We don’t. There is no higher purpose in life, it just is and there is no reason for any of it, no master plan, no designer. Deal with it. Enjoy life as much as possible.
Thanks AJ Milne for that necessary enlightenment; I would have needed a far greater modicum of patience to scroll through so many Google results…
Pete, if you’re waxing lyrical about solipsism, how about explaining the evident inability of a lot of high-ranking clergy to show basic human empathy and understanding that might indicate an awareness of egos other than their own.
There’s not been a lot of it on show in certain quarters!
(Perhaps OT, perhaps not…)
Greetings!
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that several of the ‘brighter lights’ of the ID movement have used probability theory in an attempt to demonstrate that ‘unguided evolution’ is too unlikely to have resulted in complex form of life, yes?
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever asked them to provide the other side of the equation? The side in which they show, using probability theory, that the existence of a non-evolved intelligence is *more* likely than the existence of an evolved one?
After all, if their argument is ‘we have two theories, one of which is more likely than the other’, we really should insist they demonstrate how much more likely one is than the other, yes?
Am I utterly off base here?
Anri, that’s a nice new spin on the “who created the creator?” question that they usually refuse to answer (and when they do answer, have no problem accepting that an incredibly power, intelligent, and psychopathic god “just is”). I like your idea.
Yes but you don’t listen. The bell told you to fuck off long ago and you’re still here.
Donny @338 writes, concerning worms burrowing into the eyes of children:
This may seem like a frivolous question, Donny, but it is truly earnest, so please answer honestly: Do you believe in angels?
BTW, Knockgoats is, by any measure, far more intelligent than you [SC, OM] are, and has a much stronger grasp of the relevant issues, so it’s not as if he/she won’t raise points you would — and far better ones, I might add. – Eric
Eric, I’m not going to accept your bullshit attempts to drive wedges between people like this. SC, OM is recognised among regulars here as unsurpassed in her range and depth of understanding – and far, far beyond any you have shown.
This is an extremely rare occasion on which I disagree with him [me] (though I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was saying “fair enough” with regard to himself). SC, OM@311
Well, I must admit I said it without thinking, in the context of Eric’s recent illness, which might make him unequal to a long session, and still feeling slightly guilty about the strikeout-and-substitution I suppressed, (which interpreted Eric’s work-and-illness excuse as dishonest). However, seeing the way he has exploited what I said to continue his evasions, while evidently having the time and energy to spend on attempting to justify not dealing with the arguments raised in the original thread, I regret doing so. My apologies.
Eric@223, in order to establish that atheists “cannot adequately ground” their moral prescriptions, you have to establish what is “adequate”; and if a particular requirement (such as your “ultimate justification”) canot be met at all, not meeting it cannot make an approach inadequate – any more than one can be required to score 110% in an exam in order to pass.
You now have two valid choices, since others are also interested in having their points answered: return to the relevant thread and deal with the points raised, or admit that you can’t, and have lost the argument. I am confident you will take neither.
“You just have to assume/assert/presuppose that there is a world outside of your (singular) mind that deserves study.” – ronan
An act of faith? – Piltdown
No; because it is not held in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. Moreover, one can specify conditions under which it would be abandoned. Indeed, in a sense you do so whenever you realise that the dream you have been dreaming is not real. Typically this happens on waking, but many people, including me, sometimes realise this while still dreaming, and can to some extent manipulate the dream just by willing it to go in a particular direction – e.g. I can often take off from the ground and fly. If ever I find I can do that in what I now assume to be reality, I will conclude that it isn’t.
I just want to make clear that my response to this comment of Eric’s was about his assessment of me, and of course in no way meant to question his glowing recommendation of Knockgoats. It occurs to me that some people reading it might not be familiar with my deep, deep admiration for Kg, as both a human being and a thinker. While Eric’s attempt to designate a single spokesperson for his challengers was unacceptable, Knockgoats would absolutely be my choice to speak for me.
*choke* That is so not true.
OK, that part is. :P
(BTW, I too am sorry to hear about your illness, Eric. I apologize for making light of it, and am glad you’re feeling better. Now get back to the argument on the other thread. :))
One thing I admire about SC is that she includes the closing parenthesis even following the little smily-face thing.
I get this feeling that people like Barb and Pete R come here for sex jollies-their repressed sexuality comes in here blurting out some deep held kink which they project onto people they can think of as sinful and hell-bound anyway. After they get off, they go away for a while. Barb is a quickie, Pete needs more attention.
Oh Donny boy, your opinion cuts no mustard here. Most of the regulars here deal with emperical data. And I think you are dishonest in your questions. You think there is only one answer and any other one we give is wrong. Yet you say you seek knowledge. That is disingenuous. I call BS.
In fact, I also think its totally arrogant. Because you refuse to accept any other answer than the one which fits your worldview. Begone scumbucket.
I missed Eric’s illness among the thread. What is it ?
It occurs to me that some people reading it might not be familiar with my deep, deep admiration for Kg, as both a human being and a thinker. – SC, OM,
– Just wanted to see that in writing again ;-)
Seriously, thanks very much! In some ways, I feel this blog doesn’t show me at my best as a human being – I’m really not so prone to anger or scornful of stupidity in RL. But then, as well as the remarkable intelligence, wit and erudition found on Pharyngula, one also finds a density of stupid that is seldom encountered anywhere else I go, on the intertoobz or in RL. Eric, I’d say, is by no means stupid, but not nearly as clever as he thinks he is – and his evasions are extremely tiresome.
That’s incoherent. Things that survived, survived. Things that didn’t, didn’t.
Flash forward 100 million years. What kinds of things are around? Descendants of things that survived, or of things that didn’t survive?
If you are alive, it’s because your ancestors had an unbroken record of successful reproduction that goes back at least 3.5 billion years. What do you call ancestors that did not successfully survive to reproduce? (It’s a trick question)
@377
Pete, line breaks don’t transusbstantiate dreck into poetry.
You’re not any more coherent in “free verse”.
Stick to prose.
Even though it makes me look like I have a fat chin! Proper punctuation before vanity!
Pete is trying to use an existentialist argument to argue for the existence of a god? You cant get there from where you started Petey.
None of our comments truly represent us. Everyone is shocked how kind and polite PZ is in the flesh. I’m sure that those who meet him without having read Pharyngula would be under the mistaken belief that he’s just a teddy bear. Reconciling all the dimensions of the person is jarringly difficult. He looks like he won’t bite, but we know better.
I’m sure this applies to most of the people who regularly post here, although I am actually the one dimensional rude bastard I appear to be.
That would, after all, be impossible.
The best I can manage is being nearly as clever as he thinks he is – a quality I share with many here.
I’m off to work now, Donny, but I’ll look for your answer about angels when I get back.
It might have been mentioned already but Richard Dawkins is going to be live in studio on Minnesota Public Radio at 9 AM Central time today. In about 5 minutes, actually.
WHY does it pay to survive? WHAT made it “pay to survive” at the beginning of time? Donny Pauling
Really, Donny, try a little thought, why don’t you? Nothing has to make it “pay to survive”. Whatever has the properties that best enable it to survive in the environment where it finds itself, will be more likely to survive than anything else, won’t it now? That’s all it means to say it “pays to survive”, Donny: things that have the properties needed to survive, will last longer than things that don’t. Suppose, for example, you put some lumps of ice, lumps of butter, and lumps of steel into a pan, and heat it. Which are going to survive longest, Donny? No, not the ice. No, not the butter. The steel! Yes, Donny, that’s right! Now the same general principle has always held true, Donny, and nothing and no-one has ever had to make it so; it just cannot be otherwise. Things that were stable in the environment where they formed, lasted longer than things that were less so. You can think of it like a sieve, Donny. Nothing and no one has to “make it so” that things bigger than the holes stay in the sieve, while things smaller than the holes fall through.
Now, Donny, about 3.5 billion years ago, according to our current best hypotheses, some things formed on Earth that had something extra going for them: they weren’t, perhaps, all that stable, but under the conditions in which they formed, it turned out they would automatically make approximate copies of themselves, from chemicals and energy available from their immediate surroundings! And they did, Donny, they did, without anyone or anything needing to tell them to, or make them do it. And those that made copies fastest, and most like themselves, made more copies that could themselves make copies; so things like those ones came to be the most abundant. Nothing and no-one had to make this so, Donny, it’s just bound to happen once something forms that can make even partial, approximate copies of itself. We call such things “life”, Donny.
Pete Rooke, you’re no Cuttlefish.
Oh, PZ, can I have your babies? Because this post was epic.
Most of them did not attend the lecture. I was working at a CFI table next to where they were giving out flyers. The ones I saw after the lecture claimed their friend had attended. They are allegedly interested in meeting with our CFi group here on campus.
A bit of an understatement, but still true.
Donny, Pete and all you other godbots out there, I reiterate the challenge I laid down waaaay back in post #189: produce evidence and proof of the existence of your deity. You may not refer to trees, lakes, streams, and puppies as evidence or proof of the existence of this deity. There must be unequivocal, undeniable evidence of the existence of your “sovereign” and “intelligent God”. You may not refer to the Bible, as that is a source that has not been verified by any other independent, empirically testable methods.
I amend what I wrote above and issue this challenge directly to the entity Donny and Pete and the other godbots on here revere as the creator of the universe: SHOW YOURSELF. Unequivocally, without subterfuge, to every human being on this planet IMMEDIATELY. No prancing about in the “minds” of your adherents, because, obviously, they can’t be trusted to get it right. No appearing on a piece of toast in Guatemala. No “whispering” in the “heart” of some deluded moron in the Andes mountains or in Appalachia. Reveal yourself and your nature to humankind NOW. In other words, it’s put up or shut up time.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that several of the ‘brighter lights’ of the ID movement have used probability theory in an attempt to demonstrate that ‘unguided evolution’ is too unlikely to have resulted in complex form of life, yes?
Yes, usually in the form of the tired old “747 in a junkyard” tripe.
To which I always answer that evolution isn’t craps, it’s Yahtzee.
The tragedy of the educated: Ignorant, stupid, or disingenuous (yet always self-disqualifying) soundbites propagate better as memes than many of the best argued chains of reason. Any “debate” about a sophisticated topic that doesn’t switch immediately to remedial education is a “win” for the dimwits.
RE #139, Yes, Knocksgoats, I also thought climate hysteresis as during the end-Permian 251 mya was the worst possible scenario — with 95% of life dying off, the HS being the final blow.
So when I got Hansen’s lecture (I’m on his emailing list), I wrote back asking if he meant climate hysteresis as during the end-Permian or permanent runaway as on Venus. He wrote back, “I mean the runaway greenhouse effect. The Earth would get there if all the fossil fuels including unconventional ones are burned. There is no return from that, so hysteresis is not really an appropriate description.”
I think a lot of people on this site are biologists (I’m an anthropologist), so climate change is extremely pertinent, not only to us and our progeny, but to all the species. Enough tears in the web of creation (extinctions/declines) and sooner or later the whole system may collapse. Most people in the rich nations emitting GHGs think that food comes from the grocery stores, and don’t think beyond that.
A friend in England and her father, a farmer, who are warning about PEAK FOOD (due to peak oil, see http://peakfood.co.uk/ ), which they see as even a more immediate, serious problem than climate change. When you begin to realize how much our Western food supply is dependent on oil, not only to run the tractors, but to dig up bauxite from rainforest floors, ship it to the U.S., smelt it into aluminum to build those tractors, energy to pump water and irrigate, petrol-based fertilizers & pesticides, energy to process crops and foods, ship it to wholesalers, for packaging, cooling, freezing, energy for transport to retailers, for shopping, for cooking.
If you’ve seen the docu, A CRUDE AWAKENING, you’ll know that our high population today came about from our very heavy use of petrol, and it’s decline (never mind global warming) could result in mass starvation — especially in the West.
If only we had been seriously addressing global warming since 1990, shifting to a non(or less)-fossil-based economy, then that would at least provide a cushion against peak food. I don’t think there’s a lot of time left to make that shift now (which logistically-speaking could take decades even if we go full speed ahead with it) before terrible consequences befall us.
And when you add in ALL environmental problems, and ALL problems, it’s mind-bloggling the harms we might be facing. We really need a holistic, ecological (incl humans & their cultures/societies) approach. A RACHEL’S article speaks to this, & how our regulatory systems are just not set up to deal with problems in a holistic way – http://www.precaution.org/lib/09/ht090219.htm
Donnie Pauling,
If you are sincere about learning, you have a large amount of reading to do, (and maybe you have done some already?). In order for you to have a little background about what sort of questions science answers, you can take a look at one of my comments about the philosophy of science.
You will not discover much that has any weight of proof by asking questions on a science blog. Not that the answers in the comments are always bad or wrong, only that the venue does not allow for the kind of in-depth learning that someone needs in order to understand some of the more complex issues you raised.
My short and woefully inadequate answer to the “why” question is that there are some questions science does not necessarily answer.
For a movie that can help with an understanding of deductive reasoning as an element of science see the movie Stranger than Fiction. Dustin Hoffman’s character does a very good (although a bit silly and humorous) demonstration of the scientific approach to investigation.
Donny Pauling: what counts as an answer to a ‘why’ question for you?
It’s ironic that Creationists, who are very numerous in the “scientists are arrogant” crowd, fail to see the arrogance implicit in their anti-evolution talking points
…..the arrogance behind their conviction that 100,000s of scientists over the course of many decades, including the handful that become public figures (e.g., Dawkins), are wrong. Just wrong–simply ignorant, rebellious, misled, or some combination thereof. But THEY–the Creationists–THEY have it right. And why do they? Ultimately, their arguments as to why they are right come down to “because I said so,” which really means, “because a pastor [or mullah or rabbi or whoever] said so,” which really means, “because this really old book can be easily interpreted as saying so.”
It’s basically an argument that they have privileged supernatural information, yet in few if any aspects of their own lives would they accept an argument–such as from their attorney or doctor–based on a citation of priviledged supernatural information.
(I doubt it would make the slightest bit of difference, but one could attempt to ask them something along the lines of: “Would you let your doctor feed you a yummy mix of mercury and gunpowder because an ancient Taoist text he owns says it’s a good idea based on the universal principles of Yin and Yang, or would you rather he hold onto and apply the sort of ‘arrogant’ scientific observations he and 100,000s of doctors like him learned in medical school?”)
Steven Dunlap @ 417,
I think you gave the most respectable answer to my question.
I had prepared to respond to several others in the comments between my last comment and the most recent comment posted, but abandoned those intentions after reading yours.
Your answer is not unlike the answer given by Theists when asked inexplicable questions on God. Theists usually use the terminology, “The secret things belong to God…” which means pretty much the same thing as your response, “some questions science does not necessarily answer”.
I spent two hours watching the Four Horseman footage last night, of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett and thoroughly enjoyed their discussion. It would be my guess that, had this same question been raised to them, their own “short answer” would likely have been along the lines of yours.
I am not prepared to give up belief in God. Contrary to those who have stated above (ignorantly so, because they weren’t paying attention to other comments I’ve written) that I “don’t believe in evolution”, I do. I firmly believe in evolution, yet believe it was guided by an intelligence I label “God”.
Thank you for your kind response, Steven Dunlap
Ronan said:
No we can’t disprove solipsism, but surely the questions “Is solipsism correct?” or “Is there an external world independent of our mind?” or “Is external world X correct?” all have answers? Just because we can’t know what the answer is doesn’t mean that the answer doesn’t exist at all! Hence solipsism is compatible with the concept of objective truths.
Tim H said:
Dude, you can’t prove the existence of the external world using the external world. That’s circular reasoning. How do you know the bag exists? How do you know you are dead?? Some evil daemon could just be tricking you into thinking you are suffocating, when really you are just being fed these senses, and then suddenly all senses are cut off. You don’t have to have died! So your existence hasn’t ended due to something outside yourself, so solipsism hasn’t been refuted.
Seriously, trying to disprove something that doesn’t believe that empiricism can be trusted using empiricism is epically stupid.
Would you let your doctor feed you a yummy mix of mercury and gunpowder because an ancient Taoist text he owns says it’s a good idea based on the universal principles of Yin and Yang, or would you rather he hold onto and apply the sort of ‘arrogant’ scientific observations he and 100,000s of doctors like him learned in medical school?
“Cake! I choose cake!”
I attended Dawkin’s talk at the Wharton Center in East Lansing. When we walked through the doors we were handed these flyers. I thought they might be programs or some such thing, so I began perusing it while walking down the hall. By the time I got to the second question (during which time my wife was perusing the gift shop, naturally) I recognized it for what it was. I went back to the young man who handed it to me and told him, “You can have this back, it is filled with utter nonsense.” He had a startled look and said, “OK, thank you.”
No offense, Donny, but I think your #420 was a dodge. I think you liked Steve’s answer because it lets you pigeonhole the “official atheist answer” as a similar-to-religion appeal to mystery. I can’t elaborate much right now (iPhone, away from PC) but please give Knockgoats’ reply at #407 a very close look, it’s closest to my point. If you have heritable replicators, the need to reproduce simply happens as a fundamental consequence of the various properties of the universe. Those that don’t reproduce don’t pass anything on, those that are better at it are the only ones who do. A bit like water running downhill…there is no why, it doesn’t somehow WANT to, it just does because that’s what happens when all those properties of gravity, particles, energy, etc, are at play.
Like much of alternative medicine, the cake is a lie.
Like much of alternative medicine, the cake is a lie.
Anyway this cake is great!
It’s so delicious and moist!
Is it true that we get truth from studying the natural world? Where did you get this truth from.
On question 3 PZ seems to be confusing a prior or a posteri probability.
4)If Dawkins is not angry at God why does he say such unpleasant things about him in his books?
“The God …[is]..jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
He seem rather angry. I don’t go fling insults at people who I am not angry at.
5) PZ claims the Jesus story is irrational. But how does his worldview provide the metaphysical foundations for logic, reason and rationality itself? Does atheistic naturalism provide the necessary preconditions for logic and reason?
For fucks sake facilis, you are a thick one. This has been demonstrated to you over and over! Repeating your own personal ignorance is not bringing an argument to the table, it’s just highlight how ignorant you are!
@Kel
I am not being ignorant.None of the atheists here were able to refute my transcendental argument for God or account for the metaphysical foundations of logic , morality or solve the problem of induction while I have accounted for all these things.
Facilis the Fallacious Fool. Your lack of logic and reason is staggering. The imaginary existence of your deity doesn’t bother us. The fact that you must keep trying to ram your imaginary deity down our throats is what irritates us. Somehow, that escapes you. But then you are an idiotic godbot with no logic and reason.
I’ll tell you what Facilis. Stop bothering us, and we won’t bother you.
If Dawkins is not angry at God why does he say such unpleasant things about him in his books?
Darth Vader is filled with hate. He strangles people by suspending them from the neck, he tried to kill his best friend and mentor by slashing him in half, he cut off his son’s right hand trying to kill him, years after having slaughtered a generation of Jedi children.
Why did I just say such unpleasant things about Darth Vader in this post? I didn’t insult Darth Vader because he doesn’t actually exist. I said those unpleasant things about him because those are just some of the nefarious deeds recounted in fictional narratives that feature Darth Vader as a character. I’m neither angry at Darth Vader, nor insulting anybody by what I said about the fictional character.
Stop annoying the adults, facilis.
I’ve got a better idea, facilis. Why don’t you exercise your privileged access to “the metaphysical foundations for logic, reason and rationality” and show that the gospel accounts are not irrational? Or, you know, make any argument at all, instead of asserting, ad nauseum, this canard that atheism precludes rationality.
Facilis, you have never properly demonstrated any argument to us. But you keep alleging you did. Why do you keep lying? Godbots like yourself lie. We prefer the truth.
They’re going to play one of PZ’s talks on Freethought Radio Network in a few minutes. (Not the FFRF site.)
Even if God provided an objective Truth, how would you know? The problem isn’t the metaphysics, it’s the epistemology — even if such Truth existed, what is your warrant for believing it? How else do you evaluate the truth of the claim “God provides Truth” except with the exact same tools that naturalism uses to determine small-t truths?
facilis, we’re still waiting for the details of your examination of at least one sect of Christianity or religion other than the one you yourself adhere to. You implied you’d performed such an examination on Mormon Christianity; where are your findings?
Once you show that your version of Christianity is the only sect of the only religion which can make the claim for its god then we can discuss the possibility of that god being responsible for any universal laws.
@Donny Pauling:
Since you asked “Why?”, and you seem sincere, I took some time to compose a complete answer for you. It is not that long, but too big to fit in the space of these comments, and I’d feel bad for usurping PZ’s blog to delineate a complete personal worldview, so I put it up elsewhere:
http://home.sleepdep.net/secularism.html
Freethought network:
http://www.freethoughtnetwork.com/submitaudio.html
PZ is up next.
Facilis..
Seems to me that your version of Deity 2.1 is
“Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” as described.
Now let’s see Jealous?? See Commandments 1 – 4. Ethnic cleanser?? I seem to recall verses to the effect of slay all, even women and children. Misogynistic? Blame it all on Eve, and keep on for the next few thousand years. Infantcidal? Seems something to that effect happened in Egypt, no?
Point is lad/lass, it’s not an insult if it’s true.
As for truth, A reality that can be observed and tested by anyone seems a good candidate for truth.
As for rational – you did not really deal with the irrational nature of the jueezzuusss zombie and other aspects of the story. All you did was toss some chaff into the wind about PZ, not your boy JC.
Facilis the Facile:
In real life, you’ve been refuted many times. You just fail to admit it. It’s not our fault that you’re pigheaded and ignorant.
Again, in real life you haven’t. Your arguments were circular and you’ve made a career out of begging the question.
Facilis’ argument seems to be that a law of logic, “A implies B; A; therefore B”, would not be valid unless a god made it so.
Which of course requires that “no god implies no logic; no god; therefore no logic” has to be true without a god.
Which requires logic to be valid without gods.
Pope Maledict DCLXVI @373:
If it were that obvious, human history would a lot less bloodstained that it is.
Allen N @374:
Well apart from their soft-centred PC BS content, the main problem with them is that “I’d really rather you didn’t” doesn’t carry much … imperative force.
+++
Knockgoats @392:
Why do you assume you’re the dreamer? Perhaps you’re a character in someone else’s dream.
Knockgoats @407:
An entertaining fable – that “some things” spontaneously made copies of themselves.
Has it ever been observed in nature?
Has it ever been observed in a laboratory?
Judging from this comment by Professor Dawkins, who subscribes to the same mythos, it would seem not:
Well, you need raw materials that can self-replicate. I would have to be more of a chemist than I am to know how likely it is that you are going to get such molecules. I should very much like to direct chemists toward devising an alternative hypothetical chemistry that supports self-replication, a whole alternative system that could, in principle, give rise to life. The fundamental principle that will be required is self-replication. Chemists have begun to look at auto-catalytic functions in chemistry where at least some of the prerequisites are present. The sine qua non, as you say, is self-replication. I don’t know how difficult it would be to achieve that chemically.
If this process has not in fact been observed, isn’t your belief that it happened once upon a time, long, long ago (“about 3.5 billion years ago, according to our current best hypotheses”) yet another act of faith?
No you have not! You’ve just given a circular argument and said you’ve solved the problem – ignored any problems that have arisen from that position, and misrepresented both the nature of logic and morality. It’s been demonstrated to you dozens of times by many different people here just how your position is wrong. Yet you go silent on that thread (or give your “If you can’t account for logic, how can you use it?” rhetoric) then pop up a few days later and make the same baseless fallacious assertions again.
Everyone here can see what a fool you are, it baffles me how immune you are to any reasonable criticism of your unreasonable position.
Facilis scribbled in crayons,
PZ’s answer to question 1 is quite reasonable, provided you don’t subscribe to some metaphysical wankery that is beyond falsification in the real world. As for his answer to question 3, the original statement by the
Gumbiescreotards almost falls into the category of “not even wrong” as it confuses about three different questions, and is barely worthy of a response at all.No more than believing that because all solar objects tested point to the solar system being ~4.6 billion years old that there must have been some process that gave rise to the solar system. We don’t know exactly how it happened, but we do know that it did happen because it’s a necessary precursor to what’s there now.
Likewise with abiogenesis. We can get evolution all the way back to the first protocell. So how did that first protocell come about? We aren’t exactly sure, but we know it did come about because of everything that follows.
Yes, jackass. You caught us. It’s all just handwaving. Smoke and mirrors. Carbon dating all the way down.
Seriously, you guys are embarassing yourselves. Do you think that X-Ray machines work with magic? Ever seen an X-Ray? I’m sure you have…
Why don’t you go try and convince the people in Hiroshima how poorly humanity understands nuclear physics.
Dipshit.
Piltdown wrote:
IIRC, the Catholic Crutch accepts the old earth facts; are you defying your own religion’s teachings? I guess you’re free to do so these days, since it’s been a while since they’ve burned any heretics.
And yet his position is that killing is something humans, in general, consider a bad thing – but your people have been specifically ordered not to and yet still do. Often, and with relish.
That Christians have twice the reason not to and yet still do so is, as I’ve said before, damning evidence against it being a positive influence on society – either via the supernatural (i.e. the god-creature infuses the believer with goodness) or the behavioural (i.e. that the believer simply believes in the god-creature enough to actually follow the rules).
Here’s my faith, a faith that is objectively superior to religious faith:
I believe that if I repeat an experiment several times and get the same results, that I will continue to get the same results if I continue to repeat it. I believe that if I do various different kinds of repeatable experiments related to a certain phenomenon, I can gather enough information to try and tell a story that unifies all those results. I believe that I can refine that story by using it to predict the results of experiments I haven’t tried yet. I believe that there is no shame in rejecting a particular attempt at telling such a story if its predictions turn out to be wrong, no matter how many previous predictions have turned out to be right.
Why is my faith objectively superior to religious faith? It is demonstrably more frequently successful when being used to solve problems.
Kel:
But doesn’t that just amount to saying that we know life must have started somehow because life exists now? On this, PZ Myers and the Pope would be in perfect agreement!
Piltdown Man, there are good reasons why we believe the origin of life is between 3.5 and 4 billion years ago. Firstly we have an upper limit on the age of the earth ~4.55 billion years. So life could not have began on this planet before then. We have some idea of the early conditions of earth and they weren’t really suitable for life. So the Hadean period is pretty much ruled out. On the lower end of the scale, we have fossilised evidence of microbial life at least 3.5 billion years ago and possibly even older. So we have a time-frame of a few hundred million years in which to work with.
It’s not faith, it’s a deduction made from examining the evidence.
Mark Twain : “Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness… It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast.”
Dawkins did not say that god is, etc. etc. etc. He said the stories IN THE BIBLE, if taken as they are written and believed, shows the biblical god character to be the ect. ect. ect.
Twain agreed with him.
But, I’ll give just one example: bible god character’s killing of the first born of the Egyptians. Why did he do it? Read all of Exodus, especially chapter 10, carefully, paying attention to how many times the bible god “hardens Pharaoh’s heart.” God used his magic powers in order to force pharaoh to not allow the Hebrews to leave. God did it. By doing so he interfered with pharaoh’s free will, as well.
I think the writers of the bible as some point realized that god was coming off as a bit of a douche, what with all his heart hardening, that’s why, I think they put this little bit in Exodus 10.
“1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these my signs before him:
2 and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD.”
So the good book says that god did the whole 10 plagues, and hardening of pharaoh’s heart, again and again, just so he could become famous. By killing people. That’s it.
In the end, the stupidity, evilness, and venality of the bible god character can be summarized by one simple question, “Why didn’t god just kill pharaoh, instead of all those first-born innocents?” Can’t be because of free-will, (hardening the heart, remember?) That’s what Dawkins was talking about, and Twain as well.
(Off topic, find the idea of “free will as cause of evil” in the bible.)
Piltdown:
You seem to need to be ordered about instead of that ol’ PC stuff. Calling the wisdom of the FSM ‘PC’ exzplain why there needs to be any “imperative force”. What part of the 8 is immoral or advocates something inherently bad for people?Just because it does not seem strict enough to suit you does not make it invalid.
Societies that never knew about the big 10 still had moral codes. Even in the most primitive societies we have encountered, I know of none where random murder is O.K. Well duh. Same for stealing and the rest. Think about the American Indians of the Southwest. Since they had no knowledge of the Big 10 and their societies were not some sort of amoral chaos they had no need for the “inperative force”.
Your argument against evolution is a fine example of regression. When you finally reach the limits of what is presently known, you make the error of stating that since we don’t know everything, we know nothing, and that is plainly wrong. Don’t conflate biogenesis with evolution – two different issues in any case.
Just? Of course life did start, how else do you expect there to be life now? How did life start – that’s the question to ask. And presently while there isn’t a definitive answer – we do have many good clues how life can arise naturally. We can show that the building blocks of life are born out of natural processes. We can show how a cell wall can form. We can show how RNA replicates. We have even devised means of getting primitive replication of amino acid chains. While we are not there yet to show how natural processes can go from inorganic chemicals to replicating DNA-cellular life, we do have knowledge of various stages.
The difference between science and religion on this issue. A scientist says “we don’t know, so let’s try to find out.” A religious person says “God did it” and leaves it there.
You’re equivocating on the meanings of “belief” and “faith.” And you know you’re doing it. (It’s been explained to you probably a hundred times.) That makes it a lie. Why should anyone listen to a liar like you?
Josh @447:
What have carbon dating, X-rays and nuclear bombs got to do with abiogenesis? A list of impressive technological achievements made possible by science does not prove the spontaneous emergence of self-replicating biological entities. It really doesn’t.
Wowbagger @448:
As far as I know, the Catholic Church has not made any definitive pronouncement one way or the other about the age of the Earth, so Catholics can believe what they choose. But I wasn’t questioning the 3.5 billion year figure. I was questioning whether abiogenesis has ever been observed.
Cannabinaceae @449:
All well and good. Has the spontaneous emergence of self-replicating biological entities ever been demonstrated by a repeatable experiment?
No you weren’t, you were questioning whether it’s a matter of faith. We know that life must have emerged in a primitive form through various lines of evidence. It’s not faith, it’s an undiscovered necessity. We don’t know how plate tectonics got started either, but we know it must have because of the consequences observed now.
What have carbon dating, X-rays and nuclear bombs got to do with abiogenesis?
that you can’t grasp the answer to your own question speaks volumes about your level of ignorance.
…which frankly would be counterproductive to my morning’s humor to even attempt to address.
so, please, do continue.
I agree. I wasn’t asserting that it did (ignoring the large elephant in the room that we don’t prove things in science).
I specifically cited this part of your comment:
because I interpreted it as you saying that the idea that we have rocks that date to 3.5 billion years before present is just a guess.
If that’s not what you meant, and you were only referring to abiogenesis, then I apologize, because what I wrote didn’t relate specifically to that point. If my interpretation of what you wrote is correct, then I stand by my comment.
@Donny:
no, I can’t give you the “cliffnotes” version of naturalism, no more than you could construct a legitimate “cliffnotes” of all theism.
I suggest you concentrate on the “spirituality” and “philosophy” sections of naturalism.org to see how one can construct entirely secular viewpoints.
this might help answer your repeated questions of “why?”
I don’t find that to be a satisfying answer
well, then I have a question for YOU:
why don’t you find it a satisfying answer. Be specific.
Piltdown Man – Would you please spit out Knockgoats hook, and sink back down to the bottom of the cesspool? Meditate on the crimes against humanity committed by the catholic church for a few years. There’s a good boy.
Kel @451:
To clarify, I was not saying the belief that the Earth is approx. 3.5bn years old was an act of faith. I was saying the belief that life spontaneously emerged from non-living matter was an act of faith.
Kel @454:
Yes, Kel, it’s a mind-numbing truism. That’s why I used the word “just”.
Indeed.
The “building blocks” of life are not alive – the gulf between non-life and life remains unbridged.
Cells and RNA are part of living organisms – the gulf between non-life and life remains unbridged.
Could you elaborate?
Putative stages. You believe that these various processes are indeed “stages” in the transition from life to non-life but until that transition can be observed the gulf remains unbridged. It takes a leap of faith to cross it.
Cool, an incoherent and tendentious sentence with an ectopic question mark! You may be attempting to trick me by essaying such an elementary fallacy; at any rate this gives me permission to put words in mouths. If you were trying to make a point, you are, of course, free to clarify it.
For example, I get to define “spontaneous emergence of self-replicating biological entities.” Essentially this would be something like starting with a sterile pot of chemicals, letting an appropriate energy flow occur in the pot for some interval, then examining the residue for evidence of an autocatalytic cascade.
An honest person would have to agree that if such an experiment were repeatably performed, creationism would have to be rejected. Is Piltdown Man an honest person?
Oh, and one question: has the existence or any other property of any supernatural being ever been demonstrated by a repeatable experiment? No, wait, that is an incoherent sentence with an ectopic question mark, since the subject of the sentence (as well as the subject of the original sentence, at least for the moment) is a historical science rather than an experimental science. Rather like astronomy. And I’ll bet TV programs like CSI really frustrate creationists. Cops using evidence from a crime scene when they weren’t even there to witness the crime? To convict the accused?
But it’s a very small gap, so it takes a very small leap. It doesn’t require faith as much as a reasonable expectation based on the available evidence. What’s the “bridge” between life and any other explanation? What’s the “bridge” between “magic man,” “poof,” and “life?”
By all that’s observed, there are “stages”. We are not asserting that it happened a certain way, all scientists involved will not give a definitive answer. Asserting “God did it” is a matter of faith, saying “We don’t know, but here are some clues” is not.
The equivocation theists use is a horrifying distortion of reason. People here see through you, you are trying to attach the word faith to a principle in order to make it and “Goddidit” seem like equivalent answers. And by doing so you ignore all progress in the field as if it were invalid by not reaching the final goal. Again, it must be pointed out to you that in the absence of an answer that “God did it” does not become validated. You believe in God on faith; something that is very different to how science works. There’s no conclusion on the origin of life, thus nothing to have faith in.
Since Donny has completely ignored my simple question, I’ll just lay out my argument in the form of a hypothetical conversation we might have had:
castletonsnob: Donny, do you believe in angels?
Donny: Yes, I do.
castletonsnob: And that our suffering is caused by free will? That is, disease, injury and death necessarily results from the choices we make?
Donny: Yes, absolutely. Without free will, we would be robots, and God doesn’t want us to be robots.
castletonsnob: And your god is all good, wise, and powerful?
Donny: Of course.
castletonsnob: Fine. Now, do angels have free will?
Donny: I never actually thought about it. Hmmm. Well, yes, they do. I believe Satan used his free will to rebel against God and was cast out of heaven.
castletonsnob: Interesting. Angels never suffer from disease or injury or death, yet they have free will.
Donny: Yes, that’s right.
castletonsnob: So, disease, suffering, and death aren’t a necessary result of free will.
Donny: Um, yes, you’re right.
castletonsnob: So, why, Donny, would your all good, wise, and powerful god sentence humanity to suffer so much pain on Earth when he could have simply created us heaven in angelic form with our free will intact?
Donny: Because…He’s a sadistic, perverted, malevolent monster?
castletonsnob: Exactly.
Piltdown Man, you really need to learn how science works. Your persistent battle to try and call science faith misrepresents what constitutes science and what constitutes faith. If you actually know the difference, then why are you still trying to play a semantic game? It seems that all you are doing is using equivocation to knock down science to a point where you can shove your God in as an equivalent answer. Yet saying “goddidit” is not an answer, it’s a non-answer masquerading as an answer. It doesn’t say how Goddidit, or that there is even a ‘God’ in order to didit.
Wow. As he retreats to the very gap between a sterile and a fertile Earth, even that gap narrows in his face, and still Piltdown scrabbles to hide his God in it.
Piltdown man, can you show physical evidence for your imaginary god, that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, rather than natural, origin? No? I thought not. You just received a lesson in what science requires. If I make a claim, I must be able to convince others of my claim with physical evidence. The physical evidence may come from instruments, but it has been determined that the instruments are valid for what I look at. So there is a concrete scientific paper trail of findings showing that my readings correspond to a physical reality.
You cannot say the same with your delusional god, fictional bible, and superfluous dogma.
It’s faith to believe that we exist now? hmmm. Life came from non-life at some stage. There wasn’t life on the earth at one point but there is now. Meaning at some stage life had to come from non-life. It’s not faith, it’s simple logic. How that emerged is the question, and on that there’s no faith involved. Scientists all admit that there’s no answer yet, there are plenty of hypothesises all with varying levels of evidential support, and there have been many clues gained from observing the universe and performing experiments.
We are built of atoms that all reside on this planet, our bodies are purely made out of matter. So we know that life can come from non-life. How does it happen? We don’t know. It could be through one of the variety of hypothesises on the subject, it could be through another process entirely. It could be that a supernatural entity did the whole thing. We don’t know! How is that faith?
Exactly – well, unless Piltdown has forgotten that he started out as a collection of cells in his unfortunate* mother’s womb that is.
How did you get so big, Piltdown, if life cannot come from non-life?
*Not that I’m in any way implying Piltdown’s mother was a prostitute. No, sir. Not at all.
Cannabinaceae @463:
Mr Obama famously remarked (apropos of abortion) that “whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”.
I now admit my pay grade has been well and truly surpassed. I don’t know what an ectopic question mark is.
Is an autocatalytic cascade alive?
(I sincerely hope that’s not an incoherent and tendentious sentence. I confess I have no idea if the question mark is ectopic.)
I would guess not.
If a forensic scientist told me that a murder victim had been killed by being struck on the head with a particular type of hammer, I could at least test whether this was a practical method of murder by picking up a similar hammer and experimentally hitting the scientist over the head with it. I could repeat this experiment by bludgeoning other scientists with hammers to see if death resulted.
Maybe Piltdown Man believes that humans are supernatural in origin, that we are made up of matter combined with angel dust and God’s love. Wouldn’t be the craziest thing he’s ever said, remember that time he said that he genuinely believed that PZ was possessed by demons? I can’t remember laughing so hard at anything for a long time.
I was saying the belief that life spontaneously emerged from non-living matter was an act of faith.
wait, what?
that’s what we’ve been telling YOU.
you’re the one with the “mud->man” myth, remember?
ah, sweet, sweet projection.
remember that time he said that he genuinely believed that PZ was possessed by demons?
ROTFLMAO!
no shit? If you find the link, plz post?
Is an autocatalytic cascade alive?
is a strand of DNA alive?
I could repeat this experiment by bludgeoning other scientists with hammers to see if death resulted.
we’re not particularly interested in your irrelevant psychotic fetishes there, boyo.
He’s also fond of some sort of theo-monarchical world government, too – as long as it’s Catholic, of course. And don’t forget his waving away of things like the Inquisition and the Catholic genocides in South America as ‘the exaggerations of history’.
Piltdown’s jelly meat isn’t big enough* to even grasp what faith means, let alone life, apparently.
*hattip to another mind-bogglingly stupid creobot, Simon.
ARRRRGH! Ichthyic! Piltdown’s jelly meat… Eeeewww!
Wow, Rooke, facilis AND Pilty on the same thread! How are the ScienceBlog servers still functioning?
Facilis,
Sigh, you seem to think that just repeating a claim will eventually make it come true. We have shown that your transcendental argument was fallacious in two ways:(1) It was an argument from ignorance (2) Circular since you have to assume logic to prove it. We have given you several different explanations for morality that don’t require God. We have pointed out that nowadays no serious scientist thinks induction is valid reasoning and have given you at least one attempt that gets around the ‘problem of induction’ (Falsification).
I again remind you to look at the High Crimes and Misdemeanors page:
Insipidity A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
Stupidity Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
Wanking Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.
Oh yeah?
*locks and loads for his M4 for the second time in as many days*
*buckles his chest rig*
Okay. Let’s roll.
Sigh, you seem to think that just repeating a claim will eventually make it come true.
No need to state the incredibly obvious, right? It’s the primary rhetorical tool of the religious right. Combined with projection and denial, it’s their “monkey trifecta” ala:
http://unity2008.org/911/CTW_html_ea7da88.jpg
;)
And exactly how does the Jesus story provide the “metaphysical foundations for logic, reason and rationality? Are you claiming that logic can only be deduced from God?? If so, how do we know that something is logical because God said it (in which case logic is arbitrary, at the whim of the Alpha and the Omega) or that God says things are logical because they are inherently logical (in which case what’s logical is apart from God, and hence has some other source)?
Maybe it takes an omnipotent being to make you realize that “All men are mortal
Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.” is a logically valid deduction, but not me. Nature was kind enough to allow me a brain when I was born.
You’ve solved the problem of induction? I call bullshit. Seriously, what are you doing arguing on a blog, if you’ve solved this old problem? You should be world famous. No atheists on here can solve it, because NO-ONE can, it’s insoluble, that’s the genius of Hume.
“Cogito ergo sum”
And God was observed when exactly?
You’re being paid for this awful shit?! Seriously, your pay grade was surpassed a long time ago.
Yes but your sadistic “experiments” don’t demonstrate that the victim was killed by a hammer, only that people can be killed by hammers. In the same way that you can’t go back to the time of the murder and see the victim being killed and instead have to rely on evidence sometime after the event at the crime scene, so too do scientists have to rely on evidence sometime after life first appeared from our present day “crime scene” to demonstrate abiogenesis was the culprit.
The beetlejuice principle.
HH @464:
I wouldn’t say the gap between non-life and life is “very small”. In fact I’d say it’s just about the biggest gap there is. So I think one is justified in talking about faith rather than reasonable expectation – until we see this putative process occur, or see evidence that it did occur.
Kel @465:
My point was that the spontaneous emergence of living matter from non-living matter is qualitatively of a completely different order to the various replicatory processes exhibited by living matter.
Kel @470:
None of which I dispute. But if you look again at what I wrote, you will see that I placed the word “spontaneously” between “life” and “emerged”. It’s one thing to say that life emerged at some point & quite another to say that the emergence was the result of purely natural processes. Not only is there no evidence of HOW the latter occurred, there is no evidence THAT it occurred – because we do not see anything remotely comparable to it in nature or in the laboratory.
What you say in the above paragraph is not a matter of faith — because of the sixth sentence in the sequence: “It could be that a supernatural entity did the whole thing.” It becomes a matter of faith when the possibility of a supernatural origin of life is ruled out a priori and the hypothesis of a purely natural origin of life is asserted as indisputably true – when there is no evidence how or even that it occurred.
Wowbagger @471:
My mother is a living organism, not “non-life”. The fact that living organisms can reproduce is hardly evidence for abiogenesis.
Nerd of Redhead @469:
Can you provide physical evidence that life is of natural, rather than divine, origin?
But there is no direct physical evidence for abiogenesis.
Ichthyic @474:
No, I’m the one saying God magically made a man out of mud. You’re the one saying mud magically made itself into a man.
Ichthyic @476:
You tell me. You guys are supposed to be the scientists around here.
Ichthyic @475:
It’s an urban myth. I actually said I believed fsmdude was suffering from demonic oppression.
No! It’s not a matter of faith because we don’t assume to know the answer. We know that life did emerge, and evidentially it was most likely over a series of steps. We don’t know! Having a supernatural power or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, it’s not a matter of faith because there’s nothing to have faith in!
Fuck you can be thick sometimes, stop equivocating science with religion.
Pilty, the lack of complete explanation for the origin of life does not one bit degrade the evidence for evolution. Man evolved from a common lifeform like all the rest of the life on earth. Are you genuinely positing that God made the first protocell, or using the absence of explanation for that first protocell as a straw-man by which to disregard common descent?
Alex Deam @483:
Your self-consciousness could be an illusion – the dreamer could be dreaming you experiencing thoughts and feelings.
If abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis it ought to be susceptible to scientific tests. We don’t claim God is a scientific hypothesis.
Are you saying you know what an ectopic question mark is?
I could look at the impressions made on the skulls of my slaughtered scientists, compare them to the body of the original murder victim and reasonably conclude that the latter was murdered by a hammer-blow.
So what comparable evidence allows us to confidently state that the only explanation for life is abiogenesis?
I think our tame creationist still thinks “life” is some mysterious supernatural property which has to be breathed into our mortal clay by a deity. Vitalism is dead, Piltdown: life is a name we give to a certain kind of very complicated chemistry, and the most obvious origin for very complicated chemistry is… simpler chemistry.
Do you think scientists are just talking out of their arse when it comes to abiogenesis? Of course it’s susceptible to scientific testing. And many experiments have been done to test current hypothesises and to make observations about what factors are necessary. From that we’ve found how to synthesise nucleotides and amino acids. We’ve found how to get RNA to replicate, and how to increase the side of a strand. We have several possible candidates for how all of it could come together – all from observation and experiment.
Some names to look up: Urey-Miller, Oro, Szostak. And watch all the videos in this series.
Sorry, what I meant was, if life cannot come from non-life, how did you grow – do you not turn food (non-life) into energy to fuel you and make you grow? We take non-life and make it into life all the time.
abiogenesis is not anything more than an abstract word that describes the process. Think of it this way. I am an adult. All adults grow from children. Children grow from infants. Infants are born. Therefore I was born. P -> Q, Q -> R, therefore P -> R.
Abiogenesis is the process by which non-life became life. It had to happen as at one stage there was no life on this planet and at a later stage there was. It does not say what that process was. Abiogenesis had to happen in the same way that for me to be an adult I had at one stage had to be born. What abiogenesis entails isn’t certain yet, that’s why it’s a broad name for a process by which there are several competing hypothesises – all with varying degrees of evidential support. It is not an exact process as firstly we do not currently know an exact process, and even if we did it would be no guarantee that it would be the process that bore us.
If “God isn’t a scientific hypothesis” then you can’t ever use the god concept in the course of explaining anything about the natural world, so you have to stop invoking supernatural entities as potential explanations. _Supernatural is an empty concept_.
Incidentally, stop fantasising about clubbing people to death with hammers. We know you’re a creepy death cultist but please keep it off the tubes, okay?
Kel:
You don’t claim to know the answer to the question of how exactly abiogenesis occurred. But you do claim to know the answer to the question of whether abiogenesis occurred (“abiogenesis” being defined as a purely natural process). This is what you have faith in — that living organisms emerged from non-living matter by a purely natural process (albeit one as yet unknown).
(Or at least that WAS what you had faith in until you wrote the fateful sentence “It could be that a supernatural entity did the whole thing.” The fact that you wrote that sentence suggests a crisis of faith — one which many here would regard as the rankest heresy.)
I wasn’t arguing against evolution (I’m a sceptical agnostic as far as that’s concerned). “Mud magically made itself into a man” was meant as a flippant reference to abiogenesis. As I understand it, evolutionary theory is about the origin of species; it has nothing to say about the origins of life.
No, you are misunderstanding me. I’ll state again: I don’t know how abiogenesis happened, abiogenesis did happen because it’s a logical necessity, much the same way that planet formation and a supernova explosion are logical necessities. You can make the distinction between natural and supernatural, but it’s absolutely meaningless. Abiogenesis happened, how it happened is up for contention. I’m not saying a god did or didn’t do it, I’m saying that life came about on this planet between 3.5 and 4.1 billion years ago through processes unknown. That’s what abiogenesis is – a collective name for the formation of life from non-life.
Again, you are using the word faith to equivocate between science and religion. Stop that! I am not saying one way or the other whether a god was involved, and by even trying to put this dichotomy on me between naturalism and god you are creating a god-of-the-gaps. Just think, 151 years ago you would have been doing the same for the origins of man, yet we (well most of us) now know that man evolved like every other species on this planet. Faith in God is by no means the same as faith in the natural process – for starters we know that the natural exists. We do not have the same for anything beyond the natural.
The only ones who believe mud magically made itself into man are believers in God. There’s no magic about the natural world, only blind forces interacting. We obviously don’t know everything about the universe, it’s why the questions are taken with mystery and humility. It’s supreme arrogance to think that “God did it” in any way explains anything, and quite the opposite of what science is going for. Do you not think that if there was a god, that the god could act through nature as opposed to against it? That the process of abiogenesis may have a scientific explanation yet still be part of God’s plan? And why do you persist in your position that if we don’t have a good explanation then God is the default? That’s the embodiment of faith and you are projecting when you call science that. Because for over half a century scientists have been working on the process of the origin of life, yet they have the humility to state that the question is not answered. But that’s not good enough for you, you need to dismiss it as “faith” and put God in as the creator of the protocell.
If you had any clue at all about how science actually worked, you’d change your tune. Instead you blow out the candle that is science and live in your demon-haunted world, where crackers turn into Godflesh.
If you are well enough versed in the complexities of the battlefield to understand that the ToE doesn’t necessarily address the same questions as abiogenesis, then you should have enough information to know that phrases like “you’re the one saying mud magically made itself into a man” are traditional components of YEC screeds and are likely to be interpreted as such. It’s similar to my earlier confusion with your 3.8 billion comment. Many of your complaint statements are eerily similar to those we routinely hear from YECs/OECs/IDiots.
Pilty, if you are going to try the “goddidit”, you must show physical evidence for your god. That is how science works. Science is working on abiogenesis, and have shown several steps work. Science just has not tied it all together, and given the time scales involved, my never show all the steps. But gawd isn’t needed for any of them.
7 the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
oops! Comment addressed to Mr P.Man.